Studies in Paul's Letter to the Philippians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161531194, 9783161535000, 3161531191

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

343

Hans Dieter Betz

Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians

Mohr Siebeck

Hans Dieter Betz, born 1931, student of Protestant theology at Bethel and Mainz (Germany), and Westminster College, Cambridge (England); 1957 Dr. theol.; 1966 Habilitation at Mainz; 2007 Dr. theol. h.c. Erlangen-Nürnberg; 1963–1978 Professor of New Testament at Claremont, California; 1978–2000 Shailer Mathews Professor of New Testament, University of Chicago (emeritus since 2000); 2014 Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153500-0 ISBN 978-3-16-153119-4 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Bembo typeface, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες

Word of Life, – hold it fast (Phil 2:16)

Preface Throughout the history of New Testament research, students of Paul’s letters have regarded his letter to the Philippians as the most difficult to interpret. As a matter of fact, this letter contains numerous problems which commonly accepted translations have too often left untouched. It is, however, not enough simply to find plausible language to clarify what the Greek text may mean. In addition, existing commentaries have a wealth of hypothetical proposals to offer, but agreements among them are few, mainly because of different methodological presuppositions and approaches. What then is the relationship of the present Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians to the commentary literature? The following seven chapters are not presenting another full commentary on the letter, but concern themselves with a number of hitherto unresolved problems. To existing commentaries the Studies are supplemental, or, regarding future commentaries, they are preparatory. As to the investigations, they start from the basic literary condition of the Greek text. They are, therefore, concentrating on issues of literary analysis of five crucial text segments, which taken together will also determine the composition of the letter as a whole. These text segments involve exegetical analyses of their literary structure and cultural background. The methods applied are, therefore, philological and historical. The results of these applications show that Philippians is a literary composition done finally by a secondary redactor who integrated Paul’s original main letter by inserting two attachments into it. All sections were authored by Paul himself who speaks in the first person singular. As author he was joined by Timothy as co-sender, which means that the latter also approved of the content. It should be realized that among the Pauline letters, Philippians occupies a special place. I have become convinced on the basis of all the exegetical investigations I and others have undertaken that this letter contains Paul’s last words written not long before his death, and that it emerged from his imprisonment in Rome. Whoever reads letters written from prison should be prepared not only for a special perspective and expressions as signs for high intensity and mental agitation that may have caused gaps and haste because of lack of time. Under these circumstances an author like Paul states concisely and to the point what he thinks he should

VI

Preface

tell the Philippian Christians and all the churches he had founded. Since the Philippians had asked him to explain his circumstances (1:12) he does so by stating the facts as he sees them and their probable consequences, so that the focus is on the issues of the Christian faith. This includes Paul’s last reckoning with his own “faith, hope, and love,” and the dire consequences for that faith. The most likely date of origin of the letter is the time after 62 CE, when Nero replaced Afranius Burrus, the deceased praefectus praetorio, with the rogue Ofonius Tigellinus. This man also became Nero’s main advisor, after Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the philosopher, had resigned from this office. During Tigellinus’ regime the jurisdictional administration eventually collapsed, when a wave of illicit murders of suspected enemies of Nero swept through the city. As a result, Paul’s trial was never completed, but he most likely became a victim of rampant thugs murdering countless presumed enemies of Nero and Tigellinus. According to Philippians, Paul faced the situation prior to the pronouncement of his verdict, when he did not know what the verdict was going to be, dismissal or condemnation, – dismissal because of procedural failure, or death because of political turmoil. Among the matters of Paul’s consideration was his avoidance of any comments that could be read by his prison-guards and censors as hostility to the emperor. This self-censorship, as we would call it, must also have been the reason why he omitted any concrete references to his own opponents and the Jewish-Christian community in Rome. Apart from these matters, however, his report is clear enough, even concerning his own biography and positions on Christian theology. Concerning his biography, in Phil 3:1b–21 he reminds his readers of how he began his church activities as a member of the Pharisaic movement sharing their principles regarding the eschatological status of “righteousness” and, consequently, their opposition to the teachings of Jesus and his followers. Fighting the latter as “heretics” Paul had gone to the extremes of persecution of the “church of God” (Phil 3:6; cf. Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9). As a result of learning more about the theology of the Jesus movement he then became convinced that the Pharisaic point of view was wrong and that the followers of Jesus were right (Phil 3:6–10). Therefore, Paul quit Pharisaism, joined the Jesus movement, and became the leader of the early Christian mission to the Gentiles, later even calling himself by the name “apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13; cf. 15:16). Thus, in Philippians he can treat this change as simply a shift among parties due to theological arguments (see below, Chapter III). Since the letter to the Philippians had been written under the pressure of time, Epaphroditus, the messenger from Philippi, was anxious to leave Rome as soon as possible. As already mentioned, the “mailings” he was to take back

Preface

VII

to Philippi contained, besides the main letter, two separate attachments, documents by nature, one being a copied memorandum (3:1b–21), and the other a receipt (4:10–20). These three parts together formed the one mailing which Epaphroditus took back to Philippi. The investigations which are now before the reader point to a rich cultural context in Hellenistic and Roman literature of the time. This context also provides applicable literary genres, and also traditions of religious and philosophical language and thought. Analyzing these matters requires entering into the complexities in their Hellenistic cultural background. In addition, investigations are to be guided by modern literary concepts, some of which are clarified in the Introduction (Chapter I). Besides the analyses of the two attachments (Chapters III: “An Autobiographical Memorandum” and VI: “The Cost of Mission: a Look at Paul’s Finances”), Paul engaged in the working out of gnomic sententiae, an art form popular at the time. As sayings compositions they deal with ethical issues of significance for the practical life of the Christians. These issues are covered in Chapters II (“A Statement of Principle”), IV (“On Being a Paulinist”), and V (“On Self-sufficiency”). The final Chapter VII (“On the Question of the Literary Genre”) deals with the letter as a whole. Moving now to the present age, acknowledgements and expressions of gratitude are due. In all fairness, among the many who deserve recognition, the Apostle and his staff should be named first. His co-sender Timothy and Epaphroditus, the delegate from Philippi, expended all their energy in disregard of the risks involved to get the “mailings” ready, passed through the controls, and delivered to Philippi. Next come all those who assisted the author of the present book by comments, criticism as well as encouragement, and technical expertise. The Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School, Margaret M. Mitchell, did all she could to further the project. Justin Howell and Klaus Hermannstädter spent many hours checking references and improving the language. As to the final phase, thanks are due to Dr. h.c. Georg Siebeck, a publisher comparable to T. Pomponius Atticus; the editors of the series “Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament” and the staff of Mohr Siebeck, especially Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and Matthias Spitzner for their pleasant and efficient cooperation. Chicago, May 2014

Hans Dieter Betz

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21) . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20) . . . 113 VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 1. Ancient Greek and Latin Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 2. Commentaries on Philippians and Philemon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Indices 1. Greek Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Latin Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Old Testament (LXX) and Hellenistic Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. New Testament and Apocrypha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Patristic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 177 178 179 188 188

Abbreviations ABD AKG AnBib ANRW ANTF ASAW.PH

Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Abhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse BDAG Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (32000) BDF Friedrich Blass & Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Funk BHTh Beiträge zur historischen Theologie BKAW Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften BKP Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie BN Biblische Notizen Black’s New Testament Commentaries BNTC BSGRNT Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana BT Bibliotheca Teubneriana BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BzA Beiträge zur Altertumskunde BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CNT Commentaires du Nouveau Testament CR Corpus Reformatorum D.-K. Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (61951/52) DLZ Deutsche Literaturzeitung DTV Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag EHS.T Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 23: Theologie EC Early Christianity ed. (eds.) editor (editors) Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EKK ET English translation EtB Etudes bibliques fzb Forschungen zur Bibel FGrHist Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

XII

Abbreviations

GThF Greifswalder Theologische Forschungen HA Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HThKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie HUTh HWPh Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie HWRh Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Hyp Hypomnemata ICC International Critical Commentary JbAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JR Journal of Religion JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSNT.S Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neuen Testament KEK KPS Klassisch-philologische Studien LCL The Loeb Classical Library LSJ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stewart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon MBPF Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte Mn.S Mnemosyne Supplementum NewDocs New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity NF Neue Folge NHC Nag Hammadi Codices New International Commentary on the New Testament NICNT NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NKZ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift NRSV New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) NT Novum Testamentum NT.S Novum Testamentum Supplements NTA Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies New Testament Studies Monograph Series NTSMS OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OCT Oxford Classical Texts ÖTBK Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar PG Patrologia Graeca PGL Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe Ph. Philologus PhAnt Philosophia Antiqua PKNT Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament PL Patrologia Latina Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie QSP RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum REB The Revised English Bible (1989)

Abbreviations RGG RGRW RNT RPP RVV SAPERE SB SBLMS SBLSBS SCBO SCHNT SGV SHAW.PH SNTSMS SQAW STA STAC SVF TBAW TDNT ThHK TWNT TU UALG WBC WS WUNT ZB ZNW ZPE ZSTh ZThK

XIII

Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Regensburger Neues Testament Religion Past and Present Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam Religionemque Pertinentia Preisigke, Friedrich; Bilabel, Friedrich; Kiessling, Emil, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, (1913–1967) Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature, Sources for Biblical Study Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Monograph Series Schriften und Quellen der Alten Welt Studia et Testimonia Antiqua Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologischer Handkommentar Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen ­Literatur Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Word Biblical Commentary Wiener Studien Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zürcher Bibel (2007) Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

I. Introduction At the beginning of a work, readers expect to be informed what it is about. In other words, what does the title of the book announce? The title Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians indicates that it is not a full commentary running through this letter line by line, but it contains chapters dealing with individual problems or questions that are or ought to be under discussion. Generally, the difference is that while a commentary’s task is to explain a given document in its entirety,1 “studies” present further investigations regarding specific passages or problems yet unresolved or even undiscovered. Such studies not only presuppose but also challenge existing commentaries, to which they intend to make additional contributions, challenging their authors to rethink and revise issues in future editions. In the case of Philippians there exist numerous commentaries from different periods in history; in addition there is a vast literature of critical reviews, chapters in thematic books, essays, miscellaneous comments, and references of all sorts.2 Biblical commentaries, in particular, can be of very different kinds.3 Most of them claim to be based on the existing biblical texts, but they differ about what these claims involve. They may focus on the so-called Urtext (original wording in Greek),4 on the reconstruction of the best text as preserved by the best manuscripts,5 or on authoritative standard translations or a new translation, on a selection of translations favored by particular communities, 1

 The “commentary” as a literary genre has a long tradition, with biblical commentaries having developed as a genre by itself. See Ulrich Püschel, “Kommentar,” HWRh 4 (1998) 1179–1187; Robert A. Kaster, “Commentary,” Brill’s New Pauly 3 (2003) 630–631. 2  See Hans Weder, “Biblical Scholarship, II. New Testament,” RPP 2 (2007) 78–83 [“Bibelwissenschaft, II. Neues Testament,” RGG 1 (41998) 1529–1538]. 3  Udo Schnelle et al., “Biblical Criticism, II. Methods of Biblical Criticism applied to the New Testament ,” RPP 2 (2007) 61–64 [“Bibelkritik, II. Methoden der Bibelkritik im Neuen Testament,” RGG 1 (41998) 1480–1486]. 4 See Lars Rydbeck, “Bible, III.3: The language of the New Testament,” RPP 2 (2007) 12–13 [“Bibel III.3: Die Sprache des Neuen Testaments,” RGG 1 (41998) 1424–1426]. 5 See Michael Welte and Beate Köster, “Biblical Manuscripts, II. New Testament,” RPP 2 (2007) 67–70 [“Bibelhandschriften, II. Neues Testament,” RGG 1 (41998) 1459–1464].

2

I. Introduction

or on especially preferred commentaries.6 Whatever category a given commentary may represent, the implication is always a degree of finality. Even if the need for corrections of errors and imperfections is generally admitted by the author, the commentary implies the recommendation to the readers that it is worthy of their confidence. Commentaries also imply the claim that without them, the texts remain nearly incomprehensible for untrained readers. Therefore, some types of commentaries replace the texts themselves by supplying a new paraphrase instead of a translation.7 Taking advantage of the general problems with translating texts from one language into another,8 some commentaries in fact create new texts, abandoning the old as outdated. Others attempt to attract readers by titles dressed up by deceptive rhetoric such as, e. g., “new translation.” Whatever these basic assumptions may be, readers of any translated text deserve to be clearly informed about its general presuppositions. Thereby, readers ought to get a sense of how complicated and difficult a task it is to “translate” (i. e. transpose) any document from the past into the present. Among the fundamental presuppositions to be explained are the following.

1. The text Any written document, whether ancient or modern, poses the question of the nature of the text.9 One ought to keep always in mind that we are not able to lay our eyes and hands today on the “original text” (Urtext) as written by any author in the past. Except in rare cases, we can be glad if we have at all access to extant copies of Vorlagen.10 This is true even for inscriptions in stone which the stonemasons have copied from their Vorlagen, and these can be of various sorts.11 Such Vorlagen may have been complete or fragmented,  6  See Cécile Dogniez et al., “Bible Translations,” RPP 2 (2007) 39–57 [“Bibelübersetzungen,” RGG 1 (41998) 1487–1515].  7  On this literary category see Jörg Kilian, “Paraphrase,” HWRh 6 (2003) 556–562.  8  On the scientific study of the problems of translation see Jörn Albrecht, “Übersetzung,” HWRh 9 (2009) 870–886 (with bibl.).  9  See Gerd Antos, “Text,” HWRh 9 (2009) 489–509 (with bibl.); Bernd Auerochs, Werner G. Jeanrond, Christoph Hartmeier, “Text,” RPP 12 (2012) 572–574 [RGG 8 (42005) 196–199]. 10 The term has no English equivalent; see the definition in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, ed. Lesley Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), vol. 2, 3602, s. v. vorlage, 2: “An original version of a manuscript from which a copy is produced.” 11  How complicated things can get has been demonstrated by the famous case of the Abercius inscription, according to Margaret M. Mitchell, “Looking for Abercius: Reima-

1. The text

3

existing in one or several versions, copied accurately or flawed, the lettering being of high or poor quality. Copyists can generally be assumed to be people doing the best they can to produce good work, but they can also work more like editors, amending the Vorlage when they see the need for it. Scribes may go about their work honestly, but they may also do so naively. As in the case of Paul’s letters, authors may authenticate the work of copyists by adding a reference by their own hand, but these authentications then become part of the copyist’s work and can therefore be authentic or not.12 Other complications need to be examined. While most copyists are professionals who are convinced of the solidity of their work, they do need checking by correctors; also, different copyists, although using the same Vorlage can still end up with different copies. As a result, we do not have any of Paul’s original letters because all of them have been copied from Vorlagen. What then about the “original texts” that the Apostle Paul himself wrote or authorized? Historically, as said before, we do not have any “originals” to lay our eyes or hands on but only copies of copies. It is the undeniable truth that all textual material extant from the past is in this condition. However, the fact that we have this extant material at all is not a reason for despair. Once we realize that most of the vast literature that once existed is lost forever, we should appreciate even more what is left, though only as manuscript copies. It is for this reason that historians, philologists, and librarians are obsessively engaged with the preservation of every scrap of literature that has so far survived the small or great onslaughts of destruction that characterize both past and present history. It should also be realized that such destruction happens not merely by erosion or bad accident, but “book burnings” have occurred and still occur. By will and purpose, they are usually encouraged and ideologically justified by governments as well as mass movements or revolutionary uprisings. Other losses have happened because authors who had read or excerpted from sources then failed to preserve these sources. As a result, the treasures of our great research libraries, whether as manuscript copies or originals, exist to collect

gining Contexts of Interpretation of the ‘Earliest Christian Inscription,’” in: Laurie Brink and Deborah Green, eds., Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context; Studies in Roman, Jewish, and Christian Burials (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2008), 303–335; Eadem, “The Poetics and Politics of Christian Baptism in the Abercius Monument,” in: David Hellholm et al., eds., Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (BZNW 176/2; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2011), vol. 2, 1743–1782. 12 See Gal 6:11; 1 Cor 16:21; Phlm 19; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17.

4

I. Introduction

and protect what has so far escaped from natural disasters as well as from epidemics of human foolishness, carelessness, or willful destruction. Realizing these historical facts, there is always also room for surprising wonders. Unexpected discoveries of ancient and modern manuscripts have been part of life since antiquity as well. Manuscript discoveries of single documents and even whole libraries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, are known nearly to everybody alive, thanks to the public media which have been eager to report numerous discoveries resulting from archaeological excavations, from unexamined holdings in libraries, or from collections in private possession. Given these facts, it is not impossible that literary Vorlagen, when their copies agree verbatim, may contain original texts which authors wrote by their own hand or dictated to their secretaries, but this remains a matter of possibility. In the case of Paul’s letters, the sheer possibility, unlikely as it is, should be admitted that Vorlagen of copies, which we may be able to reconstruct from manuscripts, in fact represent what Paul (and his co-authors) wrote and authorized. This possibility, however, although it may not be provable by evidence, still provides the scholars with energy and excitement in their continuing study of these documents. There is one more complication regarding the matter of the text. True, the text is what authors have written down and authorized. However, this text is the result of the process of letter-writing. This process of text creation is complex and begins at an oral stage, when the authors, in the case of Philippians Paul and his co-sender Timothy, get ready to reply to the Philippians’ request for information, which was transmitted by their delegate Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–30). Probably, their discussions, possibly including Epaphroditus, led to a draft which after going through an editorial stage, resulted in the final draft of the letter. The text to be sent to Philippi could have involved a secretarial scribe, but in this case there was probably no time for it because of the urgent departure of Epaphroditus. Probably also, Paul kept a copy for himself, perhaps in a copy-book. At any rate, the first readers of the final letter text were Paul as author and Timothy as co-sender. As has been pointed out, the concept of the “reader” is anything but simple.13 The first reading of the letter is special because it completes the role of authorship and final approval. Notably, the text of the “mailing” which Epaphroditus took back to Philippi also contained attach13

 See Isabel-Dorothea Otto, “Leser,” HWRh 5 (2001) 170–84; Pierre Bayard, How to Talk about Books You haven’t read. Trans. from the French by Jeffrey Mehlman (New York: Bloomsbury, 2007).

2. The manuscripts

5

ments now included in manuscript texts printed in Nestle-Aland. When the Philippians received the letter together with the attachments, they were supposedly read aloud in the church of Philippi, thereby returning to the oral stage.14 Possibly, the written materials were then kept in the church’s archive, from which copies were made to distribute to other churches. Due to the later redactor of Philippians, the attachments were not thrown away as incidentals but were made part of the letter that we now have.

2. The manuscripts Since the extant manuscripts of Paul’s letters do not directly represent their “original text” (Urtext),15 they are part of their reception history. The vast reception history of Paul’s letter-writing is not extant in its entirety, but only as far as manuscripts have preserved it. To investigate the extant manuscripts critically is the task of the scholarly discipline called “text criticism.”16 Compiling innumerable manuscript findings, text criticism has resulted in the critical editions of the New Testament. These editions have emerged as part of the history of text criticism, and thus they are themselves historical. This means that as historical entities they may change with every new manuscript discovery, and therefore their scientific status remains “hypothetical.” Those readers who find this status of hypothesis disappointingly low should realize that nearly all critical scholarship leads to hypothetical results. To be sure, “hypotheses” must be established and substantiated by evidential data. The term “hypothesis” is a scientific category and should not be confused with off-thecuff ideas, fanciful intuitions, or guesswork often called “thesis.”17 In general, the human traits of biblical texts should be seen in light of the statement of John’s Gospel (1:14) that “the Word became flesh” (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). Therefore, manuscripts of Paul’s letters are evidence of extant texts, handwritten by scribes on papyrus, parchment, vellum, ostraka or other materials, between the time of their origin and the invention of the printing press in the 15th/16th century.18 Texts handwritten later are suspect of being forger14 Cf.

Jutta Sandstede, “Lesung,” HWRh 5 (2001) 184–93. problem is related to that of “original language,” see Richard Baum, “Ursprache,” HWRh 9 (2009) 941–957 (bibl.). 16 See Barbara Aland, “Text Criticism of the Bible, II. New Testament,” RPP 12 (2012) 575–578 (bibl.) [“Textkritik der Bibel, II. Neues Testament,” RGG 8 (42005) 201–207]. 17 For definitions see Walter Veit, “These, Hypothese,” HWRh 9 (2009) 541–565. 18 See Gottfried Hammann, “Printing and Publishing,” RPP 10 (2011) 390–392; Herbert Hunger et al., eds. Geschichte der Textüberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur 15 The

6

I. Introduction

ies.19 The discipline of text criticism is charged with clarifying the nature of manuscripts, their dates and provenance, their accurate wording, and their relationships with other manuscripts. As endlessly painstaking as this work is, it enables scholars to identify the relatively oldest and best-attested manuscripts and to establish their probably oldest wording. This emerging wording then supports the readings making up the established text of the critical editions.20 As a rule, this process takes us to the versions closest to what the author had written down first. To be sure, these text-critical procedures should be the same for all documents from antiquity and even modernity. Their careful application is the only feasible protection we have against accidental or intentional falsification of the texts on which all subsequent interpretations depend.

3. Critical-historical commentaries Modern scholarly commentaries to the New Testament, in particular on Paul’s letters, are based on the early critical editions, among which the Nestle-Aland is recognized by most scholars as outstanding and authoritative.21 The honor of having presented the first such critical commentaries on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians goes to two 19th-century scholars: Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–1889)22 and Bernhard Weiss (1827–1918).23 Among the (2 vols.; Zürich: Atlantis-Verlag, 1961–1964); Hermann Harrauer, Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2010); Roger Bagnall, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 19  E. g. the discovery of “Chicago’s Archaic Mark (ms 2427)” as being a modern forgery; see Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe and Abigail B. Quandt, “Chicago’s ‘Archaic Mark’ (ms 2427) II: Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analyses Confirm Modern Production” (unpublished); Margaret M. Mitchell and Patricia Duncan, “Chicago’s ‘Archaic Mark’ (Ms 2427): Reintroduction to its Enigmas and a Fresh Collation of its Readings,” NT 48 (2006) 1–35. 20  See Klaus Junack et al., eds. Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, vols. 2/1–2: Die paulinischen Briefe (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1989–1994). For Philippians, see vol. 2/2, 92–126. 21  Novum Testamentum Graece, eds. Barbara and Kurt Aland et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 282012). See also Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 41993); Id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; New York: United Bible Societies, 22000). 22 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868; 41881; repr. Lynn, MA: Hendrickson, 1981). The 1st ed. was dedicated to B. F. Westcott. 23 Bernhard Weiss, Der Philipperbrief ausgelegt und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargelegt (Berlin: Hertz, 1859). Dedicated to his teacher, I. A. Dorner.

4. Literary Criticism

7

many commentaries having been published since, however, only a few are known for their original contributions:24 More and more, modern commentaries tend to be reports about the current state of research and to take preferred positions on disputed issues. An almost exhaustive example of this approach is the recent commentary by John Reumann (1927–2008).25

4. Literary Criticism Closely related and partially overlapping are some issues belonging to what is called “literary criticism.” On the whole, the English term covers a wider range of topics as compared with the German “Literaturkritik.”26 To cite Donald Russell, the general aim of “literary criticism” is “to understand the qualities of ancient literature better.”27 Standard methodologies of scholarship prepare readers for competent reading of ancient texts within their philological and historical contexts. This reading includes recognizing the literary genre, compositional structure, evidence of form-criticism and redaction-criticism, character of style and language, and similar issues. Regarding Paul’s letters, of course, the concept of “letter” is of primary importance. a. Letters and letter-writing Texts classified as “letters” belong to the study of rhetoric: Instead of oral speech, they are written forms of text which constitute dialogical exchanges between senders and addressees. Thus, the definition by Christian Weise (1642–1708) is still acceptable today: “The letter is generally defined as a speech which an absent sender makes to an absent addressee. Therefore, the art of letter-writing is extended to include the entire art of rhetoric.”28 Except for non-literary missives, all letter types presupposing some claim to

24 For

details see the Bibliography. Reumann, Philippians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Yale Bible 33B; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). 26 See Heinz-Gerd Schmidt, “Literaturkritik,” HWRh 5 (2001) 306–326. 27 Donald A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981), 171–172. 28 Heinrich F. Plett, Einführung in die rhetorische Textanalyse (Hamburg: Buske, 31975), 17: “Der Brief heisst insgemein sermo absentis ad absentem, eine Rede, die ein Abwesender gegen einen Abwesenden zu halten pflegt. Darum soll sich die Kunst mit den Briefen soweit erstrecken, als die gesamte Redekunst.” 25 John

8

I. Introduction

be artefacts need to be examined whether or not, and to what extent, they fulfill the criteria of literary artefacts. As literary artefacts, letters contain hermeneutical features expressing dialogical exchanges (“correspondence”). Because these involve real persons, letters follow literary and behavioral conventions, biographical (autobiographical) statements, historical information concerning circumstances (past, present, and future), form-critical elements, their redactional disposition, and their compositional structure.29 Besides its inclusion of epistolary conventions, Pauline letter-writing is a type of group correspondence inspired by his personal style and language. His letters show a conventional composition of praescriptum, invocatio, narratio, probatio, exhortatio, and peroratio. Moreover, included are liturgical and poetic formulae (including references to non-verbal gestures), scriptural citations, narrative accounts, arguments and polemics, exhortations (gnomic sentences), announcements of travel plans, final greetings and blessings. Further concerns relate to discontinuities, digressions, external interventions, and supplements. To the extent that Pauline letters occur in clusters, their relationships among each other may further reveal their literary and reception-historical contexts. There is one other point to be made. The process of letter-writing requires consideration of the activity of mailing. This activity involves more than producing the written letter text. The German word “Briefschaften” (mailings) may include added attachments (German “Beilagen”), such as copies of other letters, related documents, or objects to be delivered. In the case of Philippians, Epaphroditus, the letter-carrier and delegate from Philippi, had to deliver a sum of money to Paul. Then, of course, beyond any objects the letter-carrier brought oral information, both from the Philippians to Paul and in return from Paul to the Philippians (Phil 2:25; 4:18). This information is to be divulged only orally and directly. As I understand the matter, all of these issues belong to “literary criticism.”

29 See

Wolfgang G. Müller, “Brief,” HWRh 2 (1994) 60–76; Margaret M. Mitchell, “Letters,” RPP 7 (2010) 434–436 [“Brief,” RGG 1 (41998) 1757–1762]; Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament. A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 183–227: “Epistolary and Rhetorical Theory.” Cf. also Peter Arzt-Grabner’s “Einleitung” to his papyrological commentary on 2. Korinther (PKNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 47–148.

4. Literary Criticism

9

b. Literary integrity The concept of “literary integrity” is frequently used in commentaries and exegesis.What is “literary integrity”? Apparently, readers of commentaries and other exegetical material are thought to need assurances that they will not be confronted by radical or excessively offensive viewpoints unbecoming to sensitive church membership. Such preferences on the part of readers may, however, be contradictory. If readers want seriously to understand what the New Testament authors have written, erecting dogmatic walls to climb over first can make it next to impossible to achieve what readers are supposed to be looking for. Critical scholarship itself, however, takes readers to be serious about comprehending what the texts actually have to say. There is, however, no need to be afraid of reading and understanding what the New Testament has to say, even if one may be seriously shaken up by receiving the true message. In ordinary language, the term “integrity” points to technical constructions and to issues of morality and ethics. Applied to texts, it suggests perfection in the sense of “flawlessness.” If left unexplained, the notion discourages the raising of questions. To be sure, there can be no understanding of anything without asking questions. Indeed, most literary texts are intended to stimulate readers to ask better informed questions. Since, as mentioned before, “literary integrity” involves the entire process of mailing, it should not, contrary to some commentators, in principle or by evasive strategies rule out the much-discussed “partition” or “division” hypotheses. After all, these hypotheses are concerned with serious questions of literary genre and composition. When a letter, belonging to a certain genre, presents a formal arrangement of its sections, its appropriateness should be tested. Differently, if a given letter deviates from the expected sequence of sections, the possible reasons for such deviation need to be explored. The analysis of such cases requires philological, grammatical, rhetorical, and other considerations, in order to explain, if possible, the existing peculiarities. If there is likelihood of partitions, they can have been introduced by original authors or secondary redactors. Undeniably, it is a fact that Philippians shows evidence of partitioning by both original authors and secondary redactors. In the case of this letter, the existence of ill-fitting sections has been suggested by many scholars. These suggestions need to be examined, with the reasoned result of their acceptance or refutation. Regarding the letter to the Philippians, there are three sections, which rank highly in scholarly discussions and therefore need critical examination.

10

I. Introduction

(1) Phil 2:6–11 has been identified as a piece of poetry to be classified as hymnic, a great discovery made by Ernst Lohmeyer.30 The author of the hymn could be Paul himself, or he could have cited it from an otherwise unknown pre-Pauline source. It seems to be a fragment of a larger hymn, which may have been already known in Pauline churches (thus, the citation functioning as a reminder) or a new creation. Poetic compositions are known from other letters of Paul as well.31 (2) The much-debated section 3:1b–21 does not fit into its present place and does not show epistolary indicators. Its genre is that of an autobiographical memorandum (ὑπόμνημα), a document introduced by an emphatic invective. Most likely it was added to the mailing as an attachment and later integrated by a redactor.32 (3) The passage of 4:10–20 originated as another attachment, a documentary receipt, identified by the formulaic statement ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα (“paid in full” [4:18]). Also this document was added and integrated later by a redactor.33 While these three passages were constitutive parts of the whole mailing, the present position of two of them inside the canonical letter to Philippi shows the skills of a second-century redactor who acted as a devoted Paulinist. There is no reason why this work of redaction should be disqualified from having “literary integrity.” After all, without the faithful work of redactors and collectors in the second century CE we would not have the corpus of Pauline letters today. c. Literary history Literary criticism involves, or ought to involve, approaches dealing with history. Notably, every letter contains information about its own history. This information is internal and recoverable from its text itself. It is to be distinguished from external information based on other literary sources. It is not to be confused with so-called “background” information, i. e. general information provided mostly by secondary literature or imaginary conclusions drawn from it. Consequently, the history of the Philippian letter should be based primarily on data stated by the letter itself. By comparison, the information in the 30 Ernst Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5–11 (SHAW.PH 1927/28, 4; Heidelberg: Winter 1928; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961). For the state of research, see Reumann, 333–383. 31  See, e. g., Rom 11:33–36, and Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 713–723. 32 For a full discussion see Chapter III, below. 33 For a full examination see Chapter VI, below.

4. Literary Criticism

11

Book of Acts concerning a Christian congregation in Philippi (Acts 16:6–40) lacks any information either about Paul’s letter to the Philippians, just as the letter lacks any information about the stories in Acts. However, Acts provides some references to the delegation which, led by Paul, transported the funds collected for the church in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:29–30 and Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8 and 9).34 According to Acts 20:1–6, the delegation departed from Philippi (Neapolis).35 This collection and the journey to Jerusalem are not mentioned at all in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. (1) The prehistory The prehistory of Philippians is described in detail by the passage in 4:10–20. As will be shown by a special chapter below,36 the section has originated not as a letter, but as a document to be classified as a “receipt,” which was added to the mailing as an attachment.37 The later redactor inserted it into the letter as part of the paraenesis. Paul begins by reminding the Philippians about the foundation of the church after he had crossed the Hellespont to start the mission among the Macedonians and Greeks. At that time, a fund had been established contractually as a “partnership” (κοινωνία) in order to help pay for the mission and its expenses. This fund had been used before to meet expenses in Thessalonica (v.14–16), and it has now once again helped in the present troubles by the delegate Epaphroditus bringing a sizable amount to pay for expenses in prison. Paul felt he needed to justify accepting these expenses by assuring the donors that his mission continues to be successful even in prison (1:12–15). Correct administrator that he is, even under dire circumstances, he adds the receipt to the mailing for Epaphroditus to take back and present to the church when he returns with the letter to Philippi (2:25–30; 4:18). The prehistory of the letter is also confirmed by another attachment Paul adds to the mailings which Epaphroditus is taking back to Philippi. Not only 34

 See my commentaries, Galatians, 101–103; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 117–120, 141–144; and Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 530–534. 35  Cf. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 506–509. 36  See Chapter VI, below. 37  For the literary category of “document” see Tilo Werner, “Urkunde,” HWRh 9 (2009) 934–941 (with bibl.). For the practice of inclusion of attachments in letters, see Hans-Josef Klauck, “Compilation of Letters in Cicero’s Correspondence,” in his Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum (WUNT 152; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), especially 334–35: “Enclosed copies.” Cf. Thomas Schmeller, “Die Cicerobriefe und die Frage nach der Einheitlichkeit des 2. Korintherbriefs,” ZNW 95 (2004) 181–208.

12

I. Introduction

worrying about his present situation, Paul had already informed the new church before about adversaries who have been following him everywhere in order to frustrate and ruin his successes in mission. Apparently, these adversaries have not yet arrived in Philippi, as they already have in Thessalonica (4:16; cf. 1 Thess 2:14–18; Acts 17:1–9), but Paul is warning the Philippians of dangers to come (cf. Phil 1:15–18, 27–30). If they should ever have any doubt about where he stands, he now attaches a documentary memorandum (3:1b–21), reflecting the older controversies presupposed in Galatians and Corinthians.38 Apparently, he had this memorandum ready among his papers; and he now copies it for the Philippians as a “safeguard” (τὸ ἀσφαλές), one of the purposes of documents.39 After Paul’s final departure from Philippi to Jerusalem, the Philippians seem to have been cut off from further communications with him. Thus they may not have known of him until they got word about his imprisonment in Rome. How this word had reached them we do not know. Understandably, their sending of Epaphroditus to Rome and his arrival just in time came as a great joy to the Apostle (4:10). This concludes the prehistory. (2) The present Paul’s main concern in this letter is answering the Philippians’ request for information about his situation, implied in the expression in 1:12 (τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ). It begins with a lengthy prayer of thanksgiving (1:3–11), which names as the subject the continuing partnership (κοινωνία). Part of that is the Philippians’ support of the mission enterprise (1:5–6). The terms of this partnership are stated again in the receipt (4:10–20). Accordingly, the fund aiming at supporting the mission financially was set up as a sacrificial gift to God, so that the contribution delivered by Epaphroditus should not be misunderstood as a personal “gift” (δόμα) to Paul, but as a sacrificial obligation (4:18), for which God is to be thanked through a doxology (4:20).40 Epaphroditus who is soon to return to Philippi (4:18) receives Paul’s warm commendation in 2:25–30. We can say with certainty that Epaphroditus did indeed return, because he carried the present letter together with the attachments to Philippi, not to mention a great deal of oral information, or else we would not have the letter in hand today. Paul’s report about his present circumstances mainly focuses on two issues: the status of his mission efforts and the status of his trial. 38  Cf. Gal 1:1,10–14; 2:4–5, 11–14; 5:7–12; 6:12–15, 17; 1 Cor 15:1–11; 2 Cor 10:1– 12:10; cf. Rom 9:1–5; 16:17–20. 39  See Chapter III, below. 40  See also the essay “On Self-sufficiency (4:11–13),” Chapter V, below.

4. Literary Criticism

13

(a) He can assure the Philippians that the mission is making progress in spite of his imprisonment. Paradoxically, his fetters (δεσμοί) have become visible signs of Christ, known to the whole Praetorium and many other people, Christians and non-Christians, and have evoked positive and negative reactions (1:13–18). Progress is also evident by the fact that he is not alone. With him are Timothy, co-sender of the letter,41 Epaphroditus, and “other brothers” who are apparently not prisoners.42 (b) Regarding the status of the court trial Paul can only say what he knows (οἶδα), not what he does not know (οὐ γνωρίζω, 1:22). Accordingly, he has completed the first phases (1:7), the “defense” (ἀπολογία) and the “presentation of the evidence” (βεβαίωσις), the latter being the “gospel message” (εὐαγγέλιον) itself. Paul does not specify what the accusations and who the accusers were (1:15–17). As a result, he is now awaiting the concluding verdict. His assessment of the options is precise and clear (1:19–20). Although he is hopeful, the stakes are high: salvation (σωτηρία) or condemnation, absolutio or condemnatio, in short: “life or death” (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου). What the outcome will be, Paul cannot predict. (c) Given this situation, whatever Paul’s response amounts to, it must be stated in such a way that not only one but both conceivable results, life or death, are covered. In addition, both possibilities will be determinative for the present as well as for the future. For a theological thinker like Paul, this situation calls for a statement of principle. What he offers, therefore, is a carefully formulated gnomic composition in three parts, an introductory sententia (v.21), an expositio (“commentary,” vv.21–25), and an epilogus (“conclusion,” v.26). This composition contains in highly condensed form a statement of principle, most important for Paul’s theology. Its analysis, therefore, requires a full chapter by itself.43 In short, Paul’s conclusion is that for his Christian faith, life and death are not absolute polarities, but they ultimately coincide in the name of Christ: Ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος (“In my view living [is] Christ and dying [is] gain.”). For Paul, what he identifies as “Christ” embodies both, living and dying. The “gain,” therefore, is that his future is independent of the two alternatives. (d) This said, Paul is free to dedicate his present life to taking care of urgent “necessities” (v.24–26) as part of “Christ’s work” (τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ, 2:30, cf. 1:6). Regarding these needs, taking care of his collaborators has priority. 41

 Phil 1:1; 2:19–24; cf. Phlm 1; 1 Thess 1:1; 3:2, 6.  4:21; cf. the σύνεργοι Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Phlm 24), and the fellow-prisoner (συναιχμάλωτος) Epaphras (Phlm 23). 43 See Chapter II, below. 42

14

I. Introduction

First, Paul announces the upcoming departure of Timothy, for whom is added an extraordinary commendation (2:19–24). In fact, this commendation amounts to a nomination of Timothy as Paul’s successor.44 Second, the warm commendation of Epaphroditus (2:25–30) is defined by his activities. Paul calls him “brother,” “collaborator,” “fellow-soldier,” “your messenger,” and “administrator of my needs.”45 This person is announced as the first to depart to Philippi.46 Then Timothy will depart (2:23). As the last Paul himself will leave as soon as possible (2:24; cf. 1:24–26).47 (3) The future As all letters also Philippians has a future dimension, which is divided into the immediate, intermediate, and eschatological future. (a) The immediate future coincides with the arrival of Epaphroditus in Philippi, the handing over of the epistolary material, and the oral information about all that happened while he was in Rome. Foreseeing his arrival, Paul in his commendation (2:25–30) appeals to the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus with joy and gratitude. Whatever lies behind the cautious words of v. 30 will then be backed up by concrete information. (b) The intermediate future is the subject matter of paraenesis, which in all parts of the letter is of great importance (1:27–30; 2:1–18; 4:1–9). In line with his statement in 1:21–26, he repeatedly emphasizes that his exhortations are authoritative, whether he is present or absent (1:27; 2:12). On the one hand he speaks of his forthcoming arrival.48 On the other hand, the weight of his admonitions presupposes a future without his bodily presence. Thus he offers the following guideline: “Only one thing is first in importance: Conduct your affairs worthily of the gospel of Christ.”49 This ethical pri 2:20: οὐδένα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν μεριμνήσει.  2:25: Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώ­ την μου, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας μου … . 46  2:25–26. 47  2:24: πέποιθα δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι. According to the better readings Paul does not say where he will be going (so also P46); other variants suggest that he intends to go to Philippi (‫ *א‬A C P etc. read πρὸς ὑμᾶς). See the apparatus on 2:24. Anyway, Paul’s hope was not fulfilled and he did not return to Philippi. 48  1:25–26; 2:12, 24. Resolving the ambiguity regarding Paul’s return to Philippi goes beyond predictability. But the question arises: What would he do in Philippi, if his trial ended in his discharge and he returned to that city? The thought of retirement may have been considered favorably by the “old man in chains” (Παῦλος πρεσβύτης … καὶ δέσμιος, Phlm 9). 49  1:27: Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε … . 44 45

4. Literary Criticism

15

ority is not only unique in Paul, but also resoundingly Roman in sentiment. It underscores not only the ethical standard of the individual’s conduct of life, but also that of the church as a civic institution in the “commonwealth with others” (πολίτευμα). No less Roman, this political emphasis draws on the special background of the concept of “the commonwealth in heaven.”50 Formulating Christian political ethics coincides with Roman principles of civic obligation.51 In other words, in the future the Philippians must conduct their affairs in church and city themselves. The question remains: What standards should govern their specifically Christian commitments? Paul addresses this question in 2:1–4, when he defines the basic Christian ethics as “practical thinking” (φρονεῖν),52 for which the authoritative example is set forth by the Christ hymn (2:6–11). Interpreting this central passage, rediscovered by Ernst Lohmeyer in his famous study of 1927/28, cannot be undertaken at this point.53 Paul’s paraenesis continues in 2:12–18. Combining staccato brevity with relentless realism, Paul faces up to his own debacle by offering two terrifying prospects. For one, his entire life’s work of mission could have been “in vain” (εἰς κενόν). Against this he pleads (2:16): “Word of life, hold it fast … .”54 And his own death would serve as a bloody sacrifice for their faith.55 The ethical paradox is striking (2:17–18): “Even if I should be poured out as sacrificial libation and for your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. In the same way, you should also be glad and rejoice with me.” If he must die, it will be a sacrificial death which he will gladly accept as an “imitator of Christ,” since it will give life to the faith of Christ’s people (cf. 3:17; 4:1–7, 8–9). (c) The eschatological future References to the eschatological future are found in all parts of the letter, including the attachments. These references are easily identifiable at places where one should expect them. On the whole, these passages belong to the epistolary paraenesis, but also to texts related to liturgy. The liturgical material includes the prayer of thanksgiving (1:3–11), the Christ hymn (2:6–11), and ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. See (with bibl.) Reumann, 285–289. 50 3:20:

51 See Hubert Cancik, “Fides, Pistis und Imperium,” in his Römische Religion im Kontext. Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 178–197. 52 The term is derived from Greek philosophy; see Phil 1:7; 2:5; 3:15, 19; 4:10, and BDAG, s. v. φρονέω. 53 See above, note 30; for additional material, see Reumann, 333–383. 54 2:16: λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες … . 55 2:17: Ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν … .

