Philippians Study 2022: Background and context

[joey_the_ox]

Where was Paul when he wrote (or dictated) Philippians? He was certainly in prison, as he mentions in several places. The traditional view is that he was in Rome. More recently people have argued that Philippians was written from Ephesus, Corinth, or Caesarea.

I personally am pretty "conservative" when it comes to things like this, and tend to think that the traditional view should be assumed unless there is a strong reason for believing otherwise. Hawthorne and Martin in the Word Biblical Commentary on Philippians identify the first historical evidence (that survives) of the traditional view (Rome) as coming from "the second-century Marcionite prologues attached to Paul's epistles." (Marcion was the guy who said that the loving and compassionate God revealed in the New Testament was different from the violent and vengeful God revealed in the Old Testament.) The original edition of this commentary landed on Caesarea as the place of origin, and the revised edition promotes Ephesus, though neither conclusion is stated dogmatically. I will continue to assume Rome as the place where Philippians was composed, though of course I am open to hearing arguments for other places.

[Sudsy]

Where was Paul when he wrote (or dictated) Philippians? He was certainly in prison, as he mentions in several places. The traditional view is that he was in Rome. More recently people have argued that Philippians was written from Ephesus, Corinth, or Caesarea.

I personally am pretty "conservative" when it comes to things like this, and tend to think that the traditional view should be assumed unless there is a strong reason for believing otherwise. Hawthorne and Martin in the Word Biblical Commentary on Philippians identify the first historical evidence (that survives) of the traditional view (Rome) as coming from "the second-century Marcionite prologues attached to Paul's epistles." (Marcion was the guy who said that the loving and compassionate God revealed in the New Testament was different from the violent and vengeful God revealed in the Old Testament.) The original edition of this commentary landed on Caesarea as the place of origin, and the revised edition promotes Ephesus, though neither conclusion is stated dogmatically. I will continue to assume Rome as the place where Philippians was composed, though of course I am open to hearing arguments for other places.

I just wonder what spiritual significance there may be regarding where Paul wrote this letter. Or if the 'place of prayer' was in a building or outside a building.

[joey_the_ox]

I just wonder what spiritual significance there may be regarding where Paul wrote this letter. Or if the 'place of prayer' was in a building or outside a building.

I don't think there is any direct spiritual significance, but where you come out on these background issues can influence the interpretation of the text.

[Sudsy]

I just wonder what spiritual significance there may be regarding where Paul wrote this letter. Or if the 'place of prayer' was in a building or outside a building.

I don't think there is any direct spiritual significance, but where you come out on these background issues can influence the interpretation of the text.

I enjoy learning of the background when these letters were written and will be looking to how we interpret what these writings could be telling us today.

[joey_the_ox]

I have read some arguments that Philippians is a redacted selection of several Pauline letters. One piece of evidence advanced for these claims is that Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians in which he mentions "letters" (plural) from Paul. See here, where the footnote says the form is plural, but this translator wants to avoid that conclusion. (Polycarp himself wrote several other letters, none of which survive.)

Similarly to taking Rome as the place of composition, I am also "traditional" with these types of arguments, and prefer to see unity unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. If Polycarp really was referring to several letters from Paul to the Philippians, it is entirely possible that all but one of them have been lost, and the one that remains is thus a single unified letter. Witherington in his 2011 commentary on Philippians writes:

Before the rise of modern historical criticism, no one suggested that Philippians was a combination of several Pauline letters. And even in modernity none of those who have made such suggestions have, until very recently, analyzed Philippians using rhetorical analysis. Partition theories always arose due to some perceived literary or other incongruities in the text. If there can be said to be a trend in the last ten years among writers on Philippians, it is increasing skepticism about such attempts to divide a small document like Philippians into two or three original letters of Paul. This skepticism is well founded on several grounds.

Phil. 3.1-2 presents us with an abrupt turn or transition in the discourse, which is taken as an indicator that we have here a seam between what were originally two documents. Often this suggestion is coupled with the observation that Paul in 3.1 says "and now finally," and then goes on for a considerable time thereafter, as the document now stands. We will discuss in the commentary itself whether to loipon should in fact be translated "and finally" or rather "as for the rest" or something else, but even supposing that it does mean "and finally" here (and in 4.8 as well?), partition theories fail to take into account how many ancient and modern orators tend to say "finally" and then carry on for a good while thereafter.

