AUTHOR

Philippians is one of Paul’s most autobiographical letters. Writing to a church he founded and loved, Paul described his situation in prison and warned his readers of potential theological dangers to the church. At the core of the letter lies a theology of the cross that unites various exhortations to Christian unity and joy in service.

Paul had more than one reason for writing this letter. For one thing, he wrote the letter to thank the church for their material help. The church had sent Epaphroditus to assist Paul while in prison, and they had repeatedly sent money for Paul’s needs. Additionally, Paul was concerned for Christian unity. Perhaps he anticipated and feared a potential break in fellowship (4:2-3), knowing the damage such a break could bring (1:12-19).

Few question the claim that Paul wrote this letter. In AD 135, a bishop named Polycarp stated the accepted church conviction of Pauline authorship. Internally, the letter also contains the characteristics of Pauline writing. Further, the earliest manuscript containing Philippians (the Chester Beatty Papyrus P, copied ca AD 200) contains the same form of the letter that we have today.

Although the letter’s authorship is certain, scholars debate both its date and place of writing. (It should be noted that while both issues have historical interest, neither constitutes a major threat to the letter’s integrity.) The traditional place of origin for Philippians is Rome, and its traditional date is about AD 61–62. Nothing makes that dating implausible. Other suggestions for the place of writing include Ephesus (ca AD 55) and Caesarea (ca AD 58), though there is little evidence to support either claim. In Philippians, Paul called himself a prisoner (1:13-14), yet we have no evidence to show that he was imprisoned in Ephesus. On the other hand, Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (AD 58–60). But again the evidence pointing to this as the prison from which he wrote this letter is slim. Ultimately the arguments for the traditional location and date are preferable.

THE RELIABILITY OF PHILIPPIANS

In spite of Pauline authorship, many have questioned the letter’s integrity: Is it a unified document or two or three documents woven into one? The arguments for multiple sources primarily appeal to claims of variation in the style of writing and supposed changes in content. For example, some scholars argue that 3:2–4:1 does not fit the patterns established by the remainder of the letter with its harsh tone and invective argument. They propose that perhaps this was a different letter inserted into Philippians.

Two observations help here. First, Paul’s opponents denied the gospel, also harshly criticizing Paul’s apostleship. Paul responded energetically to such challenges (see 2Co 10–12). Second, Paul could not respond in person to the impending threat; so the letter is candid, disclosing inner thoughts and evaluations. Indicative of their relationship, Paul also instructed his original readers by appealing to his spiritual pilgrimage.

Other scholars suggest that 4:10-20 is an insertion, assuming such an important note of thanks would not be delayed to the end. However, modern readers must take care in second-guessing first-century writing forms. Further, Paul naturally included the other expressions of appreciation before turning to financial issues. All forms of support were equally appreciated.

Questions regarding the literary integrity of the letter raise a more central issue. Are contemporary scholars better able to detect supposed seams in the fabric of the letter than could its early readers? Given the care we know characterized the transmission of Scripture, theories about literary fragments present far more difficulties than they presume to solve.