16

I. Introduction

the doxologies (3:19–20; 4:21). In paraenesis, eschatological references occur toward the end of passages. The gnomic saying of 1:21–26 has an eschatological epilogue in v. 26. Paul names his own eschatological hopes to be his resurrection and καύχημα.56 The overarching concept is that of unity (κοινω­ νία) of Paul and the church,57 all on their way to becoming “fellow-imitators of Christ” (συμμιμηταὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ).58

5. Verification The phenomenon of verification59 will be exemplified by the specific case of the well-known commentary on Philippians by Ernst Lohmeyer.60 To restate the facts of his life: Lohmeyer was born July 7, 1890, in Dorsten (Westphalia), a son of a Protestant minister. He served as a New Testament professor in Breslau from 1920–1935. Because he was opposed to the Hitler regime, he was punished by being transferred to the remote University of Greifswald, where he taught from 1935 to the end of World War II (with the exception of military service during that war). When he returned to Greifswald, the Russian occupation force proposed that he serve as rector of the university in order to reorganize it. Probably due to a Communist party plot, he was suddenly arrested on February 15, 1946 by the Russian secret police (NKWD) in his house and taken away, not to be seen by his family again. Nothing was known about his fate for five years, after which the Russians finally responded to growing pressure nationally and internationally, saying that he had died in Russian custody on September 19, 1946. Later it became clear that this was a lie and that he was shot without trial in the forests not far from Greifswald soon after his arrest. In August 1996, the new Russian government officially

56

 1:6, 10–11, 26, 29–30; 2:16–18; 3:3, 10–11, 12, 20–21.  1:5, 7; 2:1; 3:10; 4:14. 58  2:12–13, 17–18; 3:17; 4:8–9. See also Chapter IV, below. 59  For the general issues see Thomas Bartelborth, Herbert Keuth, Heike Schulz, “Verification and Falsification,” RPP 13 (2013) 306–308 [“Verifikation /  ​Falsifikation,” RGG 8 (42005) 1017–1020]. 60  For the known documentation see Andreas Köhn, Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer. Studien zur Biographie und Theologie (WUNT 2/180; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Idem, ed., Ernst Lohmeyers Zeugnis im Kirchenkampf: Breslauer Universitätspredigten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006); therein Christfried Böttrich, “Ernst Lohmeyer zum 19. September 2006,” 9–21; Eckart Reinmuth, “Vom Zeugnis des Neues Testaments zum Zeugnis für das Neue Testament: Ernst Lohmeyer,” in: Irmfried Garbe et al., eds., Greifswalder theologische Profile (GThF 12; Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang, 2006), 259–73 (bibl.). 57

5. Verification

17

rehabilitated him, admitting that his arrest and murder had been illegal; his grave remains unknown to this day.61 How Lohmeyer’s abhorrent fate is relevant to literary criticism is the following. His scholarly work on Philippians stood out as profound in several respects. His literary sensitivities were evident from the beginning. An earlier essay deals with the topic of “Christ Cult and Imperial Cult,”62 and his discovery and reconstruction of the “Christ hymn,” published in his Kyrios Jesus, express his interest in poetry and liturgy, a rare gift among New Testament scholars at the time. His later study on “Cult and Gospel” reveals his liturgical interests.63 An extraordinary contribution, compiled under intense physical stress, was his commentary on Philippians, first appearing in 1930.64 The main thesis of this commentary is that the Philippian letter is held together throughout by the leading idea of martyrdom, which Lohmeyer had pursued in earlier studies.65 Theologically, the theme of Christ’s martyrdom assumes the unity of the church and of the letter. The literary sequence of the sections, the heart of the paraenesis, the confidence in the eschatological hope, and the deepest feelings of love between the apostle, his collaborators, and the members of the church all expresses the power of Christ’s martyrdom. Apparently, Lohmeyer presented this idea first in a lecture given in Paris in 1927. It became the leading hypothesis of his commentary of 1930.66 Undoubtedly, in terms of literary verification, Lohmeyer’s tragic death means that he suffered the kind of martyrdom he describes so vividly and impressively in his commentary. Not unlike Paul, Lohmeyer himself was arrested due to a conspiracy and brutally murdered by thugs in the service of a dictatorial regime. His fate remained unknown for many years, later disclo61  For the details, as far as known, see Köhn, Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer, 128–156. 62 Christuskult und Kaiserkult (SGV 90; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1919). 63  Kultus und Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942). 64  Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK 9, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 81930), 9th ed. by his former student Werner Schmauch, 1953; ed. idem, Beiheft (ibid., 1964). On details concerning Lohmeyer’s struggles during the years prior to publication, see Köhn, Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer, 30–51. 65 Apparently presented first in a lecture given in Paris, 1927: “Die Idee des Martyriums in Judentum und Urchristentum,” ZSTh 5 (1927) 232–249. See Köhn, ibid., 207, 287, 297–298, 345 (with bibl.). 66 The main hypothesis is stated by Lohmeyer, Philipper, 36–37: “Dieser Gedanke des Martyriums durchwirkt alle Teile des Briefes, bindet sie zu einer unlöslichen Einheit zusammen und erklärt die eigentümliche Folge der Abschnitte. Man darf deshalb den Philipperbrief ein Schreiben von dem Sinn des Martyriums, seinen Verheissungen und Forderungen nennen. Und diese Einheit kommt in der immer wiederholten Betonung der ‘Freude’ zu klarem und erfüllendem Ausdruck.”

18

I. Introduction

sures were unsubstantiated lies, criminal justice was ignored, and the grave remains unknown to this day. How then is this verification related to the question of literary criticism? Can Lohmeyer’s supreme witness and sacrifice as a martyr validate his literary analysis of the composition of the letter, its literary structure, its paraenetical purposes, and its eschatological hopes? Does it matter that the terminology of martyrdom (μαρτυρέω κτλ.) in the sense Lohmeyer understands it never occurs in the text of the letter? Methodologically, his approach involves a paradox. While nobody doubts Lohmeyer’s own martyrdom as the ultimate proof of his Christian faith, this supreme testimony cannot serve as the conclusive proof of the validity of his literary theories and his analysis of the Philippian letter. Bultmann, his friend and esteemed colleague, in his early review was right in stating that Lohmeyer’s main hypothesis concerning martyrdom has not been proven convincingly.67 This point of criticism, however, does not exclude the acknowledgement of a large number of literary observations, discoveries, and explanations which are convincing. Moreover, it is an extraordinary phenomenon that neither Paul nor Lohmeyer, at the time of their writing, could have known the extent of the sharing of their destinies. As such, the phenomenon is by no means unique in literature generally. Yet, literary criticism requires formal arguments as proofs, not simply theological convictions or even real-life experiences. The meeting of Paul and Lohmeyer in sharing their destinies remains truthful, to be sure, although it cannot be used as proof of literary-critical arguments. Given our modern perspective, what Lohmeyer actually did was to read Paul’s Philippians through the eyes of the Deutero-Pauline and early second-century literature.68 In a general sense, therefore, he was right after all. Reading Philippians alerts not only Paul’s immediate followers (3:17) but all Christian and, perhaps, even non-Christian readers that martyrdom is always an open possibility.69 67  DLZ 51 (1930) 774–780, repr. in Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie als Kritik. Ausgewählte Rezensionen und Forschungsberichte, eds. Matthias Dreher and Klaus W. Müller (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 252–257. 68  See, e. g., Col 1:24–29; Eph. 3:3–13; IgnEph 1:2; 12:1–2; PolycPhil 3:2; 9:1–2 etc. See BDAG, s. v. μάρτυς, 3 (bibl.). 69 See Hans von Campenhausen, Die Idee des Martyriums in der Alten Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21964); Glen W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Wolfgang Wischmeyer, “Martyr, II. The Early Church,” RPP 8 (2010) 100–101 (bibl.) [“Märtyrer, II. Alte Kirche,” RGG 5 (2002) 862–865]; Jan W. van Henten, “Martyrium, II (ideengeschichtlich),” RAC 23 (2010) 300–325 (bibl.).

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26) 1. Introduction After the prescript (1:1–2) and the prooemium (1:3–11) Paul turns at once to the main reason for his letter. This reason was generated by the arrival of Epaphroditus who had been sent by the Philippian congregation to deliver a sum of money to the Apostle in support of his expenses, and to enquire about his circumstances. Within the letter, Paul deals with the issues he addresses almost exhaustively. He can take for granted that the readers know that he writes as a prisoner in Rome, but he adds that Timothy is with him, as a faithful associate and not as a prisoner. The carefully formulated prayer in three parts (1:3–11) confirms Paul’s intimate social relationship with his addressees. In this way, these introductory words justify his brief but comprehensive letter. The full range of issues, about which the Philippians have asked to be informed, are summed up by the statement in 1:12 as τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ, perhaps to be rendered as “my current affairs.” This lapidary expression, however, covers a host of issues. To ask about them as an enquiry is easy, but answering it is beset with problems, especially for somebody in prison. Imagining a prisoner in a Roman jail should be graphic enough, but anyone in such a condition must be the last to know what his real situation is. In general, how do we as human beings know what our “real situation” is? How could we have even a glimpse of it, if we were shut off in prison? Paul, however, knows for sure that his fellow-Christians expect a “Pauline” style answer, anything else but not pessimistic despair.1 In fact, his letter is showing neither terrified despair nor naive optimism. In sum, his letter expresses stark realism as well as prophetic hopefulness; this amounts to a kind of model for others, perhaps something comparable to what Cicero had in mind in his “Tusculan Disputations”. Paul begins with the phenomena of his external environment  1:12: Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί … . What Paul intends to say is what the readers should know and are able to comprehend. He also avoids what Nero’s spies would regard as suspicious, and things that Epaphroditus could later explain orally. 1

20

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

(1:12–18), which is then followed by his mindful expectations (1:19–20), and concluding with a succinctly formulated sentence composition (1:21–26), justly named by Lohmeyer “der berühmte Satz” (that famous sentence).2

2. The situation in general a. The external circumstances (1:12–18) Most importantly, the external circumstances include the admission that Paul’s imprisonment has effected progress in the mission project (προκοπὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1:12). This comment confronts fears that his imprisonment may mean the end of his gospel mission altogether. Rather, this evidence justifies the Apostle’s claim to draw on the funds set up by the contract with the Philippians (κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1:5).3 The most obvious fact is the effect his prisoner’s chains (οἱ δεσμοί, 1:7, 13, 14, 17) are having. Far from being symbols of shame, the chains have taken on revelatory significance in and around the praetorium, where Paul can be seen with them. To the people his chains have become visible signs of Christ.4 Like with all such revelations, however, the response has been controversial. The majority of fellow-Christians are strengthened in their faith, so that they have become more confident and more outspoken, while a minority of others indulge in negative criticism. In other words, some are going on proclaiming Christ in supportive ways, knowing that Paul is in this situation for the sake of the gospel, while others respond by unfair contentiousness, unhelpfully “thinking up more suffering through my chains” (1:17).5 “So, what does it really matter! Indeed, in every manner, whether out of pretense or plain truth, Christ is being proclaimed.” Paul can conclude: “And in that I am joyful.” (1:18)6 b. Some mindful expectations Contrary to pessimistic premonitions, Paul is not without prospects of joy in the future, and he can count on facts he knows. He knows that at the end 2 Lohmeyer,

57. this concept see also on Phil 1:7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15. 4 1:13: ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι … . 5 It is to be noted at this point that these critics or antagonists are not to be confused with Paul’s opponents, whom he attacks in 3:2–21, or with the Philippians’ unidentifiable antagonists (ἀντικείμενοι) in 1:28. 6 1:18: Τί γάρ; πλὴν ὅτι παντὶ τρόπῳ, εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ, Χριστὸς καταγγέλ­ λεται, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω. 3 For

2. The situation in general

21

of the day there will be “salvation” (σωτηρία).7 In addition, there may be a general issue affecting the hermeneutics of the letter as a whole. As a prisoner in Rome Paul must pay attention to the fact that he is under constant surveillance by Nero’s spies and informers. As historical sources document, the city is full of frumentarii, delatores, speculatores, and spectatores (κατάσκοποι).8 Even his personal guards would be in the service of the Roman secret police, and they would also control his visitors as well as his correspondence. To counteract such controls, Paul no doubt practiced what we would call self-censorship. These efforts may include the fact that he does not refer to persons by name, unless they were known already or insignificant outsiders. That may be why there is no mentioning of the Jewish or Christian house churches in Rome, or even names of opponents. Instead, Paul lets it be known that he enjoys friendly relations with people from the praetorium (1:13) and the Imperial Palace (4:22). To be sure, offering any negative comments about Roman politics would be utter foolishness. Some of the items he does mention may be hidden behind “cover-language,” the real meaning of which could be explained by Epaphroditus orally, after he arrived in Philippi. In short, letters from prison cannot be read hermeneutically like any other letter. Thus he can sum up in a few statements why he is not without hope. It is because of the Philippians’ prayers and the resultant rich provision of the spirit of Jesus Christ.9 Together these will unfold in accordance with his eager expectation and hope that his body will not in any way be disgraced, “but that Christ will be glorified in my body in all plainness, as always so even now, whether through life or through death.”10

 1:18c–19a: Ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι, οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι … .  See Epictetus, Diss. 4.13.4–8; Tacitus, Ann. 2.50; 3.25–28; etc.; Hist. 4.6; Suetonius, Nero 10.1; in the NT cf. Gal 2:4; Acts 23:16–27. See the investigations by Otto Hirschfeld, “Die Sicherheitspolizei im römischen Kaiserreich,” in: Idem, Kleine Schriften (Berlin: Weidmann, 1913), 576–612; Friedrich Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur “damnatio memoriae” (Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt, 1936); William Sinnigen, “The Roman Secret Service,” ClJ 57 (1961) 65–72; Werner Eisenhuth, “Die römische Gefängnisstrafe,” ANRW 1, 2 (1972) 268–82; Silke Arbandt, Werner Macheiner, Carsten Colpe, “Gefangenschaft,” RAC 9 (1976) 318–45.  9  1:19: οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπι­ χορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … . 10  1:20: κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι ἀλλ’ ἐν  7  8

πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου, εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου.

22

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26) a. Its character in general The conclusion of v.20c states the dilemma Paul is confronted with: His situation comes down to one of “life or death.” Naming this alternative identifies his situation as one of the most serious polarities in human life.11 Regarding the court trial in which Paul is involved, the alternatives of life or death point to the two extreme but possible verdicts: dismissal or condemnation (absolutio or condemnatio). Considering this verdict, the polarity of “life or death” designates the most excruciating situation any human being can be faced with. With merciless precision, the resolution of this dilemma will be brought about by the verdict at the end of the trial.12 Thus far, Paul’s trial has passed through its first two stages of ἀπολογία (“defense”)13 and βεβαίωσις (“confirmation by evidence”).14 This leaves the verdict to come next. While Paul mentions the first two stages as behind him, he makes no mention of the appearance of accusers and the submission of oral or written documentary evidence, and there may not have been any. If not, the trial would legally end in a dismissal.15 We can conclude, however, that the accusation had something to do with the “gospel message” (εὐαγγέλιον) as possibly directed against the Roman state. If so, Paul may have demonstrated in his defense (ἀπολογία) that his preaching is not fomenting insurrection against Roman authorities, and he may have submitted a piece of evidence to prove it. If this was the circumstance, he would have good reasons to expect a formal verdict of dismissal.16 Since he intends 11  For further discussion see my essay, “Der Mensch in seinen Antagonismen aus der Sicht des Paulus,” in my volume, Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 53–70. 12  Paul does not provide a detailed description of the Roman trial. See on this subject Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (HA 10.3.4; München: Beck, 1996), 270–88. 13  The terminology is technical in jurisprudence, see Phil 1:7, 16, and for examples in Acts: ἀπολογέομαι 19:33; 22:1–21; 24:10; 25:8; 26:1–23, 24; ἀπολογία 25:16; κατηγορέω 22:30; 24:2, 8, 13, 19; 25:5, 11, 16; 28:19; κατήγορος 23:30, 35; 25:16, 18; ἐγκαλέομαι 19:38, 40; 26:2, 7; ἔγκλημα 23:29; 25:16. See Heike Omerzu, Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2002), 371–72, 439–93, 477–80; BDAG, sub vocibus; Reumann, 118. 14 The legal term βεβαίωσις (“confirmation by evidence”?) is rare in the NT (cf. also Heb 6:16, see BDAG, s. v.). For the terminology, see Kaser, Zivilprozessrecht, 270–84; Spicq, Notes, vol. 1, 182–85. 15 Cf. Acts 21:34; 22:30; 23:28; 24:13; 25:7–8: Paul’s accusers have no proof for their claims: …  Ἰουδαῖοι πολλὰ καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα καταφέροντες ἃ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀποδεῖξαι … . 16 Notably, the Book of Acts presents the various accusations made by Paul’s Jewish opponents against him as irrational and confused fanaticism, and unclear to the Roman authorities. Sending him to Rome saves Paul as a Roman citizen from local lynch mobs

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

23

to say only what he knows, predicting what the verdict would say would be premature. If this, then, was his situation, he prudently leaves the question open. Since this was in fact his situation, what kind of a response would be appropriate to send to the Philippians? Abstracting from the concrete issue of the trial, he presents the readers with a carefully crafted, quasi-philosophical, sentential composition (1:21–26). Such a sentential composition seems appropriate because at this point Paul’s situation is one of ultimate uncertainty (οὐ γνωρίζω, 1:22). This ultimate uncertainty is a matter of intellectual insight, docta ignorantia, not of stupid ignorance. It therefore requires a statement of principle, defining the adequate attitude, as for everyone facing situations of ultimate uncertainty. As a statement of principle, the sententia advises against irrationally and prematurely opting for one or the other extremes of the polarity, instead of patiently enduring the ambivalence. As it stands, the expression “whether life or death” (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου, 1:20) defines at once the most certain and most uncertain points in human life, and as such articulates a kind of bridge, which leads out of this life into the hereafter.17 That this metaphor leads us into the fundamental problems of human life is shown by the role it plays in ancient philosophy,18 in sayings collections, and in tomb inscriptions.19 In modernity, the bridge became a key concept in philosophy, literature and art.20 Its source is most likely Nietzsche’s Vorrede 4 to his Also sprach Zarathustra: “Was gross ist am Menschen, das ist, dass er eine Brücke und kein Zweck ist: was geliebt werden kann am Menschen, das ist, dass er ein Übergang und ein Untergang ist.”21 [What is great about man, that is, that he is a bridge and not a purpose; what can be loved about man, that is, and pushes the issue to the higher imperial court in Rome. Cf. Acts 21:34; 22:30; 23:28; 24:13; 25:9–12, 16–21; 26:32; 28:17–22. 17 So rightly seen by Lohmeyer, 58: “Er [Paulus] steht in seinem Zeugen und Leiden gleichsam auf der Brücke, die aus diesem Leben in ein jenseitiges der Vollendung führt.” 18  For the most famous example see Socrates on the “second journey” (δεύτερος πλοῦς) in Plato, Phaed. 99c–115a (see below, note 55). 19  See Ioannes Stobaeus (5th c. CE), Anthol. 4.53 (ed. Otto Hense, vol. 5, 1097–1112, entitled Σύγκρισις ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου), and the essay by Samuel Vollenweider, “Die Waagschalen von Leben und Tod. Zum antiken Hintergrund von Phil 1,21–26,” ZNW 85 (1994) 93–115; rep. in his Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie (WUNT 144; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 237–61. 20 See Georg Schmid, “Brücke, religionsgeschichtlich,” RGG 1 (41998) 1778–79; “Bridge,” RPP 2 (2007) 222–23; Günter Rombold, “Expressionismus,” RGG 2 (41999) 1832–38; RPP 4 (2008) 774–78. 21 Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, Vorrede 4, eds. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, Kritische Studienausgabe (Berlin and New York, De Gruyter [DTV], 1988), vol. 1, 16–18.

24

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

that he is a transition and a downfall].22 Nietzsche exemplifies the image by the parable about the dancer on the rope.23 Respectively, in this context of principles about human existence we should expect that Paul formulates his own principle, and this is what we find him doing next. b. The rhetorical aspects In 1:21–26 Paul formulates a sayings composition in three parts. The first part is a leading maxim (sententia, γνώμη). While citing famous sententiae was a kind of fashion in Hellenistic and Roman cultured circles of those days, writing one’s own was preferable, even though they were modelled on others in the pertinent literature.24 According to the description in Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric, the maxim is a brief statement dealing with “the objects of human actions, and with what should be chosen or avoided with reference to them.” 25 If the maxim is contradictory or paradoxical, Aristotle stipulates that it must be a part of an enthymeme.26 “And as the enthymeme is, as we may say, the syllogism dealing with such things, maxims are the premises or conclusions of enthymemes without the syllogism.”27 As Aristotle’s examples show, when the maxim (γνώμη) is provided with “the why and the wherefore are added, the whole makes an enthymeme.”28 “Now all those that state anything that is contrary to the general opinion or is a matter of dispute, need demonstrative proof.”29 At the end the enthymeme may have a recapitulation or epilogue. “As for the maxims that are accompanied by an epilogue, some 22

 My translation.  Vorrede 6, 21–22. 24  For Rome see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (München: Huber, 21973), § 872–879; Adrian Hummel and Gregor Kalivoda, “Gnome, Gnomik,” HWRh 3 (1996) 1014–1021; Hans Georg Coenen, “Maxime,” ibid., 5 (2001) 996–1003; Johannes Engels, “Sentenz,” ibid., 8 (2007) 847–867 (bibl.). 25  Aristotle, Rh. 2.21.2: ἔστι δὲ γνώμη ἀπόφανσις … περὶ ὅσων αἱ πράξεις εἰσί, καὶ αἱρετὰ ἢ φευκτά ἐστι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν … . Cited according to the edition and translation by John H. Freese, (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926). 26 On the enthymeme see Aristotle, Rh. 2.21.2; 22.1–17; 23.1–26.5; also Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik (HA 2.3; München: Beck, 1974), 102–104; Manfred Kraus, “Enthymem,” HWRh 2 (1994) 1197–1222. 27 Aristotle, Rh. 2.21.2: ὥστ’ ἐπεὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα ὁ περὶ τούτων συλλογισμός ἐστι σχε­ 23

δόν, τά τε συμπεράσματα τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἀφαιρηθέντος τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ γνῶμαί εἰσιν … . 28 Ibid.: προστεθείσης δὲ τῆς αἰτίας καὶ τοῦ διὰ τί, ἐνθύμημά ἐστι τὸ ἅπαν … . 29 Ibid. 21.4: ἀποδείξεως μὲν οὖν δεόμεναί εἰσιν ὅσαι παράδοξόν τι λέγουσιν ἢ ἀμφισβη­ τούμενον.

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

25

form part of the enthymeme, while others are enthymematic, but are not part of an enthymeme, and these are most highly esteemed.”30 c. The Greek text With v.21 as the leading sententia of the enthymematic composition of 1:21– 26, vv. 22–25 contain the expositio, and v.26 concludes with an epilogus.31 The standard text of Nestle-Aland, the 27th edition (revised 1993) and the 28th edition (2012), accepts the wording of P46, the oldest extant manuscript (c. 200 CE). Most likely it contains the oldest wording, possibly even Paul’s own. However, as Günther Zuntz has shown in his critical study, this papyrus needs cautious approaches. “The excellent quality of the text presented by our oldest manuscript, P46, stands out again. As so often before, we must here be careful to distinguish between the very poor work of the scribe who penned it and the basic text which he so poorly rendered. P46 abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and also additions. In some of them the scribe anticipated the errors of later copyists; in some other instances he shares an older error; but the vast majority are his own uncontested property. Once they have been discarded, there remains a text of outstanding (though not absolute) purity.”32 Regarding the papyrus text, Zuntz distinguishes between three sets of scribes and correctors. “Yet the papyrus preserves the traces of more than one person endeavoring to improve upon the primitive writing. Leaving aside a few small corrections which I find it hard to classify, one easily distinguishes three sets of corrections. The first is due to the original scribe, who, probably inter scribendum, put right some of his minor blunders, such as miss-spellings and the omission of letters, and occasionally even corrected a word which he had mistaken. The second, and largest, set is characterized by the use of a broad pen and very black ink. This set, I suggest, comes from the hand which also added the page numbers and wrote the number of στίχοι under each epistle; in other words, this is the hand of the ex officio corrector who, still in the scriptorium, applied the finishing touches to the work of the scribe. He, 30 Ibid. 21.6: τῶν δὲ μετ’ ἐπιλόγου αἱ μὲν ἐνθυμήματος μέρος εἰσίν … αἱ δ’ ἐνθυμηματι­ καὶ μέν, οὐκ ἐνθυμήματος δὲ μέρος· αἵπερ καὶ μάλιστ’ εὐδοκιμοῦσιν. 31 On

the epilogue see Aristotle, Rh. 3.13.1–3; 19.1–4; and Christopher Laferl, “Epilog,” HWRh 2 (1994) 1286–1291. 32 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1946; London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 212–13; see also Junack et al., Die paulinischen Briefe 1–2; for a description of P46 see part 1, XL–XLVI; part 2, L–LIII.

26

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

too, did his work very carelessly. He left numberless slips uncorrected, skipped two pages in numbering (after P), and occasionally produced nonsense by his very corrections and his punctuation marks. The third identifiable corrector writes a cursive hand which is easily distinguished from all others and, as C. H.  Roberts tells me, should be dated late in the third century. That is to say, this is the hand of a later user of this manuscript who corrected a few places whose wording struck him as incorrect.”33 Given these admissions, however, the value of the text of P46 is undiminished. “Roughly 250 years separate the archetype for the codex Vaticanus whose evidence Westcott and Hort none the less trusted to reach back to it. With the emergence of the Chester Beatty papyrus this gap has been reduced by one-half; moreover, its text evidently derives from exemplars even older, and that in a way which is still possible to determine in some detail. The papyrus thus makes an invaluable addition to the material upon which we shall base the attempt to penetrate the darkness of the second century of the Christian era.”34

Keeping these considerations in mind, the following annotations seek to recover what may even be the actual wording of Paul’s enthymeme in Phil 1:21–26.35 (1) The sententia of 1:21 Ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος.

“For me living [is] Christ and dying gain.”

The sententia is rightly as famous as it is rich in content. The translation and interpretation poses questions that need reflection first. Formally, the statement is, as it should be, sharply pointed and compressed into greatest brevity, like an arrow-shot.36 Brevity suggests that the γάρ (“For”) is a secondary addition to the sententia itself, in order to connect it with the preceding v.20. The γάρ is read by P46 and may go back to the primary author (cf. differently P46 at v.19, reading δέ). The predicative noun Χριστός (“Christ”) stands without the article. Re33 Ibid.,

252–54. 17. 35 See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 98–100. I am also grateful for “Bemerkungen zur Textkritik” by Eberhard Güting (Münster), in his letter of May 6, 2010. 36 Cf. Cicero, Brutus 62: sententiosus et argutus; De or. 2.219; Or. 87. Since Plato, Prot. 342e, it is compared to an arrow-shot. Plutarch, Cato min. 12.5, regards it as typically Roman. 34 Ibid.,

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

27

dundant is also the verb ἐστίν (“is”), against its addition by the bilinguals F and G (9th cent.), which make it into a normal sentence, perhaps influenced by the Latin.37 Also the dative pronoun ἐμοί (“to me”) is abbreviated, standing for similar indications of dialogue, such as “‘to me’, whatever it may be to others.”38 The verb forms τὸ ζῆν and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν stress activity, not abstracts.39 The name of Christ sums up christology, soteriology, and eschatology.40 The last term, κέρδος (“gain”), remains ambiguous as to what kind of gain is intended.41 In short, while the sententia as a whole looks paradoxical, the commentary is there to explain it. (2) The commentary (expositio) Following the leading sententia in v.21, the expected commentary is presented in vv. 22–25. Term after term, the thought of the reader is guided through the text. (i) 1:22: εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου, καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω. “If then the living [occurs] in [the] flesh, this to me [amounts to] fruit from work, but what I shall prefer I do not know.”

Introduced by εἰ δέ (“if then”),42 this majority reading is to be kept in spite of the important variant εἴτε in P46 and D*. Since D* did not know P46, the variant looks like an earlier error read by the Vorlage of both; thus it may have led to the variants in the Old Latin (quod si, si autem, see Frede, 73 apparatus). Preferably, εἰ δὲ corresponds to τὸ δέ (v.24). The first statement of v.22 explains τὸ ζῆν as “living in [the] flesh” (ἐν σαρκί). This statement, brief and without the article and common in Paul, expresses his anthropology and refers to the physical life of the body.43 The next expression, καρπὸς ἔργου 37

 See Hermann Josef Frede, ed., Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt von der Erzabtei Beuron, vol. 24/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), ad loc., reading: Mihi enim vivere Christus est et mori lucrum. 38  Lightfoot, 92; Reumann, 216–17. Cf. for longer phrases, e. g., Plato, Apol. 19e: τοῦτό γέ μοι δοκεῖ καλὸν εἶναι …; 39b: οἱ δ’ ἐμοί; Crit. 43c. In Paul cf. Phil 1:7, 16, 19, 30; Phlm 11, 16, 18; 1 Cor 7:40; 8:6; furthermore, see BDAG, s. v. δοκέω, 2.b; BDF § 188. 39  Cf. Gal 2:20: ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός; Col 3:4: ὁ Χριστὸς … ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν. See Gnilka 70–71; Reumann, 218–19. 40 Cf. Phil 1:13, 18, 20; Gal 2:20; Col.3:4. 41  Cf. also Phil 3:7: ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη. See Reumann, 219. 42 See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 99. 43 See also 1:24; 3:3, 4; Phlm 16; 2 Cor 10:3; Rom 8:8–9; etc.

28

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

(“fruit from work”), is a hapax legomenon in Paul.44 The image is derived from the farmer’s life, as one consisting of hard work and yielding fruit.45 In Paul’s usage it serves as a metaphor describing the work in mission.46 The change by P46, B, and min 2464 of the future indicative αἱρήσομαι to the subjunctive αἱρήσωμαι (dubitative, deliberative) expresses uncertainty in understanding the sentence. If the protasis with εἰ is a statement of fact, the apodosis should be, too. Or, if it is doubtful because the appearance of fruit is expected from fickle nature, then the “choosing” will have to wait as well (αἱρήσoμαι). The logical conclusion then is: “I do not know” (at present).47 That the scribes of P46, B, min 2464 raise the question of how the text should be read shows their thinking. These scribes, however, ignore the subsequent argument in vv.23–25. As far as v.22a–b is concerned, Paul states as facts that living in the flesh means that work comes first and gains may come later. If so, then in the present he has no reasonable grounds for making a choice. Consequently, his judgment is: οὐ γνωρίζω, “what I shall prefer I do not know.” Or, αἱρήσωμαι may have a question mark: “What then should I prefer? I do not know.” (ii) 1:23: συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, πολλῷ [γὰρ] μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον·. “Then I am hanging in suspense between two [options]: Having the desire to depart and be together with Christ is by far the better [option].”

Next, Paul explains what he means by not knowing and why he is unable to make a choice. The term συνέχομαι is difficult because it is unique in Paul.48 Thus, predictably, the translations differ.49 The suspense is held by two contrasting factors. These two factors should not be interpreted as rivalling emotional desires (ἐπιθυμίαι),50 but as set by the unknown verdict of the trial, ending in acquittal or condemnation. Thus, the options are not up to Paul’s choice.51 Rather, Paul is premeditating about the eventual consequences

 As in v.21, F and G add the copula ἐστίν, perhaps influenced by the Latin (est), expressing the tendency to change the gnomic brevity to a “normal” sentence. See Frede, Vetus Latina, 75. 45  The image is proverbial in the Bible; see, e. g., Gen 1:11–12; 2:15; 3:17; Ps 104:23; 128:2; Prov 14:23. 46  See also 2 Cor 9:6–10, and on Paul’s agricultural language Betz, 2 Cor 8 and 9, 111–16. On other metaphorical applications see Phil 1:11; 4:17; Rom 1:13; 15:28; etc. 47 See BDF, §§ 366, 368, 442(8); B. Weiss, 103, n. 1; Reumann, 219–23. 48 See BDAG, s. v. συνέχω, 5. 49  See the commentaries, especially Reumann, 251–52. 50 Against BDAG, s. v. συνέχω, 5, speaking of “conflicting emotions.” 51 So rightly Vollenweider, “Waagschalen,” 106–108. 44

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

29

of the verdict, which of them he would prefer and for what reason, if he had the choice. As some commentators have pointed out, Paul’s meditation has an intriguing parallel in the final episodes in Plato’s Apology and Phaedo, where it is presupposed, however, that Socrates’ death sentence has already been issued.52 Also, he has decided to abide by the verdict, rather than to accept his friends’ plan for him to flee from the city into exile. Against the friends’ plan he argues that the sacred ship has returned from Delos, and thus he is convinced that the god Apollo had not sent him a sign to avoid the execution.53 Socrates concludes that his decision to accept death has already been divinely approved, so that the decision for not escaping is in effect determined by the divine will. By this “great sign” (μέγα τεκμήριον) the god Apollo directs Socrates’ life: “But the hour is already here to move on, for me to be put to death and for you to go on living. Yet, which of us goes to the better lot is unknown to everyone, except to the God.”54 To be sure, Socrates knows where his “passing on” (ἀπιέναι) is leading him. Explaining the “great hope” (ἐλπίς, εὔελπις), the “transformation” (μεταβολή) and the “transmigration of the soul” (μετοίκησις τῇ ψυχῇ) are the subject fully treated in the final part of the Phaedo.55 At this point the difference between Plato and Paul becomes most obvious, when Paul’s interpretation of “desire” (ἐπιθυμία) in v.23 does not refer to the desire of the immortal soul to separate from the mortal body.56 In Platonic version the sententia of Phil 1:21 would have to read: … τὸ ζῆν ἡ ψυχή (“… living is the soul”).57 Returning to Phil 1:23, Paul declares that his primary inclination is “to die and be together with Christ.” The statement is to be read with care in view of the context. Apparently Paul distinguishes between ἐπιθυμεῖν  / ​ ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιποθεῖν  /  ​ ἐπιποθία (“longing”).58 He only rarely speaks of ἐπιθυμεῖν  /  ​ ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιποθεῖν  /  ​ ἐπιποθία with a positive meaning as

52

 See, especially, Plato, Apol. 39c–42a, and Phaed. 40b–c; Crit. 43c–d.  On the μέγα τεκμήριον, by which the god warns Socrates against acting disfavorably, see Apol. 40b–c; also Crit. 54e. 54  Cf. also Cicero’s discussion of Plato’s Apol. 42 in Tusc. 1.97–100. 55  On the δεύτερος πλοῦς see Phaed. 99c–115a; and Theodor Ebert, Platon, Phaidon (Platon, Werke 1/4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 349–445. 56  Phaed. 105c–106e; Crat. 399d. See Matthias Baltes, “Von der Seele als Ursache aller sinnvollen Abläufe,” in Der Platonismus in der Antike (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2002), vol. 6/1, Bausteine 151–81, esp. 158, pp. 58–63, 254–59. 57  Cf. the fragment from Ps.-Plutarch (?), cited below at n. 117. 58 For ἐπιποθεῖν κτλ. see Phil 1:18; 2:26; 4:1; also 1 Thess 3:6; 2 Cor 7:7; Rom 1:11; 15:23; 2 Tim 1:4. 53

30

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

“inclination.”59 For him, this inclination (εἰς τὸ)60 is to “die” (ἀναλῦσαι);61 it makes sense because it leads to “be together with Christ” (σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι), at this point an eschatological concept referring to the post-mortem status of salvation.62 This conclusion is affirmed by a triple-comparative: “This is by far better.”63 The text given by Nestle-Aland is emended, while its many variants construct a comparison by overload.64 The variants presuppose the syncritical context of ἐμοὶ γὰρ in v.21, as observed also by Vollenweider.65 In all variants the overloaded text underscores Paul’s priority as well as a rejected temptation of voluntary self-killing. However, what the original wording was is hard to say. Too many comparatives are in tension with the brevity demanded by the enthymeme. The connecting γάρ is read by only some of the witnesses, prominent as these are; it seems therefore to be secondary. Regarding the sequence of πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον, the μᾶλλον is not read by P46 0278 436 and it (75, 77). Different word orders are given by other witnesses and raise the suspicion that μᾶλλον is secondary.66 Although the γάρ is missing in important witnesses (‫ *א‬D2 K L P Ψ 049 056 042 0150 0151 and later traditions), Güting wants to keep it as indispensible, thus reading πολλῷ γὰρ κρεῖσσον, and he may be right.67 If γάρ is taken to be secondary, however, providing a desirable con59

 Cf. 1 Thess 2:17; 1 Tim 3:1.  The singular variant in P46, taking ἔχων as referring to ἐν Χριστῷ, is due to a scribal error, which the scribe corrected apparently in scribendo. See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 99 (apparatus). Subsequently, P46 D F G omit εἰς, perhaps another scribal error. 61 For Paul the term ἀναλύειν is metaphorical (cf. 2 Tim 4:6: ἀνάλυσις). Notably, for Plato it stands for the soul’s desire for the dissolution of body and soul, λύσις καὶ χωρισμός (Apol. 40c–42a; Phaed. 63b–67d); see BDAG s. v. ἀνάλυσις, ἀναλύω. 62 For other instances of σὺν Χριστῷ see 1 Thess 4:14, 17; 5:10; Gal 2:19–20; 2 Cor 13:4; Rom 6:8; 14:8–9; Col 2:20; 3:3. For further material, see Jacques Dupont, ΣΥΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ. L’Union avec le Christ suivant saint Paul (Louvain: Nauvelaerts; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 174–81; Gnilka, 76–93; Reumann, 239–40 (bibl.). 63 On the accumulation of comparatives see Lightfoot, 93–94; BDF § 246; on asyndeton see BDF § 459–62; Eberhard W. Güting and David L. Mealand, Asyndeton in Paul. A Text-critical and Statistical Enquiry into Pauline Style (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: Mellon, 1998), 102. 64 πολλῷ [γὰρ] μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον. See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 99; Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc. 65 Vollenweider, “Waagschalen,” 110–11. 66 For the complicated situation see Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 99; Frede, Vetus Latina, 77–78. 67 Going with P46, Güting in his letter (2–3): “Es (scil. γάρ) ist jedoch nicht entbehrlich und ist gegen die ‘westliche’ Überlieferung zu halten.” 60

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

31

nection, the original statement could be an exclamation (πολλῷ κρεῖσσον) at the end of the commentary.68 (iii) 1:24: τὸ δὲ ἐπιμένειν [ἐν] τῇ σαρκὶ ἀναγκαιότερον δι’ ὑμᾶς. “Yet, to abide by the flesh is more necessary for your sake.”

Antithetical to v.22, turning to the other option (τὸ δὲ) Paul considers staying with this mortal life.69 The text has a small problem.70 The preposition ἐν is supported or omitted by important witnesses. The omission may try to avoid the clash of ἐπι‑ and ἐν. Anyway, Paul juxtaposes ending mortal life and staying with it.71 The comparative ἀναγκαιότερον is juxtaposed with κρεῖσσον (v.23). Thus the choice is between the more desirable and better, and the greater necessity of “remaining” for the sake of the Philippians. To be sure, δι’ ὑμᾶς refers not to the Philippians alone but includes the church as a whole. Arguably, both options are advantageous, but the latter is the more urgent as an apostolic obligation.72 (iv) 1:25: καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα ὅτι μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως. “And being confident about this I know that I will stay on and remain with you all for the purpose of your progress and joy of faith.”73

Paul justifies the deeper reason he sees for the necessity of his staying on (v.24). He knows that the Philippians will have need for his guidance in the future. He also infers that, once his trial is dismissed and he is acquitted, his apostolic charge will be reactivated. This is conveyed by the combination of μένειν καὶ παραμένειν (v.25), a phrase which is unique in Paul74 but has significant parallels in Plato’s dialogues dealing with Socrates’ death.75 In the Protagoras it reads, “We will not let you go, Socrates; for if you leave, our discussions will 68

 Cf. also the Vulgate: multo magis melius. See Frede, Vetus Latina, 77–79.  Thus also B 0268, contrasting the infinitives ἀναλῦσαι and ἐπιμεῖναι. 70  See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 99. 71  So the correct interpretation by Lightfoot, 94: “not ‘to abide in’ but ‘to abide by the flesh,’ to cling to the present life, to take it with all its inconveniences.” For the construction of ἐπιμένειν with τῇ σαρκί cf. Gal 5:13; Rom 6:1; 11:22, 23; Col 1:23; 1 Tim 4:16. 72  For Paul’s apostolic obligations as a matter of ἀνάγκη see Phil 2:25; 1 Cor 9:16; 2 Cor 9:5; Rom 1:14; 8:12–17; 15:1–2, 17. The idea concurs with Plato, who defines the service of the philosopher as ἀνάγκη to the polis (Rep. 6.500d; 7.519b–520e, 539e–540e). Cf. also Cicero, De re publ. 6.15–16. 73  For various attempts to translate the sentence, see Reumann, 225–27; 253–55. 74  D2 K L P min etc. read συμπαραμενῶ for clarity. For παραμένειν cf. 1 Cor 16:6. 75  Cf. παραμένειν as opposite to φεύγειν, Plato, Apol. 39e; Phaed. 62c–d; 86c–d; 98d–99a; 115d; Men. 97c. See for parallels Lohmeyer, 67, n. 3. 69

32

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

not be the same. I beg you, therefore, to remain with us … .”76 While this remark explains why Socrates is indispensible even in the dialogues written by Plato, it may be compared with the function of Paul’s “second presence” in the deutero-Pauline epistles.77 Specifically, Paul’s services will be of help in the “progress” and the “joy of faith”78 which the Philippians rightly expect to continue in the future.79 These concepts may even reflect Roman sentiment. (3) The epilogue 1:26: ἵνα τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. “so that your success will abound in Christ Jesus by me through my presence of returning to you.”