He continues with further discussion along the same lines. I agree with him, and laughed out loud when I read the bolded part .

[joey_the_ox]

I read through Philippians last night using David Bentley Hart's translation. I don't know if I necessarily recommend this - Hart is very idiosyncratic and a bit of a loose cannon. But I found it useful in illuminating some significant translation differences between Hart and the ESV, which I have primarily been reading. It will be interesting to dig into those differences when we reach those points in the text.

[MaxPC]

Just my tuppence; when I do Lectio Divina (prayerful reading of Scripture), I apply it my own life and how it can enlighten and edify my actions. It has been many decades since I last taught a Scripture class with its focus on academic parsing. That said, neither approach is wrong and both methods serve the needs of the time and person.

Philippians has always reminded me to trust God in all things and at all times.

[Sudsy]

I have read some arguments that Philippians is a redacted selection of several Pauline letters. One piece of evidence advanced for these claims is that Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians in which he mentions "letters" (plural) from Paul. See here, where the footnote says the form is plural, but this translator wants to avoid that conclusion. (Polycarp himself wrote several other letters, none of which survive.)

Similarly to taking Rome as the place of composition, I am also "traditional" with these types of arguments, and prefer to see unity unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. If Polycarp really was referring to several letters from Paul to the Philippians, it is entirely possible that all but one of them have been lost, and the one that remains is thus a single unified letter. Witherington in his 2011 commentary on Philippians writes:

Before the rise of modern historical criticism, no one suggested that Philippians was a combination of several Pauline letters. And even in modernity none of those who have made such suggestions have, until very recently, analyzed Philippians using rhetorical analysis. Partition theories always arose due to some perceived literary or other incongruities in the text. If there can be said to be a trend in the last ten years among writers on Philippians, it is increasing skepticism about such attempts to divide a small document like Philippians into two or three original letters of Paul. This skepticism is well founded on several grounds.

Phil. 3.1-2 presents us with an abrupt turn or transition in the discourse, which is taken as an indicator that we have here a seam between what were originally two documents. Often this suggestion is coupled with the observation that Paul in 3.1 says "and now finally," and then goes on for a considerable time thereafter, as the document now stands. We will discuss in the commentary itself whether to loipon should in fact be translated "and finally" or rather "as for the rest" or something else, but even supposing that it does mean "and finally" here (and in 4.8 as well?), partition theories fail to take into account how many ancient and modern orators tend to say "finally" and then carry on for a good while thereafter.

He continues with further discussion along the same lines. I agree with him, and laughed out loud when I read the bolded part .

To the bolded part - I recall a pastor that often used that "finally" and went on and on after this. Perhaps it was to wake up those who had drifted off in his sermon and the "finally" woke them up anticipating a soon to be close to his sermon and instead he got their attention back.

[ohio jones]

After the death of Julius Caesar, Rome was plunged into a civil war between Brutus and Cassius on one side and Julius' heir Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) and Mark Antony on the other. The Battle of Philippi in 42 BC resolved this war; the battle ended with the suicides of Brutus and Cassius.

The nearby city, named after King Phillip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) when he conquered it in 356 BC, was known for its gold mines. Topography restricted the traffic through the region to the route that went through the city. After the Roman battle, it was made a Roman colony (a "mini Rome") and many veterans settled there. Many of the Roman ruins have been uncovered by 20th century excavations.

The influence of the Roman veterans, who would have valued rank and chain-of-command, is seen in the actions of the magistrates in Acts 16 when Paul invokes his Roman citizenship.

[silentreader]

Just my tuppence; when I do Lectio Divina (prayerful reading of Scripture), I apply it my own life and how it can enlighten and edify my actions. It has been many decades since I last taught a Scripture class with its focus on academic parsing. That said, neither approach is wrong and both methods serve the needs of the time and person.

Philippians has always reminded me to trust God in all things and at all times.

I agree with that, I think one of the things Philippians does is bring out the all-sufficiency of Christ and the joy that flows from that knowledge and then from that reality applied to Paul's (and our) lives. I think the word joy in various forms is mentioned at least 12 times in the text.