The conclusion (epilogus) of the enthymeme is found in 1:26. Introduced by ἵνα (“so that”), it explains the reason for the expression “joy of faith” (v.25) and sums up the result of the composition of 1:21–26 as a whole. Implicitly, v.26 contains the answer to the still open question of v.21 regarding the “gain” (κέρδος). Again, the language of the sentence is peculiar. The noun καύχημα in the pragmatic, ethical and eschatological sense, occurs elsewhere in Paul.80 It refers to the “success” as the result of the “progress of the gospel,” mentioned first in 1:12. If Paul’s hope for a return to Philippi after his dismissal from prison should materialize,81 the abundant benefits of his apostolic appearance will become obvious. It will truly be the Philippians’ success, to be sure, the success “in Christ,” occasioned by the apostle’s (“by me”) “re-appearance” (παρουσία πάλιν)82 in comparison with his first appearance when he brought the gospel to them (1:5–6; 4:15). 76  Prot. 335d: Οὐκ ἀφήσομέν σε, ὦ Σώκρατες· ἐὰν γάρ σὺ ἐξέλθῃς, οὐχ ὁμοίως ἡμῖν ἔσο­ νται οἱ διάλογοι. δέομαι οὖν σου παραμεῖναι ἡμῖν. 77 See my article, “Paul’s ‘Second Presence’ in Colossians,” in: Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 121–33. 78 The term χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως is unique in Paul; ‫ *א‬adds ὑμῶν for clarity. 79 For προκοπή see also Phil 1:12; 1 Tim 4:15; for the verb see Gal 1:14; 2 Tim 2:16; 3:9, 13. Cf. Klaus Thraede, “Fortschritt,” RAC 8 (1972) 141–82, esp. 148–51, but his idea that the early church did not know the concept of progress needs clarification: “Der F.[Fortschrittsgedanke], der Urgemeinde noch fremd, … wird erst im 2. Jh. aus der oben 148 f. beschriebenen Tradition übernommen und zur Idee eines Heilsplanes … ausgearbeitet … . ‘Stoische’ Begrifflichkeit war mit der Überlieferung gegeben.” 80 See the parallel in Phil 2:16: εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ. Cf. also 3:3; 2 Cor 1:12, 14; etc. Also BDAG, s. v. καύχημα, 1; Reumann, 229–30. 81 Cf. 1:19–23; cf. Phlm 22. 82 Cf. also Phil 2:12; 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 6:11–13; 7:2–4, 6–7; 10:10, and BDAG, s. v. παρουσία, 1; 2.a.

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

33

To sum up: What then is the resultant meaning of the phrase “to die is gain” (1:21)? If Paul would have to die, the gain would be his “being with Christ” (v.23), so that “living and dying with Christ” would come to the same benefit, and that would be Paul’s ultimate preference (v.23). However, complying with his own ethics of renunciation, he is willing to forfeit this benefit for the sake of the Philippians and their needs (vv.24–25). Assisting them in the “progress” of their church and thus in the increase of their “joy of faith” is also part of “life in Christ” (v.26). In principle, therefore, whatever the outcome of his trial will be, “whether through life or through death,” it will serve the glorification of Christ (v.20).83 d. The passage in its literary contexts Thus far, the analysis of the passage 1:21–26 has shown a composition with its three traditional components of an introductory sententia (v.21), its elaboration by an expositio (vv. 22–25), and a concluding epilogus (v.26), but also its embedding in the wider context of gnomological literature. At least since Wettstein’s collection of parallels to the New Testament,84 scholarly commentaries have pointed out an abundance of parallels in Greek and Latin literature. In his article of 1994, Samuel Vollenweider has shown the rhetorical and literary relationships of the passage. Accordingly, the passage not only allows a special insight into Paul’s personal life, but also expresses his viewpoint within controversies between different opinions in ancient literature (syncrisis),85 sometimes gathered in topoi, such as “life and death.” The widely distributed attestations of such sayings is demonstrated by anthologies, like those by Stobaeus,86 the “Greek Anthology,”87 or modern collections of tomb inscriptions.88 83  For the renunciation of privileges see my Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 78–85. 84  Wettstein, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 2, 264–66; Strecker and Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein, vol. 2, 656–66. 85  Vollenweider, “Waagschalen,” 93–102. 86  Ioannes Stobaeus, Anthologium, recensuerunt Curtius Wachsmuth et Otto Hense (1884–1912), 4.53 (vol. 5, 1097–1112, entitled Σύνκρισις ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου; see also Anthol. 4.51: περὶ θανάτου, and 4.52: ἔπαινος ζωῆς. 87  W. R. Paton, ed., The Greek Anthology, with an English translation (LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam, 1919–1927), esp. Books 7 and 10; Hermann Beckby, ed., Anthologia Graeca (Tusculum; 4 vols.; München: Heimeran, 1957–1958); Anthologie Grecque, texte établi par Pierre Waltz, traduit par P. Waltz, E. des Places, M. Dumitrescu, H. Le Maitre et G. Soury (Collection Budé; Paris: “Les belles lettres”, 21960). 88  See Richard Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: University of

34

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

The syncritical nature of these sayings is shown by their evaluative choosing, whether it is either life or death that is optimal, preferable, or “better” (κρεῖσσον), and by which “gain” (κέρδος) this can be proven.89 Roughly speaking, this “gain” can be stated negatively as liberation from all sorts of evil, or positively by opening ways to heaven and immortality. The decision between the two options is determined by basic anthropological and eschatological assumptions.90 At this point, a division in the material should be pointed out. While many of the passages are informed by popular religious ideas, behind them often appear notions coming from philosophy. Sayings expressing pessimism and rejection of afterlife altogether reflect doctrines of philosophical skepticism and epicureanism. As a result of such influences death is preferred, together with acceptance of what Fate (Tyche, Fatum) has ordained.91 On the other side, traditional eschatology could be modified by Platonic views on the immortality of the soul. Assumptions of the immortal soul took death to be the final separation of the soul from the body (χωρισμός), the former being sent on its way to heaven and joining the company of heroes and gods. Some sayings show influences of mystery-cult initiation of some sort. Those who affirmed those initiations believed in death as a positive event, by which human life did not end but continued in some form in the eternal life hereafter. These popular ideas are to be distinguished from higher articulations in the writings of philosophers and their schools. Most prominent are texts from Plato’s dialogues Phaedo, Phaedrus, Meno, and Symposion, which influenced middle-Platonism and Stoicism. Epicurean views were based on Epicurus’ Kyriai Doxai (Κ. Δ.), his letters, and other writings. e. Some typical examples In the following we shall present some characteristic examples expressing the various points of view, beginning with the gnomological material. As has been pointed out before, the initial phrase “For to me” (ἐμοὶ γὰρ, v.21) Urbana Press, 1942; repr. 1962), esp. 301–7, 309–16; Werner Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte (SQAW 7; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960); Id., Greek Verse Inscriptions. Epigrams on Funerary Stelae and Monuments (Chicago: Ares, 1988); Hieronymus Geist, ed. Gerhard Pfohl, Römische Grabinschriften (Tusculum; München: Heimeran, 1969); Gerhard Pfohl, “Grabinschrift I (griechische),” RAC 12 (1983) 467–514; Charles Pietri, “Grabinschrift II (lateinisch), ibid. 514–90; Imre Peres, Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie (WUNT 157; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 89 See Vollenweider, “Waagschalen,” 103–11. 90 See Peres (above, n. 88). 91 Peres, ibid., 20–41.

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

35

indicates that Paul intends his saying to function in a syncritical and dialogical environment. (1) Sententiae expressing a pessimistic or skeptical point of view: Προσδοκίη θανάτου πολυώδυνός ἐστιν ἀνίη· τοῦτο δὲ κερδαίνει θνητὸς ἀπολλύμενος. μὴ τοίνυν κλαύσῃς τὸν ἀπερχόμενον βιότοιο· οὐθὲν γὰρ θανάτου δεύτερόν ἐστι πάθος.

“The expectation of death is a trouble full of pain, and a mortal, when he dies, gains freedom of this. Weep not then for him who departs from life, for there is no suffering beyond death.”92

The beginning line states a popular view of death. The commentary explains that, contrary to this view, at death the mortal is liberated from the wrong fear of death. Hence, it makes no sense to weep for someone who is dying. This position is advocated by Skeptics and Epicureans, but also popularized by writers like Lucian of Samosata.93 Πλοῦς σφαλερὸς τὸ ζῆν· χειμαζόμενοι γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ πολλάκι ναυηγῶν πταίομεν οἰκτρότερα. Τὴν δὲ Τύχην βιότοιο κυβερνήτειραν ἔχοντες, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ πελάγος, ἀμφίβολοι πλέομεν, οἱ μὲν ἐπ’ εὐπλοίην, οἱ δ’ ἔμπαλιν· ἀλλ’ ἅμα πάντες εἰς ἕνα τὸν κατὰ γῆς ὅρμον ἀπερχόμεθα.

“Life is a perilous voyage, for often we are tempest-tossed in it and are now in a worse case than shipwrecked men. With Fortune at Life’s helm we sail uncertainly as on the open sea, some on a fair voyage, others the reverse: but all alike reach one harbour under the earth.”94

The composition begins with a proverbial statement defining life as a tempestuous voyage. The middle section elaborates the image of a wild sea voyage, where Tyche is in charge and the sailing unpredictable. The last line sums it 92 Text and translation cited according to W. R. Paton, The Greek Anthology 10.59 (LCL; vol. 4, 32–33); cf. also Beckby, Anthologia Graeca, vol. 3, 506–7 and 815, with references to Anthol. Gr. 9.111; Euripides, Frag. 452 ed. Nauck; and Epictetus, Ench. 5. 93 See the edition and translation by A. M. Harmon, “On Funerals” (περὶ πένθους) (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925), vol. 4, 112–31; for commentary see Betz, Lukian, 71–74. 94 Greek Anthology 10.65, cited according to the LCL edition, vol. 4, 36–37; cf. Beckby, Anthol. Graeca, vol. 3, 508–9.

36

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

all up: No matter how the voyage turns out, the travellers end up in the same place under the earth. As the following sayings show, the popular traditions continue in Latin as well. A tomb inscription from Rome addresses by-passers to keep in mind the hopeless facts of life. Nihil sumus et fuimus mortales. Respice, lector: in nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus. “Nothing we are, and mortals we were. Consider this, reader: Into nothing from nothing we fall back in the shortest of time.”95

A similar message is proclaimed in a tomb inscription from North Africa. Presented with a paradoxical definition of what life is about, the reader is challenged to make a choice. Vita bonum est et vita malum; mors neutrum habet ho[ru]m. Perspice, si sapias, quid magis expedia[t]. “Life is a good and life an evil; death has neither of these. Think of that, if you are smart: which of them is more expedient.”96

A similar but more colorful and satirical epigram comes from Rome. Presenting Venus and her gifts of life as irresistible but lethal attractions, they leave no choice but destruction. Balnea, vina, Venus corrumpunt corpora nostra, sed vitam faciunt b(alnea), v(ina), V(enus). “Baths, wines, Venus, they ruin our bodies, but life makes for baths, wines, and Venus.”97

(2) Sententiae expressing optimistic views: Σῶμα, πάθος ψυχῆς, ᾅδης, μοίρ’, ἄχθος, ἀνάγκη, καὶ δεσμὸς καρτερός, καὶ κόλασις βασάνων, ἀλλ’ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τοῦ σώματος, ὡς ἀπὸ δεσμῶν τοῦ θανάτου φεύγει πρὸς θεὸν ἀθάνατον.

“The body is affliction of the soul, it is Hades, Fate, doom, necessity, and sturdy bond and tormenting punishment. 95 Cited according to Geist and Pfohl, Römische Grabinschriften, no. 442, 166); translation is mine. 96 Ibid., no. 440, 166; translation is mine. 97 Ibid., no. 460, 171; translation is mine. Cf. Paul’s quotation of a proverb in 1 Cor 15:32: φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν. A warning of another proverb is attached (v.33): φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί. For parallels see Strecker and Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein, vol. 2, 396–404; and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians by Schrage, vol. 2, 246–47, and Zeller, 503.

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

37

But when the soul departs from the body as from the bonds of death, it flees to the deity immortal.”98

Life is seen here as the unbearable contradiction between body and soul. The first part of the saying lists the calamities of bodily existence as the imprisonment of the soul. Drawing on the traditional view of the immortal soul, release from the bodily prison enables her to flee to the deity immortal. Presupposing the Pythagorean-Platonic anthropology in popular simplicity, death is understood positively as liberation of the soul and her eternal refuge in the deity.99 Cf. the concluding lines of the Pythagorean “Golden Verses”: ἢν δ’ ἀπολείψας σῶμα ἐς αἰθέρ’ ἐλεύθερον ἔλθῃς, ἔσσεαι ἀθάνατος, θεὸς ἄμβροτος, οὐκέτι θνητός.

“Then, if you leave the body behind and go to the free aither, you will be immortal, an undying god, no longer mortal.”100

The following example, taken from a tombstone, addresses the by-passers as a self-presentation of the deceased in the first-person. The last line cites a well-known proverb. ἐς δὲ θεοὺς ἀνέλυσα [κ]αὶ ἀθανάτοισι μέτειμι· ὅσσους γὰρ φιλέουσι θεοὶ θνῄσκουσιν [ἄωροι]

“I have gone to the gods, I am among the immortals. ‘For those whom the gods love die untimely’”.101

(3) Sententiae in dialogical form As shown by previous examples, some sententiae set forth a dialogue by way of a question-and-answer format. An example of this is a saying attributed to Callimachos: Εἶπας, “Ήλιε, χαῖρε,” Κλεόμβρωτος Ὠμβρακιώτης ἤλατ’ ἀφ’ ὑψηλοῦ τείχεος εἰς Ἀίδην,  98 Cited

from Greek Anthology, 10.88 (LCL, vol. 4, 48–49; the translation is modified). on the whole topic Pierre Courcelle, “Gefängnis (der Seele),” RAC 9 (1976) 294–318; Idem, “Grab der Seele”, ibid. 12 (1983) 455–67. 100 Cited according to the edition and translation by Johan C. Thom, The Pythagorean Golden Verses. With introduction and commentary (RGRW 123; Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1995), 98–99 (ll.70–71). The commentary (223–29) contains rich documentation of the long tradition behind the statement. 101 Cited according to Lattimore, Themes, 49. The last lines quote a proverb, attested in Menander, “The Double-Deceiver” (Menander, ed. and translated by Francis G. Allinson [LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921], 344–45 [no. 125]).  99 See

38

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26) ἄξιον οὐδὲν ἰδὼν θανάτου κακόν, ἀλλὰ Πλάτωνος ἐν τῷ περὶ ψυχῆς γράμμ’ ἀναλεξάμενος.

“Cleombrotus the Ambracian saying ‘Farewell, O Sun,’ lept from a high wall to Hades, not that he saw any evil worthy of death, that he had read one treatise of Plato, that on the soul.”102

The saying takes the form of a story about a Cleombrotus who was driven to commit suicide not by witnessing the evils of death but merely by studying Plato’s dialogue “On the Soul” (Phaedo). The suicide of Cato minor (Uticensis) provides evidence that this is not an isolated fiction. However, the intent of the saying is to argue against using Plato’s Phaedo to justify suicide.103 The next sayings composition is set up as a deceased person invokes the deities of Earth and Child-birth. First, the death of the person is reported, and then his utter confusion is described. The portrait is satirical and intended to discredit skepticism. Γαῖα καὶ Εἰλήθυια, σὺ μὲν τέκες, ἡ δὲ καλύπτεις· χαίρετον· ἀμφοτέραις ἤνυσα τὸ στάδιον. εἰμὶ δὲ μὴ νοέων, πόθι νίσομαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑμέας ἢ τίνος ἢ τίς ἐὼν οἶδα πόθεν μετέβην.

“Earth and Eileithyia – you who gave me my life, and you who give me cover Greetings! Regarding you both my course has ended. I do not know whither I go, for I do not know you, or who my father is, or who I am, or whence I came over.”104

The next example presents a dialogue between Pyrrho and opponents testing him by questions regarding his main tenet. Κάτθανες ὦ Πύρρων; – “Ἐπέχω”· – Πυμάτην μετὰ μοῖραν φὴς ἐπέχειν; “Ἐπέχω”· σκέψιν ἔπαυσε τάφος.

“Are you dead, Pyrrho? – ‘I suspend judgment.’ As late as after Fate (has acted) you repeat holding your judgment? – ‘I suspend judgment.’ The tomb ended the doubt.”105 102 Greek

Anthology, 7.471, LCL vol. 2, 256–57; for commentary see The Greek Anthology, ed. by A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), vol. 2, 204–5. 103 See Plutarch’s Life of Cato the Younger 68.2, according to the edition and translation by Bernadotte Perrin (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919), vol. 8, 400–401). For further examples, see Benz, Das Todesproblem, 111–19. 104 The Greek Anthology, 7.566 (LCL, vol. 2, 334–35). The translation is modified. 105 Ibid., 7.576 (LCL, vol. 2, 340); translation is mine. Concerning the final clause, the question is, Who is the speaker, the deceased or the questioner? Cf. the French translation

3. A statement of principle (1:21–26)

39

The satirical exchange takes place in the underworld between Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE), the founder of philosophical Skepticism, and an opponent of that view. Pyrrho is shown as constantly repeating the standard term ἐπέχω (“I suspend judgment”).106 His skepticism even prevents him from acknowledging his own death, thus showing pyrrhonism to be absurd. The piece belongs to Lucian’s work “Dialogues of the Dead.”107 (4) Dialogues in narratives As indicated by several of the previous examples, some of them are combined with larger narrative contexts. Most famous are those narrating the death of Socrates, connected with Plato’s Phaedo. The large reception history of the Phaedo108 includes Ps.-Plato (Philip of Opus), Epinomis,109 and, perhaps depending on it, the Axiochus.110 Furthermore, this history includes Crantor’s famous but lost essay Περὶ πένθους (“On Mourning”),111 which served as a model for an entire consolation literature, among it: Cicero in his Tusculanae Disputationes,112 Ps.-Plutarch’s “Consolation to Apollonius,” (Παραμυθητικὸς πρὸς Ἀπολλώνιον),113 and Seneca in his Ad Marciam De consolatione, Ad Polybium De consolatione, and De consolatione ad Helviam.114 (Anthologie grecque; vol. 5, 99): “C’est toi que la tomb tient; et elle a mis fin à tes hésitations.” 106  For this terminology (ἐπέχω, ἐποχή) see Woldemar Görler, in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/2: “Älterer Pyrrhonismus – Jüngere Akademie – Antiochos aus Askalon,” (Basel: Schwabe, 1994) 816–18. 107  See the LCL edition and translation by M. D. Macleod, Lucian, vol. 7, 1–175. 108  See for bibliography and research Michael Erler, [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 2/2: Platon (Basel: Schwabe, 2007), 174–84. 109  See, esp. 973d–974a; and Leonardo Tarán, Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975), 155–57; Hans Joachim Krämer, in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: “Die ältere Akademie,” (Basel: Schwabe, 1983; 22004) 103–20. 110  See Erler, [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 2/2, 333–35, 674. 111  See Krämer, “Die ältere Akademie,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3, 151, 153, 161–64, 167–68. 112  See Tusc. 1.115; 3.12; 3.71. Cited here according to the LCL edition and translation by J. E. King (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927). For valuable notes see the Tusculum edition by Olof Gigon, Gespräche in Tusculum; Tusculanae Disputationes, lat. und deutsch (München and Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 71998). 113  See Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 2; LCL edition by Frank C. Babbitt (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), 101F–122A, 108–211; see Jean Hani, Plutarque, Consolation à Apollonius (Etudes et commentaires 78; Paris: Klincksieck, 1972), quoting Crantor at chapter 3, 6, and 25. 114  For Seneca’s essays on consolation, see the LCL edition by John W. Basore, Seneca,

40

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

(5) Sententiae in philosophical literature Another dimension to be noted is that gnomological sententiae can be integrated in diverse ways in philosophical literature. In philosophical contexts complicated arguments can be supported by proverbial or poetic sayings in any number of ways. One example will have to demonstrate the phenomenon. The text is attributed to Epicharmos’ Fragments, a satirical version directed against Epicureanism: Emori nolo, sed me esse mortuum nihili aestimo. “Dying I do not want, but being dead I regard for nothing.”115

4. Phil 1:21–26 as Paul’s intervention The example of anti-Epicureanism, cited above, raises the question as to whether Paul’s sayings composition should be seen in the context of general gnomological literature, or in the larger context of contemporary religio-philosophical debates on the topic of “life and death.” In addition, is Paul’s composition of 1:21–26 to be taken as a statement of principle in the context of the Philippian letter as a whole, intended to answer the Philippians’ question of 1:12 (τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ)? Or should the composition be treated as a separate and single sententia, alongside other sententiae in this letter? If the former expresses his intention, Paul would respond to the Philippians’ question of 1:12 by deepening it and offering an intervention challenging the major alternatives of the era. The intellectual environment of Paul’s letter, at his time, offered mainly three options, all having to do with the nature of the soul (ψυχή). Basic are the Pythagorean-Platonic theories about the immortality of the soul (Socrates, Plato, Platonic Academy, Neoplatonism), opposed by Epicureanism, and recast by Stoicism. For obvious reasons, the present discussion will have to be confined to a few examples. 1. The Platonic idea of the unity of life and soul: The doctrine was introduced by the Platonic Socrates in Phaed. 78b–84b, 102b–107b; Phaedr. 245c–250c; Tim. 34b–37c, 41d, 43a, 90a–d; it was defended from then on

Moral Essays, vol. 2 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932). 115  Cited by Cicero, Tusc. 1.15; see Epicharmos, Frag. 247, Diels-Kranz, Vorsokratiker, 23 B 11; and Gigon’s commentary on Cic., Tusc. 1.15–17, 260–61.

4. Phil 1:21–26 as Paul’s intervention

41

in Platonism generally, but in the Academy only selectively.116 In particular, Plutarch states that for Platonism “life” and “soul” form an eternal unity. Platonism’s concept of soul involves the individual soul as well as the world-soul. Δύναμις οὖν ζωτικὴ ἡ ψυχή, δύναμις δ’ ἡ ὡς ἕξις. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐλευθέρα καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἐνεργείας ἀκώλυτος. ἔχουσα γὰρ ζωήν, μᾶλλον δ’ οὖσα ζωή, κινεῖται καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ὁπότε βούλεται.

“Soul is, then, a vital potentiality, but a potentiality in the form of a state of being. For this reason it is also free and unimpeded in its activities, since having life, or rather being life it moves of itself whenever it wishes.”117

2. Quite the contrary was declared by Epicurus, when he sharply differentiates between the popular beliefs about the gods, which are simply regarded as superstition, and the true deity that should be believed in, which is radically otherworldly: πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετ’ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαζε.

“but [you shall] believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality.”118

From this presupposition, Epicurus draws the conclusion regarding death: Συνέθιζε δὲ ἐν τῷ νομίζειν μηδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὸν θάνατον· ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακὸν ἐν αἰσθήσει· στέρησις δέ ἐστιν αἰσθήσεως ὁ θάνατος. ὅθεν γνῶσις ὀρθὴ τοῦ μηθὲν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν θάνατον ἀπολαυστὸν ποιεῖ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς θνητόν, οὐκ ἄπειρον προστιθεῖσα χρόνον ἀλλὰ τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἀφελομένη πόθον. οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν δεινὸν τῷ κατειληφότι γνησίως τὸ μηθὲν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ μὴ ζῆν δεινόν.

“Accustom thyself to believe that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply sentience, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore, a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life an illimitable time, but by taking away the yearning after 116 For texts, see Erler, Platon, [Ueberweg], Philosophie der Antike, 2/2, 375–90; Heinrich Dörrie and Matthias Baltes, eds., Der Platonismus in der Antike, vol. 6/1–2 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2002). 117 Ps.-Plutarch (?), Parsne an facultas animi sit vita passiva 5 (LCL ed. by F. H. Sandbach, Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 15: Fragments [1969], 66–67). 118 Epicurus, Epist. ad Menoeceum, according to Diog. L. 10.123 (LCL edition of Diogenes Laertius by R. D. Hicks [London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925], vol. 2, 648–49); cf. also Κ. Δ.1 (ibid., 662–65).

42

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly apprehended that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live.”119

For the Epicurean, since there is neither an immortal soul, nor the fear of death, the question remains what quality of human life can there be at all? For the Epicurean “wise man” this human life is open for high qualities, even those that used to be reserved for the gods. “The wise man does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life.”120 Instead he, a free man, grows open to the “desires” (ἐπιθυμίαι) for the “pleasures” (ἡδοναί) this life has to offer: “Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of the blessed life.”121 After serious consideration given to the benefits and dangers of “pleasure” the letter to Menoeceus ends with this epilog: Ταῦτα οὖν καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς πρός τε τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ’ ὕπαρ οὔτ’ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ζήσεις δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῷ ζῴῳ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς.

“Exercise yourself in these and kindred precepts day and night, both by yourself and who is like you; then never, either in waking or in dream, will you be disturbed, but will live as a god among men. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings.”122

3. Different from the preceding two positions are those held by philosophers confessing to forms of Stoicism. The problem with these positions is that they were shifting between variations of Stoicism almost from one Stoic to another. In the debates within Stoicism some have stayed closer to Platonism, while others have adapted ideas from Epicureanism.123 Crucial for the question of life and death was that the so-called Old Academy gave up the Platonic belief in the immortal soul and its continued life after death. Instead, Stoicism developed the concept of a material power of spirit-life which animates the entire universe.124 Accordingly, all forms of life and death are interchangeable  Ibid., 124–125 (LCL, vol. 2, 650–51). Cf. Κ. Δ. 2 (ibid. 664–65): Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ· τὸ δὲ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς (“Death is 119

nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us”). 120  126: ὁ δὲ σοφὸς οὔτε παραιτεῖται τὸ ζῆν οὔτε φοβεῖται τὸ μὴ ζῆν. 121  128: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λεγόμενον εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν. 122  Ep. ad Menoeceum, Diog. L. 10.135 (LCL, 658–59; translation is modified). 123 See the survey of the problems by Matthias Baltes, “Die Todesproblematik in der griechischen Philosophie,” in his ΔΙΑΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ. Kleine Schriften zu Platon und zum Platonismus, 157–89. On the soul (ψυχή) see Erler, Platon, 375–90 (697–99); 464–73 (714–16); Burkert, Griechische Religion, 299–304, 444–48, 475–81, 494. 124 See Benz, Das Todesproblem, 4–16.

4. Phil 1:21–26 as Paul’s intervention

43

by “transformation” (μεταβολή, ἀλλοίωσις) of “elements” one into the other. Poseidonios seems to have been the one who introduced the concept of a creative power (δύναμις) of spirit, by which the human soul (πεῦμα ψυχικόν) ascends to be a divinely inspired ζῷον λογικόν. This “life-power,” however, ends at death also for the soul, which mixes with the elements of the universe. Therefore, life and death are transforming phases in the processes of the natural world.125 4. Paul’s intervention is stated briefly by the words τὸ ζῆν Χριστός. The term Χριστός is the name Paul gives to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whom he also calls ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα.126 The name also refers to the divine epithet [ὁ] Χριστός.127 The nature of this epithet deserves more analysis than can be given at this point. Different from the simple adjective attributed to the name Jesus, the epithet “Christ” transforms the bare name Jesus into an honorific title “Jesus Messiah.”128 The further attribute “according the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα) begins to unfold an account undergirding it, which includes all of christology.129 Thus, the high status of divinity at once honors the lowly beginnings of Jesus of Nazareth.130 Further honorific titles, epitheta ornantia, hymnic doxologies, metaphors, and even ethical qualifications (“virtues”) are adopted and adapted to underscore the rank of the redeemer. The highest epithetic titles given to Jesus are “the Lord”(ὁ κύριος),131 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Son of God”),132 and ὁ σωτήρ (“the Savior”).133 A wider field is entered with “power” (δύναμις, ἐνέργεια)134 and “virtue” (ἀρετή),135 as well as identifications, such as λόγος (“Speech, Word”),136 νοῦς (“Reason”),137

125

 Ibid., 17–29.  See Rom 1:3; 8:3; 9:3; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:14–21. 127 See BDAG, s. v. Χριστός, 1–2. 128  Paul, however, does not use or explain what he would mean by the term Μεσσίας. See Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation. Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 129  Phil 2:6–11; Rom 1:3–4; 9:3, 5; with reference to Paul, cf. Phil 1:22, 24; 3:3, 4. 130  Notably, Paul never uses the name “Jesus of Nazareth” vel sim. 131 See κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός, Phil 2:11; 3:8. 132 Cf. 1 Thess 1:10; BDAG, s.v υἱός, 2.d.β. 133 See Phil 3:20. 134 See for δύναμις Rom 1:4; 1:16–20; 1 Cor 1:18–24; etc.; Phil 3:10; for ἐνέργεια Phil 3:21; ἐνεργεῖν Phil 2:13; 1 Cor 12:6; etc. 135 Notably, Paul does not apply the term ἀρετή to God or Christ, but he has God generate ethical “virtues” as “fruit of the spirit” (ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος), Gal 5:22–23; Phil 4:8. 136 Phil 1:14 (cf. v.l.); 2:16. 137 See Phil 4:7; 1 Cor 2:16: νοῦς Χριστοῦ (cf. 1 Cor 2:10–16; BDAG, s. v. νοῦς, 3). 126

44

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

πνεῦμα (“Spirit”).138The highest virtue is ἀγάπη (“Love”).139 God and Christ are virtually identical with respect to ἀγάπη.140 Through the divine spirit all

other ethical qualities are generated in the Christian believers,141 and thus cover the entire process of “salvation” (σωτηρία).142 The hymn cited in Phil 2:6–11 describes this salvation as a process, beginning with a divine being voluntarily leaving heaven, transforming himself from a divine into a human being. This transformation meant climbing down the hierarchical ladder to the lowest conditions of human existence and resulting in total incarnation, servitude and death on the cross included. Why did God in heaven let it all happen? Is it conceivable that the endurance of ultimate horror is the ultimate test of being divine? That was truly the case for Christ, but what about God himself? Was it the ultimate challenge to God’s supreme justice and sovereignty? The conjunction διό (“for this reason,” v.9) implies the answer that indeed it was a test of sovereign justice. God awarded Christ’s incarnation by his resurrection, ascension, and installation as the κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός (“Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father,” 2:11). In this way God decreed by precedent that no one can justifiably be called “the son of God” unless he has first earned this honor and title by “incarnation” as a human being. This ultimate decree carries ἀγάπη to its highest fulfillment. Thus, it is also to be held up against pagan mythical stories of divinities disguising themselves temporarily as “sons of gods” by merely putting on an ornate apparel (μορφή). If this interpretation is correct, it would make it one of the earliest Christian statements against human deification as practiced in pagan religions. This interpretation also implies a test of the Father’s justice. It was tested by the giving up of his most precious and only son as the ultimate sacrifice imaginable. A god who gave even “his own” can be trusted to grant all of salvation.143 In other words, Paul’s view of the justice of God the Father implies that he shared the ultimate suffering of human beings when they have to give up those whom they love the most. This theology is the very opposite of the Epicurean notion of the gods that they have absolutely nothing to do with human affairs, Phil 1:19, 27; 2:1; 3:3; cf. BDAG, s. v. πνεῦμα, 5.a. Phil 1:9, 16; 2:1–2; BDAG, s. v., 1.b. Cf. Rom 5:5, 8; 8:35–39; 1 Cor 13:1–13; Gal 5:19–22. 140 See Rom 5:8; 8:35, 39; 1 Cor 13:1–11; 2 Cor 13:11. For Phil see 1:9, 16; 2:1–2. On the whole, see BDAG, s. v. ἀπάγη, 1.a. 141 See Gal 5:19–23, and my commentary on Galatians, ad loc. 142 Cf. σωτηρία Phil 1:19, 28; 2:12; 3:20–21: σωτήρ. 143 Rom 8:32: ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται; cf. also Rom 8:3. 138 See 139 See

4. Phil 1:21–26 as Paul’s intervention

45

be they good or bad. According to Paul, however, the death of his son on the cross means that the righteous God has fully identified himself with human affairs. What are these human affairs? Human existence is to receive all of the graces God has to give, and to have to give them up again. Human life is the partaking in all divine benefits, and human death is having to give it all up again. What may come as a surprise to many Christian believers is the fact that in ancient mythology, Greek and Roman, these ideas are by no means alien. The sharpest rejection of them was proclaimed by Epicurus whose gods he conceded may exist in total isolation from humanity, but their “life” is totally empty of all human experiences, be they joy or sorrow. As a result, the Epicurean “wise humans” are the only real gods, living out heavenly pleasures in a world totally free from troubles and pains. Such divine life is, paradoxically, completely void of human experiences. By contrast, the message of the Philippian hymn is the foundation of the Christian ethical way of life as “Christ-life,” so that Paul can call upon his followers, “Become imitators together with me, brothers [and sisters], and observe those walking on this way for which you have us as a prototype.”144 In sum, according to Philippians, the expression τὸ ζῆν Χριστός (“Living [is] Christ”) in fact encompasses theology, christology, ethics and eschatology in their entirety. Although this is not the place to lay out all of it in detail, Paul does not forget to insert some caveats to remember in view of reaching the eschatological fulfillment through the resurrection from the dead. The christological foundation remains the spiritual and ritual realization of the communion with Christ’s suffering and death. Only on this basis can there be hope for reaching the resurrection from the dead. Paul takes up a concern that he has elaborated earlier in Rom 6–8, where he has reinterpreted the doctrine of baptism to make it conform to the formula τὸ ζῆν Χριστός. Without that link the question would remain unanswered, how the Christian believer is enabled to become a partner in Christ’s suffering and death?145 To provide this explanation Paul developed his reinterpretation of the ritual of baptism. This ritual provides for the “implanting” of the baptized into the body of Christ (σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ).146 In Romans 6–8 Paul lays out in detail how he 144 Phil 3:17: Συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτως περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς. See also Chapter IV, below. 145 Phil 3:10–11: τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ [τὴν] κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. The beginning word εἴ πως should not be overlooked; it does connect with the conjunction of διό in 2:9. 146 Rom 6:5: εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα.

46

II. A Statement of Principle (Phil 1:21–26)

envisions his doctrine of baptism would supplement the theology of the Philippian hymn (2:6–11).147 The expression “living is Christ” (τὸ ζῆν Χριστός) involves the demand to live out the realities of the daily life as συζῆν αὐτῷ: “If [in baptism] we have died together with Christ, we believe that we will also live together with him.”148 Life and death together also bring freedom from sin once and for all (Rom 6:8–11, 18–23). Finally, then, what according to Phil 1:21 is the “gain” (κέρδος)? The ultimate answer is concise and simple: “Living is Christ” is “living together with Christ” (συζῆν Χριστῷ), and that is “living for God” (ζῆν τῷ θεῷ).

147  Cf. Phil 2:8: ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. For more see my article, “Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism

in Romans 6,” in Paulinische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze III, 240–71. 148  Rom 6:8–11: εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ.

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21) 1. Introduction It is not an overstatement to say that Phil 3:1–21 is one of the most contested passages of Paul’s letters. The history of research on this passage has been reported variously in commentaries, essays, and introductions dealing with Philippians.1 Thus far, however, none of these works has resulted in a consensus but at most in yet another hypothesis. In this regard, our following analysis of the passage is different because of its rhetorical and literary description of the text segment in question. By contrast, earlier interpretations provide either readings traditionally held, or a harmonizing summary of the presumed content, if not simply guesswork.2 What has been missing is an examination of the existing data of the Greek text placed in its rhetorical and literary context. Such an examination is to be presented in the following essay.

1

 The commentary by John Reumann (completed c. 2002, published 2008), 451–605, contains an almost exhaustive report of the current status of research, from which a great deal is to be learned. However, no definite solution has been achieved by what amounts to a collection of references to secondary literature. Important remain the observations by Lightfoot (1868; reprinted ¹²1981), especially in the excursus on “Lost Epistles to the Philippians?” (138–42, 125–26), responding to Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul (London: Murray, 21859), vol. 1, 195–201: “On the Probability that many of St. Paul’s Epistles have been Lost.” For the older sources see Weiss (1859), 214–20; Gnilka (1968), 6–11, 184–210 has more recent material. 2  Of course, this has also affected standard translations, e. g., NRSV (1989): “To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.” REB (1989): “To repeat what I have written to you before is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.” ZB (2007): “Euch stets dasselbe zu schreiben, zögere ich nicht, euch aber gebe es Sicherheit.” Reumann, 451: “To write the same things to you does not cause me hesitation and provides steadfastness for you.”

48

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

2. The Greek text a. The Transition from Phil 3:1a to 3:1b Viewing the section by itself, it is asyndetic both at the beginning and the end.3 3:1a points to the end of the previous text segment containing the commendation of Epaphroditus (2:25–30): “Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord.”4 3:1b appears to begin an independent sentence without connection. This new sentence forms an introduction to 3:2–21. Correspondingly, the end of this passage in 3:21 has no connection to the following statement in 4:1, so that the particle ὥστε (“therefore”) does not refer to the previous text segment, but continues the concluding statement of 3:1a: “Therefore, my brothers, beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, thus stand firm in the Lord, beloved.”5 Regarding the content of the passage 3:1b–21, Lightfoot’s observations are to the point: “The reference, it is urged, cannot be explained from the epistle itself, since it does not supply any topic which satisfies the two conditions, of occurring in the immediate context, and of being repeated elsewhere in the course of the letter.”6 Differently, Gnilka proposes that 3:1b is the beginning of a fragment of a previously independent letter of Paul to the Philippians. Assuming a break (“Bruch”) between 3:1a and 1b, he calls the new letter a “combative letter” (“Kampfbrief”), extending from 3:1b to 4:1, 8–9.7 Gnilka’s aim to base his hypothesis on modern research may have in effect led 3  This is acknowledged by Gnilka, 7, 165, 185; Fee, 288; cf. Lohmeyer, 123–24, who speaks of an “Überleitung” (transition) and takes ἀσφαλές as “äussere und innere Gewissheit” (internal conviction). 4  3:1a: Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ. 5  4:1: Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, χαρὰ καὶ στέφανός μου, οὕτως στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοί. Variant readings in some manuscripts show that scribes were baffled by the repeated ἀγαπητοί. B 33 sy add μου, while D* and mss of vg, followed by others omit it. 6  Lightfoot, 138, in his excursus “Lost Epistles to the Philippians?” (138–42; also in the notes 125–26). He belongs to the few who take the reference to the plural ἐπιστολαί (letters) in Polycarp, Phil 3:2 seriously. After some discussion about cases of alternating between the singular and plural in some sources he concludes that “it would appear probable that Polycarp refers solely to the extant Epistle to the Philippians;” i. e., to only one letter, as also later in history Paul’s Philippians is known (142). Lightfoot, however, deems less likely the possibility of the one letter being the work of a post-Pauline redactor, or the fact that the section in Paul has no formal indications of being a letter. 7 So Gnilka, 6–11,184–210, stating p. 165: “Die Feststellung [3:1b] kann sich nur auf die 3,2 ff. einsetzende Warnung vor den Irrlehrern beziehen.” Similarly Helmut Koester, Paul & His World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 72–75.

2. The Greek text

49

him to overlook that the “Kampfbrief” lacks the characteristics of a letter. Since this situation of uncertainty reflects the evidence, the question of the nature of 3:1b remains to be answered. Who is its author? Did Paul, as the original author,8 or a later redactor compose 3:1b? In any case, it appears to be an introductory statement concerning what is to follow in 3:2–21. If Paul is the original author, the term τὰ αὐτὰ points forward to the written text of 3:2–21 and would have to mean “the following.” This text is “written” in the sense of “rewritten” or “copied” from a Vorlage. The verb γράφειν implies that the text of 3:2–21 is the same (τὰ αὐτὰ)9 as that of the Vorlage, so that the statement is one of authentication. This authentication is valid, because it comes from the author himself who looks at both Vorlage and copy comparatively. That such authentication is or ought to be by Paul himself can be confirmed by parallels.10 Two further conclusions can be drawn from this: Paul has the Vorlage on hand, perhaps from a kind of copy book, so that the term γράφειν refers to “rewriting” and not to the creation of a new writing from scratch.11 Also, the phrase ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρόν, much debated in the exegetical literature, finds its explanation. Paul ascertains that the rewriting is his own handwriting and not that of a scribe.12 The phrase οὐκ ὀκνηρόν (“not a burden”) implies an exception: While usually Paul may employ a secretary for the final draft,13 out of urgency he had now to do the copying himself, which is why he assures the Philippians that it is not a burden to him.14 This does not exclude the possibility that the Vorlage Paul is copying was first written by a scribe, although it is in the first person singular; in this case Paul’s handwriting would authenticate the rewriting of it. If the text 3:1b introduces 3:2–21, it must have been added by Paul before he began the copying. Indeed, the copied text represents material of a quite  8  In 3:1b–21, as throughout Philippians, Paul speaks as author in the first person singular, while Timothy is co-sender (cf. 1:1).  9 Textually, ‫ *א‬F G P read ταῦτα for τὰ αὐτὰ, perhaps due to scribal hearing. 10  Cf. the formulae in Gal 6:11; 1 Cor 16:3, 21; Phlm 19; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17; cf. 2 Pet 3:15–16. See Betz, Galatians, 313–14. 11 Therefore, γράφειν has the sense of μεταγράφειν, on which see BDAG, s. v., with passages. 12 Cf. Gal 6:11: ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί. See for parallels BDAG, s. v. χείρ, 1. 13 Cf. Rom 16:22 for the secretary Tertius; see BDAG, s.v Τέρτιος. 14 See for parallels BDAG, s. v. ὀκνηρός, 2. Textually, some minuscles (104, 323, 614, 629, 945, 2464) add the article τὸ, no doubt a secondary clarification taking ὀκνηρόν as a noun corresponding to τὸ ἀσφαλές. Some commentators postulate an epistolary “hesitation formula” (see J. T. Reed, “Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary Integrity of Philippians,” JBL 115 [1996] 63–90; cf. critically Reumann, 458–59; Aletti, 222–25), but the evidence suggests “non seulement une formule épistolaire courante, mais une expression de ferveur et de zèle dans l’affection” (Spicq, Notes, vol. 2, 614–15).

50

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

different sort. For one, the opening barrage of rhetorical invectives has no obvious connection with the letter before or after, but it supplies a warning against the kind of adversaries of the apostle which we know from earlier letters. The warning, therefore, is brought in as a “safeguard” against a threat confronting the Philippians in the future (ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές).15 In other words, Paul’s opponents have not yet made their appearance in Philippi, but he foresees the danger to come in the future.16 Taken by itself, the warning is not as such a letter, but a different kind of writing to be of use for the Philippians, when the danger will eventually threaten to occur. What then is the danger? Probably, it would parallel the situation of the Galatians in that the Philippians might be seduced by the opponents to change from Paul’s version of the gospel to theirs (cf. Gal 1:6–9).17 b. The Problem of the Genre of Phil 3:2–21 As already noted, the “copy” in Phil 3:2–21 does not by itself exhibit any epistolary traits.18 Since there is no epistolary prescript or epilogue, an originally independent text should conform to a different literary category. The question is, therefore, which category it could represent. Its acerbic polemic at the beginning (3:2) shows the feature of invective, well-known from ancient rhetoric,19 but the invective only prefaces the entire content of the segment which by itself is different. What is an “invective”? According to rhetorical definition, “The ancient rhetorical genre of the invective is defined by its intention, ‘to denigrate permanently a person of public distinction in human perception.’ The concept, therefore, designates a primary intention of speech, rather than a formally fixed rhetorical genre. Invectives can be manifest in various rhetorical, but also literary forms.”20 15  Cf. Acts 25:26: περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἔχω …; 21:34; 22:30; see BDAG, s. v., 3. 16  For such warnings cf. Gal 1:6–9; 2:4–5; 5:1–12; 6:12–16; 2 Cor 11:1–13:10; Rom 16:17–20. 17  For the interpretation, see my commentary, Galatians, 44–54. 18  The addresses ἀδελφοί in 3:13 and 3:17 are part of the paraenesis. 19  Greek ψόγος, διαβολή (Latin oratio invectiva, vituperatio, as opposed to Greek ἔπαινος (Latin laus, laudatio). See Uwe Neumann, “Invektive,” HWRh 4 (1998) 549–61; Hermann Stauffer, “Polemik,” ibid. 6 (2003) 1403–1415. 20  Thus the definition of Neumann, “Invektive,” 549: “Die antike rhetorische Gattung der I.[nvektive] ist durch ihre Absicht definiert, eine öffentlich bedeutsame Person ‘im Bewusstsein der Menschen für immer vernichtend herabzusetzen.’ Der Begriff bezeichnet also eher eine bestimmte Redeabsicht als eine formal umrissene rhetorische Gattung.

2. The Greek text

51

In Phil 3:2–21, the invective would be caused by previous hostility, not by the Philippians but by Paul’s opponents, so that its main function would be that of an apologetic rebuttal. Koster’s investigation provides the basis for the following application to the Pauline passage.21 It should be noted that since the Athenian orator Demosthenes (384–322 BCE) and his orations against King Philipp II. of Macedonia (382–336 BCE), a special type of speech developed which Cicero, alluding to Demosthenes, called “philippics.” Cicero himself authored 14 such orations against his archenemy Marcus Antonius (82–30 BCE), later called “philippics,”22 of which number 2 delivers the most ravaging personal attacks, employing an entire catalog of insulting expressions.23 The features of Paul’s invective are three warnings (3:2), which prefix an apologetic argument. The three warnings are resounding calls: Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν (“Look at these dogs, look at these bad workers, look at the mutilation!”). Formally, the calls are characteristically “dramatic.”24 Addressing the readers (hearers) they focus their attention upon the behavior displayed by the opponents. The first insult compares them to dogs (κύνες),25 in antiquity an animal of contempt.26 The second insult labels them as κακοὶ ἐργάται (“bad workers”), a term occurring also in a similar context in 2 Cor 11:13 as ἐργάται δόλιοι (“deceitful workI.[nvektiven] können sich deshalb in mehreren rhetorischen, aber auch in literarischen Formen manifestieren.” Neumann refers to the basic investigation by Severin Koster, Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur (BKP 99; Meisenheim: Hain, 1980), 354. 21  Besides Koster, see the studies by Ilona Opelt, Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie (BKAW NF, 2. Reihe; Heidelberg: Winter, 1965); Ead., Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischen Literatur von Tertullian bis Augustin (BKAW NF, 2. Reihe 63; Heidelberg: Winter, 1980). 22  See Thomas Paulsen, “Philippika,” HWRh 6 (2003) 943–48. On Cicero’s Philippics 2 see the edition and translation by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, revised by John T. Ramsey and Gesine Manuwald (LCL 189; 507; Cicero, Philippics, 2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). 23 See Gesine Manuwald’s commentary and introduction, Cicero’s Philippics 3–9 (TK 30; 2 vols.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007). Accordingly (20–22), no. 2 was a self-defense against Marcus Antonius, written in October 44 BCE, but not presented in the Senate, later revised by Cicero and after his death published by Atticus who had a copy. See also Stephanie Kurczyk, Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit. Autobiographisches Schreiben in der späten Römischen Republik (Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 2006), 279–91. 24 Cf. Koster, Die Invektive, 44–46, 85. 25 For such comparisons see Koster, Die Invektive, 367 (index, s. v. “Tiervergleich”); Heinz-Jürgen Loth, “Hund,” RAC 16 (1994) 773–828, esp. 794–95, 805–14, 825–26. 26 In the NT see Matt 7:6; 15:26–27; Luke 16:21; Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 22:15; moreover Did 9:5; IgnEph 7:1; Gospel of Thomas (NHC 22/2, 102); and BDAG, s. v. κύων; Opelt, Polemik, s. v. canes, canis; Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 495–500.

52

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

ers”); cf. ἐργάτης ἀνεπαίσχυντος (“unashamed worker”) 2 Tim 2:15.27 The third term κατατομή (“mutilation”) is a satirical wordplay on circumcision (περιτομή),28 introducing the word and issue of the next sentence.

3. The Genre of memorandum What is a memorandum? – Taking the segment by itself, it can easily be recognized as fitting the category of memorandum (Greek ὑπόμνημα). This category is used widely and diversely in Greek and Roman, and later in Christian literature, and especially in the papyri.29 The word refers to memory, reminding, and saving for later usage. Since Plato, it also applied to pieces of writing,30 either for memory’s sake, as documents,31 or in preparation of larger historical or autobiographical works.32

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum Paul’s memorandum is carefully composed, apparently for multiple usages in situations of controversy requiring documentary evidence.33 Besides the introductory invective already discussed above (3:2), it has three major parts: 1. an apologetic argument in the form of an autobiographical sketch

 See BDAG, s. v. ἐργάτης, 1.b.  Cf. Paul’s sarcastic joke in Gal 5:12: Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. See Betz, Galatians, 270: “those agitators, they had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves” (trans. REB). 29  For informative discussion see Tiziano Dorandi, “Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern,” ZPE 87 (1991) 11–33; Hermann Eichele, “Hypomnema,” HWRh 4 (1998) 122–28, with literature. 30  Theaet. 143a–c; Ps.-Plato, Epist. 12, 359c–e; 13, 363e. Certainly, Plato’s Seventh Epistle, whether authentic or not, should be considered in this context. See Erler, Platon, [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, 2/2, 314–18, 669–72. 31 This points to legal functions; see Tilo Werner, “Urkunde,” HWRh 9 (2009) 934–41 (bibl.). 32  See Klaus Meister, “Autobiographische Literatur und Memoiren (Hypomnemata) (FGrHist 227–238),” in: Herman Verdin et al., eds., Purposes of History. Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries B. C. (Studia Hellenistica 30; Leuven: Orientaliste, 1990), 83–89; Johannes Engels, “Die ΥΠΟΜΝΕΜΑΤΑ-Schriften und die Anfänge der politischen Biographie und Autobiographie in der griechischen Literatur,” ZPE 96 (1993) 19–36. 33 Cf. Koster, Die Invective, 181–200, and the material cited there. 27 28

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

53

(3:3–11); 2. an example from the world of sports (3:12–16), and 3. a paraenetical appeal (3:17–21). a. An autobiographical sketch (3:3–11) (1) The issue of contention The apologetic argument begins by stating the issues (facta, dicta) provoking the controversy: “For we are those who are the circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and boast in Jesus Christ and do not place confidence in the flesh.”34 This statement sums up the claim made by Paul and his followers.35 It is precisely this claim, however, which, together with its three facts, is rejected by the adversaries. As Paul understands the matter: What is at stake is that the proposed revision of the separation between Christians and Jews is being rejected by the opponents. This issue is more fully stated in the argument about circumcision in Rom 2:25–29, pointedly in Rom 2:29: “… but the Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly hidden, and circumcision is really a matter of the heart, in spirit [and] not by letter, [so that] the person’s praise comes not from humans but from God.” (…  ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). Paul’s definition of the truly circumcised comprises three participial formulae. In Phil 3:3, they are “those who worship in [the] spirit of God” (οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες),36 “boast in Christ Jesus” (καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστησοῦ),37 “and who don’t place their confidence in [the] physical body” (καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες).38 This definition of the inwardly true Jew opens up the possibility of including in it the Gentile believers in Christ. Consequently, the external performance of ritual circumcision is of secondary importance, if not altogether irrelevant. Paul draws this conclusion in the “rule” (Gal 6:15): “For neither is 34  3:3: ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες. The trans. is the NRSV. 35  It is written consistently in the first person singular when referring to Paul himself (vv.1b, 4–11, 12–14, 17a, 18), and in the first person plural when referring to the Christian community (vv.3, 15–16, 17b, 20–21). 36  Instead of θεοῦ some manuscripts read θεῷ (‫א‬2 D* P Ψ 075 etc.); the majority readings have the genitive (‫ *א‬A B D2 F G min.). P46 omits it and reads οἱ πνεύματι. See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 110. Cf. Rom 1:9: ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ; 1 Thess 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3. 37  Cf. καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ Rom 2:17 (5:2, 3, 11; 2 Cor 12:7–10); ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:13–14. 38  For the Pauline formula πέποιθα ἐν σαρκί see Phil 3:3, 4; cf. 1:22, 24; Rom 2:29; 8:8–9; 2 Cor 1:9; 10:3; 12:7; Gal 2:20; 4:14; 6:12, 13; etc.

54

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but (a) new creation” (οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις).39 If this rule prevails, Gentiles need not undergo the external ritual of circumcision in order to become beneficiaries of the divine covenant with Abraham.40 By believing in Jesus Christ, the Gentile can have a status equal to the true inward Jew. It is precisely this inclusiveness that Paul’s opponents fiercely reject, because for them the true inward Jew still needs the outward ritual sign of belonging to the people of Israel, and consequently Gentile converts must also be circumcised.41 According to these opponents, Paul’s definition of who is a Jew and who is a Christian inevitably leads to the loss of Jewish identity, and therefore Paul is for them not an apostle but an apostate. Even if Paul concedes as an option that as born Jews, believers in Christ may continue to practice the external ritual of circumcision, the question remains whether Gentile Christians would qualify even without any external sign of identity. As other passages show, Paul seems to admit the point, so that he and other church leaders interpreted the ritual of baptism in such a way that it could serve the function of a publicly visible identity marker for Christian Gentiles as well as Jews.42 Following the naming of the issue of contention, Paul offers his own example as evidence of his defense against his opponents.43 He does so by a detailed autobiographical sketch (3:4–11).44 39  See also Gal 5:2–3, 6; 6:12–13; also 1 Cor 7:19; Rom 2:25–26. See Betz, Galatians, 253–60, 312–17. 40  See on Abraham Gal 3–4; and Rom 4; for passages and bibliography BDAG, s. v. περιτέμνω, περιτομή. 41  Cf. Gal 2:3; 6:12–14. However, it is known that even among Jews circumcision was not an unconditional requirement for everyone; e. g., Jewish women were not circumcised and still regarded as Jews. 42  For the concept of baptism as “circumcision of the heart” by the gift of the holy spirit see Gal 4:4–6; 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 2:25–29; 6:1–8:39; its later continuation is seen in Col 2:11; Eph 2:11–13; Acts 7:8, 51; 10:44; 11:18; 15:1–5; etc. For Paul’s final interpretation, see my essay, “Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Rom 6,” in: Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze III, 240–71. For the history of baptism, see also the essays in the volumes edited by David Hellholm et al., Ablution, Initiation and Baptism (BZNW 176/1–3; Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2011), therein my own: “Jesus’ Baptism and the Origins of the Christian Ritual,” vol. 1, 377–96. 43  Paul’s controversies with his opponents has been the subject of numerous studies, which, however, cannot be reviewed adequately at this point. See Betz, Galatians, 5–9; Ed P. Sanders, “Jesus, Paul and Judaism,” ANRW 2, 25.1 (l982) 390–450; Idem, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983; Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press, 1991), 25–39; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990); Timo Laato, Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropologische Erwägungen (Åbo: Akademis förlag, 1991), Karl-Wil-

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

55

(2) Paul’s identity as a Pharisaic Jew (3:4–6) The introduction to the sketch is twofold. In v.4a he lays the ground for the argument by the statement: “and I, in particular, have reason for having confidence in the flesh” (καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί). The conjunction καίπερ is especially nuanced,45 as Lightfoot rightly states: “The Apostle for the moment places himself on the same standing ground with the Judaizers and, adopting their language, speaks of himself as having that which in fact he had renounced.” Comparing 2 Cor 11:18, he goes on: “The proper force of ἔχων πεποίθησιν must not be explained away. The καίπερ ἐγὼ singles out the Apostle …, for the Philippians did not likewise possess these claims.”46 Paul’s statement in v.4b goes a step further, when he compares his own presumptions with those of his opponents: “If someone else presumes to have reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more.” (Εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον).47 By provoking his opponents’ pride he comes out on top, and by that he exposes the whole as absurdity. Yet, the list of items constituting Paul’s identity as a Pharisaic Jew simply names the marks of distinction in two sets of three (3:5–6), the one set identifying him as Jew, and the other set as a Pharisee. As required for the Jew generally, he was circumcised on the eighth day after birth (περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος).48 He belongs to the “people of Israel,”49 helm Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 79–111; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 57–86. 44  The classic work on the subject still is by Georg Misch (1878–1965), Geschichte der Autobiographie. (8 vols. in 4; 4th ed.; Frankfurt: Schulte-Bulmke, 1976), vol. 1/1–2; ET: A History of Autobiography (Trans. E. W. Dickes (London: Routledge, 1950, repr. 1973). Misch, Geschichte, examines the main literary texts from Solon, Plato, Epist. 7; Isocrates, Antidosis; Cicero, Brutus; Augustus; Josephus, Vita; Philo; Plutarch; Libanius; Augustine, Confessions; etc.; on Paul, see 540–44. For a recent investigation see Kurczyk, Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit (as note 23, above), especially on Cicero parts IV–V. 45  See BDF § 425(1): “καίπερ used to clarify the concessive sense of the participle is rare in the NT”; BDAG, s. v. καίπερ; thus translations vary, but the meaning is clear; cf. Reumann, 466–67. 46  Lightfoot, 145–46. 47  For the meaning of δοκέω as “holding false presumptions” see 1 Cor 3:18; 14:37; Gal 2:2, 6, 9; and BDAG, s. v. δοκέω, 2.a.β. 48 By definition, it is a matter of the “flesh” (σάρξ). Cf. Gal 2:15; 2 Cor 11:18, 22; Rom 9:1–5; 11:1. P46 clarifies the dative of respect (BDF § 197) by reading περιτομῆς, perhaps based on Gen 17:10–14 (LXX). On the ritual see Meinhard Schuster et al., “Circumcision,” RPP 3 (2007) 205–207 [“Beschneidung,” RGG 1 (41998) 1354–58]. 49 Cf. Gal 1:14; 6:16: 1 Cor 10:18; 2 Cor 3:7, 13; 11:22; Rom 9:4, 6a, 27b, 31; 11:1

56

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

“the tribe of Benjamin,50 a Hebrew from Hebrews,”51 (ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων). Beyond these ethnic markers Paul in addition (μᾶλλον) meets the distinctions of being a Pharisee.52 In relation to strict Torah observance, Paul was a Pharisee (κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος),53 “as to the evidence of his zeal he persecuted the church” (κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκ­ κλησίαν).54 The persecution of the church served as hard evidence.55 Finally, “according to righteousness by way of the law” Paul had “become blameless” (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος). To have achieved this status is of course the goal of the Pharisaic way of life.56 (3) Paul’s identity as a Christian Jew (3:7–11) Precisely at this point, Paul turns from his credentials as a Pharisaic Jew to his Christian credentials. The turning point is indicated in v.7 by Ἀλλὰ (“However”), but the manuscript evidence is divided.57 The adversative paretc. See BDAG, s. v. Ἰσραήλ, 2–3; Ἲσραηλίτης; Gnilka, 189–90; Reumann, 482–87; for the concept of “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16) see Betz, Galatians, 321–23. 50  See also Rom 11:1; cf. Saul, son of Kish, Acts 13:21; Rev 7:8. 51  See also 2 Cor 11:22. That Ἑβραῖος would mean “Hebrew-” or “Aramaic-” “Speaker” versus “Greek-Speaker (Ἑλληνιστής, Ἑλληνιστί) is based solely upon Acts. Thus, according to Acts Paul speaks Greek and also Hebrew (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, 21:40; 22:1; 26:14). Cf. 6:1; 9:29; 11:20; 21:37–39. Those scholars who regard Acts as “historical” must take “Hebrew” to mean “Aramaic;” see for references Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, 105–9; Reumann, 483–84. 52  See also Acts 23:6: ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός εἰμι, υἱὸς Φαρισαίων, also Acts 23:8–9; 26:5. 53  The meaning of κατὰ νόμον is disputed; but here Paul refers to the strict observance of the Torah (νόμος), to which the Pharisees were committed. The understanding of Pharisaism in Acts is vague (see Acts 23:6; 26:5). For passages and bibliography see Reumann, 484–85. 54  ζῆλος (“zeal” as intense commitment) was one of the obligations of the Pharisee. See for the Jewish sense Gal 1:14; for a Christian interpretation 2 Cor 9:2; 11:2. For passages and bibliography see Reumann, 485. 55  It ranked as a kind of topos in early Christianity; see Gal 1:13, 23; 4:29; 1 Cor 15:9; Acts 22:4; 1 Tim 1:13; also Acts 8:3; 9:4; 22:7–8; 26:14–15. Cf. Reumann, 485–86, for further passages and bibliography. As apparently noted by some scribes, the term “church” (ἐκκλησία) is ambiguous because the group of Jews Paul persecuted could hardly constitute what was later called church, but it was its forerunner as ἐκκλησία (τοῦ) θεοῦ (F G (0282, 629 pc; lat). The correction follows Gal 1:13, 22–23; etc. 56 See also Gal 1:13–14. For different interpretations see the report by Reumann, 486–87. 57  The ἀλλὰ is not read by P46 P61 ‫ *א‬A G 0282, 33, 81, 1241 etc.; it is read by ‫א‬² B D F Ψ 075, 1739, 1881 M lat sy co. A change of words from ἦν μοι to μοὶ ἦν is read by B 614 pc lat. Thus, [Ἀλλὰ] is kept by Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; see Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 111.

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

57

ticle ἀλλὰ emphasizes a radical revaluation: [Ἀλλὰ] ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν (“However, what were gains to me then, these I [now] regard on account of Christ as loss.”).58 Clearly, the revaluation pertains to the Pharisaic way of life; as pointed out in v.6, its “gains” became downgraded to “loss.” This occurred on account of Christ. How this happened is indicated by the verb ἡγέομαι (“reconsider”), i. e., a change of belief through theological reasoning.59 That “Christ” was initiating this change is of special interest also because it appears to agree with Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisaic doctrine concerning “righteousness” (Matt 5:20).60 If, as I assume, the copy of the memorandum represents an earlier situation, it shows Paul’s earlier language, referring to the inner-Jewish change from Pharisaism to “faith in Jesus Christ” (πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In his other letters Paul offers two different, but not incompatible explanations. First, at the conference in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1–10) he defended his position by referring to the “favor” (χάρις) of his “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις) and commission by the risen Christ.61 Second, in 2 Cor 4:4–6 he interprets the shift by a more developed theology of God’s “image” (εἰκών) as viewed in Christ’s appearance to him. This vision, which alludes to Paul’s Damascus experience, effected the illumination of his heart and thus created enlightened “knowledge.”62 This implies that the gospel constitutes “knowledge,” an envisioned entity prior to its articulation in words. Paul’s developed ideas about divine illumination are summed up in 2 Cor 4:6: θεὸς … ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ (“God … who shone in our hearts to effect the enlightenment of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”).63 Arguing on this basis, Phil 3:7–11 assumes that Paul’s personal turn from ignorance to knowledge is a process of “re-cognition” (γνῶσις), more fully developed in 2 Cor 3:1–4:18. Not surprisingly, recent exegesis has traced this concept 58  Notably, the terms κέρδος (“gain”), κερδαίνω (“reach the goal of” in 3:7–8) are unrelated to the discussion in Phil 1:21 (cf. above, ad loc.). Cf. καταντάω, 3:11. 59  Cf. Phil 2:25; 2 Cor 9:5; BDAG, s. v. ἡγέομαι, 2. 60  See on this point my commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, 189–97; indeed, the whole teaching on Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah (Matt 5:17–48) may be directed against the Pharisees of his day. 61  Cf. Gal 1:1, 12, 15–16; 2:1–10; also 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–10; see Betz, Galatians, 62–72; for other interpretations, see Reumann, 493. 62 On this doctrine and its background see Hans Conzelmann, TWNT 9 (1973), s. v. φῶς, section E.III.1–2; BDAG, s. v. φῶς, 1.b.β; φωτισμός; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, vol. 1, 217–320. 63  The complicated sentence follows Thrall’s translation (2 Corinthians, vol. 1, 297–98; cf. commentary 314–20).

58

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

to “gnostic” influences which show up also in Phil 3:7–8.64 However, the origin reaches further back to Platonism.65 Hellenistic-Jewish and Christian adaptations of Platonic doctrines began not only with later gnosticism and the Church Fathers,66 but in Paul himself. Apart from this, passages such as John 20:16–18, 19–29, Luke’s stories of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1–29; 22:3–21; 26:9–20), and of the disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35), show that the suddenness of recognition was a famous literary motif more generally employed also in early Christian texts.67 Given this background, the nature of Paul’s argument is further explained in a compressed statement in Phil 3:8, which begins with a restatement of v.7: ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου … (“That is to say, I considered all of it as loss

on account of the overwhelming knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord”). The meaning of the concept of γνῶσις (“recognition, knowledge”) is ambiguous and thus controversial. In the present passage it describes the process of Paul’s gaining the new knowledge as in and of itself an overwhelming event of persuasion. This persuasion led Paul to abandon his former Pharisaic convictions as “garbage” (σκύβαλα) and to accept the new conviction as “knowledge of Christ.” Accordingly, the process is analogous to the struggle between the opposites of “truth” (ἀλήθεια) and “ignorance” (ἄγνοια, ψεῦδος), in which the “untruth” acts like a power, but the power of “real truth” exposes the

64

 For references, see Reumann, 489–91.  Note the famous passages in Plato, Symp. 210e (ἐξαίφνης κατόψεταί τι θαυμαστὸν τὴν φύσιν καλόν (“a wondrous vision, beautiful in its nature”) and 212e–223a; Epist. 7.341c–d; see Gerhard Krüger, Einsicht und Leidenschaft. Das Wesen des platonischen Denkens (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 51983), 276–79: “Der Augenblick der Erleuchtung”; for a detailed survey see Erler, Platon, 354–75: “Wege zur Erkenntnis.” 66  Notably, what Paul describes in a few lines, Augustine expands to include his entire autobiography of the Confessions as a philosophically detailed process of his conversion from a pagan to a believer in Christ; it all began with his reading of Cicero’s Hortensius. See his Conf. 7.11–12, 29–30, ed. Martin Skutella (BT; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 177–79, with the famous episode of “tolle lege, tolle lege” (“take and read”, 177, line 24). It was God who converted him (179, line 12: convertisti enim me ad te, “for you [God] converted me to you”; line 15: convertisti luctum eius in gaudium, “you [God] converted his sorrow into joy”). Augustine cites Rom 13:13–14 and 14:1; not Phil 3. On the role of the Hortensius see Matthias Gelzer, Cicero. Ein biographischer Versuch (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969), 296–97. 67 See Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 724–34. The scene is impressively painted by Caravaggio, The Supper at Emmaus (1601, The National Gallery, London). For the literary history, see Andreas Anglet, Der ‘ewige’ Augenblick. Studien zur Struktur und Funktion eines Denkbildes bei Goethe (Kölner Germanistische Studien 33; Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 1991). 65

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

59

“untruth” and thereby overcomes it.68 Since the “untruth” exists as a fundamental conviction, it is also a kind of power which must be overpowered, so that the “real truth” establishes itself as new conviction, called by Paul as “gaining Christ” (ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω).69 Thus, the “knowledge of Christ” is identical with “Christ” himself,70 while the former Pharisaism is discarded as σκύβαλα (“garbage”).71 V.9 continues the argument of v.8 by drawing out the consequence for the issue of “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη). It is the question of its origin and basis that divides Paul and the Pharisees.72 Paul explains the “gain” named at the end of v.8 to involve a change of status: ἵνα … καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (“so that … I may also be found in him,73 I do not

have my righteousness74 based on the law but the one through the faith of Christ, (that is) the righteousness of God, together with that faith”). The new status “in Christ” effects a shift away from pursuing one’s own righteousness in Pharisaic terms by observing the law (Torah) and towards the righteousness mediated through the faith of Christ,75 that is, to the righteousness received from God along with that faith. The conveyance of δικαιοσύνη pertains not only to Paul’s eschatological standing before God but also the fruit of δικαι­ οσύνη as a primary ethical virtue.

68

 For Paul’s concept of the power of the word see 1 Thess 1:6–8; 1 Cor 1:18, 24; 2:4–5; 4:19; 2 Cor 6:7; Rom 1:16; etc. Cf. also the discussion by Nicholas D. Smith, “Plato on Knowledge as Power,” JHP 38 (2000) l45–68. 69  The language comes from business: “gain” (κερδαίνω, κέρδος) and its opposites “suffering loss” (ζημιόω, ζημία). Cf. Phil 1:21; 1 Cor 9:19–21; etc.; see BDAG, sub vocibus. 70  See above, Chapter II, for the interpretation of Phil 1:21: τὸ ζῆν Χριστός. 71  Trying to determine what Paul means by this epithet, part of the manuscript tradition regards it simply as a figure of speech (P46 ‫ *א‬B D* F G 33 lat), while another part adds εἶναι, perhaps to emphasize its continuing reality (P61 ‫א‬2 A D2 K L P Ψ min.); see Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 112. Cf. Friedrich Lang, TWNT  / ​TDNT, s. v. σκύβαλον; Spicq, Notes, vol. 1, 802–4. 72  Cf. also Mt 5:20, where the Pharisaic concept of διακιοσύνη marks the basic difference from the Sermon on the Mount; see my commentary, Sermon, 189–97. 73  The form εὑρεθῶ, 1 aor. subj. pass. (cf. BDAG, s. v. εὑρίσκω, 1.b). On the construction of ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει and its complications cf. Reumann, 492–98. 74 The expression μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην in v.9 is perhaps trying to distinguish more clearly between ἐμὴν and τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην] ζητοῦντες (Rom 10:3). See Reumann, 493–95. 75  For the much disputed concept of πίστις Χριστοῦ, whether it refers to the faithfulness of Jesus or to the Christian faith in Jesus Christ, see Betz, Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze III, 223–24; Reumann, 494–96, with the material cited.

60

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

Returning to the “knowledge of Christ” (γνῶσις Χριστοῦ [v.8]), Paul explains it in v.10 as a dynamic capacity (δύναμις) of understanding and sharing the hard facts of life in the faith: …  τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀνα­ στάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ [τὴν] κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ …76 (“… knowing him also includes the power of his resurrection and the participation in his sufferings …”). The last item of this formulaic list is supplied by another such formula, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ (“being conformed with his death”).77 Implicitly, Paul affirms that the time for experiencing these facts of life with Christ is now, whereas (v.11) encountering the resurrection from the dead lies in the future: εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (“if somehow I shall reach the goal of the resurrection from the dead”).78 Thus, in this final statement about the “knowledge of Christ” Paul expresses his hope in the future. Thus far, Paul’s biographical sketch serves as an exemplum to show that his acceptance of the faith in Jesus Christ does not in principle mean the abrogation of the Jewish religion altogether, but the abandonment of his former Pharisaic school and the move to a different form of Judaism, that is, the faith and way of life shared with the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. In Paul’s interpretation, the theological teachings of this faith in Jesus Christ as stated in v.3 are eo ipso applicable also to believers coming from the Gentiles. Those Gentiles who “worship in the spirit of God” praise him “in Christ Jesus,” do not place their confidence “in the flesh” (3:3), and are to be ranked as equals with the “inwardly true Jews.” This position is also presented, probably later than the memorandum of Phil 3, in an expanded argument in Rom 2:25–29. It should be noted that, apart from the invectives in 3:2, Paul’s argument in 3:3–11 as such does not presuppose a hostile confrontation with his Jewish-Christian opponents as reflected in the letters to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. Possibly, 3:3–11 states earlier and simpler propositions, like those Paul may have submitted to the conference at Jerusalem 76

 Apparently, Paul abbreviates by omitting the articles as redundant (thus P46 ‫ *א‬A B), while other scribes add them to improve Greek style (‫א‬2 A D F G Ψ etc. See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 113–14. 77 46  P omits the whole phrase, regarding it as redundant, but other witnesses affirm it in some form. See for the evidence Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 113–14. For similar expressions cf. Phil 2:6; Gal 4:19; 6:17; 2 Cor 4:10–11; Rom 6:5; 8:17, 29. 78  The particle εἴ πως with the future indicative expects something to happen in the future, and the exact nature of it is left uncertain (see BDF § 375; BDAG, s. v. εἰ, 6.n.β); it does not admit doubt in the event as such. The statement following εἴ πως (“if somehow”) may point to Paul’s major debates concerning the future, reflected in nearly all his letters, see especially 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 1 Cor 15:12–58; Rom 8:9–39; 13:11–12; also Phil 1:19–20; 2:19, 23.

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

61

(Gal 2:1–10), which had been approved by the majority and had led to the mission among the Gentiles under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas. In Phil 3:18–19, however, Paul distinguishes between earlier situations, in which he had frequently talked about many fellow-Christians following a style of life (τύπος) different from his own. Now, in tears, he must admit alienation from these people, whom he calls “enemies of the cross of Christ” (ἐχθροὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ), and whom he condemns as heretics. Therefore, at present Paul sees fit to send the memorandum to the Philippians because he expects that his adversaries will sooner or later make their way also to Philippi. It is this situation for which the earlier memorandum provides a “safeguard” (ἀσφαλές) for orientation. b. The cursus vitae present and future (3:12–16) Given the biographical sketch in 3:4–11, Paul has dealt with his personal identity in the past, but there remains the need to describe his cursus vitae in the present and future. He fulfills this expectation in 3:12–16 by invoking the image of himself as a runner in the sports stadium, the famous agon motif.79 In the meantime, then, what is his situation?80 Like in the stadium, there is no standing still, but the race goes on (3:12): “Not that I have already reached [the goal], or have completed [the race], but I am in pursuit of getting hold [of it], as indeed I have been taken hold of by Christ [Jesus]”81 (Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ]).82 Along with the foregoing εἴ πως (v.11), the sentence has its difficulties, which some scribes have tried to smooth out.83

79  For this motif in Pauline literature, see also Phil 1:30; 1 Thess 2:2; Gal 5:7; 1 Cor 9:24–26; Col 2:1; 1 Tim 4:8–10; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7. On the whole, see BDAG, s. v. ἀγών, 2; Betz, Galatians, 264–65; Reumann, 533–65; Günter Bader, RGG  /  ​RPP 1, s. v. Agon; Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, 306–7. 80  About this question, cf. above, Chapter II on Phil 1:12–20, 21–26. 81  For the similar image of the tough climbing of the Stoic as described by Lucian cf. his Hermotimos 3–7; Vit. Auctio 9. See Betz, Lukian, 205–6. 82  ἐφ’ ᾧ appears to be a self-correction, cf. Gal 4:9: γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ. See also BDAG, s. v. ἐπί, 6.c; Reumann, 537–38. 83 46  P D* read ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, interpreting the sports term by its metaphorical (theological) meaning (“having become perfect”). See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 114–15. Ignoring the context, BDAG, s. v. τελειόω, 3, interprets it as a mystery-cult term; cf. 1 Cor 9:24; Phil 3:14–15; and Reumann, 534–36.

62

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

V.13 turns to the meaning of the image invoked in v.12, as Paul addresses the readers: “Brothers, I do not consider myself to have won [already]” (ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι).84 In other words, Paul is still in the running, but at which point? Again, his focus is on the image of the runner in the stadium: “But the one point is: I have put out of my mind the things left behind, but I stretch out to what lies ahead”85 (ἓν δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλαν­ θανόμενος τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος). Still continuing the image in v.14, he now turns to the metaphorical meaning: “I am in pursuit of the final goal, which is the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus” (κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).86 The βραβεῖον points to the runner’s prize of victory,87 but for Paul’s race it signifies the higher κλῆσις of God in Christ.88 V.15 is again difficult to understand. Looking back at vv.12–14, Paul draws the conclusion: “As people, therefore, who are mature, let us think of it in this way” (Ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν).89. Before stating the conclusion, however, he throws in an ironic warning: “But if you think otherwise, God will reveal it also to you” (καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, καὶ τοῦτο ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει) The conclusion itself is stated in v.16: “At any rate, as far as we have come, let us keep moving on the same course” (πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν). The form of this statement is an appeal expressing a “rule.”90

 Some manuscripts read οὔπω (“not yet”), no doubt a secondary clarification (‫ א‬A D* P 056 075 33 81 104; etc.; see Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 115; BDAG, s. v. οὔπω; Reumann, 538. 85  For various attempts to translate the sentence, see Reumann, 538–39. 86  Some manuscripts try to improve the text by minor changes; see Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 116; Reumann, 539–41; the text is affirmed by the majority of witnesses. 87  For the term βραβεῖον, see 1 Cor 9:24, and BDAG, s. v. βραβεῖον; Reumann, 540–41. 88  The call from on high may still allude to the announcer in the stadium calling out the name of the winner. See BDAG, s. v. κλῆσις, l. See for references Reumann, 540–41; 550–51. 89 On the οὖν-paraeneticum as indicating exhortation, see BDAG, s. v. οὖν, 1.b. The much discussed adjective τέλειος is to be understood here as referring to education (opposite νήπιος); see BDAG, s. v. τέλειος, 2). 90 Among the variants in the textual tradition, ‫א‬2 K L P Ψ and others have rightly identified it as a κανών (“rule”); cf. Gal 5:7, 25; 6:15–16, and Betz, Galatians, 321; BDAG, s. v. κανών, 1; Reumann, 543–44, 558–65. For the textual variants see Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 117. 84

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

63

c. Concluding paraenesis (3:17–21) Fittingly, but asyndetically, the memorandum ends with a paraenetical section in 3:17–21. Introducing several new terms, the passage seems typical in comparison with other paraenetical sections in Paul’s letters, and it also shows some similarity to the sayings compositions in 4:8–9 and 4:11–13.91 The paraenesis starts with an appeal to imitate Paul as the model of conduct (3:17): “Become fellow-imitators together with me, my brothers, and keep your eyes on those who walk in the way established by our example.” (Συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς). Notably, Paul’s well-known concept of “imitation of Christ” (μίμησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ) has been characteristically expanded to include Timothy and the members of all churches of Paul.92 They follow a distinct life-style (τύπος), the model for which having been set by Christ, the Apostle, and his faithful collaborators.93 The authority of the models sets the standards for observation and scrutiny of those church members who join or assume leadership.94 Actually, as v.18 clarifies, the previous statement serves as a warning against those who pursue a different lifestyle.95 As Paul reminds his readers, he has orally pointed out that other Christian communities have developed different ways of life, a sign that his written text was preceded by his oral paraenesis. Regrettably, what were earlier differences have now turned into bitter enmity even toward the cross of Christ: “For as I have told you often before, many follow [other] ways of life, but now I tearfully call them ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’” (πολλοὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦσιν οὓς πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Who these people were concretely, Paul does not specify either in v.18, or by describing the “adversaries” (ἀντικείμενοι) in 1:28.96 However, other passages condemn such 91 See

below, Chapters IV and V. 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 1 Cor 4:16–17; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Thess 3:7; and Betz, Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 116–17; BDAG, s. v. μιμέομαι, μιμητής, συμμιμητής; Reumann, 566–67, 584–89; Henri Crouzel and Christina Mühlenkamp, “Nachahmung (Gottes),” RAC Lieferung 196–197 (2013) 525–65, esp. on Paul 545–46 (bibl.). 93 On τύπος see BDAG, s. v. τύπος, 6.b–c. Cf. on Timothy Phil 2:19–24; 1 Cor 4:16– 17; 1 Tim 4:11–16; 2 Tim, passim. 94 The term σκοπέω is almost technical in this regard; cf. Rom 16:17; 2 Cor 4:18; Gal 2:4; 6:1; Phil 2:4; see BDAG, s. v. σκοπέω, σκοπός. 95 Not merely circumcision. Cf. 1 Thess 4:1–2; Gal 4:16; 5:1–12; 6:12–13; Rom 16:17–20. 96 Note that P46 supplies the missing connection with the invective in 3:2: βλέπετε τοὺς ἐχθρούς. See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 117–18; also Christfried Böttrich, “Verkündigung aus Neid und Rivalität. Beobachtungen zu Phil 1,12–18,” ZNW 95 (2004) 84–101. 92 See

64

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

people as Christ’s enemies because they deny the cross of Christ as a salvific event.97 In 3:19 the Apostle returns to the sharp invective of 3:2, when he predicts “their end to be destruction” (… ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια).98 The paraenesis in vv.19–20 offers a negative and a positive part. The invectives against the “enemies” are unspecified abuse, typical of Hellenistic diatribe style: “whose god is their belly, whose glory is their shame, and whose thinking is mundane business.” (ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες).99 The opposite, positive part appeals to the Philippian Christians themselves (3:20): “For ours is the commonwealth in the heavens, from where we also await the savior Lord Jesus Christ” (ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύ­ ριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν …).100 Surprisingly, perhaps, Paul introduces concepts familiar from Roman ideology: “our commonwealth in the heavens” (ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει),101 so that the Philippian Christians will expect their “savior” (σωτήρ) Jesus Christ to come from there.102 What

does this language indicate? Evidently, the language is “political,” but it is not, as recent interpreters claim, anti-Roman.103 Rather, Paul appeals to concepts  97 Cf.

Gal 1:6–9; 5:7–12; 6:13–15; 1 Cor 1:17–18, 22–23; 2 Cor 11:4; Rom 16:17–20

etc.  98

 The reference points to the eschatological destruction. Cf. Phil 1:26–28; 1 Thess 2:16; Gal 5:19–21; 6:7–8; 1 Cor 3:12–17; 2 Cor 11:15; Rom 1:18–32; 6:21; 8:6, 13; 9:22; etc. See BDAG, s. v. ἀπώλεια, 2.  99  The description is comparable to “catalogues of virtues and vices” and satirical portrayals in the Hellenistic diatribe literature. For many examples see Betz, Lukian, 183–94; Idem, “Lasterkataloge/Tugendkataloge,” RGG 5 (42002) 89–91 [RPP 13 (2013) 347–48 (bibl.)]. 100  Notably, P46 omits ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, perhaps trying to avoid a conflict with the Lord Jesus Christ who has already come (cf. the hymn Phil 2:6–11), so that the scribe of that papyrus “corrects” the traditional expectation (cf. Gal 5:5; 1 Cor 1:7; Rom 8:19, 23, 25). Cf. Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 118. 101  Obviously, this concept takes the place of the notion of the “kingdom of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). Cf. 1 Thess 2:12; Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9; 15:50; Rom 14:17; 2 Thess 1:5. 102  The concepts (πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς, σωτήρ, also πολιτεύεσθαι Phil 1:27) are hapax legomena in Paul. See the study (with bibliography) by Dirk Schinkel, Die himmlische Bürgerschaft. Untersuchungen zu einem urchristlichen Sprachmotiv im Spannungsfeld von religiöser Integration und Abgrenzung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert (FRLANT 220; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), esp. 68–122. 103  For recent literature, see Angela Standhartinger, “Die paulinische Theologie im Spannungsfeld römisch-imperialer Machtpolitik. Eine neue Perspektive auf Paulus, kritisch geprüft anhand des Philipperbriefs,” in: Friedrich Schweitzer, ed., Religion, Politik und Gewalt. Kongressband des XII. Europäischen Kongresses für Theologie, 18.–22. September 2005 in Berlin (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 364–82; Samuel Vollenweider,

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

65

familiar to the Philippians because they and their city are constitutionally Roman.104 As citizens of a Roman colony, the Philippians may share the notion of belonging to two πολιτεύματα, perhaps even three. Cicero, e. g., discusses the question of dual citizenship in his De legibus.105 Accordingly, Roman citizens have one’s hometown106 and the citizenship of Rome extending into the Empire.107 Rome is a fatherland superior to the hometown: “But that fatherland must stand first in our affection in which the name of republic signifies the common citizenship of all of us. For her it is our duty to die, to her to give ourselves entirely, to place on her altar, and, as it were, to dedicate to her service, all that we possess.”108 Atticus then emphasizes that “our republic (is) most surely owed a debt of gratitude to this municipality, because two of her saviours had come from it.”109 He names one of the two as Pompeius Magnus, the other remains unnamed, which may indicate that he means Cicero himself.110 Cicero continues to develop the notion of an even higher realm of Jupiter and the immortal gods, starting from analysis of the laws and the nature of Law.111 Covering the entire argument, Cicero starts out with Platonic philosophy, according to which, “Law is not a product of human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole “Politische Theologie im Philipperbrief?” in: Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell, eds., Paulus und Johannes, (WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 457–69. 104  Notably, Paul does not refer here to the figure of the “Jerusalem above” (ἡ ἄνω Ἰε­ ρουσαλήμ), Gal 4:26; cf. Hebr 12:22; and Betz, Galatians, 246–48. 105  Cited is the edition by Jonathan G. F. Powell, M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato Maior de senectute, Laelius De amicitia (SCBO; Oxford: Clarendon: 2006), and Andrew R. Dyck, A Commentary on Cicero, De legibus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), esp. 255–89. The translation is mostly by Clinton W. Keyes, Cicero (LCL, vol. 16; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, repr. 1988). 106  Cicero himself addresses Atticus’question of how many fatherlands does a person have? First, there is the fatherland of one’s homestead and birthplace (haec est mea et huius fratris mei germana patria, De leg. 2.1.3–4). For Cicero this is Arpinum, for Cato it is Tusculum, and so on (2.2.5). 107  Ibid., 2.2.5: Then there is the city into which one has been accepted as citizen, so that Cato was a Tusculan by birth and received citizenship at Rome (Cato, cum esset Tusculi natus, in populi Romani civitatem susceptus est; ita, cum ortu Tusculanus esset, civitate Romanus, habuit alteram loci patriam, alteram iuris). 108  Ibid.: sed necesse est caritate eam praestare qua rei publicae nomen universae civitatis est; pro qua mori et cui nos totos dedere et in qua nostra omnia ponere et quasi consecrare debemus. 109  Ibid., 2.3.6: … rem publicam nostram iustissimas huic municipio gratias agere posse, quod ex eo duo sui conservatores exstitissent. 110  As suggested by Keyes, ad loc., 376 n. 2. 111  This discussion begins in De leg. 2.4.8: … prius quam aggrediamur ad leges singulas, vim naturamque legis … .

66

III. An Autobiographical Memorandum (Phil 3:1b–21)

universe by its wisdom in command and prohibition. Thus they have been accustomed to say that Law is the primal and ultimate mind of God, whose reason directs all things either by compulsion or restraint. Wherefore that Law which the gods have given to the human race has been justly praised; for it is the reason and mind of the wise lawgiver applied to command and prohibition.”112 The system of Law and laws of nations “have the power to summon to righteousness and away from wrong-doing; but this power is not merely older than the existence of nations and States, it is coeval with that God who guards and rules heaven and earth.”113 Cicero concludes his prooemium to the examination of the Law and laws by exclaiming: “… how sacred an association of citizens becomes when the immortal gods are made members of it, either as judges or witnesses?”114 Referring here only to Cicero’s conceptuality, the Romans have learned from him about Plato and the Stoics115 that there is an entity like what Paul calls πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς. It should not be overlooked, too, that the Book of Acts attributes two or three “fatherlands” to Paul: his birthplace being Tarsus, he was a Tarsian, also a Roman citizen, and he belonged to the Kingdom of God.116 The Romans named the divine realm Roma aeterna or Roma caelestis, and instituted the cult of the Dea Roma.117 This doctrine then moved through 112  Ibid., 2.4.8: … legem neque hominum ingeniis excogitatam nec scitum aliquod esse populorum, sed aeternum quiddam, quod universum mundum regeret imperandi prohibendique sapientia. ita principem legem illam et ultimam mentem esse dicebant omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis dei; ex quo illa lex, quam di humano generi dederunt, recte est laudata; est enim ratio mensque sapientis ad iubendum et ad deterrendum idonea. 113 Ibid., 2.4.9: … vim habere ad recte facta vocandi et a peccatis avocandi, quae vis non modo senior est quam aetas populorum et civitatium, sed aequalis illius caelum atque terras tuentis et regentis dei … . 114 Ibid. 2.7.16: … quamque sancta sit societas civium inter ipsos diis inmortalibus interpositis tum iudicibus, testibus? 115 See Hubert Cancik, “patria – peregrina – universa: Versuch einer Typologie der universalistischen Tendenzen in der Geschichte der griechischen Religion,” in: Römische Religion im Kontext, 168–77; Idem, “Fides, Pistis und Imperium,” ibid., 178–97. For texts and bibliography, see also C. J. De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, “The Hellenistic-Roman Period,” 176–83. 116 Cf. Acts 9:11, 30; 11:25; 16:37, 38; 22:3, 25, 26, 29; 23:27; 25:16. For a critical discussion and bibliography cf. Pervo, Acts, 554–56, Excursus: “Was Paul a Citizen of Tarsus? Of Rome?” 117 The temple to Dea Roma was erected by Hadrian (117–138 CE) and dated in the year 121. See Cancik, Römische Religion im Kontext, 218–26; Idem, Religionsgeschichten, 371–86, esp. 383–86: “‘Das himmlische Rom’ – caelestis Roma (Prudentius);” furthermore Schinkel, Die himmlische Bürgerschaft, 159–82 (on Diogn. 5), 183–202 (on 2nd cent. Christianity).

4. The composition of Paul’s memorandum

67

the centuries to St. Augustine,118 and on to modernity with the issues of “Church and State.”119 In v.21 Paul brings the paraenesis (vv.17–21) and thereby the memorandum as a whole to an eschatological conclusion. This conclusion seems simpler and, at least to the later scribes, confusing, which raises the question as to whether it is relatively older than more developed versions.120 In a condensed relative clause, connected by “(he) who” (ὅς), Paul describes the work of the “savior” (σωτήρ) and “lord” (κύριος) Jesus Christ at his parousia. The string of formulaic expressions provides further explanations after having mentioned the resurrection from the dead before in Phil 1:23; 3:11.121 What Christ will accomplish at this resurrection is the transformation of the body: “who will transform the body of our lowliness” (ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπει­ νώσεως ἡμῶν).122 The statement is anthropological and identifies the human body by its mortality.123 This state of “lowliness” will be “transformed” by the body’s “conformation” with Christ’s “body of glory” (σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ). Behind this transaction “lies the same power that enables Christ to subject to himself the universe: “according to the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself” (κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα).124 118  Cf. the distinction between civitas Dei and civitas terrena in Augustine’s De Civitate Dei. See Cancik, Religionsgeschichten, 293–313: “Augustin als constantinischer Theologe;” Idem, “Die Romanisierung des antiken Christentums: Zur Entstehung des römischen Katholizismus,” ibid., 371–86. 119  See Hans G. Thümmel et al., “Kirche und Staat,” pts.1–2, RGG 4 (42003) 1038–49 [“Church and State,” RPP 3 (2007) 25–33]. 120  Cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 4:13–18; 1 Cor 15:35–57; 2 Cor 5:1–10; Rom 8:1–39. On the whole subject see Jeffrey R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUTh 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Frances Back, Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von 2 Kor 2,14–4,6 (WUNT 2/153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Reumann, 596–605. 121 The sentence is difficult to understand, so that some scribes seem to make “improvements,” perhaps by comparison with other Pauline passages. See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc.; Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 118–19. 122 After ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν D1 K L P Ψ 075 33 etc. add εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό, secondary for better understanding. See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 118–19. For μετασχηματίζω cf. 1 Cor 4:6; 2 Cor 11:13–15; and μεταμορφόω Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18; μορφή Phil 2:6–7; μορφόω Gal 4:19; σύμμορφίζομαι Phil 3:10–11; σύμμορφος Rom 8:29. 123 Cf. Phil 2:3, 7–8; 4:12; and BDAG, s. v. ταπεινός κτλ. 124 To clarify the relation between αὐτὸν and αὐτῷ (‫ *א‬A B D* F G K P etc.), the second is “corrected” to ἑαυτῷ (“to himself”) by ‫א‬2 D2 L Ψ etc. See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 119. Cf. the concepts in Phil 2:9–11, and the more developed doctrines in 1 Cor 15:27–28, and again in Rom 11:25–36.

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9) 1. Introduction Among the surprises in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians is the intriguing saying in 4:8–9.1 It stands seemingly independent towards the end of the letter. Not having any explicit connection with the previous section 4:4–7, at least a catchword association can be assumed between λογίζεσθε (v.8) and νοήματα (v.7), and between ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ (v.7) and ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (v.9). Perhaps these catchwords may have given the author (i. e. Paul himself) or the redactor the reason to connect the two sections of vv.4–7 and vv.8–9. Also the relation of vv.8–9 to vv.10–20, a passage that I regard to be an originally separate piece later inserted here, is a question.2 In its present place it is asyndetic, but a catchword connection between ἐχάρην (v.10) and χαίρετε (v.4) may have caused the final redactor of the letter to insert the “receipt” (vv.10–20) between v.9 and v.21. The introductory phrase, “In conclusion, brothers,” can function in various contexts, as it does also in 3:1a.3 In 3:1b, however, it is followed by the secondary insertion of a memorandum (3:1b–21), copied from an earlier Vorlage and inserted by a later redactor.4 Internally, the passage of 4:8–9 is a piece of gnomic wisdom, clear in structure and content. Its terminology is Hellenistic-philosophical in origin, so that the terms are not typical of Paul’s Christian ethics elsewhere. As Wettstein’s parallels show,5 its closest examples are mostly from Greek literature, but found as well in some Jewish wisdom texts under the influence of Hellenistic morality (LXX), and in similar ways in Roman sources influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, such as Cicero and Seneca. 1  For commentaries, see Weiss (1859), 314–20; Lightfoot (1886), 161–62; Lohmeyer, 172–77; Fee, 413–21; Reumann, 637: “Analysis remains uncertain.” 2  See Chapter VI, below. 3  Textually, Ψ reads ἀδελφοί μου as in 3:1. For similar usage see also 1 Cor 7:28; 11;34; 2 Cor 13:11; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:1. 4  See Chapter III, above. 5  See the parallels listed in Wettstein, vol. 2 (1752), 278–79.

70

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

However, the list of terms cannot be identified with a particular philosophical school, such as the Stoics. Thus, most likely the concepts represent Paul’s own selection. Although most of the terms are Pauline hapax legomena, there is little doubt about Paul’s authorship of the lines. Did he choose the terms because they reminded him of his Jewish (Pharisaic) schooling, or because he wanted to affirm his Hellenistic leanings?6 Most likely, however, Paul intended to appeal to his readers in Philippi and their presuppositions, which were those of Graeco-Roman ethics.7 This tendency on his part agrees with other such instances, where Paul appeals to the Graeco-Roman sentiments of his readers. In the following, we shall examine the Greek text and its translation, in order then to take a closer look at some of the literary parallels, and finally to elucidate Paul’s legacy in comparison.

2. The Text and Its Translation Since there are only a few text-critical variants, the text printed as Nestle-Aland (282012), appears to be that of the earliest manuscript Vorlage. 8/ τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί,

ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα, εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις ἔπαινος, ταῦτα λογίζεσθε· 9/ ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε· καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν. 6  Cf. the discussion of this point by Lohmeyer (l76–77) who attributes the list to Paul’s Pharisaic training and labels it as “Jewish” in contrast to “Greek” ethics. Lohmeyer, therefore, seems to assume Hellenistic influences in Pharisaism, which were communicated to Paul. Those influences are not impossible but hard to document. Lohmeyer also observes that Paul’s selection does not simply conform to Graeco-Roman philosophy but modifies it. Was the modification caused by Paul’s Judaism or his Hellenism? Without excluding either one, Paul’s modification follows from his own Christian insights and from his knowledge of the sentiments in Philippi. 7  For current research on the reception of Greek ethics in Rome see John Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Hyp 56; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin, eds., Philosophia Togata 1: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society; Philosophia Togata 2: Plato and Aristotle in Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989; 1997); Hellmuth Flashar, ed., Die hellenistische Philosophie, [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, 4/1–2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994).

2. The Text and Its Translation

71

8/ “In conclusion, brothers, as much as there are things true, things venerable, things righteous, as much as there are things holy, things amiable, things commendable, if there is virtue and if there is praise, these things take into consideration; 9/ and what you have learned and have received, and what you have heard and have seen in me, these things practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”

The text has three parts, the first one introduced by the phrase “in conclusion, brothers.” Clearly, this phrase marks the conclusion of the letter, but if the redacted letter is pieced together from several fragments it leaves unclear which end of which fragment is in view. The same phrase occurs in 3:1a, also leaving open exactly which segment is referred to.8 1. The first part (v.8) contains a sequence of ethical terms to be “taken into consideration.”9 The imperative ταῦτα λογίζεσθε advises about how to deal with the list of terms. The terms are to be subjected to critical evaluation, i. e. the activity of reasoning (λόγος). This describes ethical theory (θεωρία, cogitatio), with the practice (πράσσειν) to follow (v.9). What does this list of six adjectives (in neuter plural) consist of? They are in fact six ethical concepts, each time anaphorically prefixed by ὅσα, meaning “as much as there are things … .”10 The six prefixes are signifying a “collective” chain argument and thus an instance of the rhetorical figure called sorites. A sorites argues by “heaping together” concepts, which can take several forms.11 The present form does not show gradatio or climax, but adds, arranged in two lines, adjectives seemingly at random.12 As Lohmeyer (173) has keenly observed, each  8

 Cf. also 1 Cor 7:29; 11:34; 2 Cor l3:11; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:1. also Phil 3:13; 1 Cor 13:11; 2 Cor 10:2a, 7, 11; see BDAG, s. v. λογίζομαι, 2–3, “give careful thought to a matter,” vel sim. Cf. Rom 12:1: λογικός. 10  On ὅσος BDAG, s. v., 2 with parallel passages. 11 σωρίτης λόγος; see Roland Wittwer, “Sorites,” HWRh 8 (1007) 1027–31, with passages and literature. Paul uses other forms of sorites in Rom 5:3–5; 2 Cor 6:6–7; Phil 2:1. 12  Cf. Plato, Theaet. 198b, Socrates cites ironically a sorites: “And we say that when anyone transmits them he teaches, and when anyone receives them he learns, and when anyone, by having acquired them, has them in that aviary of ours, he knows them.” (καὶ  9 See

καλοῦμέν γε παραδιδόντα μὲν διδάσκειν, παραλαμβάνοντα δὲ μανθάνειν, ἔχοντα δὴ τῷ κε­ κτῆσθαι ἐν τῷ περιστερεῶνι ἐκεῖνα ἐπίστασθαι.). The parallel is noted in Lightfoot, 162 n.;

text and translation according to the LCL edition of Plato, vol. 7 by H. N. Fowler (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921), 208–9. Another sorites is quoted by Plutarch from Chrysippus’ work Περὶ καλοῦ, in De Stoic. repugn. 13, p. 1039c (SVF vol. 3, 9: Frag. 29): “τὸ ἀγαθὸν αἱρετόν· τὸ δὲ αἱρετὸν ἄρεστον· τὸ δ’ ἄρεστον ἐπαι­ νετόν· τὸ δ’ ἐπαινετὸν καλόν.” καὶ πάλιν· “τὸ ἀγαθὸν χαρτόν, τὸ δὲ χαρτὸν σεμνόν, τὸ δὲ

72

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

line of three has the first two adjectives carrying the accent on the end, while the third has the accent on the beginning. To what then do the six adjectives amount? What appears a random collection, it seems to be different from a fixed order of a “catalogue of virtues”13 as we find it in the philosophical schools, especially in Stoicism.14 It is likely, rather, that ὅσα ἐστίν refers to ethical values commonly held by people, and not to ethical concepts as defined by a philosophical school. As they stand, the six ethical values have been selected as examples; and the list appears open-ended.15 The concluding line of v.8b explains how the ethical values are related to traditional virtue ethics: εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις ἔπαινος, “if there is virtue and if there is praise.” The formulation is similar to the preceding lines.16 The ethical values are part of commonly held standard virtues, which is nothing other than what is worthy of praise. In other words, the “if there is” does not express doubt in the existence of virtue (“if there is” signifying “if anyone can find the thing”), but takes seriously what ordinary people regard as “virtuous” and “worthy of praise.”17 In other words, Paul does not advise his readers to submit to a fixed regimen of established philosophical virtues, but his advice is to subject popular ethical standards to serious theological scrutiny. Accordingly, Christian ethics is not a particular group ethics separate from general cultural values (“Son-

σεμνὸν καλόν.” (“‘What is good is chosen, what is chosen is approved, what is approved is

admired, what is admired is fair’ and again ‘what is good is gratifying, what is gratifying is grand, what is grand is fair’.” Text and translation is cited according to the LCL edition of Plutarch’s Moralia vol. 13/2 by Harold Cherniss (London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 402–3. 13  See John Fitzgerald, “Virtue/Vice Lists,” ABD 6 (1992) 857–59; Betz, Galatians, 281–89; idem, “Lasterkatalog/Tugendkatalog,” RGG 5 (42002) 89–91 [“Virtues and Vices, Catalogues of,” RPP 13 (2012) 347–48]. 14  For Stoic catalogues see SVF vol. 3, nos. 377–490. Cf. Gnilka, 221, who assumes Paul derived the sequence from Stoicism; Matthias Heesch, “Wertethik”, RGG 8 (42005), 1477–78 [“Value Ethics,” RPP 13 (2012) 269]. 15 See Konrad Stock, “Tugenden,” RGG 8 (42005) 650–54 [“Virtues,” RPP 12 (2013) 345–47]. 16 Textually, D* F G et al. add ἐπιστήμης, emphasizing the intellectual aspect; cf. the Vulgate: laus disciplinae. 17 The implication of doubt, however, appears to be not completely excluded, because of Paul’s dire situation in the sorites of Phil 2:1: Εἲ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τις παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί; yet it is followed by positive affirmations in 2:2–4 based on 2:5–11.

2. The Text and Its Translation

73

derethik”),18 nor even any ethical system worked out by a philosophical school, but it is decidedly “eclectic.” Christian ethical scrutiny has to sort out what of popular morality is acceptable and adaptable to a Christian behavioral stance. This follows Paul’s general rule of 1 Thess 5:21–22: “Examine everything, keep the good, stay away from every aspect of evil” (πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε, ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε).19 Taken individually, the ethical terms are of special interest. At the beginning, ἀληθῆ (“things true”) marks a fundamental value in both Greek and Roman ethics. The philosophical term τὰ ἀληθῆ occurs only here in Paul.20 The same is to be said about τὰ σεμνά (“revered, worthy of respect, noble”).21 Concerning τὰ δίκαια in a general sense (“things fitting and right”) Paul uses it only once again in Phil 1:7.22 The unusual τὰ ἁγνά is hapax in Paul (“pure, undefiled, upright”).23 A similar hapax is τὰ προσφιλῆ (“agreeable, aesthetically pleasing”).24 The final τὰ εὔφημα (“fair-sounding”) is again a hapax legomenon.25 Not different is ἀρετή; the central term of Greek and Roman ethics is a random hapax in Paul,26 and the same goes for ἔπαινος (“praise”).27 Most scholars agree that this selection of ethical values is Hellenistic in origin and nature, but it does not consist of a catalogue of philosophical virtues like the Stoics would have it. Of course, this difference does not rule out that the Stoics formulated their own sorites.28 Nor does Paul issue specifically ethical orders. Instead his list is broad-based and acknowledges ethical values commonly approved in the culture. These values are not by themselves “Christian”, but they are to be observed by anyone as human phenomena. Typically Hellenistic is that they comprise moral as well as aesthetic, but not distinctively cultic phenomena. Christian reflection must analyze and adapt 18  See Hans-Jürgen Fraas, “Gruppendynamik,” RGG 3 (42000) 1318–19 [“Group Dynamics,” RPP 5 (2009) 601]. 19 Cf. also Phil 1:10; Rom 12:1–2. 20  See BDAG, s. v. ἀληθής, 2. 21  See BDAG, s. v. σεμνός, 1. 22 See LSJ, s. v. δίκαιος, B, II, 2; BDAG, s. v., 2. 23  See LSJ, s. v. ἁγνός, II, 2; BDAG, s. v., b. 24  See LSJ, s. v. προσφιλής regards it as rare and lists Phil 4:8; see BDAG, s. v. 25 See LSJ, s. v. εὔφημος, II, listing Phil 4:8 among rare occurrences; see BDAG, s. v. 26 See BDAG, s. v. ἀρετή, 1. 27 See BDAG, s. v. ἔπαινος, 2. 28 Cf. Cicero, De fin. 4.50: “And again, the following proof is a sorites, which according to you [i. e. Cato] is a most fallacious form of reasoning: ‘what is good is to be wished; what is to be wished is desirable; what is desirable is praiseworthy’ and so on through the remaining steps …” (Iam ille sorites est, quo nihil putatis esse vitiosius: quod bonum sit, id esse optabile, quod optabile id expectendum, quod expectendum, id laudabile, deinde reliqui gradus …). See also Tusc. 5.43–45.

74

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

them critically (λογίζεσθαι), whether and how they are in accord with the Christian way of life. This approach conforms to Paul’s ethical thinking elsewhere in his letters,29 as well as in Hellenistic and Roman popular morality in general. 2. The second part (v.9a) completes the process of instruction by focusing on practice (πράσσειν). “Ethical reflection was generally associated with descriptions of exemplary wise men, but particularly the Stoics conceived of ethics as a constitutive discipline of philosophy alongside logic and physics. All these relate to the universal Logos which provides ethics with its normative respect. The relationship of reason, nature and virtue is a feature of the tradition of natural law.”30 Although Paul subscribes to the traditional view of two parts of ethics, namely of theory and practice, he avoids leaving an isolating gap between them. In order to overcome such a gap, he inserts as a third element the learning process. Thus he advises his readers to keep these three parts in line: the learning process leads from the thinking activity of the mind to the physical engagement of the body. Only then can practice (“doing”) be successful. As described in v.9, the learning process includes four steps. The last step is mentioned first: “learning” (μανθάνειν) signifies not only the process but also the result. Only by actually walking the way of learning (ὁδός)31 one can know “what you have learned” (ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε).32 This learning includes the reception of previously established traditions (παραλαμβάνειν). Clear examples of this are provided by Paul’s passing to the Corinthians the tradition of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23) and the kerygma (1 Cor 15: 1, 3).33 Thus, by this terminology the Apostle reminds his readers

λογίζεσθαι Paul’s almost technical term for it is δοκιμάζειν (Phil 1:10; 1 Thess 5:21; Gal 6:1; 1 Cor 3:13; 11:28; 2 Cor 8:6, 22; 13:5; Rom 12:2; 14:22; etc.). See BDAG, s. v., 2.b. 30 Michael Moxter, “Ethics, VI. As a Philosophical Discipline,” RPP 4 (2008) 594–98; citation on 595 [RGG 2 (41999) 1626]. For Paul’s doctrine of ethics generally and further bibliography, see Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Ethik III.2”, RGG 2 (41999) 1608–10 [“Ethics”, RPP 4 (2008) 582–85]. 31 For this concept see also 1 Cor 4:17; 12:31. 32 For the term μανθάνειν see Rom 16:17: τὴν διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε; 1 Cor 4:6; 14:31, 35, but more frequent instances are found in the deutero-Pauline and Pastoral epistles; see Eph 4:20; Col 1:7; 1 Tim 2:11; 5:4, 13; 2 Tim 3:7, 14; Tit 3:14. Paul does not deny his own learning: Phil 4:11; Gal 3:2. 33 See also Gal 1:9: ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13: 4:1: καθῶς παρελάβετε παρ’ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν; Col 4:17; 2 Thess 3:6: κατὰ τὴν παρά­ δοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ’ ἡμῶν. 29 Besides

2. The Text and Its Translation

75

to which traditions they have committed themselves, facts forming the basis for his further arguments. How does this reception take place? It occurs orally through listening to Paul’s teaching: “and you have heard” (καὶ ἠκούσατε).34 The listening ought to involve the hearers’ “learning by heart.” What is being learned, therefore, are words such as those quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23–26 and in 15:3–8. But hearing is not enough.35 There has to be seeing as well: “and what you have seen in me” (καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί). Paul refers here to himself as a living example of what the Philippians have learned by ear. Confirmation by eye-sight is indispensable evidence, of which the Philippians are in possession because they have the memory of Paul’s example. He lived among them and showed in his daily life concretely what he was talking and writing about in his letters.36 Cases in point are the Last Supper and the kerygma (see above), where the Corinthians know the words, to be sure, but have acted against them and need Paul’s correction. Following the learning process, the command to act can be issued: “these things you practice” (ταῦτα πράσσετε). The term πράσσειν is infrequent in Paul’s letters, where it sounds rather negative compared with the more frequent ποιεῖν.37 In this instance, however, the term signifies not only the imperative but also the ability: Only after the preceding steps of thinking and learning have taken place, “acting” can be accomplished, but then it must actually be carried out; otherwise, mere talking about acting would render the previous steps useless. 3. The third part adds a conclusion in the form of a promissory blessing (v.9c): “and the God of peace shall be with you” (καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μετ’ ὑμῶν).38 What is the purpose of the blessing at this point?39 According to ancient thought generally, and here to Paul, there is no guarantee of success even after having carefully followed the three steps of thinking, learning and  On the importance of hearing (ἀκούειν) the gospel message see 1 Thess 2:13: πα­ ραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς; Gal 3:2, 5; Rom 10:14–18; Eph 1:13; 4:21; 1 Tim 4:16; 2 Tim 34

2:14–15. 35  The relationship between hearing and seeing was widely discussed in antiquity, including Christianity. See the survey by Franz K. Mayr, “Hören,” RAC 15 (1991) 1023–1111. 36  See also Phil 1:27, 30; 2:25–28; 1 Thess 2:17; 3:6, 10; Rom 1:11; 2 Tim 1:4; Eph. 6:21: ἵνα δὲ εἴδητε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω … (cf. Eph 6:22). See BDAG, s. v. εἶδον, 1. 37 See Phil 2:14, and BDAG, s. v. ποιέω, 3.b. 38  The variant reading ἔστε in D* may be due to a scribal hearing error. 39 For similar blessings see Rom 15:33; 2 Cor 11:11; 1 Thess 5:23; cf. Rom 16:20; 2 Thess 3:16; also Gal 6:16; Eph 6:23.

76

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

acting. Ancient wisdom advises caution regarding a make-or-break kind of optimism about taking success for granted. Various obstacles may come in the way: Conflicts may arise between the steps, or serious doubts may lead to abandoning what is reasonable. Even if all goes well, the final outcome may still run against expectations. No method, even if practiced with the best of intentions, can guarantee successful completion. Therefore, the blessing is a prayerful confirmation of divine assistance. Paul does not possess magical powers to produce desired results, but he can only invoke the divine power of “peace” (εἰρήνη), by which God himself has to see things through given the vicissitudes of human life.

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context As Bultmann pointed out in his 1910 doctoral dissertation, Paul’s letters share the convention of Hellenistic philosophical literature to insert in the arguments, especially toward their conclusion, a carefully formulated sententia.40 As he has demonstrated, Phil 4:8–9 fits this description. Its terminology with the preponderance of hapax legomena points to the language of philosophy, so that the association of the key terms λογίζεσθαι and πράσσειν correspond to the concept of the βίος θεωρητικός and βίος πρακτικός, common since Aristotle and modified especially by the Stoics.41 Leaning on these concepts, however, does not exclude the liberty that Paul prefers his own modifications, when he describes the way of life recommended for his followers by the verbal imperatives λογίζετε and πράσσετε, both signifying actions informed by “reason” (λόγος).42 Their coordination is by a specific learning process, which however, different from the Stoics, does not lead to the qualifications of a wise man.43 Since the sententia in Phil 4:8–9 is part of Pauline paraenesis, it is also part of the Socratic tradition, broadly speaking. In that tradition, portraying Socrates 40  Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910; repr. 1984), 32, 63–64, 94–95, 97. 41  See on the general subject the article by Gesche Linde, Günter Figal, et al., “Theorie und Praxis,” RGG 8 (42005) 340–48 [“Theory and Practice,” RPP 12 (2012) 662–67]; Hadot, Seneca, 138–39. 42 For the Stoic concept of a βίος λογικός cf. Diog. L. 7.39–41; also the adaptation by Philo, De vita Mosis 1.204, 205; De leg. all. 1.57–58. 43 Cf. Cicero, De leg. 1.58–62; Tusc. 5.68–72; Seneca, Epist. 66, with the commentary by Erwin Hachmann, L. Annaeus Seneca. Epistulae morales, Brief 66 (Lateres 3; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2006).

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context

77

functions as the primary example for the philosophically inspired way of life leading to εὐδαιμονία. As the following examples will show, this tradition begins with Socrates’ students, especially Xenophon and Plato. Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates and Memorabilia were written in defense of Socrates against accusations by Polycrates and others, whereby Xenophon’s aim is to demonstrate Socrates’ supreme value for education (paideia). The conclusion of Mem. 4.8.11 sums it all up in an encomiastic sententia, the structure of which is somewhat similar to Phil 4:8–9:44 ἐμοὶ μὲν δή, τοιοῦτος ὢν οἷον ἐγὼ διήγημαι, εὐσεβὴς μὲν οὕτως ὥστε μηδὲν ἄνευ τῶν θεῶν γνώμης ποιεῖν, δίκαιος δὲ ὥστε βλάπτειν μὲν μηδὲ μικρὸν μηδένα, ὠφελεῖν δὲ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν χρωμένους αὐτῷ, ἐγκράτης δὲ ὥστε μηδέποτε προαιρεῖσθαι τὸ ἥδιον ἀντὶ τοῦ βελτίονος, φρόνιμος δὲ ὥστε μὴ διαμαρτάνειν κρίνων τὰ βελτίω καὶ τὰ χείρω μηδὲ ἄλλου προσδεῖ­ σθαι, ἀλλ’ αὐτάρκης εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τούτων γνῶσιν, ἱκανὸς δὲ καὶ λόγῳ εἰπεῖν τε καὶ διορίσασθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἱκανὸς δὲ καὶ ἄλλως δοκιμά­ σαι τε καὶ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἐλέγξαι καὶ προτρέψασθαι ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν καὶ καλοκαγαθίαν, ἐδόκει τοιοῦτος εἶναι οἷος ἂν εἴη ἄριστός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ εὐδαιμονέστατος, εἰ δὲ τῷ μὴ ἀρέσκει ταῦτα, παραβάλλων τὸ ἄλλων ἦθος πρὸς ταῦτα οὕτω κρινέτω.

“For myself, I have described him as he was; so religious that he did nothing without counsel from the gods; so just that he did no injury, however small, to any man, but conferred the greatest benefits on all who dealt with him; so self-controlled that he never chose the pleasanter rather than the better course; so wise that he was unerring in his judgment of the better and the worse, and needed no counsellor, but relied on himself for his knowledge of them; masterly in expounding and defining such things: no less masterly in putting others to the test, and convincing them of error and exhorting them to follow virtue and gentleness. To me then he seemed to be all that a truly good and happy man must be. But if there is any doubter, let him set the character of other men beside these things; then let him judge.”

The introductory line announces Xenophon’s personal portrait of Socrates as the foremost example of a sage and philosopher. As evidence the author enumerates five virtues, the adjectives set up in parallel lines with brief explanations. At the end he presents his summary evaluation: in his view Socrates was the best and happiest of men, and he challenges doubters to come to their own conclusion after comparing him with other such figures. 44  The text is cited according to the edition by E. C. Marchant, Xenophontis Opera Omnia, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900); the translation is by E. C. Marchant and O. J. Todd, LCL edition of Xenophon, vol. 4 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), 358–59.

78

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

The sententia as a whole may summarize the end of Book 4 or even all of the Memorabilia.45 Differently, as stated by Socrates, Plato’s view of the true philosopher implies that “thinking” (λογίζεσθαι) is what the soul does best when separated from bodily functions altogether (Phaed. 65c):46 λογίζεται δέ γέ που τότε κάλλιστα, ὅταν αὐτὴν τούτων μηδὲν παραλυπῇ, μήτε ἀκοὴ μήτε ὄψις μήτε ἀλγηδὼν μηδὲ τις ἡδονή, ἀλλ’ ὅ τι μάλιστα αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν γίγνεται ἐῶσα χαίρειν τὸ σῶμα, καθ’ ὅσον δύνατει μὴ κοινωνοῦσα αὐτῷ μηδ’ ἁπτωμένη ὀρέγεται τοῦ ὄντος.

“Furthermore reasoning is, I suppose, at its best when none of those senses intrudes to trouble the soul, neither hearing nor sight nor pain nor pleasure; when it is, so far as may be, alone by itself, taking leave of the body, and having as little communion and contact as possible therewith while it reaches out after reality.”

Among the parallel passages listed since Wettstein47 in commentaries, Cicero ranks highly because he transposed Greek Stoic ethics into Latin. In De finibus he lets Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95–48 BCE) be the leading Stoic spokesman, but for the text Cicero most likely depends on work by Panaitios concerning the concept of virtue (virtus).48 First, the difficulties regarding the rendering of the Greek terminology are discussed (De fin. 3.14):49 Si una virtus, unum istud quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum (erit enim notius, quale sit pluribus notatum vocabulis idem declarantibus), id igitur, inquam, si solum est bonum, quid habebis praeterea quod sequare? aut, si nihil malum nisi quod turpe, inhonestum, indecorum, pravum, flagitiosum, foedum (ut hoc quoque pluribus nominibus insigne faciamus), quid praeterea dices esse fugiendum? 45 On

the “socratizing” of Greek ethical wisdom, see Vivienne J. Gray, The Framing of Socrates. The Literary Interpretation of Xenophon’s Memorabilia (Hermes Einzelschriften 79; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1998), esp. 178–92: “The Image of Socrates.” 46 The text is that of the Oxford edition by J. Burnet; the translation is by R. Hackforth, Plato’s Phaedo (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1952), 46. 47 Novum Testamentum Graece, vol. 2, 279; Neuer Wettstein, vol. 1, 711; Lightfoot, 161; Reumann, 638–42; cf., however, Lohmeyer (174 n. 1) who notes Stoic parallels only as “formal,” because he takes the saying as Jewish in origin. 48 See Peter Steinmetz, “Die Stoa,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 655–60; Eckart Lefèvre, Panaitios’ und Ciceros Pflichtenlehre. Vom philosophischen Traktat zum politischen Lehrbuch (Historia Einzelschriften 150; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001). 49 The text and translation are by H. Rackham, LCL edition of Cicero vol. 17 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 21931), 229–31. For a collection of texts, see De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 127–317.

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context

79

“If only virtue, only that one thing which you call moral, right, praiseworthy, becoming (for its nature will be better understood if it is denoted by a number of synonyms), if then, I say, this is the sole good, what other object of pursuit will you have beside it? Or, if there be nothing bad but what is base, dishonorable, disgraceful, evil, sinful, foul (to make this clear also by using a variety of terms, what else will you pronounce worthy to be avoided?”

Another parallel passage cited by commentators is Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, 5.23.67:50 This summary of the nature of virtue follows upon the juxtaposition of the figure of the rich but unhappy tyrant Dionysios I. of Syracuse with that of the θεωρητικὸς ἀνήρ Archimedes, the Syracusan mathematician and philosopher whose tomb Cicero himself had rediscovered:51 Etenim quae pars optima est in homine, in ea situm esse necesse est illud, quod quaeris optimum. Quid est autem in homine sagaci ac bona mente melius? Eius bono fruendum est igitur, si beati esse volumus; bonum autem mentis est virtus: ergo hac beatam vitam contineri necesse est. Hinc omnia, quae pulchra, honesta, praeclara sunt, ut supra dixi, sed dicendum idem illud paullo uberius videtur, plena gaudiorum sunt; ex perpetuis autem plenisque gaudiis cum perspicuum sit vitam beatam exsistere, sequitur ut ea exsistat ex honestate. “For that ‘best’ of which you are in search must necessarily have its place in what is the best part in a man. But what is there in man better than a mind that is sagacious and good? The good of such a mind then we must enjoy if we wish to be happy; but the good of the mind is virtue: therefore happy life is necessarily bound up with virtue. Consequently all that is lovely, honourable, of good report, as I have said above [5.43], but I must say it again, it seems, with rather more expansion, is full of joys; but seeing that it is clear that happy life comes from unceasing fulness of joys, it follows that it comes from rectitude.”

This central passage in Cicero, in which he names the “mind” (mens) as the ultimate source of virtue itself, seems to come close to Paul. Gnilka even considers the possibility that Phil 4:8–9 was lifted from a Stoic moral source.52 While there is no question that Paul’s saying is very close to Hellenistic ethical thought, the critical problem is: How Stoic is the passage quoted, and how comparable is it with Paul? For good reason Cicero continues in his text by providing an additional Stoic interpretation of it, admitting that the words

50 Cited

according to the text and translation by J. E. King, LCL edition of Cicero, vol. 18 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 21945), 492–94; 493 n. 3, points to Phil 4:8 as parallel. 51 See Tusc. 5.64–66, and for the incident of great importance for Cicero, Mary Jaeger, “Cicero and Archimedes’ Tomb,” JRS 92 (2002) 49–61. 52 Gnilka, 221.

80

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

so far quoted would not suffice.53 What is still needed, is a section on the Stoic system of philosophy, and a further addition of how to get from theory to practice. To introduce the Stoic system Cicero wants us to imagine the construction of the Stoic philosopher.54 He must be a man endowed with the highest qualities. “In the first place he must be of outstanding intelligence; for virtue is not easily found to go with sluggish minds; secondly he must have an eager enthusiasm in the quest of truth; and from this springs the famous threefold progeny of the soul … .”55 The metaphor of “progeny” or “fruit” (fetus) refers to the three parts of Stoic philosophy to be studied: Physica, including cosmology as well as theology; Ethica, “distinguishing the things that should be sought out or avoided and in framing a rule of life;” and Dialectica, by “judging what is the consequence to every premise, what is compatible with it, and in this lies all the refinement of argument and truth of judgment.”56 Serious, rigorous, and joyful study of each of these parts of philosophy is necessary in order to form the person of the philosopher. This is not only an intellectual process, but involves practices as well, but such practices are limited to the individual’s external necessities.57 For this reason Cicero adds a statement on the responsibility of the wise man for the public affairs. Although the greatest usefulness of the philosopher’s work cannot be denied, “it is the occupation of leisure: let the wise man we have imagined also pass to the maintenance of the public weal [i. e. res publica]. What course more excellent could he take, since his prudence shows him the true advantage of his fellow citizens, his justice lets him divert nothing of theirs to his own family, and he is strong in the exercise of so many different remaining virtues? Add to this the fruit which springs from friendships in which learned men find the counsel which shares their thoughts and almost breathes the same breath throughout the course of life, as well as the supreme charm of daily social intercourse.”58 The realization of this ideal image allows the final promise: “And to a life filled with joys so abundant and intense, fortune itself is bound to yield its 53  Tusc. 5.68–72. See furthermore Tusc. 5.5 (hymn to philosophy); De leg. 1.58–62; Lael. 27–28. 54  Tusc. 5.68: Sumatur enim nobis quidem praestans vir optimis artibus isque animo parumper et cogitatione fingatur. 55  Ibid.: Primum ingenio eximio sit necesse est; tardis enim mentibus virtus non facile comitatur; deinde ad investigandam veritatem studio incitato; ex quo triplex ille animi fetus exsistet … . 56 Ibid.: Unus in cognitione rerum positus et in explicatione naturae; alter in discriptione expetendarum fugiendarumve rerum et in ratione vivendi; tertius in iudicando quid cuique rei sit consequens, quid repugnans, in quo inest omnis cum subtilitas disserendi tum veritas iudicandi. 57 Ibid., 69–72. 58 Ibid., 72.

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context

81

place. If then it is the happiness to rejoice in such goods of the soul, that is virtues, and all wise men have full experience of such joys, we are bound to admit that they are all happy.”59 It should be said, however, that despite this utopian optimism Cicero seeks to come to terms with the major objection: What about the circumstances of excruciating torture and all the rest? As we know especially from his letters, he was fully aware of the painful experiences in life that contradicted his high hopes.60 Cicero himself was anything but a strictly dogmatic Stoic. Claiming to belong to the so-called New Academy, associated with Arcesilaus, Carneades, Panaetius and Posidonius, he understood that being a philosopher means to be conversant with a variety of schools, to critically discuss most important issues with their representatives, and enjoy life as a reflection-driven learning process. At the same time he acted responsibly, as much as he was able to, in the political struggles in Rome against the threat of losing the Republic. The terrors of Cicero’s own demise and death have left us another image of a Roman philosopher. The image of his death61 is reflected also on the suicides of Stoic friends such as Marcus Porcius Cato at Utica (46 BCE) and Marcus Iunius Brutus near Philippi (42 BCE).62 Awaiting his own assassination, Cicero was executed in 43 BCE in consequence of the proscription issued by the second triumvirate at the insistence of Marcus Antonius, his archenemy. How then does Cicero’s ethics compare with Paul’s sententia in Phil 4:8–9?63 While the profound differences are undeniable, there are interesting similarities. Although Cicero’s ethical system, to the extent he has one, is shared by much of antiquity, Paul clearly stands outside of the philosophical consensus. In view of his uncertain wavering and doubting, Cicero would not appreciate Paul’s certainty concerning the historical foundations of his ethics. When Paul speaks of “the fruit of the spirit” (ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος), he means the “holy spirit” of God and Christ that is given to every member of the Christian community in their ritual of baptism. This fruit of the spirit grows out of the crucifixion and resurrection of a divine redeemer, Jesus Christ, 59  Ibid., 72: Cui refertae tot tantisque gaudiis Fortuna ipsa cedat necesse est. Quod si gaudere talibus bonis animi, id est, virtutibus, beatum est omnesque sapientes iis gaudiis perfruuntur, omnes eos beatos esse confiteri necesse est. 60  See ibid., 73–79. 61 For an assessment of Cicero as a philosopher, see Woldemar Görler and Günter Gawlick, “Cicero,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 1084–1125. 62 To him Cicero dedicated his Tusc.; see 1.1.1; 5.1.1; 5.5.12, 34; 5.41.121. 63 See also Anton Vögtle, Die Tugend‑ und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (NTA 16/4–5; Münster: Aschendorff, 1936), 178–88.

82

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

and the Christian’s commitment to “faith” in that redemption. Therefore, this “faith” is not conditional upon the natural intellectual endowment of the individual, but on a salvation event in history, of which the baptized Christians become beneficiaries through the rituals and the subsequent life in the redemptive church community. This conscious participation in the church community enables its members to be ethically aware and responsible.64 In Gal 5:22–23 Paul identifies “the fruit of the spirit” as the source which produces nine ethical qualities, including ἀγάπη, χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις, πραΰτης, ἐγκράτεια. However, this so-called “catalogue of virtues” does not add up to the supreme ethical good of virtus (ἀρετή). When he names “virtue” (ἀρετή) in Phil 4:8, Paul does not mean “virtus” as the highest good in a Stoic sense, but as one ethical term among others. In addition, appropriating the whole list of ethical qualities in Gal 5:22–23 does not lead to becoming a “wise man” (σοφός).65 For Paul, there is no possibility for human beings to call themselves “wise,” but only God possesses “wisdom” (σοφία) in the full sense of the term.66 The only wisdom humans may achieve is the prudence of being always aware of one’s lack of wisdom.67 At this point, Paul may agree with Cicero, and both certainly agree that the ethical terms in Phil 4:8 and Gal 5:22–23 represent cultural values of eminent importance, even though “wisdom” is not included. Thus, it can be stated that both Cicero and Paul reach into the general ethical culture to evaluate and interpret its concepts, but they do so in very different ways.68 Finally, commentators name parallels to Phil 4:8–9 in the writings of the philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BCE – 65 CE), who was murdered in Rome at about the same time as Paul. Whatever Seneca has to say regarding the Roman situation and his reactions to it allows us to draw some inferences Paul, the divine spirit (πνεῦμα) is a personal presence of Christ (2 Cor 3:17) and not, as for the Stoics, a material substance permeating the universe. This is, of course, not the place for a thorough discussion of Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s hypothesis that Paul’s concept of spirit is a material one and none other than that of Stoicism. See from his numerous writings especially, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000) and Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Cf. the important review by Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, EC 3 (2012) 122–33. 65 For more explanation, see Betz, Galatians, 286–89. 66 See on Paul’s views on “wisdom” my Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 87–97; 98–120. 67 See, especially, 1 Cor 1:18–25; 3:18–23; Rom 1:21–23. 68 According to the comment by Olof Gigon on Tusc. 5.73 (Gespräche in Tusculum [Düsseldorf and Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 2003], 372), Epicurus was the only philosopher who called himself sapiens (“wise”). Cf. also Michael Erler, “Epikur,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/1 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 162: “Der epikureische Weise.”. 64 For

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context

83

about his contemporary Paul, of whose final end we have no records. If we did not have the detailed accounts by Tacitus, on which those of other historians depend, Seneca’s end would also be shrouded in mystery, like Paul’s.69 We shall begin with the much quoted passage in Seneca’s De tranquillitate animi 3.4:70 An ille plus praestat, qui inter peregrinos et cives aut urbanus praetor adeuntibus adsessoris verba pronuntiat, quam quid sit iustitia, quid pietas, quid patientia, quid fortitudo, quid mortis contemptus, quid deorum intellectus, quam tutum gratuitumque bonum sit bona conscientia? “Or does he accomplish more who in the office of praetor, whether in cases between citizens and foreigners or in cases between citizens, delivers to suitors the verdict his assistant has formulated, than he who teaches the meaning of justice, of piety, of endurance, of bravery, of contempt of death, of knowledge of the gods, and how secure and free is the blessing of a good conscience?”

Besides being another case of sorites, there is more to say about it and its context. The title suggests the rather conventional topic of “tranquillity of mind,” it is for personal reasons dedicated to Annaeus Serenus, a young prefect of Nero’s nightwatch (praefectus Neronis vigilum) who was engaged in studying Stoic philosophy and whom Seneca had befriended. Tacitus (Ann. 4.13.13) reports that Serenus was a witness of what went on in Nero’s private quarters, and Pliny (N. H. 22.96) knows that Serenus died from eating poisonous mushrooms. These comments may point to some of the realities behind his distress because of which he had turned to Seneca for advice.71 Seneca begins his essay by giving the word to Serenus who presents a general account of his distress and frustration, without naming concrete reasons. Like speaking to a physician, he asks Seneca to explain the name and nature of his mental illness, and to provide him with a remedy (1.1–17). Serenus had turned to Seneca as to an eminent Stoic because he wants to pursue a life 69 See

also my Wellhausen-Lecture, Der Apostel Paulus in Rom, 43–45. and translation according to the LCL edition by John W. Basore, Seneca: Moral Essays, vol. 2 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932), 224–25. 71 Seneca took the plea of his friend to heart and dedicated three essays (De constantia, De otio, De tranquillitate) to Serenus. In Epist. 63.14–16 he admits that he took his friend’s sudden death from eating poisonous mushrooms as a hard blow by Fortuna. On Nero see the article by Marco Frenschkowski, RAC Lieferung 199 (2013) 839–78 (with bibl.). 70 Text

84

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

informed by Stoic philosophy. How can he maintain the Stoic road toward virtue, while he is living in an environment that displays the very opposite, a chaotic drama of extravagant luxury, absurdity, and crime? That is not only Serenus’ question, but it also applies to Seneca’s own dilemma. Seneca’s response is based on earlier philosophers, of which Democritus’ famous treatise περὶ εὐθυμίας is named (2.3). Yet, Seneca advises against Epicurus’ principle of withdrawal from society altogether, a view shared by another Stoic living in Rome, named Athenodorus, whose views are presented extensively (3.1–4.1; 7.2).72 Seneca himself constructs as another option a compromise, to gradually disengage from troubling involvements in society and to focus on other services to the community which allow maintaining one’s professional integrity and philosophical standards (4.1).73 If the military is incompatible and too distressful, other services like political or legal professions may be preferable, if they allow to exercise public duties of the citizen without abandoning one’s personal integrity. This, of course, is the option that Seneca himself has tried to pursue. He sums up his recommendation by this concluding sententia (17.12): Habes, Serene carissime, quae possint tranquillitatem tueri, quae restituere, quae subrepentibus vitiis resistant. Illud tamen cito, nihil horum satis esse validum rem imbecillam servantibus, nisi intenta et adsidua cura circumit animum labentem. “Here are the rules, my dearest Serenus, by which you may preserve tranquillity, by which you may restore it, by which you may resist the vices that steal upon it unawares. Yet, be sure of this – none of them is strong enough to guard a thing so frail unless we surround the wavering mind with earnest and unceasing care.”

One of the most important contacts between Paul and Seneca concerns the words in Phil 4:9 (“what … you have seen in me” [ἃ … εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί]) and Tacitus’ famous report of Seneca’s death (Ann. 4.15.60–64).74 While Seneca 72 He

may be identical with Athenodorus Calvus who lived in Rome. Cf. Seneca, Epist. 10.5; and Strabo 14.5.14; Cicero, Epist. ad Att. no. 420 and 425 (16.11 and 14), ed. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus, vol. 4 (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). See also Karl-Heinz Hülser, “Athenodorus,” Brill’s New Pauly 2 (2003) 252–53. 73 See Hadot, Seneca, 135–41. 74 The text and translation cited is by John Jackson, LCL edition of Tacitus, Annals, vol. 5 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 314–17. For commentary, see Erich Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus. Annalen Band 4, Buch 14–16

3. Paul’s saying in ancient context

85

was having dinner with his wife Pompeia Paulina and two friends in his villa in Tusculum, he was confronted by officers coming from Nero and delivering the order to commit suicide. Tacitus presents this account: “Seneca, nothing daunted, asked for the tablets containing his will. The centurio refusing, he turned to his friends, and called them to witness that ‘as he was prevented from showing his gratitude for their services, he left them his sole and fairest possession – the image of his life. If they bore it in mind, they would reap the reward of their loyal friendship in the credit accorded to virtuous accomplishments.’ At the same time he recalled them from tears to fortitude, sometimes conversationally, sometimes in sterner, almost coercive tones. ‘Where,’ he asked, ‘were the maxims of their philosophy? Where that reasoned attitude toward s impending evils which they had studied through so many years? For to whom had Nero’s cruelty been unknown? Nor was anything left him, after the killing of his mother and his brother, but to add the murder of his guardian and preceptor.’”75

Remarkably, while Seneca had been denied access to his papers, Tacitus adds that the philosopher was allowed to dictate a last-minute speech: “And since, even at the last moment his eloquence remained at command, he called his secretaries, and dictated a long discourse, which has been given to the public in his own words, and which I therefore refrain from modifying.”76 The assumption is that Tacitus had access to this speech but decided not to insert it, or an abbreviated version of it, into his account.77 Scholars are in agreement that the entire scene of Seneca’s suicide is patterned after the death of Socrates and, therefore, belongs to the reception history of Plato’s Phaedo.78

(Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und römischen Schriftstellern; Heidelberg: Winter, 1968), 302–9. 75 15.62: Ille interritus poscit testamenti tabulas; ac negante centurione conversus ad amicos quando meritis eorum referre gratiam prohiberetur, quod unum iam et tamen pulcherrimum habeat, imaginem vitae suae relinquere testatur, cuius si memores essent, bonarum artium famam pretium tam constantis amicitiae laturos. Simul lacrimas eorum modo sermone, modo intentior in modum coercentis ad firmitudinem revocat, rogitans ubi praecepta sapientiae, ubi tot per annos meditata ratio adversum imminentia? Cui enim ignarum fuisse saevitiam Neronis? Neque aliud superesse post matrem fratremque interfectos, quam educatoris praeceptorisque necem adiceret. 76 15.63: Et novissimo quoque momento suppeditante eloquentia advocatis scriptoribus pleraque tradidit, quae in vulgus edita eius verbis invertere supersedeo. 77 The appearance of the passage suggests that it could be a later interpolation by someone who claims to have knowledge of Seneca’s speech. 78 See Klaus Döring, Exemplum Socratis. Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynischstoischen Popularphilosophie der frühen Kaiserzeit und im frühen Christentum (Hermes Einzelschriften 42; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979), 37–42; Margarethe Billerbeck, “Die dramatische Kunst des Tacitus,” ANRW 2, 33.4 (1991) 2752–2771, esp. 2765–2766; Gregor

86

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

In literature the concept of the imago vitae became influential for dramatic representations of the deaths of philosophers like Thrasea Paetus, Barea Soranus, and literary figures like Lucanus and Petronius.79 Equally important is the imago vitae as educational example in Plutarch’s biographies, especially those of Cicero or Cato (Uticensis).80 Coming back to Seneca, his Epistulae ad Lucilium may in their entirety be a literary venue for Seneca’s image.81 Representational art goes beyond the written word when sculptured portraits of philosophers serve educational purposes.82 The portraits of Socrates clearly have this function, demonstrated impressively also, e. g. by the double-portrait of Socrates and Seneca in Berlin,83 or by Rubens’ paintings of Seneca’s death.84

4. Imitation of Paul as His Legacy Interpreting Phil 4:8–9 in the context of the epistle connects the saying with Paul’s appeal in 3:17 to imitate him: “Be imitators of me, brothers, and observe those who live in such a manner as you have me for an example.” (Συμ­ μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ὑμᾶς.). The concept of imitation is central to Paul’s paraenesis, so that both passages connect in such a way that his image as Vorbild (τύπος) is

the authoritative prototype for the lifestyle of the faithful. In turn, Paul’s own protoype is Jesus Christ: “Be imitators of me, as also I am of Christ” (μιμηταί Maurach, Seneca. Leben und Werk (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21996), 43–54. 79  See Tacitus, Ann. 4.16.21–35. 80  Cf. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of Cicero, both Cato maior and minor, and Brutus. 81  See Maurach, Seneca, 7–8; Hadot, Seneca, 174–76, referring to Epist. 11.9; 32.1; Manfred Fuhrmann, Seneca und Kaiser Nero. Eine Biographie (Berlin: Fest, 1997), 329–33; Beat Schönegg, Senecas Epistulae morales als philosophisches Kunstwerk (Bern and New York, 1999), 19–31; Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier, “Seneca’s Collection of Epistles: A Medium of Philosophical Communication,” in Eadem, Von Atheismus bis Zensur: Römische Lektüren in kulturwissenschaftlicher Absicht (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2006), 325–41 (with further literature). 82 See the informative article by Peter Blome, “Die imagines maiorum: ein Problemfall römischer und neuzeitlicher Ästhetik,” in Gottfried Boehm, ed., Homo Pictor (München & Leipzig: Saur, 2001), 305–22. 83 See Carl Blümel, Römische Bildnisse. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen (Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1933), 44, plate 71. 84 See Gregor Maurach, “Tacitus und Rubens. Zwei Bilder von Senecas Tod,” Gymnasium 97 (1990) 507–25 (with plates 1–4).

4. Imitation of Paul as His Legacy

87

μου γίνεθε καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ [1 Cor 11:1]).85 The authoritative model for

Paul is presented by the citation of the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6–11, most likely familiar to the Philippians already through performances in worship services. Yet, behind Christ is the image of God.86 Therefore, the readers are called: “This you should keep in mind among you, which is the same as being in Christ Jesus.” (τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. [Phil 2:5]).87 How are these images supposed to be concretely effective?88 Of course, in letter texts the images are verbal and function as communal memory in motivating the faithful to follow the apostle’s conduct of his “ways of life” (ὁδοί) as a whole. Thus, remembering Paul is an ongoing perception: His image as well as Christ’s are “living images” present in life as it goes on. For Paul it includes the epistolary dimension, in which “seeing and hearing” become real through hearing Epaphroditus’ reports and reading the apostle’s letters. In this way, this communication as a whole provides a kind of living presence, in which his memory is refreshed whenever his letters are being read, be it in the worship services or in private meditation. How this is to be understood is impressively shown also in the deutero-Pauline epistles, e. g. in Colossians (2:5): “For even though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the spirit, rejoicing as I see your good order and firmness of your faith in Christ” (εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι, χαίρων καὶ βλέ­ πων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν).89 Paul’s “second presence” in the spirit occurs time and again in the church through worship, messengers, and reading of his letters. Most important is Paul’s paraenesis, which is communicated through his own letters as well as those of his collaborators and imitators. That imitation was common as a literary device is shown by Seneca’ epistles. Epist. 11.8–10 may be chosen as a good example:90 85  See also 1 Thess 1:7; 2:14; Gal 4:12; 1 Cor 4:16; Rom 8:29; furthermore cf. 2 Thess 3:7–9; Eph 5:1. 86  For Christ as the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, see 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Rom 8:30; Eph 5:1–2. 87  The term φρονεῖν occurs throughout Philippians: see 1:7; 2:5; 3:15, 19; 4:10; it is difficult to translate because it combines serious consideration with comprehensiveness and constancy by the community. See infra, on Phil 2:5. 88  For the background, see Friedrich A. Marx, “Tacitus und die Literatur der exitus illustrium virorum,” Ph. 92 (1937) 83–103; Alessandro Ronconi, “Exitus illustrium virorum,” RAC 6 (1966) 1258–68. 89  For further explanation of this literary phenomenon see my essay, “Paul’s ‘Second Presence’ in Colossians,” in: Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 121–33. 90  Cited according to the edition and translation by Richard M. Gummere, Seneca ad Lucilium epistulae morales, vol. 1 (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard

88

IV. On Being a Paulinist (Phil 4:8–9)

Iam clausulam epistula poscit. Accipe, et quidem utilem ac salutarem, quam te affigere animo volo: ‘Aliquis vir bonus nobis diligendus est ac semper ante oculos habendus, ut si tamquam illo spectante vivamus et omnia tamquam illo vidente faciamus.’ Hoc, mi Lucili, Epicurus praecepit. Custodem nobis et paedagogum dedit, nec inmerito. Magna pars peccatorum tollitur, si peccaturis testis adsistit. Aliquem habet animus, quem vereatur, cuius auctoritate etiam secretum suum sanctius faciat. O felicem illum, qui non praesens tantum, sed etiam cogitatus emendat! O felicem, qui sic aliquem vereri potest, ut ad memoriam quoque eius se conponat atque ordinet! … Elige eum, cuius tibi placuit ac vita et oratio et ipse animum ante se ferens vultus. “But my letter calls for its closing sentence. Hear and take to heart this useful and wholesome motto: ‘Cherish some man of high character, and keep him ever before your eyes, living as if he were watching you, and ordering all your actions as if he beheld them.’ Such, my dear Lucilius, is the counsel of Epicurus; he has quite properly given us a guardian and an attendant. We can get rid of most sins, if we have a witness who stands near us when we are likely to go wrong. The soul should have someone whom it can respect, – one by whose authority it may make even its inner shrine more hallowed. Happy is the man who can make others better, not merely when he is in their company, but even when he is in their thoughts? And happy also is he who can so revere a man as to calm and regulate himself by calling him to mind! … Choose a master whose life, conversation, and soul-expressing face have satisfied you; picture him always to yourself as your protector or your pattern.”

Profound differences between the Stoic and the Pauline paraenesis are plain and clear. Unlike Greek and Roman philosophers Paul does not subscribe to philosophical “virtue ethics.”91 Ἀρετή (virtus) is not named as the highest good of all. Ethics is, in the first place, not a matter of and between individuals who are involved in philosophical training. The greatest difference, however, between Paul and Seneca is expressed in Seneca’s orientation towards the deity within, as he states it in the often cited Epist. 41.1–2:92 Here the dialogue with Lucilius turns out to be a monologue of the philosopher with his inner divine self. Non sunt ad caelum elevandae manus nec exorandus aedituus, ut nos ad aurem simulacri, quasi magis exaudiri possimus, admittat; prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat. Bonus vero vir sine deo nemo est; an potest aliquis supra University Press, 1917), 64–65; for the quotation from Epicurus, see Frag. 210 ed. Usener. See furthermore Seneca, Epist. 32.1; 52.1–9; 55.9–11. On the task of guidance of the soul, see Hadot, Seneca, 174–76. 91 See Werner Eisenhut, Virtus Romana. Ihre Stellung im römischen Wertsystem (Studia et Testimonia antiqua 13; München: Fink, 1973), 57–76 (Cicero), 136–52 (Seneca). 92 Seneca, Epist., ed. Gummere, vol. 1, 272–73; the citation is from Vergil, Aeneid. 8.352. See Hans-Josef Klauck, “Der Gott in dir (Ep 41,1),” in: Idem, Alte Welt und neuer Glaube. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (NTOA 29; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 11–31.

5. Conclusion

89

fortunam nisi ab illo adiutus exurgere? Ille dat consilia magnifica et erecta. In unoquoque virorum bonorum ‘Quis deus incertum est, habitat deus.’ “We do not need to uplift our hands toward heaven, nor to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach his idol’s ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard. God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so we are treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man ‘A god does dwell, but what god know we not.’”

5. Conclusion To sum up: When analyzed in its details, Paul’s carefully designed sentence composition in Phil 4:8–9 clearly bears his own signature. For him the arena of ethical behavior and the Christian way of life is the human community within as well as beyond the church. His expectation is that the ἐκκλησία (3:6; 4:15) becomes somewhat of a mirror reflecting Paul’s conduct as well as the image of Christ and God. In that way, the church is oriented soteriologically to Christ and God, and directed at the human community as it is and as it is intended. Nonetheless, the Christian faithful are responsible as individuals to make their own decisions and choices. Communicated through his spirit and word, Paul’s imago vitae constantly motivates and inspires those who are united with him as “fellow-imitators” (συμμιμηταί). If this can be accepted, the sayings epilogue of 4:8–9 conforms to the practice of literary authors of the time to conclude their works with a “last word” (ultimum verbum).93 The saying would indeed come at the end of the body of the letter, if our hypothesis is accepted that the segment of 4:10–20 has been inserted at its present place by a later redactor.94 Paul’s “last word” is then followed only by the final greetings (4:21–22) and blessing (4:23).

93

 See Willibaldus Schmidt, De ultimis morientium verbis (Marburg: Schaaf, 1915); Christian Gnilka, “Ultima Verba,” JbAC 22 (1979) 5–21. 94 See Chapter VI, below.

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13) 1. Introduction As we have seen before, one of the peculiar features of Philippians is Paul’s apparent preference for gnomic sayings compositions. After having discussed the sententia in 4:8–9 in the previous chapter we might as well move to the next such composition in 4:11–13, but here things get more complicated. Normally, readers should assume that after the “last word” of vv.8–9 the conclusion of the letter would follow. Yet, this conclusion occurs only later in vv.21–23. The reason is that, in my view, vv.10–20 represents an originally separate piece which the final redactor has inserted between v.9 and v.21. This hypothesis ought to have been argued before going any further, but it is more advantageous to turn to vv. 11–13 first and then discuss the composition of vv.10–20 in the next chapter.1 Thus, anticipating the result of this hypothesis at this point will help to understand the sayings composition in vv.11–13 better.2 After the blessing in v.9, v.10 suddenly introduces an altogether different matter concerning finances. Probably asyndetically,3 Paul begins in v.10 to express his great joy for having received a supposedly sizable amount of money from the Philippians, delivered to him by the messenger Epaphroditus (4:18). Apparently, the matter was not only enjoyable but also somewhat embarrassing, which Paul recognizes by his fine irony within otherwise straight language (4:10). He confesses to have been pleasantly surprised by the renewed attention expressed to him after some period of silence: “I greatly rejoiced in the Lord that after some interval you have let your thinking on my behalf flourish again.”4 This, however, should not be misconstrued. “For 1

 See Chapter VI, below.  Commentaries offer an array of ideas; for observations see Weiss (1859), 326–31; Lightfoot, 163–64; Dibelius, 95–97; Lohmeyer, 179–82; Gnilka, 174–76; Fee, 430–36; Reumann, 650–58, 700–04. 3  The particle δὲ at the beginning of v.10 may have been added by the redactor. 4  4:10: Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν. 2

92

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

that matter, you have been thinking of me all along, but you have had no opportunity to express it.”5 In the past some commentators have suggested, while others have denied the idea, that Paul’s words imply a subtle complaint of having been neglected for some time,6 but it is more likely that his language reflects explanations given by Epaphroditus, the courier from Philippi. Paul seems to allude to the fact that during his travels to Jerusalem and from there to Rome communication has been difficult, perhaps even impossible. Then bypassing some perhaps delicate issues, in vv.11–13, he offers a gnomic sententia,7 introduced by these words (v.11a): “It is not from a situation of deprivation that I have this to say” (οὐχ ὅτι καθ’ ὑστέρησιν λέγω). The reason for this statement may simply be that the Philippians have just supplied him with what he needed (v.17: πλεονάζω; v.18: περισσεύω, πεπλήρωμαι). Given the fact that the apostle is in prison, all kinds of shortages were part of his life, and thus he could rightfully speak of ὑστερεῖσθαι, πεινᾶν (v.12), θλῖψις (v.14), and χρεία (v.16). How could he manage the constant disadvantages creating havoc during the course of his life?8 How could he hope to cope with it all? He was convinced of the effects of “prayer and provision of the spirit of Jesus Christ” (δέησις καὶ ἐπιχορηγία τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1:19), but that alone would not suffice. For this reason he went on to affirm what philosophers have long ago advised: the attitude of “self-sufficiency” or “self-reliance” (αὐτάρκεια). The sententia in vv.11b–13 points out that there is no contradiction between the two factors which enabled him to survive in the struggles. Rather, the combination reveals his ironic avoidance of ending up with a paradox.9

2. Text and translation As mentioned above, the sententia is introduced in v.11a by the phrase οὐχ ὅτι καθ’ ὑστέρησιν λέγω (“It is not from a situation of deprivation that I have  Ibid.: ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ. a discussion of this issue see Weiss (1859), 324–27. 7 It is a gnomic sententia, not a “hymn” or “poem” (“Gedicht”), as proposed by Lohmeyer, 180, n. 3; Gnilka, 174–76. The correct identification is by Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt, 71, n. 4; Dibelius, 96. 8 See also my article, “Der Mensch in seinen Antagonismen aus der Sicht des Paulus,” in: Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 53–70. 9 Cf. Christ’s paradox of 2 Cor 12:9a: ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου, ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται (“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness”). Similar is 1 Cor 15:9–11. For more, see section 5, below. 5

6 For

2. Text and translation

93

this to say”). The term λέγω is emphatic, as if announcing a citation.10 What then follows is a rather peculiar sententia: 11/ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον ἐν οἷς εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι. 12/ οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι,



οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν· ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι· 13/ πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.



11/ 12/ 13/

“For I have learned to be self-sufficient under any condition; I also know to be abased, I also know to abound. In all and every situation I have been initiated; to be well-fed and to go hungry, to have abundance and be deprived. Everything I accomplish through him who infuses me with strength.”

Regarding text criticism, there is only one variant to the standard text of Nestle-Aland to be of importance. In v.13 a number of manuscripts add Χριστῷ to ἐνδυναμοῦντί με: ‫א‬² D² K L P Ψ 049 056 min.11 This addition, however, seems to be secondary compared with the majority reading of ending on με (ἐνδυναμοῦντί με: ‫ *א‬A B D*, etc.). The question is, why was the addition made? One reason could be an influence of the parallel in 1 Tim 1:12: Χάριν ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντι Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (“I am most grateful to our Lord Jesus Christ for having strengthened me”). However, the reasoning could just as well be the reverse: If 1 Tim 1:12 knew and imitated Phil 4:13, the change could already be in the Vorlage of the Pastoral Epistles. The same is true of the other parallel in Polycarp, Phil 1:1: Συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“Together with you I am most grateful to Jesus Christ our Lord”). Since Polycarp knew Paul’s “letters” (!) to the Philippians (11:3), which textual basis did that Vorlage represent? (cf. also Ignatius, Smyrn. 4:2). Since these later texts were familiar with Paul’s Philippians, they do not intend to quote it verbatim. Rather, they supply what they know generally as Pauline epistolary language. Therefore, the rule of lectio difficilior probabilior should prevail here: The later Christian authors and scribes may have perceived that ending v.13 on ἐνδυ­ ναμοῦντί με means leaving the sentence without a Christian identification, 10  For the idea that it is an “insertion” (“Einlage”) see Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt, 48–49, 98; Dibelius, 96; Lohmeyer, 181. 11  See Nestle-Aland, app. crit. ad loc., also Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 123–24, 200.

94

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

so that the question of which power does the empowering remains unanswered.12 Ending in this way, the sententia looks much like a Stoic version, according to which the δύναμις (“power”) in question could then be the divine and cosmic πνεῦμα (“spirit”).13 Therefore, Paul did not want to leave such an important question open for the readers to answer.14

3. The composition of the sententia The composition of the saying has three parts: First part v.11b Declarative claim v.12a–b Exposition: evidence of two contrasting experiences Second part v.12c Declarative claim v.12d–e Exposition: evidence of two contrasting experiences Third part Summary and concluding maxim v.13 As a whole, the saying in the first person singular is clearly on the topic of αὐτάρκεια (“self-sufficiency” or “self-reliance”). In the first part Paul una-

bashedly claims that he possesses such self-sufficiency. This claim is supported by evidence in the form of two instances of knowledge regarding contrasting experiences. The second part repeats the claim using different terms: Pointedly, Paul says that he has been “initiated” (μεμυημένος) into every conceivable situation. Again, this claim is supported by two instances of contrasting experiences. The third part sums up the evidence by a concluding maxim, stating the reason why he has been able to endure his predicament, and how he can justify his outrageously bold claims.

12  For the δύναμις of Christ cf. Phil 3:10; 1 Cor 1:24; 5:4; 2 Cor 12:9–10; Ign Eph 11:2; etc.; however, most frequent in Paul is the genitive construction of δύναμις θεοῦ (Rom 1:16, 20; 1 Cor 1:18, 24; 2:5; etc.); for ἐνδυναμοῦν Χριστῷ, cf. 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 2:1; 4:17; Eph 6:10. See BDAG, s. v. δύναμις, 1.a; ἐνδυναμόω, 1. 13 Of course, the difference here is not absolute; cf. for the πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Phil 1:19–20, 27; 2:1; 3:3; Rom 15:13 (ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου), 19; 1 Cor 2:4; 15:43–44; Eph 3:16; 2 Tim 1:7. 14 The concluding statement has close parallels in Phil 1:6; 2:13; 2 Cor 12:9–10; cf. 1 Cor 3:18–23 (on the passage see my essay in Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 113–14).

3. The composition of the sententia

95

Surprising the Philippians by a gnomic sententia on the subject of “self-sufficiency” must have appeared to them as provocative. Of course, they will remember their Apostle’s sense of irony, especially self-irony. How else could he make a claim that is so obviously Cynic-Stoic?15 In one way, the answer is contained in the denial of v.11a: The reason why he does not speak from a situation of deprivation is that he has just been supplied with the money delivered by Epaphroditus. However, there is much more involved here than humorous banalities. In fact, what Epaphroditus has done is a matter of legal principle, and that principle is explained by Paul in the sayings composition in vv.11b–13. What then does this fact reveal about the origin of the saying? Several options offer themselves. Paul could have composed the saying himself, ignorant of its similarity to the philosophical background of the key terminology of αὐτάρκης  /  ​ αὐτάρκεια. Or, he could have adapted a well-known sententia and modified it to comply with his own ethics.16 Finally, he could have intentionally mimicked a typical attitude attributed to Stoic philosophers.17 In addition, there is the structural parallelism of both 4:11–13 and 4:8–9: they both have three parts, which seems to be conventional in the gnomic tradition.18 Furthermore, there is the question of the similar sententia in 1 Tim 6:6–8: 6/ Ἐστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας· 7/ οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον,



ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι δυνάμεθα·

9/ ἔχοντες τὰ διατροφὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα, τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα. 6/ “Religious piety coupled with self-sufficiency is a great source of income. 7/ For as we have brought nothing into this world, we cannot take anything out of it either. 15  On the subject in general, see Paul Wilpert, “Autarkeia,” RAC 1 (1950) 1039–50; W. Warnach, “Autarkie, autark,” HWPh 1 (1971) 685–90; Hans Reiner, “Bedürfnislosigkeit,” ibid., 771–73; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 109–11; Robin Osborn and Stefan ­Meyer-Schwelling, “Autarkeia (autarkeia)”, Brill’s New Pauly 2 (2003) 396–99; Hadot, Seneca, 71–95; Cancik-Lindemaier, Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 305–23. 16  Cf. Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 90 (referring to 1 Cor 3:21–23): “Denn es kann kein Zweifel sein, dass hier eines der kühnsten Schlagworte des stoischen Idealismus auf P.[Paulus] gewirkt hat, dass er stoische Gedanken christlich umgedacht und umgeformt hat.” 17  For caricatures of the rich see Luke 6:24–25; also Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 585–89; Idem, Lukian, 194–99, 204–11. 18  The composition is also similar to the saying 1 Cor 3:18–23; see my Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 102–4.

96

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

8/ If we have food and shelter, with these we shall be satisfied.” (my translation)

Assuming that the author of 1 Timothy is familiar with the Philippian letter, the question is whether in 1 Tim 6:6–8 this author is consciously imitating Paul’s sententia, or whether the passage is simply based on other parallels of Hellenistic sayings on this subject. The first option is more attractive, because the relationship between the two sayings would even be much closer. In this case, the author of 1 Tim 6:6–8 would not only imitate Phil 4:11–13; he would also interprete it. Thus, his sententia states an arguably “better” explanation for readers who have trouble understanding the meaning of Paul’s saying. If this is the case, the author of 1 Timothy would merely imitate Paul’s compositional style. Just as Paul adapts or imitates a Stoic sententia, so the author of 1 Timothy imitates Paul’s gnomic style. However, if readers have to guess what Paul means in Phil 4:11–13, the sentence in 1 Tim 6:6–8 would explain what appears to be Paul’s rationale, notably avoiding his irony. Actually, the explanation is carried further in 1 Tim 6:9–10.19 Most interestingly, if this latter interpretation omits Paul’s self-irony as confusing, at least for his readers, the author of 1 Timothy replaces it with conventional moralism on the topic of φιλαργυρία (“love of money”). If this author himself fails to appreciate Paul’s self-irony, what does this say about his hermeneutics of communicating the theology of the Apostle?

4. The vocabulary Returning to Phil 4:11–13, the vocabulary is derived from Hellenistic philosophy which has become part of the cultured discourse of the time. Since this terminology has also entered into Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom literature,20 Paul’s adoption of the terms could be derived either from those Hellenistic-Jewish sources or from Hellenistic philosophy directly. 19  It should be noted, however, that among scholars there is no agreement about the relationship between the Pastoral Epistles and Philippians. See Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK 15; Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 376–82; Alfons Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKK 16/1; ibid., 2003), 64–66; Raymond, F. Collins, “Pastoral Epistles,” RPP 9 (2011) 594–95 [RGG 6 (42003) 988–91]. 20 The language is attested also for the LXX (Deut 32:10; Prov 24:31 (30:8); Sir 5:1; 11:24; 34:28; 40:18; Ps. Sol. 5:16; 4 Macc 9:9); Philo, esp. De leg. all. 3.163, 165: τὰ αὐτάρκη καὶ καθήκοντα; De ebr. 58; De virt. 9: θεὸς αὐταρκέστατος ἑαυτῷ; De Abr. 30: νοῦς αὐταρκέστατος ἑαυτῷ.

5. The interpretation in context

97

αὐτάρκης, “self-sufficient.” The adjective is a hapax legomenon in the NT, but the noun αὐτάρκεια occurs in 2 Cor 9:8; 1 Tim 6:6.The terms are derived ultimately from

Greek philosophy, where it is standard even prior to Socrates and Plato.21 ταπεινοῦσθαι, “be confined to a low standard of life.” Cf. Phil 2:3, 8; 3:21; 2 Cor 11:7; 12:21. See BDAG, s. v. ταπεινός κτλ. The Vulgate renders: Scio humiliari, scio et abundare. περισσεύειν “live in abundance.” Cf. Phil 1:9, 26; 4:18; 2 Cor 8:2, 7, 14; 9:8, 12, 14 See BDAG, s. v. πειρισσεύω κτλ. μυεῖν, perf. pass. “having been initiated,” a hapax legomenon in the NT. Originally signifying initiation into a mystery cult, it is used here in a metaphorical sense; cf. BDAG, s. v.; however, Danker’s rendering as “in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being well fed and going hungry” loses the ironic sting of the metaphor; also, being well-fed and going hungry has never been a secret. χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν, the contrast implies excessiveness, cf. Luke 6:21 of the “poor” (οἱ πτωχοί) versus the “rich” (οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι); see Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 572–75. In Paul the contrast occurs only in Phil 4:12; cf. also 1 Cor 11:21, 24. περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι, “have abundance and be deprived.” The contrast is found only here in Paul; cf. 1 Cor 8:8; 2 Cor 8:2, 7; 9:8, 12. For ὑστερέω, ὑστέρημα, ὑστέρησις, “deficiency”, cf. Phil 2:20; 4:11a; 1 Cor 8:8; 16:17; 2 Cor 8:14; 11:9; Col 1:24. See BDAG, s. v. ἰσχύω, in the phrase πάντα ἰσχύω, “I have strength for (doing it) all” is a claim looking Stoic; in this sense only here in Paul. See BDAG, s. v. ἰσχύω, 2.a, referring to the parallel in 1 Clem 21:8. Cf. the parable in Luke 12:16–21. ἐνδυναμοῦν, without naming the source of the empowerment, Christ, God, or the holy Spirit. For Christ being the source, see 2 Cor 12:9–10; 2 Tim 2:1; 4:17; Eph 6:10. See BDAG, s. v., and above, n. 12.

5. The interpretation in context Indicated by the composition, the key concept is the adjective αὐτάρκης, with the noun αὐτάρκεια and the verb αὐταρκέω (Latin: sibi sufficiens, sufficientia sui). The term has three basic meanings: (a) economical: “have a sufficient amount of something”, in contrast to ἐνδεής, “insufficient”, “wanting;” (b) political or social: “independent” of external powers; (c) philosophical or moral: “self-sufficient”, “self-reliant,” “independent in mind and means” 21 For

passages see Gemelli Marciano, Die Vorsokratiker, vol. 3, 456–57 (nos. 146; 147); 460 (nos. 156; 158); 539–40; 581–82; SVF vol. 3, c. 5: De virtute, nos. 197–213; c. 9: De sapiente et insipiente, nos. 544–684, specifically vol. 1, 46.33; vol. 2, 186.5; vol. 3, 13.17; 16.37; 50.9; 57.15; 172.9; 190.12; 252.33; De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 139–46, 158–68; LSJ, s. v.; Gerhard Kittel, TWNT /  ​ TDNT 1, s. v.; PGL (1961), s. v. (266); BDAG, s. v.

98

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

(German: “selbstgenügsam”). In Phil 4:11b Paul combines the economic and philosophical meanings: Because the amount of money he has received from the Philippians is “sufficient” to cover his expenses, and as a result he is indeed “self-reliant,” at least for the moment. However, his statement “I am sufficiently supplied” insinuates a further claim of “self-sufficiency.” In Greek and Roman philosophy such a claim was connected with the concept of virtue (ἀρετή) and life of the highest quality open to humans (εὐδαιμονία). Such a claim can be made by the deity, or the wise man (σοφός) and philosopher (φιλόσοφος). It must be realized that only because of the philosophical interpretations given to the claim, whether stated or implied, it can make any sense. Playing with its obvious absurdity, Paul offers his own self-ironic interpretation. Beginning with Democritus and Plato’s portrait of Socrates, the economic and moral meanings are combined for ethics, but the ethical concept was interpreted differently in the major schools later. Democritus states as the basis of the moral claim that while “nature is self-sufficient,”22 humans must learn to become self-sufficient, and this is done best by living as in a foreign land.23 Democritus also distinguishes between external and internal independence: “An extravagantly rich table is what fortune provides, but a sufficient one [comes from] self-control.”24 With the focus shifted toward internal values, Socrates becomes the model figure: “He was a man of great independence and dignity of character.”25 His disciple Antisthenes develops the Cynic interpretation of αὐτάρκεια as imitation of the gods: As they have no needs at all, the philosopher must reduce his needs as far as possible, in order to come closest to the way the gods live. “And he held virtue to be sufficient in itself to ensure happiness, since it needed nothing else except the strength of a Socrates. And he maintained that virtue is an affair of deeds and does not 22  D.-K. 68 B 176 (vol. 2, 180, 9–11): τύχη μεγαλόδωρος, ἀλλ’ ἀβέβαιος· φύσις δὲ αὐτάρκης· διόπερ νικᾶι τῶι ἥσσονι καὶ βεβαιῶι τὸ μεῖζον τῆς ἐλπίδος. Gemelli Marciano, Die Vorsokratiker, vol. 3, 460 (no. 156) points to αὐτάρκεια as a key concept since the 5th

cent. BCE (539–40). 23  D.-K. 68 B 246 (vol. 2, 194, 13–15); Gemelli Marciano, Die Vorsokratiker, vol. 3, 45 (no. 146): ξενιτείη βίου αὐτάρκειαν διδάσκειν· μᾶζα γὰρ καὶ στιβὰς λιμοῦ καὶ κόπου γλυκύ­ τατα ἰάματα. Cf. also D.-K. 68 B 209; Gemelli Marciano, vol. 3, 45 (no. 147): Αὐταρκείῃ τροφῆς σμικρὴ νύξ οὐδέπωτη γίνεται. In the NT cf. the parable in Luke 15:11–32. 24  D.-K. 68 B 210 (vol. 2, 188, 4–5); Gemelli Marciano, Die Vorsokratiker, vol. 3, 460 (no. 158): Τράπεζαν πολυτελέα μὲν τύχη παρατίθησεν, αὐταρκέα δὲ σωφροσύνη. 25  Diog. L. 2.24–25: Αὐτάρκης τε ἦν καὶ σεμνός. Cited according the LCL edition by R. D. Hicks (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), vol. 1, 154–55. Added examples demonstrate Socrates’ refusal of gifts he did not see any need for.

5. The interpretation in context

99

need a store of words or learning; that the wise man is self-sufficing, for all the goods of others are his … .”26 In similar ways Xenophon characterizes Socrates: “… Socrates was living on very little, and yet was wholly independent.”27 The reason was that “I think that to have no needs is divine; to have as few as possible comes closest to the divine; and that which is divine is most powerful, so that which is closest to the divine is also closest to the most powerful.”28 In the concluding summary contrasting his ethical portrait with that of the accusers Xenophon lists Socrates’ virtues, among them as being self-sufficient in his knowledge and living a life that is of the highest virtue and happiness.29 From here to Epicurus is but a small step: “And we regard independence of outward things as a great good, not so as in all cases to use a little, but if we have not much, so as to be contented with little.”30 Such independence (αὐτάρκεια) is a presupposition for his concept of “freedom from passions” (ἀταραξία). For Plato, the metaphysical grounding of “self-sufficiency” means that it is the mark of the divine,31 of the universe,32 and of the good man.33

26  Diog. L. 6.11: αὐτάρκη δὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν, μηδενὸς προσδεομένην ὅτι μὴ Σωκρατικῆς ἰσχύος. τὴν τ’ ἀρετὴν τῶν ἔργων εἷναι, μήτε λόγων πλείστων δεομένην μήτε μα­ θημάτων, αὐτάρκη τ’ εἶναι τὸν σοφόν· πάντα γὰρ αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὰ τῶν ἄλλων. The translation

is by R. D. Hicks, LCL edition, vol. 2, 12–13. 27  Xenoph., Mem. 1.2.14: … Σωκράτην ἀπ’ ἐλαχίστων μὲν χρημάτων αὐταρκέστατα ζῶντα. Cited according to the LCL edition and translation of Xenophon’s Memorabilia by E. C. Marchant and O. J. Todd (vol. 4; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), 18–19. The translations are modified. 28  Ibid. 1.6.10: ἐγὼ δὲ νομίζω τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ὡς ἐλαχίστων ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ θείου, καὶ τὸ μὲν θεῖον κράτιστον, τὸ δ’ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ θείου ὲγγυτάτω τοῦ κρατίστου. 29 Ibid. 4.8.11: … αὐτάρκης εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τούτων γνῶσιν, … καὶ προτρέψασθαι ἐπ’

ἀρετὴν καὶ καλοκἀγαθίαν, ἐδόκει τοιοῦτος εἶναι, οἷος ἂν εἴη ἄριστός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ εὐδαιμο­ νέστατος. 30 Epicurus, Epist. to Men., Diog. L. 10.130: Καὶ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν δὲ ἀγαθὸν μέγα νομίζο­ μεν, οὐχ ἵνα πάντως τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, ἀλλ’ ὅπως ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν τὰ πολλά, τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἀρκώμεθα … . Cited according to the edition by H. S. Long, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon,

1964), 555. On Epicurus’ ethics see Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vols. 1, 112–25; 2, 114–29 (section 21); Michael Erler, “Epikur,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/1 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 162–70. 31 Tim. 68e3, associating self-sufficiency and perfection: the highest demiurge generates τὸν αὐτάρκη τε καὶ τὸν τελεώτατον θεὸν … . See also Pol. 271d. 32 Tim. 33d2. 33 Rep. 3.387d on the ἐπιεικὴς ἀνήρ; cf. Theaet. 169d; Rep. 3.369b; Phileb. 67a; Symp. 176c.

100

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

The ps.-Platonic Definitiones, most likely originating in the Old Academy,34 clarify the concept: 412b: “Self-sufficiency [is] perfection of the possession of the goods; a permanent habit according to which those who have it rule themselves.”35 411a: “A god [is] an immortal living being, self-sufficient unto happiness, eternal being, source of good nature.”36 412b6–7: “Happiness [is] … self-sufficient power toward living well.”37 Aristotle integrates αὐτάρκεια in his ethics; it belongs to the highest good and is thus a quality of “happiness” (εὐδαιμονία).38 In political ethics and justice “self-sufficiency” reaches beyond the individual.39 Most important are the connections between “self-sufficiency,” “virtue” (ἀρετή), and “happiness” (εὐδαιμονία) in EN 10.6.1–8.13. Accordingly, “happiness lacks nothing but is self-sufficient.”40 Since it is a matter of thinking (ἡ θεωρητική), the wise man is the most self-sufficient.41 As “intelligence” (νοῦς) is the highest form of contemplation, it means that here the divine life touches on the human life.42 Hence “that which is best and most pleasant for each creature is that which is proper to the nature of each; accordingly the life of the intellect is the best and the most pleasant life for man, inasmuch as the intellect more than anything else is man; therefore this life will be the happiest.”43 These lines of thought are combined in a number of ways in Stoic ethics, where “self-sufficiency” is an integral part of “virtue” (ἀρετή, virtus), “wisdom” (σοφία, sapientia), and “happiness” (εὐδαιμονία, felicitas, vita beata). 34

 Cited according to the edition by John Burnet, Platonis Opera, vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 533; for a commentary see Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp, Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen (KPS 35; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 13–14, 49–50. See also the review by Konrad Gaiser, Gymnasium 76 (1969) 543–46. 35  Αὐτάρκεια τελειότης κτήσεως ἀγαθῶν· ἕξις καθ’ ἣν οἱ ἔχοντες αὐτῶν ἄρχουσιν. 36  θεὸς ζῷον ἀθάνατον, αὐτάρκες πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν· οὐσία ἀίδιος, τῆς τἀγαθοῦ φύσεως αἰτία. 37  εὐδαιμονία … δύναμις αὐτάρκης πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν. Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.4.3, 1360b.3; 1362b.8; SVF vol. 3, no. 49 (13, line 17), from Diog. L. 7.127. 38  ΕΝ 1.7.6 (1097b.7–8) τὸ γὰρ τέλειον ἀγαθὸν αὔταρκες εἶναι δοκεῖ. Cited according to the edition by I. Bywater, Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894), 9. 39  Ibid. 5.6.4 (1134a.26–27). 40  Ibid. 10.6.2 (1176b.5–6): οὐδενὸς γὰρ ἐνδεὴς ἡ εὐδαιμονία ἀλλ’ αὐτάρκης. 41  Ibid. 10.7.4 (1177a.4): ὁ σοφὸς … αὐταρκέστατος. 42  Ibid. 10.7.7–8 (1177b.7–8): ἡ τελεία δὴ εὐδαιμονία αὕτη ἂν εἴη ἀνθρώπου, λαβοῦσα

μῆκος βίου τέλειον· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀτελές ἐστι τῶν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας. ὁ δὲ τοιοῦτος ἂν εἴη βίος κρείττων ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον· οὐ γὰρ ᾖ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν οὕτω βιώσεται, ἀλλ’ ᾖ θεῖόν τι ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχει. 43  Ibid. 10.7.9 (1178a.5): τὸ γὰρ οἰκεῖον ἑκάστῳ τῇ φύσει κράτιστον καὶ ἥδιστόν ἐστιν ἑκάστῳ· καὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ δὴ ὁ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν βίος, εἴπερ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἄνθρωπος· οὗτος ἄρα καὶ εὐδαιμονέστατος.

5. The interpretation in context

101

Thus, αὐτάρκεια is characteristic of the Stoic ideal figure of the “wise man” (σοφός, sapiens).44 To name only some major sources, the older concepts of the σοφός or σπουδαῖος are found in the sections on Zeno of Citium in Diog. L. 7.117–131; as qualification for good rulership in Dio Chrys., Or. 3.51–85; and as standard for morality in general in Plutarch’s Moralia. For the later Roman sapiens and vir bonus see Cicero, De fin. and Tusc. 3.1–7; Seneca, Epist. 6; 41; 42; and 115. Also, the Stoics define the wise man as philosopher. In general, the concept exists as a fictional ideal, set up to motivate the philosopher to strive toward its realization. The anthropological basis exists as an internal disposition (διάθεσις) for virtue,45 which needs the practice of progress (προκοπή) toward its goal (τέλος) of perfection.46 Methods of study and practice are developed to make sure that progress is real.47 In his critic of Stoicism, Plutarch sums up the problem in this way: “On the contrary, just as in these cases persons make no progress unless their progress is marked by such an abatement of what is oppressing them, that, when the scale turns and they swing upward in the opposite direction, they can note the change, so too, in the study of philosophy, neither progress nor any sense of progress is to be assumed, if the soul does not put aside any of its gross stupidity and purge itself thereof, and if, up to the moment of its attaining the absolute and perfect good, it is wedded to evil which is also absolute.”48 44  For the texts, see SVF vol. 3, chapters 5, nos. 197–213 (De virtute); 9, nos. 544–684 (De sapiente et insipiente); for descriptions see De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 139–46, 158–68; Hadot, Seneca, passim; Cancik-Lindemaier, Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 305–23 (“Senecas Konstruktion des Sapiens. Zur Sakralisierung der Rolle des Weisen im 1. Jh. n. Chr.”); 325–41 (“Seneca’s Collection of Epistles: A Medium of Philosophical Communication”). 45  See Plutarch’s essays, Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus, and De virtute morali, in the Moralia 75B–86A; 440D–452D; Cicero, Tusc. 3.1.2: Sunt enim ingeniis nostris semina innata virtutum, quae si adolescere liceret, ipsa nos ad beatam vitam natura perduceret; 5.1–2, with reference to Brutus’ stoic view: … et ex multis sermonibus tuis virtutem ad beate vivendum se ipsa esse contentam. Cf. Diog. L. 7.127. 46 Cicero, De fin. 5.41–44, sums up these ideas as suggested by the Delphic maxim “Know yourself” (noscere nosmet ipsos). See also Cicero, Tusc. 1.52; 5.70–72; De leg. 1.58 and 61. 47 See Bernhard Koch, Philosophie als Medizin der Seele. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros “Tusculanae Disputationes” (Palingenesia 90; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006). 48 Plutarch, De prof. in virt. 75C, transl. by Frank C. Babbitt, in the LCL edition of Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 1 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 401–403. On προκοπή see also Elizabeth Asmis, “Choice in Epictetus’ Philosophy,” in: Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 385–412; Geert Roskam, On the Path to Virtue. The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and its Reception in (Middle‑) Platonism (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 33; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005).

102

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

As a projected fiction the wise man incorporates every aspect of virtue and the good in perfection. He is truly rich, prudent, beautiful, free, saved from error, and so forth.49 Not to be outdone by anyone, the wise man would even make the best ruler comparable with Zeus Basileus.50 What chance is there for this ideal to be realized among by human beings? Understandably, views were sceptical even among the Stoics themselves.51 According to Seneca, existing “wise men” are as rare as the appearance of the Phoenix, so that he is willing to admit at least a second-class “good man.”52 “Do you know what kind of man I now mean when I speak of ‘a good man’? I mean one of the second grade, like your friend. For one of the first class perhaps springs into existence like a phoenix, only once in five hundred years.” What exists, however, is the possibility for realization through the power of the inner disposition, the “deity within.”53 On the other side, biographical history provides valid examples, not many but formidable figures including of course Socrates and his Roman imitators. There are, of course, those who hold skeptical view regarding such high-flying expectations. Among the doubters is Seneca’s friend Serenus, whom his teacher tries to encourage by this argument: “There is no reason for you to say, Serenus, as your habit is, that this wise man of ours is nowhere to be found. He is not a fiction of us Stoics, a sort of phantom glory of human nature, nor is he a mere conception, the mighty semblance of a thing unreal, but we have shown him in the flesh just as we delineate him, and shall show him – though perchance not often, and after a long lapse of years only one. For greatness which transcends the limit of the ordinary and common type is produced but rarely. But this self-same Marcus Cato, the mention of whom started this discussion, I almost think surpasses even our exemplar.”54

Admittedly, making real progress requires hard work, daily self-examination and, indeed, an entire step by step program of “guidance of the soul” (ψυχα­ 49

 For texts see SVF, vol. 3, nos. 548–656; De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 161–62.  See De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 163–64. 51  See De Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, 165–68; Cancik-Lindemaier, Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 312–13. 52  Seneca, Epist. 42.1: Scis quem nunc virum bonum dicam? Huius secundae notae. Nam ille alter fortasse tamquam phoenix semel anno quingentesimo nascitur. 53  See the famous passage of Epist. 41.1–2: prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est. “Near to you is God, with you he is, inside he is.” Cf. also Epist. 87.21; and the well-known article by Klauck, above Chapter IV n. 91. 54  Seneca, De constantia 7.1; cf. 1.1–4, where Marcus Cato (Uticensis) is shown as imitator of Socrates. Cited is the LCL edition and translation by John W. Basore, Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. 1 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), 48–56, 66–69. 50

5. The interpretation in context

103

γωγία), aptly described by Ilsetraut Hadot.55 Nonetheless, as especially the

letters of Cicero and Seneca tell in so many ways, the main problem of the Stoics remains: the discrepancy between reaching the ultimate goal, the vita beata, and the vicissitudes of the real life on earth. These obstacles involve the unforeseeable and incomprehensible interventions of Tyche/Fortuna, human follies and doubts, and utter failure in the real world. No honest Stoic will claim during his lifetime that he has accomplished the ultimate goal. As Seneca admits, even if Virtue is unshakable, the failure of even the great examples raises the ultimate question of “Who won?” The argument is clinched, for instance, in Seneca’s Epist. 71: All seemed to work in favor of Marcus Cato Uticensis, but he was defeated anyway: “But long ago destiny ‘saw to it that Cato should come to no harm’. He was conquered in site of it all!’ Well, you may include this as among Cato’s ‘failures’; Cato will hear with an equally stout heart that thwarts him of his victory, as he bore that which thwarted him of his preaetorship.”56 Nonetheless, his great mind endured all efforts of frustrating his victory: “he had convinced himself that he ought to endure anything which might happen. Why should he not suffer, bravely and calmly, a change in government? For what is free from the risk of change? Neither earth, nor sky, nor the whole fabric of our universe, though it be controlled by the hand of God. It will not always preserve its present order; it will be thrown from its course in days to come. All things move in accord with their accorded times; they are destined to be born, to grow, and to be destroyed.”57 “Why then should I be angry or feel sorrow, if I precede the general destruction by a tiny interval of time? Let great souls comply with God’s wishes, and suffer unhesitatingly whatever fate the law of the universe ordains; for the soul at death is either sent forth into a better life, destined to dwell with deity amidst greater radiance and

55

 Hadot, Seneca, esp. 103–41, mentioning Seneca’s descriptions especially in his Epist. 94 and 95; Cancik-Lindemaier, Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 313–20. 56  Epist. 71.10–11: Olim provisum est, ne quid Cato detrimenti caperet. ‘Victus est tamen.’ Et hoc numera inter repulsas Catonis; tamen magno animo feret aliquid sibi ad victoriam quam ad praeturam obstitisse. Cited according to the LCL edition and translation by Richard M. Gummere, Seneca ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, vol. 2 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 78–79. 57 Ibid. Epist. 71.11–13: … omnia quae acciderent, ferenda esse persuaserat sibi. Quidni ille mutationem rei publicae forti et aequo pateretur animo? Quid enim mutationis periculo exceptum? Non terra, non caelum, non totus hic rerum omnium contextus, quamvis deo agente ducatur. Non semper tenebit hunc ordinem, sed illum ex hoc cursu aliquis dies deiciet. Certis sunt cuncta temporibus; nasci debent, crescere, extingui.

104

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

calm, or else, at least, without suffering any harm to itself, it will be mingled with nature again, and will return to the universe.”58

If so, what is the benefit? This question remains unanswered, although Seneca tries his best. To stay with the example of Epist. 71, what after all that is said and done, is that the benefit that makes all worthwhile? Seneca’s answer is clear and brief: “It is not the material that makes … actions good or bad; it is the virtue. All acts in which virtue has disclosed itself are of the same measure and value.”59 In what sense, then, can a man call himself happy, even if Fate resorts to the worst of her atrocities? Seneca sums up: “But the happy man, whose virtue is complete, loves himself most of all when his bravery has been submitted to the severest test, and when he not only endures but welcomes that which all other men regard with fear, if it is the price which he must pay for the performance of a duty which honour imposes, and he greatly prefers to have men say of him: ‘how much more noble!’ rather than ‘how much more lucky!’”60

However, the wise man cannot point to himself as the great example to encourage himself and others. Even if it is a fact that such an exemplary person has resisted Fortune, he will defer to Virtue: “I still exhort myself to do what I recommend; but my exhortations are not yet followed. And even if this were the case, I should not have these principles so ready for practice, or so well trained that they would rush to my assistance in every crisis …, but this system of which I speak, unless it has gone deep and has sunk in for a long time, and has not merely coloured but thoroughly permeated the soul, does not fulfill any of its promises. The matter can be imparted quickly and in a few words: ‘Virtue is the only good; at any rate, there is no good without virtue; and virtue itself is situated in our nobler part, that is, the rational part.’”61

To be sure, there is no standing still for the wise man. The goal has been reached only with the full possession of virtue. 58  Ibid., 15–16: Quid est ergo quare indigner aut doleam, si exiguo momento publica fata praecedo? Magnus animus deo pareat et quicquid lex universi iubet, sine cuncatione patiatur; autem in meliorum emittitur vitam lucidius tranquilliusque inter divina mansurus aut certe sine ullo futurus incommodo sui naturae remiscebitur et revertetur in totum. 59  Ibid., 21: Bona ista aut mala non efficit materia, sed virtus. Haec ubicumque apparuit, omnia eiusdem mensurae ac pretii sunt. 60  Ibid., 28: Beatus vero et virtutis exactae tunc se maxime amat, cum fortissime expertus est, et metuenda ceteris, si alicuius honesti officii pretia sunt, non tantum fert, sed amplexatur multoque audire mavult “tantur melior” quam “tanto felicior.” 61  Ibid., 30–32: Suadeo adhuc mihi ista, quae laudo, nondum persuadeo. Etiam si persuasissem, nondum tam parata haberem aut tam exercitata, ut ad omnes casus procurrerent …, haec, nisi alte descendit et diu sedet et animum non coloravit, sed infecit, nihil ex his, quae promiserat, praestat. Cito hoc potest tradi et paucissimis verbis: unum bonum esse virtutem, nullum certe sine virtute, et ipsam virtutem in parte nostri meliore, id est rationali, positam.

6. What then is Paul saying in Phil 4:11–13?

105

“And when will it be our privilege to despise both kinds of fortune? When will it be our privilege, after all the passions have subdued and brought under our own control, to utter the words ‘I have conquered!’?”62 “Do you ask me whom I have conquered? Neither the Persians, nor the far-off Medes, nor any warlike race that lies beyond the Dahae, but greed, ambition, and the fear of death that has conquered the conquerors of the world.”63

In other words: Progress is to go on indefinitely. What then is the benefit? It is the possession of virtue, and the continuing progress of meditating and acting toward it.64 The benefit is an ethic of endurance, for which the life and death of the great Cato of Utica serves as protoype:65 The conclusion and summary is: “Therefore Cato’s honourable death was no less a good than his honourable life, since virtue allows no stretching. Socrates used to say that verity and virtue were the same. Just as truth does not grow, so neither does virtue grow; for it has its due proportions and is complete.”66

6. What then is Paul saying in Phil 4:11–13? The discussion of self-sufficiency in the previous sections leaves us all the more puzzled about Paul’s statement. Two main questions are to be raised at once. First, how can he make these seemingly extreme claims about himself in the first person singular? Second, is Paul intending to endorse a Stoic promise as contained in encomiastic expressions like being μόνος σοφός67 or πάσσοφος?68 Is he not aware of the role such claims play in well-publicized 62  Ibid. 37: Quando continget contemnere utramque fortunam, quando continget omnibus oppressis adfectibus et sub arbitrium suum adductis hanc vocem emittere “vici”? 63 Ibid.: Quem vicerim quaeris? Non Persas nec extrema Medorum nec si quid ultra Dahas bellicosum iacet, sed avaritiam, sed ambitionem, sed metum mortis, qui victores gentium vicit. – The Dahae refer to a nomad Scythian tribe east of the Caspian Sea; see Brill’s New Pauly 4 (2004) 39. 64 See Robert J. Newman, “Cotidie meditare: Theory and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism,” ANRW 2, 36.3 (1989) 1473–1517. 65  See, especially, Epist. 66; 67; 71; 74, and the commentary by Erwin Hachmann, L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistulae morales, Brief 66 (Lateres 3; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2006). 66 Epist. 71.16–17: Non est ergo M. Catonis maius bonum honesta vita quam mors honesta, quoniam non intenditur virtus. Idem esse dicebat Socratis veritatem et virtutem. Quomodo illa non crescit, sic ne virtus quidem; habet numeros suos, plena est. 67 On “all-power formulas,” see Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), 240–50. 68 Plato, Prot. 315e; Theaet. 149d; see Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, 121, n. 570.

106

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

satirical descriptions of philosophers and rhetoricians?69 A good example of such satire is presented by Lucian in his “Philosophies for Sale” (Vitarum auctio 20). Here, on the public market-place Hermes is hawking the Stoic lifestyle with these words: “I sell virtue itself, the most perfect of philosophies,”70 whereupon an interested buyer is given an additional explanation of the Stoic promise: “That he is the only wise man, the only handsome man, the only just man, brave man, king, orator, rich man, lawyer, and everything else that there is.”71 In his sententia, does Paul apply to himself statements like those attributed to Stoics? Does he actually subscribe to “self-praise” (περιαυτο­ λογία) of the type Stoics were known for? On the face of it, Paul seems to construct a sententia that looks remarkably like a Stoic one. If that were the case, the further question would be: Does he mean to identify the gospel and, indeed, himself with the Stoic message? Before affirming such a reading, another possibility needs to be examined. Conceivably Paul could have taken up a Stoic saying only to turn it upside down and give it a non-Stoic direction. This option should be preferred, since this way of interpretation has analogies elsewhere in Paul. Another example is the saying on self-deception in 1 Cor 3:18–23.72 Typically, when he makes self-referential statements about himself, self-irony is almost a predictable part of it, as it is also a cultural way to avert despicable self-glorification.73 Paul describes himself ironically in 1 Cor 15:8–10, and brilliantly in his famous “fool’s speech” in 2 Cor 11:1–12:10?74 Although he was one of the few ironists in early Christianity, modern scholars have had a hard time to acknowledge it.75 69  See Rudolf Helm, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), 371–86; Betz, Lukian, 132; 185–211; Döring, Exemplum Socratis, 1–17. 70  Vit. auct. 20: αὐτὴν τὴν ἀρετὴν πωλῶ, τῶν βίων τελειότατον. τίς ἅπαντα μόνος εἰδέναι θέλει; Cited according the LCL edition and translation by A. M. Harmon, Lucian (London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1915), vol. 2, 486–87. 71  Ibid.: Ὅτι μόνος οὗτος σοφός, μόνος καλός, μόνος δίκαιος ἀνδρεῖος βασιλεὺς ῥήτωρ πλούσιος νομοθέτης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὁπόσα ἐστίν. 72  See my article “Selbsttäuschung und Selbsterkenntnis bei Paulus. Zur Interpretation von 1 Kor 3,18–23,” in my Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 98–120. 73  See Plutarch’s essay, “On self-praise” (De laude ipsius), Moralia 539A–547F, and my study in: Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, 367–93; for αὐτάρκεια see also 191–92, 312–13. 74  See Betz, Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, esp. 118–37; cf. (with further bibliography) Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 679–857; Laurence L. Welborn, Paul the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 (JSNT.S 293; London and New York: Lang, 2005), 62–67; 117–247. 75 See now Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Hotze, Paradoxien bei Paulus, who maintains that Paul’s paradoxes use irony, but not parody (175–81, 195–98, 201–27). See also Georg Luck, “Humor,” RAC 16 (1994) 753–73, esp. 765–67; Ernst Behler, “Ironie,” HWRh 4 (1998)

6. What then is Paul saying in Phil 4:11–13?

107

However, if we assume that Pauline irony is at work also in Phil 4:11–13, what are the consequences for this interpretation? No doubt, the terminology Paul uses in his sententia is derived from popular Hellenistic philosophy, but that does not eo ipso imply approving a version of the Stoic ethical system. Paul does not regard being self-sufficient (αὐτάρκης) as identical with being Virtue itself.76 Rather, because of the financial contribution brought by Epaphroditus Paul can claim for the moment that he is able to pay his bills, but that is not what a Stoic would call “self-sufficient.”77 When the apostle speaks of his external conditions of suffering, he does not mean having completed the Stoic’s struggle on the way towards moral perfection, but having endured the full template of being a prisoner potentially “on death row.” By contrast, what the future holds for him is not fully realizing the ultimate potential of the vir bonus, and the goal of living in the heavenly company of the heroes and the gods.78 Paul’s struggles are part of the brutal realities listed in the “catalogues of dire circumstances” (περιστάσεις), two of which are cited as part of his “fool’s speech” (2 Cor 11:23–29; 12:10).79 In other words, he lists the sufferings and hardships he has already lived through,80 not the ethical progress he must still complete in the future.81 Unlike the Stoics, for encouragement he looks neither back at the great men of the past, nor up to the astral movements of the eternal universe, nor around himself to observe the eternal return of cosmic events.82 The question to ask is different: How could Paul have survived all the troubles he has so far been through? What gave him the power to overcome the obstacles? The final statement of his sententia (v.13) is designed to give the answer, but again the maxim is provocatively ambiguous: πάντα ἰσχύω 599–624; Birgit Recki and Wiebke Köhler, “Irony,” RPP 6 (2009) 563 [“Ironie,” RGG 4 (42001) 238–39.]. 76 See also Chapters III and IV, above. 77  Cf. Phil 4:10–20 as a whole, see Chapter VI, below. 78  See Cicero, De rep. 6.13, 15–16, 26–29 (Somnium Scipionis); Tusc. 1.50–56. 79 For other instances see Rom 8:35; 1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 1:8–11; 4:8–10; 6:4–10; 12:10. For further bibliography see Martin Ebner, “Sufferings, List of Paul’s,” RPP 12 (2012) 350 [“Peristasenkatalog im Neuen Testament,” RGG 6 (42003) 1115]. 80 Even when he praises himself, he does so self-ironically, as in 1 Cor 15:10: “I have toiled more than all of them [i. e. the other apostles] (περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπία­ σα), but even that was part of God’s grace (οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ ἀλλ’ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ [ἡ] σὺν ἐμοί).” 81 Cf. Phil 3:12–16, where Paul compares his “progress” with the runners in the sport stadium. The example focuses on the completion of the race in time, not on the achievements of moral progress. See on this passage Chapter III, above. 82 Cf. Hadot, Seneca, 108–17, 129–30; Hachmann’s commentary on Seneca’s Epist. 66.45–53; also Epist. 67; 71; 74; 79; and the prologue to Nat. quaest. 1–16, ed. Harry M. Hine (BT; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996).

108

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με (“Everything I accomplish through him who infuses me with strength.”). Strangely, Paul leaves open who or what the source of the strength is. Does he wish to leave the answer to the Christian readers who should know that it could only be the power of Christ (δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ)?83 At any rate, this answer is clearly not that of a Stoic. In Stoicism, all divine power resides in and originates from Virtue (Ἀρετή, Virtus), the supreme good (summum bonum).84 The point should not be missed: Paul does raise the critical questions in Phil 2:1: Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰ­ κτιρμοί … (“Indeed, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any

consolation in love, if there is any fellowship with spirit, if there is any compassion and mercy …”).85 Taking the form of a sorites the statement argues affirmatively while responding to doubts. It admits to terms from Christian language, but presupposes the question concerning their substance and reality. If there is any substance to this language, what is it? The evidence of the attitudes in the church is ambivalent: there are affirmative expressions but also the opposite (2:2–4), and thus the need for paraenesis (2:5). The substance itself, however, is in no doubt. It is the example set forth in the hymn to Christ Jesus (2:6–11), and the ethical consequences derived from it (2:12–18). Different from Stoicism, for Paul the power of God is displayed by Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension (Phil 2:6–11), the πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:19–20, 27; 2:1; 3:3), the divine power energizing the message of the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον, 1:6, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:13, 22, 30; 3:21; 4:3, 15). This same power works in the present struggle (ἀγών) to enable Paul and his readers to be together with Christ (σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι [1:23]), to suffer with him (1:29; 3:10–11, 20–21; 4:14), and to be resurrected with him (3:10–11, 20–21). Given this belief Paul can have confidence and “hope” (ἐλπίς) that he will survive also the present situation, be vindicated and able to return to Philippi (1:18–20, 25–26; 2:24–26). Nonetheless, he admits that his hope may go unfulfilled. Hope is all he has, but what its fulfilment will be depends on God’s will and decision. Of course, Paul would have been stunned to learn 83  Cf. 2 Cor 12:9: ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου, ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται (“My grace is sufficient for you, for the power is perfected in weakness.”). However, even here (and in 12:5) the source of the power is not identified, but the concept of ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ (12:9b) and the conclusion of 12:10 do not leave any doubt: ὅταν γὰρ ἀσθενῶ, τότε δυνατός εἰμι (“for when I am weak, then I am strong.”). Cf. also 1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1; 11:23–33 etc. For the interpretation, see Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 820–32. 84 See Cicero, De off. 1.153–60; Tusc. 1.60, the beginning of a long discussion about: Quid sit illa vis et unde sit, intelligendum puto (“What that power is and whence it comes I make clear.”); also 3.13–18; Seneca, De vit. beata 7–9; Epist. 66 and 67. 85 For exegetical discussions see Reumann, 298–306, 317–33.

6. What then is Paul saying in Phil 4:11–13?

109

of his “survival” in the form of his letter which Epaphroditus took back to Philippi, and all the history that followed from it. If this is assumed to be the meaning of Paul’s message, further evidence from his letters is desirable. Other statements of the apostle in Philippians as well as in other letters can be adduced for confirmation. Discussed in different contexts, several passages confirm the question of what to hope for in the future, and at what point in time Paul thinks he, his message, and his Christian movement presently stand. In Rom 8:24–25 a definition of “hope” is developed to cover the argument made in Rom 8:1–39: τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν· ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς· ὃ γὰρ βλέπει τίς ἐλπίζει; εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν ἐλπίζομεν, δι’ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα.

24/ “For in this hope were we saved. Now a hope seen is not hope, for who can hope for what one sees? 25/ But if we hope in what we do not see, we await [it] with perseverance.”86

In 1 Cor 7:29 Paul presupposes a time schedule, according to which the eschatological crisis is imminent: ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν. In 1 Cor 15:12, he finds himself in need to provide a full discussion in answering some people in the church who contend that there is no resurrection of the dead (λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν). This is not the place, however, to lay out Paul’s argument in detail.87 The fact that the eschatological resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred precludes any finality in locating the present moment in the time schedule of future history. Prior to Philippians Paul risks a more general statement about the present in Rom 13:11–12: Καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι ὥρα ἣδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερθῆναι, νῦν γὰρ ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν.

“And knowing this about the (eschatological) event: the hour is already for you to awaken from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than when we came to believe.”

The facts of history, however, did not confirm Paul’s calculation, at least not in the sense he meant it at the time.88 Finally in Philippians, the apostle, now in prison and realizing the uncertain outcome of his trial, has to come to terms with his future in an urgent 86

 The translation is by Jewett, Romans, 504; see his commentary, 521–30, esp. 520–21.  The argument against the denial includes 1 Cor 15:12–57; cf. also the interpretation in 2 Tim 2:18: οἵτινες … λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι (“Such people … say that the resurrection has already occurred”). 88 Cf. 1 Thess 5:1–11, where the problem is already addressed. 87

110

V. On Self-Sufficiency (Phil 4:10–13)

way. He confines himself to two issues. For one, in Phil 1:19–26 he sets his hopes within the framework of Christian apocalyptic “expectation and my hope” (κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδι μου).89 Given the uncertain outcome of his trial, he hopes for small successes, such as the quick return not only of Epaphroditus to Philippi (2:25–30; 4:18) but also of Timothy as soon as possible (2:19–24), and finally even his own return after the acquittal by the court (1:25–26; 2:24). Where then do things stand as of his present moment? Undeniably, this question is a crucial one, even if the Apostle is right to see it as a matter of life and death (1:20). Whether it will be one or the other, he bluntly states “I do not know” (οὐ γνωρίζω).90 The “knowledge of Christ Jesus” (γνῶσις τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) does not enable one to predict the verdict of a court trial, so that he is cautious in distinguishing between what he does and does not know. Apparently, knowledge of future dates is outside of human control. This means that “knowledge of Christ” does not include mantic or astrological divination. At this point, Paul’s theology differs from the stoics whose views on the mantic sciences are varied among themselves.91 In order to illustrate the complexities, Paul has compared his situation with the sport stadium (3:12–16), an example he has used before in 1 Cor 9:24–27. The passage in Phil 3:12–16, however, has its own problems, textually and because of the use of terms from the world of sports which he apparently was fond of.92 Considering the fundamental differences between Paul and the Stoics, they are united in having to confront similar problems. For the Stoic his hope lies in the powers inherent in Virtue to bring about progress in mental education and propel it to perfection. At any time the Stoic can claim such perfection to the degree he has been able to achieve it. For Paul hope is both historical and eschatological. Its secure base is through faith in the promises of God. Accordingly, even the present crisis (θλῖψις, Phil 1:17; 4:14) is part of the eschatological redemption (σωτηρία, Phil 1:19, 28; 2:12; 3:20). Both sides have problems of credibility. As critics of Stoicism have pointed out, the existing gap between the vicissitudes caused by Fate (Tyche, Fortuna) disturbs present human life, and the expectation that Virtue will prevail 89 1:20;

see also 3:20–21. for the interpretation of 1:21–26 see Chapter II, above. 91 For the stoics, this area was contested; cf. Cicero’s, De divinatione, with the edition and commentary by Christoph Schäublin, Über die Wahrsagung. De divinatione (Düsseldorf and Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 2002); for Seneca, see his Naturales Quaestiones. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, edited, translated and annotated by Otto and Eva Schönberger (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998). 92 For the interpretation see Chapter III, above. 90 1:22;

6. What then is Paul saying in Phil 4:11–13?

111

over them strains credibility. As we now know, for many great Stoics at his time, just as for Paul, their civic confidence in the reliability of the Roman legal system failed, and they became victims of illegal murders carried out by the uncontrolled bandits of Nero and Tigellinus. Yet, Paul’s trust in divine redemption was vindicated in unimagined ways. This vindication is affirmed by the deutero-Pauline and Pastoral epistles, testifying to the continued proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ after Paul’s death, and making his martyrdom part and parcel of that gospel. This is also the meaning of the last words of the Book of Acts (28:31): “He [sc. Paul] kept proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the message about the Lord Jesus Christ in all frankness unhindered.”93 Although the author of Acts did not know of Paul’s last words in Philippians, he could close his work with a reference to the same experience that he himself had and hoped his readers would also share. In a strange sense, even the Apostle’s death as a martyr in Rome could not prevent his return to Philippi. He traveled back to Philippi together with Epaphroditus in the form of his letter, its reading and distributing continued by the proclamation of the gospel.

 κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ἀκωλύτως. Cf. also Phil 1:20; 2 Cor 7:4, and BDAG, s. v. παρρησία, 93

3.a.

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20) 1. Introduction Phil 4:10–20 represents a most disruptive passage in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Not that there is any shortage of imaginative approaches dealing with it, and surveys of the state of research are growing longer because of the increasing number of hypotheses to be discussed. Scholarly surveys, however, show that views are more than ever divided, and the tendency by some to join groups with whom simply to agree or disagree should not be confused with real progress. There is, however, one point of agreement: the passage in question is indispensable for the understanding of the letter as a whole, but that it is difficult to position it in its present context. This situation also provides the motivation for the following investigation. In other words, our intention is not to present more material for another survey of the status quo; fortunately, this work has been done by earlier scholars. The following investigation starts from here, that is, by a fresh literary analysis of the Greek text. Then, the results will be examined and applied to the interpretation of the passage. For the history of research some of the older commentaries by Lightfoot, Weiss, and Lohmeyer remain indispensable,1 more recent works contain updated accounts of the current state of scholarship. These include: Gnilka, Schenk, Fee, Ebner, and lastly Reumann.2 As these reports demonstrate, the many attempts by scholars did not solve the basic problem. Thus, our investigation will begin by presenting (2) the Greek text and (3) an English translation based on the subsequent study; (4) annotations to the Greek text; (5) annotations to the vocabulary; (6) the literary composition; (7) the liter-

1  Lightfoot, 162–67; Weiss (1859), 1–28, 321–50; Lohmeyer (1930; re-edited by Werner Schmauch, 1953), 1–8, 177–90; and Schmauch, Beiheft, 11–38. 2  Gnilka, 171–80; Schenk, 29–67; Fee, 1–53, 422–55; Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 331–64; Reumann, 3–20, 646–726.

114

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

ary genre; (8) the historical narrative concerning the financial contract made between Paul and the Philippians; and (9) the liturgical conclusion.

2. Greek Text3 Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ. 11a/ οὐχ ὅτι καθ’ ὑστέρησιν λέγω, 11b/ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον ἐν οἷς εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι. 12/ οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν· ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι· 13/ πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με. 14/ πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε συγκοινωνήσαντές μου τῇ θλίψει. 15/ οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως εἰ μὴ ὐμεῖς μόνοι, 16/ ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς εἰς τὴν χρείαν μοι ἐπέμψατε. 17/ οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα, ἀλλ’ ἐπιζητῶ τὸν καρπὸν τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν. 18/ ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω· πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ. 19/ ὁ δὲ θεός μου πληρῶσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 20/ τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

10/

3. English Translation4 10/ 11/ 12/

I was greatly filled with joy in the Lord that now at last you have let your concern for me flourish again, that is, you were concerned for me [before] but lacked the opportunity [to show it]. It is not out of a situation of deprivation that I have this to say: I have learned to be self-sufficient under any condition. I know to be abased, I also know to abound. In all and every situation I have been initiated, to be well-fed and to go hungry, to have abundance and be deprived.

3

 Following the edition of Nestle-Aland, 282012. translation differs from others especially because of my use of technical terms from the world of commerce and finance as well as liturgy. 4 This

4. Annotations on the Greek text

13/ 14/ 15/

16/ 17/ 18/ 19/ 20/

115

Everything I accomplish through him who infuses me with strength. At any rate, you have done well to unite with me in this trouble. You Philippians know just as well that at the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, not one [other] church went into partnership with me establishing an account based on the terms of “giving and receiving,” except you alone. [You will remember] that also in Thessalonica time and again you sent to me [money to pay] for the needs. Not that I am seeking after a [personal] donation, but I am seeking after the accumulating proceeds in your account. But now I have received [the payment] in full, and I am supplied plentifully, having acquired from Epaphroditus the funds from you, a pleasant fragrance, an acceptable offering, well-pleasing to God. And my God will provide for all your needs according to his wealth, in glory in Christ Jesus. To God and our Father be the glory into the ages of the ages. Amen.

4. Annotations on the Greek text 10/ The text-critical evidence shows that v.10 follows asyndetically after the conclusion of the gnomic sententia in vv.8–9. This means that δέ in second place has probably been inserted into the Vorlage. If it was read by P46, which is probable, the δέ is another sign that this early papyrus made improvements on the copied text.5 The addition could also have been made earlier by the redactor of the Vorlage, when he inserted the piece into the letter. The reading of ἀνεθάλετε appears to be correct, and some variae lectiones indicate different spellings by scribes. In translating the 2 aor. pass. of ἐχάρην Paul recalls the moment of surprise in his narrative.6 The reading of τοῦ instead of τό by F G represents a stylistic improvement making it a purpose clause (BDF § 400). 11–13/ For the textual notes see the previous Chapter V, “On Self-sufficiency (Phil 4:11–13).” 14/ The conjunction πλήν marks the return to the issue of v.10: “at any rate” or “nevertheless.” When modern readers expect a warm “thank you,”

the probable reading in P46 of δέ, see Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 123; Fee, 428; Reumann, 646. 6 Cf. Lightfoot’s (162) sensitive rendering: “It was a matter of great and holy joy to me that after so long an interval your care on my behalf revived and flourished again.” For discussion of translations, see Reumann, 646–50. Cf. also Polycarp, Phil 1:1, probably imitating Paul’s language: Συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … . 5 For

116

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

they are puzzled that Paul fails them. Instead, he responds by a conventional formula found often in letters: καλῶς ἐποιήσατε (“you did well”).7 15/ Notably, the particle δέ is not read by P46 D*, which probably reflects the Vorlage (cf. above on v.10), meaning that v.15 simply continues stating the facts. The formula δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως is cited with its normal spelling by P46 ‫ א‬B* D* F G, while the shorter λήψεως occurs in later corrections B2 D2 K L P Ψ min. The exception clause at the end of v.15 may have caused the scribes to avert a possible conflict. If the Vorlage read μόνοι, P46 may have changed it to μόνον, while A* has none of either.8 If the original reading was μόνοι, Paul may look from his present perspective back to the beginnings of the mission, in which he had only the one contract with the Philippians, while later scribes remembered that in Gal 2:9; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Rom 15:26–29 Paul mentions another κοινωνία in Macedonia and Achaia, namely the collection for the church in Jerusalem. Changing μόνοι to μόνον, or omitting it altogether, would save Paul from contradicting himself. Would he be questioned, he could point out that other contracts came at different times and had different purposes, one serving his mission to Greece, another involving the collection for Jerusalem and concluded before he wrote Philippians. The rule of lectio difficilior probabilior favors μόνοι, while the variants show the intelligence of the scribes. 16/ Manuscripts are divided, whether μοι should be read (P46 ‫ א‬B F G K Ψ min.), or μου (D* 075), i. e., whether the dative indicates the receiver of the contribution, or the one inflicted with the need. Parallels in Acts 11:29; Rev 1:11 would support the dative μοι, but the missing preposition εἰς (P46 D*) causes an ambiguity that is removed by most witnesses by adding εἰς.9 17/ Notably, P46 omits the phrase τὸ δόμα, ἀλλ’ ἐπιζητῶ. Indeed, the phrase is redundant, because Paul denies to classify the contribution as a “gift,” and also because of the duplicate ἐπιζητῶ (see below). For exactly this reason, however, it should be kept. 18/ P46 adds δέ after πεπλήρωμαι to clarify the sentence. The preposition παρά, read by most witnesses, is to be preferred because of the formula of reception (e. g., ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ); but ‫א‬1 reads ἀπὸ. The issue here may be to distinguish between Epaphroditus as envoy and the Philippians as donors (τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν; some even add πεμφθέντα [F G]).10 Stating the three epitheta in  7

 Only here in Paul; see also Jas 2:8; 2 Pet 1:19; 3 John 6; Acts 10:33, and BDAG s. v.

ποιέω, 5.d.  8

 See Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 124.  Ibid. 10 Ibid. 125.  9

5. Annotations on the vocabulary

117

the accusative sing. looks disconnected from the preceding plural of τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν, probably causing D* to change to the sing. τὸ ὑμῶν and to add πενφθέν. 19/ Witnesses are divided whether the petitionary prayer should read the future active πληρώσει (P46) or the optative πληρώσαι (D* F G Ψ min).11 The straight future assumes that the rule of δόσις καὶ λήμψις (v.15) implies that God’s promise to the Philippians will be the reward due because of their generosity, while the optative implies the wish that it may be so. The phrase κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος assumes that ultimately the source of the Philippians’ reward is God’s wealth (P46 ‫ *א‬A B D* P); the variant sing. masc. τὸν πλοῦτον (‫א‬2 D1 K L Ψ min) would be posssible, too.12 Differently, D* changes αὐτοῦ into ὑμῶν, thereby concluding that the money comes from the Philippians’ wealth. 20/ Announced by ἐν δόξῃ (v. 19), a complete doxology ending with Amen is a liturgical formula, but it has no exact parallel elsewhere in the Pauline letters.13

5. Annotations on the vocabulary The vocabulary of the passage is peculiar because it has a number of hapax legomena, among them technical terms from business, finance, and administration. Rich evidence is extant in the Greek papyri from Egypt.14 The situation is comparable to the letter fragments in 2 Cor 8 and 9, for which see my commentary on these passages. Some of the parallels and secondary literature are collected in the following annotations. 10/ ἠκαιρεῖσθε impf. ind. med. / pass. of ἀκαιρέομαι, “have no time or opportunity.” Cf. 2 Tim 4:2; BDAG s. v. ἀκαιρέομαι. 11 For

the optative, cf. BDF § 384. the neuter πλοῦτος see 2 Cor 8:2; Eph 1:7; 2:7; 3:8, 16; Col 1:27; 2:2; the masc. occurs in Rom 2:4; 9:23 etc.; see BDAG s. v., 2. 13 Cf. Gal 1:5; Rom 16:27; Eph 3:21; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; see Betz, Galatians, 43. 14 See Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 41923); Idem, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts from the Graeco-Roman World, translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927); G. H. R. Horsley, S. R. Llewelyn, et al., eds., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–2012). The new commentary series Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (PKNT) specializes on this area: Peter Arzt-Grabner, Philemon (PKNT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); Idem, 1. Korinther (PKNT 2, ibid., 2008); Idem, 2. Korinther (PKNT 4, ibid., 2013); Christina M. Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker (PKNT 3, ibid., 2010). 12 For

118

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

ἀνεθάλετε, from ἀναθάλλω, NT hapax legomenon, “shoot up again, sprout afresh” (LSJ s. v.), or “make to flourish.” The figure is agrarian and points to economic issues. See BDAG s. v.; Reumann, 647–48; on “agrarian theology” see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 98–100. ἐχάρην, 2 aor. pass. of χαίρειν (cf. 2 John 4; 3 John 3) is not to be confused with the epistolary greeting χαίρειν. In Phil 4:10, the term belongs to Paul’s narrative about the arrival of Epaphroditus with the money: “I was filled greatly with joy.” For parallels of ἐχάρην with μεγάλως in papyrus letters see SB vol. 3 6823, line 3 (41–54 CE); P. Oxy. XLVII 3356, line 10 (76 CE); P. Mich. VIII 495, line 11 (168 CE); P. Giss. 13 (c.116–20 CE, Hermupolis), for which see Michael Kortus, Briefe des Apollonius-Archivs aus der Sammlung Papyri Gissenses (Giessen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1999), no. 1, line 3 (ἐχάρην); no. 8, line 3 (μεγάλως). The language of χαίρειν, χαρά is frequent in Phil (χαίρειν 1:18; 2:17, 18, 28; 3:1; 4:4; χαρά 1:4, 25; 2:2, 29; 4:1).15 φρονεῖν is rather frequent in Phil (1:7; 3:15, 19; 4:2, 10a, b). The term refers either, more generally “to think or feel in a certain way about someone or something,” or points specifically to financial obligations. Cf. BDAG s. v.; J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 121–26. 11a / ὑστέρησις, καθ’ ὑστέρησιν, in Phil pointing to “acute shortfall,” cf. the more ordinary χρεία (“need” [2:25; 4:16]). Cf. ὑστερέω (4:12), ὑστέρημα (2:30). For similar usage in contrast with περισσεύω, περίσσευμα see Phil 1:9, 26; 4:12; 2 Cor 8:2, 7, 14; 9:8, 12; 11:5, 9.16 11b–13/ See above, Chapter V, “On Self-sufficiency (4:11–13).” 14/ καλῶς ἐποιήσατε, a common epistolary formula, a hapax legomenon in Paul; see BDAG s. v. ποιέω, 5.d, for passages and literature; Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 82, n. 126. συγκοινωνέω, composite term in Phil (1:7; 4:14; cf. 1 Cor 9:23), related to κοινωνέω (Phil 4:15; Gal 6:6; Rom 12:13; 15:27); κοινωνός (1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor 1:7; 8:23; Phlm 17). The key concept of κοινωνία refers to a broader semantic field of “community,” including community with Christ and with the spirit (Phil 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 1 Cor 1:9; 9:23; 10:16; 2 Cor 13:13; Phlm 6), as well as a more specific meaning of “contractual partnership,” involving three different contracts: (1) at the conference in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1–10); (2) the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8 and 9; Rom 15:25–29; see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, passim; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 15

 See Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 187–90, 196; Idem, 1. Korinther, 519, with reference to 1 Cor 16:17. 16 See also Arzt-Grabner, 1 Korinther, 519–20; Idem, 2. Korinther, 192; 309–10.

5. Annotations on the vocabulary

119

vol. 2, 503–20); and (3) the “partnership in the mission of the gospel” (κο­ νωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) with the Philippian church (Phil 1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15), also called λειτουργία, cf. Phil 2:17, 25, 30; 2 Cor 9:12; Rom 15:16, 27).17 For a wider philosophical discourse, see Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response,” HTR 101 (2008) 15–44; regrettably, Phil 4:10–20 is not discussed. θλῖψις, a frequent term in Paul, “trouble inflicting distress,” in Phil 1:17; 4:14 referring concretely to his Roman imprisonment (cf. Act 20:23). See BDAG s. v. θλῖψις. 15/ Φιλιππήσιοι, name of the Philippians derived from the Latin Philippenses. Cf. inscriptions and subscriptions of Phil and Polycarp, Phil. See BDAG s. v.; Gnilka, 177 n. 134. ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “at the beginning of the gospel mission,” referring to Macedonia and Greece (Act 16:9–10), but not to the so-called first campaign according to Act 13–14; cf. also Mark 1:1. οὐδεμία ἐκκλησία, underscoring the singularity of the type of contract Paul arranged with the Philippian church, which must not be confused with other contracts (cf. Phil 3:6; Rom 16:4). The term ἐκκλησία is the official name indicating Paul as founder of the church; see Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 184, n. 24; BDAG s. v., 3.b.β. λόγος refers to a specific type of account, the terms of which are called δόσις καὶ λῆμψις; see Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 2, 29–36; Suppl. vol. 1, 164–65; BDAG s. v. λόγος, 2.b. δόσις καὶ λῆμψις, a technical syntagma indicating a type of fund based on financial reciprocity. Besides Phil 4:15, 17 see Matt 6:1 v. l.; Rom 15:26–27; 2 Cor 8:1–4; 9:12–14; Gal 6:6; and Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 397 (also δοσο­ λημψία); vol. 2, 18; vol. 4, 613–15; Suppl. vol. 1, 79, 162; BDAG s. v. δόσις, 2 (with lit.); Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 68–69; 98–100. δόσις is not to be

17 See

David Daube, “Societas as a Consensual Contract,” Cambridge Law Journal 6 (1938) 381–403; Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht (HA 10.3.3/1; München: Beck, 21971), §§ 112–156; Raphael Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt (Warszawa, 21955; repr. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1972), §§ 34–50 (292–428, esp. 388–93); Alan Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 125–46; Sampley, Pauline Partnership, 51–77; Gerald W. Peterman, Paul’s Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift-Exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 123–27; BDAG, s. v. κοινωνία, 3–4; Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 182–85, 226–30; Idem, 2. Korinther, 393–404; 414.

120

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

confused with δόμα (“gift”[v.17]); ibid. s. v. λῆμψις; Peterman, 205–7; Fee, 438–47; Reumann, 662–63. 16/ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, “once and twice” or “time and again,” proverbial phrase, see also 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Cor 11:25; and BDAG s. v. ἅπαξ, with parallels. χρεία, “that which is lacking,” “need”; Phil 2:25; 4:19; Acts 28:10; Rom 12:13; Tit 3:14; cf. Phil 4:11. See BDAG s. v. χρεία, 2. πέμπω, here a commercial term for “transferring money.” See BDAG s. v., 2; Arzt-Grabner, 1. Korinther, 189–90; Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker, 177. 17/ ἐπιζητέω, in a commercial context, “inquire to find out about” (i. e., the account). See Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 553–54, s. v.; vol. 4, 886–87; Suppl. vol. 1, 101; cf. BDAG s. v. 1.b (not 3), failing to recognize the technical meaning. δόμα, technical term of funds delivered as (personal) “donation”; cf. Eph 4:8; Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 396; vol. 4, 613 (“Bettelgabe”); BDAG s. v. δόμα. καρπός, a financial term “proceeds,” “profit” (Latin: fructus); see also Phil 1:22; Rom 15:28; also Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 738; Suppl. vol. 1, 137; BDAG s. v. καρπός, 2. πλεονάζω, a financial term “accumulate,” “increase”; see LSJ s. v., II; Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 2, 316; Suppl. vol. 1, 223; BDAG s. v. πλεονάζω, 1 (technical meaning not recognized). εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν, a financial term, “toward your account;” see Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 2, 29–36; Suppl. vol. 1, 164–65; BDAG s. v. λόγος, 2.b; cf. λογεία, the lay-away account administered in Corinth (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1–4); see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, ad loc. Cf. ἐλλογέω, “charge to an account,” see Phlm 18 and BDAG s. v.; Arzt-Grabner, 1. Korinther, 506–7. 18/ ἀπέχω πάντα, “I have been paid in full,” financial technical formula, for which there are multiple parallels in ancient documents, foremost as “receipts” on papyri and ostraca. For the Latin see Seneca, De ben. 7.13: accepi, sed certe non minus (“I have received but at any rate not less”). See Paul M. Meyer, Juristische Papyri. Erklärung von Urkunden zur Einführung in die juristische Papyruskunde (Wien: Weidmann, 1920), nos. 19.11–12; 28.17; 31.10, 19; 32.7, 27; 34.22; Friedrich Weber, Untersuchungen zum gräko-ägyptischen Obligationenrecht (MBPF 15; München: Beck, 1932), 5, 26–45, 62–70, 174, 186–91; Hans-Albrecht Rupprecht, Studien zur Quittung im Recht der graeco-ägyptischen Papyri (MBPF 57; München: Beck, 1971); Hans-Julius Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats (HA 10.5.2; München: Beck, 1978), 106–14; Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, vol. 3/1, 234, 635–40; vol. 3/2, 318–20. For examples

5. Annotations on the vocabulary

121

see Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 84–90, 132–33, 281 [Light from the Ancient East, 110–12, 166–67]; Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vols. 1, 162–63; 4, 211–14; Suppl. 1, 29; Spicq, Notes, vol. 3, 46–53; New Documents 6 (1992), no. 14; Paul M. Meyer, Griechische Texte aus Ägypten (Berlin: Weidmann, 1916), no. 12, 66–69; nos. 2, 13, and Deissmann’s collection of business ostraca; Peter J. Parsons and J. R. Rea, eds., Papyri Greek and Egyptian (Graeco-Roman Memoirs 68; London: The British Academy, 1981), nos. 17, 19, 25, 35, 43; J. Claudio Gallazzi et al., eds., Ostraca Greci del Museo Egizio del Cairo (O. Cair. GPW) (Papyrologica Florentina, vol. 14; Firenze: Gonnelli, 1986), nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 68, 76, 83, 92, 117. See also LSJ s. v. ἀπέχω, IV; BDAG s. v. 1 (with parallels). περισσεύω, in a financial context, “I have more than enough”; see Phil 4:12; 2 Cor 8:2; 9:8. For parallels see Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 2, 298. πεπλήρωμαι, in an economic context, “I am well supplied.” Cf. Phil 1:11; 4:19; 1 Cor 16:17. See Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 368–69; Meyer, Griechische Texte aus Ägypten, no. 12 (66–69), lines 24–29: … ἀπέχιν … τὸν Ἀπολήειον παρὰ τοῦ Φάσειτος τὴν συνκεχορημένην πρὸς ἀλλήλους τείμην ἐκ πλήρους … (“… Apuleius has received from Phasis the sum agreed upon among each other to the full value …”). δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν, in an economical context, “having received through Epaphroditus the funds coming from you.” Cf. Arzt-Grabner, 1. Korinther, 133–34; Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker, 176. ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, poetic epithet of the financial contribution, metaphors taken from sacrificial language, “pleasant fragrance.” Cf. 2 Cor 2:14, 16; Eph 5:2; BDAG s. v. ὀσμή, 2; Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 262–67. θυσία δεκτή, epithet of sacrificial language, “acceptable sacrifice.” Cf. Rom 12:1, and BDAG s. v., 2. εὐάρεστος τῷ θεῷ, epithet of sacrificial language, “well-pleasing to God.” Cf. Rom 12:1–2; 14:18; Eph 5:10; see BDAG s. v. εὐάρεστος; Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 327. 19/ πληρώσει, the future expressing the principle of reciprocity of benefits as implied in the formula λόγος δόσεως καὶ λῆμψεως (v.15). See Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 320–22; Suppl. vol. 1, 224; BDAG s. v. πληρόω, 4.b. κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ, i. e., God’s wealth is the measure of his compensation for the sacrificial donation by the Philippians (v.18). Cf. the theological explanation of the term εὐλογία (“gift of blessing”) in 2 Cor 9:6–14, for which see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 100–26; Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 430.

122

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

20/ Announced by ἐν δόξῃ (v.19), the doxology with Amen (v.20) concludes the “receipt.” For doxologies in Paul see Gal 1:5; Rom 16:27; Eph 3:21; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18, and Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 224, nn. 202, 424; BDAG s. v. δόξα, 3. The doxology is appropriate because God is honored as the ultimate benefactor.

6. Literary composition (overview) 10/

(1) Opening statement a. expression of joy b. acknowledgement of benefactors’ (Philippians) continuing concern c. implied renunciation of complaint regarding negligence d. explanation for temporary cessation of connection 11a / (2) Motivation of the beneficiary (Paul) a. negative: not because of general deprivation (ὑστέρησις) 11b–13/ b. positive: a gnomic sententia about self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) 14/ (3) Cause necessitating the benefit a. Paul’s situation of distress (θλῖψις) b. Praise of Philippians’ re-activation of partnership (συγκοινωνεῖν) 15–16/ (4) Narrative reminding Philippians of the history of the ­partnership (κοινωνία) a. time: at the beginning of the gospel (in Philippi) b. occasion: departure from Macedonia c. singularity of the partnership with Philippi d. consensual arrangement of a “partnership in the gospel” e. terms of the arranged account (λόγος): δόσις καὶ λῆμψις f. precedent: past contributions to Paul’s χρεία in Thessalonica 17/ (5) Nature and source of the revenue a. negative: not a “gift” (δόμα) b. positive: accumulated proceeds (καρπός) in arranged account 18/ (6) Confirmation of receipt a. formula: ἀπέχω πάντα καὶ περισσεύω b. acknowledgement of delivery (a) name of envoy (Epaphroditus) (b) result: “fully supplied” (πεπλήρωμαι)

7. The literary genre

123

c. type of benefit (a) sacrificial (b) three epithets: ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, θυσίαι δεκταί, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ

19/

20/

(7) Prayer of intercession on behalf of the benefactors a. justification: reciprocity of benefits b. promise: provision for all needs: πᾶσα χρεία (cf. χρεία v.16) c. source: God’s wealth in Christ Jesus (8) Concluding doxology and Amen

7. The literary genre The question immediately raised by the preceding evidence concerns the literary genre of this text segment. Is it a fragment of another letter? Is it a type of document? Or is it a document in letter form? The answer to these options should be evident, even if somewhat complex. The genre of the text segment is determined by the technical formula ἀπέχω πάντα (“I have been paid in full”) in v.18. This formula identifies the entire passage as a “receipt” for a sum of money that has been delivered and received. While the technical nature of ἀπέχω was recognized already in antiquity,18 the consequences for the question of the genre have escaped commentators. There are at least two consequences, one concerning the genre and the other its economic and legal framework. 1. As it is, the genre of “receipt” calls for the writing material of a πιτ­ τάκιον (“tablet for writing on”) or χειρόγραφον (“note of hand”), terms common for financial documents on a separate sheet.19 Such tablets may contain documentary evidence without or with an epistolary frame.20 In the case of Phil 4:10–20, it most likely is both. The redactor seems to have found 18

 For references to the Church Fathers, see Weiss (1859), 336–39, 344–45.  See Friedrich Preisigke, Girowesen im griechischen Ägypten (Strassburg: Schlesier & Schweikhardt, 1910), 209, 228–34, 288; idem, Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-römischen Zeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915), 141, 182. 20  An interesting example is presented by a letter in the Apollonius-Archive, P. Giss. 13, addressed to Apollonius by Epaphroditus: … πέμψεις ἅμα τὰς γ ἐπιστολάς· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ἐν χερσὶ τὰς γ [ἐ]πιστολάς, πιττάκιον [[μοι]] ‘αὐτῇ’ γράψον (“… send together the 3 letters. If, however, you do not have the three letters on hand, write for her a tablet”). Cited according to the edition and commentary by Michael Kortus, Briefe des ApolloniosArchivs aus der Sammlung Papyri Gissenses (Giessen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1999), 208–13 (no. 22), lines 8–9. 19

124

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

a separate sheet which he quite appropriately inserted between the sententia of vv.8–9 and the end of the letter in vv.21–23. In this way he provided the non-epistolary document with an epistolary frame: the epistolary prescript in 1:1–2 and the concluding greetings and blessing in 4:21–23. Consequently, the passage of 4:10–20 as such belongs first to the category of document and could secondarily become part of the epistle.21 2. As a receipt for money received, the document is related to the laws of obligations. The receipt contains an attestation of payments made, either directly or by way of a representative.22 In the case of Phil 4:10–20 the obligation presupposes a kind of consensual contract (κοινωνία) between Paul and the church in Philippi.23 Its causa pia constitutes the voluntary commitment by the Philippians to support Paul’s ongoing mission. Epaphroditus is serving as “envoy” (ἀπόστολος [2:25]) in that mission by delivering a partial payment to Paul in Rome.24 Paul’s reminder seems to point to an oral, rather than a formally written contract which is nonetheless binding as long as both partners are willing to uphold it.

8. The description of the history and nature of the contract Paul’s description of the history and nature of the contract (κοινωνία) must be seen within its hermeneutical framework. As Margaret Mitchell has shown in her work on Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, for many readers this will require a change of perspectives: “But Paul as we watch him at work in these letters was not only an interpreter of the sacred scriptures (hai 21  For the category of document see the basic investigations by Andreas B. Schwarz, Die öffentliche und private Urkunde im römischen Ägypten. Studien zum hellenistischen Privatrecht (ASAW.PH 31/3; Leipzig 1920), 60–84, 97–126; Ludwig Mitteis and Ulrich Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), vol. 2/1, 48–87; on the χειρόγραφον, see 55–56, 154–60; 2/2, 154–60. 22 See Friedrich Weber, Untersuchungen zum gräko-ägyptischen Obligationenrecht. Modalitäten der Leistung im Rechte der Papyri (MBPF 15; München: Beck, 1932), 5; 26–45; 186–91; Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 292–428, esp. 399–407; Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, 103–7; 234, 236–333; Hans-Julius Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats (HA 10.5.2; München: Beck, 1978), 106–14, 151–54. 23 First in taking this issue seriously was J. Paul Sampley in his Yale Ph.D. dissertation entitled Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), esp. 51–77. The London dissertation by Peterman, Paul’s Gift from Philippi, owes most of its substance to Sampley, and his critique is inadequate. 24 Cf. Kaser, Privatrecht, 103–7.

8. The description of the history and nature of the contract

125

graphai); indeed, many of his hermeneutical statements in the Corinthian correspondence, including perhaps the most famous (“the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” [to gar gramma apoktennei, to de pneuma zôopoiei], 2 Cor 3:6), have as their preliminary referent and purpose the defense of his own body, his gospel, and his diakonia against counter-statement, counter-evidence and willful or innocent misinterpretation. This was because for Paul both the scriptural text and his own body and life were epiphanic media, subject to both direct and correct, or occluded and misperceived interpretation … . We can see, therefore, that the history of Pauline interpretation begins with Paul himself, though it could never end there, since he did not and does not have complete control over his words and their meanings. Given the changing and changeable rhetorical circumstances that developed between Paul and the Corinthians, no single interpretive method would suffice for the task.”25 What is true of the Corinthian correspondence, applies to the hermeneutics of Philippians as well. The interpretation of the Philippian letter begins with Paul himself, but it includes little, if any sacred scripture. In all its sections the letter itself constitutes first of all the evaluation of his situation. He wrote down what he and his co-sender Timothy had decided to be the appropriate answer to the Philippians’ request regarding his situation (τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ, 1:12). Then they were concerned with the situation of Paul’s collaborators. Finally, in 4:10–20 the legal and financial matters concerning the transfer of the money had to be properly administered. This issue involved also the envoy Epaphroditus because he was ready to return to Philippi and hand over the legal document testifying to the proper discharge of his mission to Rome. In turn, the legal background of Epaphroditus’ mission had to be stated and authorized. Since the Roman authorities had to be justified, too, for allowing the money to be handed over to Paul. The authorities, represented by the prison guards, needed to be sure that it was not some sort of bribery or support for a political conspiracy. For these reasons the origin and purpose of the money had to be clearly documented. Paul and Timothy acted as witnesses that the contribution originated from a religious fund which was set up in Philippi for the purpose for which it now was to be used. As a sacrificial contribution it was money owned by God to be used for financially supporting a religious mission and its servants. It should be realized that the terms articulated in the “receipt” are much more than a simple acknowledgement of money received. Paul spells out the terms not only to remind the Philippian church of their obligations in case they might have forgotten them. The fact is, to be sure, that they had not forgotten them, or else they would not have 25 Mitchell,

Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics, 9–10.

126

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

taken the trouble and expense of sending a special envoy to Rome to hand over the “donation.” The untold purpose of the detailed terms was to inform the Roman authorities, acting through the prison guards. They had to give approval to Epaphroditus’ mission and his orderly departure. Of course, also Epaphroditus needed to declare himself at the time of his return to Philippi. In addition, the receipt protected him against suspicions of transporting the money illegally. Mentioning in the letter the forthcoming arrival of Timothy and even Paul himself also undergirded Epaphroditus’ credibility. Apart from all this, Paul’s documentary evidence gives us his own version of the contract which, however, presumes the Philippians’ consent. Fortunately for us, Paul furnished valuable details that allow us to see not only how he handled the practical side of financing the mission, but also how he understood its historical origin and its theological significance. In other words, by these details he also informs us today, as readers of the letter, about the original contract as it was set up in the past and about its theological significance. In this regard, the receipt of 4:10–20 is a parallel to Paul’s administrative letters of 2 Cor 8 and 9. He knew all too well why he could not afford to miss the chance to define his theological justification for his fund-raising activities.26 And yet, his formulations, done with the utmost care, leave open important questions. Anyway, without many preliminaries, Paul confesses his joyous surprise when Epaphroditus arrived in Rome to hand over what must have been a sizable sum of money (v.10).27 Does his report indicate that up to this moment there has not been much or any communication between him and the Philippians since he left Philippi? His words are clear enough to suggest that there has been a longer time span of silence (ὅτι ἤδη ποτέ, “at long last”). These few comforting words try to avert the suspicion that the Philippians could have forgotten their apostle until recently. The truth is that he does not doubt that they kept thinking of him but only lacked the opportunity to get in touch with him earlier. Do these words state merely Paul’s imagination for what may have happened? Or do we have here a reflection of Epaphroditus’ reassuring reports about the situation in Philippi? What were the facts behind the words? True, we do not know, but it is easy to guess that prior to Paul’s arriving in Rome it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Philippians to communicate with their apostle. His decision to lead the delegation that was to take the collection from Corinth to Jerusalem was made despite foreseeable troubles 26

 See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 9, 42, 46–48, 66–69, 98–100, 108–11, 118–28. the receiving of travelling emissaries, see also Phil 2:28–29; Phlm 8–18; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10–11; 2 Cor 8:23–24; Rom 16:1–2; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 80–86. 27 For

8. The description of the history and nature of the contract

127

(Rom 15:22–26, 30–32). Subsequently his arrest and deportation to Rome involving his journey across the sea by ship was no less dramatic (see Acts 27:1–28:16), so that the lack of any means of communication is easy to predict. If the Philippians obtained any information at all, they might have concluded, with good reason, that Paul’s arrest and imprisonment had altogether terminated his mission enterprise. With their partner in prison, the contract’s obligation to support the gospel mission (Phil 1:5: κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέ­ λιον) would no longer be in force. It is for this reason that Paul emphatically affirms at the beginning of his report about his present circumstances that his mission was making progress even while he is in prison and in spite of all sorts of difficulties (1:12–18). This could mean only that the contract remains in force, provided the Philippians agree. Conceivably, there may have been skeptics in Philippi who doubted their obligations to extend the contract beyond the mission in Greece. To include Rome and Spain could hardly have been part of Paul’s original plans. On the other hand, it would have been difficult to argue against Rome among the Philippians, who were closely related to the Romans anyway. Also, the Philippians may have known all along about Paul’s plans in a general way, since he had mentioned them back in Greece (cf. Rom 1:7, 15; 15:24, 28). To be sure, whatever may recently have come to their ears about Paul’s being in Rome, his future plans would have to be changed anyway. How then did communication between the partners resume? It seems clear that no communication between them could have taken place before the Philippians were alerted by some means that Paul had survived the trip and had arrived in Rome. This information may even have come from Paul himself, a possibility suggested by his using twice the term ἐπιζητεῖν. The explanation may be behind his comment in Phil 4:17: “Not that I am seeking after a donation, but I am seeking after the accumulating proceeds in your account.” The term ἐπιζητεῖν may refer to an earlier letter of his, in which he “enquired” about the status of the account that had been established in Philippi. In explaining his present intention, while de facto interpreting an earlier letter,28 he denies desiring a personal donation (δόμα). As the financial terminology of v.17 clarifies, he enquired about the proceeds that should meanwhile have accumulated in the account, to which he is entitled as a 28  For the phenomenon of Paul interpreting earlier letters by later ones, see Margaret M. Mitchell, “The Corinthian Correspondence and the Birth of Pauline Hermeneutics,” in: T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott, eds., Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall (NT.S 109; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17–53; eadem, Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Early Christian Hermeneutics, 18–37.

128

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

partner.29 Such an earlier letter on which he may make the comment was of course not part of the material taken to Philippi by Epaphroditus. If the letter existed, it must be considered lost. At least, the redactor of the correspondence did not have it when he composed what we know as Philippians. If Paul had in fact sent a previous enquiry to the Philippian church, he seems to have been uncertain about what their answer would be.30 Epaphroditus’ arrival with the payment, however, was clear enough: “I was greatly filled with joy in the Lord” (v.10). Why was he surprised? As many parallel examples demonstrate, such surprises are natural in epistolary literature when friends or relatives suddenly appear.31 Or did previous experiences, even in Rome, turn out to be disappointments? In 1:15 he complains about “envy and strife” (φθόνος καὶ ἔρις), and in 2:21 of many who have deserted him. Whatever dispute existed between Euodia and Syntyche, and whatever Clemens may have been up to, Paul barely mentions them. He left the facts unexplained, thereby only inviting later commentators to offer guesses (4:2–3). To be sure, the prompt action taken by the Philippians met with Paul’s pleasant surprise. Moreover, making clear his intentions in view of the inquiry implies the need for a documented clarification. In doing so he reminded the Philippians of the nature and history of the old contract. Addressing them by name, he reminds them of the things they know or ought to know: οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι (v.15).32 Thus, the narrative takes them back to the beginning of the gospel in Philippi (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). After he had founded the church and was departing from Macedonia,33 a formal contract had been established between himself and the Philippians, by which a special fund was set up to support financially the Pauline gospel mission. The legal terms of the contract (κοινωνία) were as follows: The Philippian church accepted the status as “partners in the gospel mission” (κοινωνοὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), with the concrete establishment of a fund (εἰς λόγον) based on the principle of 29

 On the vocabulary see above, section 5. Paul’s anxiety about the reactions to his previous letter to Corinth (2 Cor 10:1– 13:10), and the reassuring meeting with Titus, 2 Cor 2:13; 7:5–7. 31  See also 1 Cor 16:17; and Arzt-Grabner, 1. Korinther, 519–20. 32 Notably, also the letters of 2 Cor 8 and 9 contain explanations of the nature and purpose of the collection in addition to what the Corinthians were taught before. In Paul’s judgment the detailed instructions about the “gift of blessing” (εὐλογία) in 2 Cor 9:6–15 could be repeated never enough. Cf. also the instructions in 1 Cor 16:1–4. 33 See the recommendation of Stephanas as ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας in 1 Cor 16:15; cf. Rom 16:5. 30 Cf.

8. The description of the history and nature of the contract

129

“giving and receiving” (δόσις καὶ λῆμψις).34 This fund was to be maintained by regular contributions from the church. Expenditures were to be paid from the proceeds (καρπός), in order to meet the needs (χρεία) of the mission. Demonstrating his confidence in the faithfulness of the Philippians, Paul adds as an exception clause that this kind of partnership existed only with them (εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι or μόνον).35 A different contract (κοινωνία) was established later with the Greek congregations in Macedonia and Achaia, which is the famous collection for “the poor of the saints in Jerusalem.” Paul had committed himself to this collection at the leadership conference in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10),36 but his struggle to fulfill this obligation is well described in his Corinthian correspondence.37 After overcoming the formidable resistance especially by the church in Corinth, Paul could report in Rom 15:25–29 that the collection was finally ready to be taken to Jerusalem. However, in 15:30–31 he expressed his anxieties that the donation might not be accepted in Jerusalem and that even his life might be in danger. Whatever happened to these funds, after Paul and his delegation had reached Jerusalem, remains uncertain.38 At any rate, this collection was designed as a one-time effort by the Gentile churches in Macedonia and Achaia to express their gratitude to the mother church in Jerusalem. The contract was based on the adapted legal principle of exchange of benefits as stated in Rom 15:26–27. In Phil 4:16 Paul continues to remind the Philippians as a precedent that when he was in Thessalonica they had more than once sent support to him to meet urgent needs.39 Concluding the past history in v.16, Paul returns to the present explanation of the terms of the contract and his intention of the previous inquiry (v.17). What he had and still has in mind is stated by the term ἐπιζητέω.40 Using this term twice looks redundant, so much so that the scribe of P46 eliminated the words τὸ δόμα ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ.41 It should, however, be kept and explained. The term seems to have been used by Paul 34

 On these terms see section 4, above.  For the textual problem see section 3, above. 36  See my commentary on Galatians, 101–3. 37  See 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8 and 9; Rom 15:26–29; and my commentary, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 41–53; 100–28; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 515–18; 573–94; Jewett, Romans, 926–34 (with further literature). 38  See the report (with further literature) by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Die letzte Jerusalemreise des Paulus,” in: Idem, ed., Das Ende des Paulus, 21–35. 39 Cf. Acts 17:1–15 for turbulant events in Thessalonica and Paul’s narrow escape. These scenes do not seem to be informed directly by Phil or 1 Thess 1:6–8; 2:1–2, 14–16; 3:2–5; 1 Cor 16:5; 2 Cor 1:16; 2:13; 7:5; 8:1; 9:2; 11:8–9; etc. 40  For the technical vocabulary in v.17 see section 5, above. 41  See for the textual notes section 4, above. 35

130

VI. The Cost of Mission: A Look at Paul’s Finances (Phil 4:10–20)

in the earlier letter, but it was misunderstood. Indeed, it can be understood in very different ways. Perhaps, it had been suspected by some to be evidence for Paul’s “lining his purse” by chasing after personal “gifts” (δόματα).42 If so, this suspicion of greed did not have to be refuted for the first time.43 To avert it he repeats the term ἐπιζητεῖν with its intended meaning as enquiring about the proceeds (καρπός) which must have accumulated (πλεονάζειν) in their established account (εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν). If so, he would be entitled to draw on that fund. Thus, this enquiry turned out to be correct. Consequently, in v.18 Paul provides the formal “receipt” by stating the terms “I have been paid in full, and I have plenty” (ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω). “I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the things from you” (πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν).44

9. The liturgical conclusion At this point, some modern commentators were disappointed that Paul does not seem to find the proper words of saying “thank you,” – the famous “Dankloser Dank.” Is this due to a moral weakness of “ingratitude” on the part of the great Paul? Or is it a modern exegetical blunder? It turns out to be the latter, since he clarifies the issue in the same sentence.45 Three brief epithets set the record straight: All of what was delivered to him in Rome as coming from the Philippians (τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν) is part of the contract, and this is constituted as a sacrificial offering. A “pleasant fragrance” (ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας), “acceptable offering” (θυσία δεκτή), “well-pleasing to God” (εὐάρεστος τῷ θεῷ), all are obviously sacrificial concepts. The three epithets leave no doubt that the entire contract and all its activities are to be handled ritually as a sacrificial foundation.46 Accordingly, the contract and its proceeds are part of a gift offering made to honor God, so that they are not to be confused with gift-giving among humans. Not unlike gift exchanges among humans, however, offerings to God also follow the rules of reciprocity. Since Paul has 42 See

for these suspicions Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, 100–17. the suspicion of καπηλεύειν, πλεονεκτεῖν and πλεονεξία in 2 Cor 2:11, 17; 7:2–4; 9:5; 12:14–18; 1 Thess 2:5; cf. συλᾶν 2 Cor 11:8; and Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther, 267–69. 44 For the technical vocabulary see section 5, above. 45 As Reumann, 685–88, reports, after the phrase “thankless thanks” was invented by Carl Holsten in 1876 (685, n. 31), some commentators felt obligated to come up with apologetic reasons to explain it. Cf. Lohmeyer, 183–84. 46 For Paul’s analysis of the “gift of blessing” (εὐλογία) see 2 Cor 9:6–15, also Rom 12:1–2; 2 Cor 4:14–17 and other passages. 43 Cf.

9. The liturgical conclusion

131

been the recipient of a gift made to God, he is obligated to respond in the ritually appropriate way. Also, this is part of the λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως, the principle of giving and receiving (v.15). Therefore, Paul assumes the role of the liturgist who defines what the people can expect from God in return.47 As a liturgist he speaks on behalf of God, calling him “my God” (ὁ θεός μου).48 He then pronounces what God’s response will be: “He will provide for all your needs” (πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν). These provisions will come from the ultimate benefactor whose wealth is boundless (κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ), and these benefits will be granted “in glory” (ἐν δόξῃ),49 and that is “in Christ Jesus” (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).50 These formulae belong to a liturgical act, as does the pronunciation of the final doxology in v.20. Consequently, instead of a “thank you,” which would be out of place, the doxology is liturgically appropriate at this point,51 so that v.20 formally concludes the “receipt” as well as the sacrificial act. In performative language, v.20 pronounces the doxology: “To God and Our Father (be) the glory for ever and ever. Amen” (τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν).52

47  On the background of these fundamental concepts see Walter Burkert, “The Reciprocity of Giving,” in: Idem, Creation of the Sacred (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 129–55. 48  The notion of “my God” is rare in Paul’s letters; see also Phil 1:3; Phlm 4; 1 Cor 1:4; 2 Cor 12:21; Rom 1:8. See BDAG s. v. θεός, 3.c. 49  On this formula see 1 Cor 15:43; 2 Cor 3:8, 11; 8:23; Rom 9:23; Col 3:4; 1 Tim 3:16; and BDAG s. v. δόξα, 3. 50  On this formula see Phil 1:13, 26; 2:1, 5; 3:3, 14; 4:7, 19. See BDAG s. v. ἐν 4.c. 51  Cf. also 2 Cor 9:15: “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift” (Χάρις τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ). See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 126–28. 52  Cf. also Phil 1:11; 2:11; other doxologies in Paul are found in Gal 1:5; Rom 11:36; 16:25–27; cf. Eph 3:21; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; see BDAG s. v. δόξα, 3; Betz, Galatians, 43; Klaus Seybold, Samuel Vollenweider, et al., “Doxology,” RPP 4 (2008) 177–79 [RGG 2 (41999) 962–65].

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre 1. Introduction The question of the literary genre of Philippians has been discussed extensively since the decade after 1980, but the many contributions have not resulted in an agreeable solution. One major reason for this lack of result has to do with uncertain methodology.1 While it is clear that Philippians belongs to the epistolary genre, the letter fits easily within none of the existing lists of epistolary types, especially as Abraham Malherbe has investigated them.2 A majority of scholars choose to classify Philippians as a “friendship letter.”3 There are, however, two major problems with this category. First, this category is too broad and covers too many letters which in fact represent different categories. Second, the key term of “friendship letter,” if to be identified by the word family of φιλία κτλ., is not attested in Philippians, so one would have to accept other terms as equivalent evidence. In fact, identifying literary genres entirely by preselected terms is methodologically questionable. In fact, the idea of “friendship” functions as a basic presupposition in a large part of epistolary literature, but not as a genre classification. Another method, chosen, e. g., by Paul Holloway and others, is to look for topoi as identifiers.4 This approach has led to the hypothesis that Philippians is a “letter of consolation,” attributing it to the category of consolation literature. The fact is, however, that even when aspects of consolation do occur in the letter, they are associated with more comprehensive issues. Finally, the method of analyzing a letter as an assem1

 See on this issue Chapter I, section 4.b, above.  Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: SBL, 1988). 3  See Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament, 317–20, who points out that the category of “friendship letter” does not really apply. We could add that Phil 4:10–20 cannot be taken as supporting evidence (for this passage see Chapter VI, above). Cf. also Reumann, 73–75; 678–726. 4  Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians. Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). For criticism see Reumann, 12 n. 4; 299–301; 410 n. 14; 678–85. 2

134

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

blage of topoi obscures the specific function of a given letter and the reason why it was written. Another problem is that genre classifications have been attributed to the whole of Philippians, which implies that it must be accepted as a “literary unity,” i. e., as one letter written by Paul as we now have it and as the Philippians had received it. Understandably, this method is preferred by those who oppose partition hypotheses as a matter of principle. This preference, however, ignores textual evidence that, as others have pointed out, is in conflict with this presumption of “literary unity.” On the other side, those who favor partition hypotheses must first establish the literary genres of each of the separate segments and then explain how they fit into the overarching genre of the main letter. As far as one can see from the secondary literature, none of these issues has so far been tackled and resolved. Thus, the most recent commentary by John Reumann has rightly concluded that the question of the literary genre of Philippians has so far not been convincingly answered.5

2. The literary composition of the letter as a whole In the course of the present Studies, it has been attempted to show by textual analysis that two sections of the letter, which have in the past been difficult to explain, can in fact be identified as separate attachments. The section Phil 3:1b–21 has been shown to belong to the literary category of an autobiographical memorandum (ὑπόμνημα). In other words, this section did originate not as an epistolary but as a documentary text. This document was included as an attachment in the “mailings” which the delegate Epaphroditus took back to Philippi. Only when a later redactor inserted it as part of the letter, the function of the memorandum was changed from a documentary into an epistolary text.6 In a similar way, the passage 4:10–20 started out as a documentary statement of “receipt,” a χειρόγραφον on a πιττάκιον, by which Paul certifies that he has received the sum of money brought by Epaphroditus.7 This certification originated as a separate piece which also became part of the “mailing.” Like the memorandum discussed before, the later redactor inserted it into the paraenesis section of the letter.8 5

 For Reumann’s conclusions see 685, 693–726.  See Chapter III, above. 7  4:18: ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω· πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν … .  8 See Chapter VI, above. 6

2. The literary composition of the letter as a whole

135

Once these two, originally non-epistolary, segments of 3:1b–21 and 4:10– 20 are removed from the letter, the remaining text constitutes the original letter of 1:1–3:1a; 4:1–9, 21–23. Consequently, the question to be answered is, to which epistolary genre does this main letter belong? In order to identify its literary genre, a brief look at its composition and function is necessary. 1. Phil 1:1–2 is clearly identifiable as the epistolary prescript, naming the two co-senders Paul and Timothy9 as well as the addressees (adscriptio) “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi together with the overseers and deacons.” V.2 contains the usual formula of salutatio. 2. 1:3–11 presents as the prooemium Paul’s apostolic prayer (prayer report, v.9a) in the usual three parts of thanksgiving, intercession, and doxology. The composition is weaving together present concerns with specific issues of past, present, and future situations, all to be taken up later. 3. 1:12–3:1a contains the body of the letter, in which Paul describes in narrative form his situation as he sees it at his time. The statement comes to the point at once, suggesting also that the phrase “I wish you to get to know” (Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι) is in response to a request delivered to Paul from the church in Philippi. In other words, besides handing over the financial contribution, Epaphroditus delivered an oral request for a report regarding Paul’s present state of affairs and its consequences (1:12: τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ).10 In fact, these two issues together form the purpose and function of the letter in its entirety. Together they presuppose that sending the delegate Epaphroditus with the financial contribution was an immediate response to a message arriving in Philippi about Paul’s need for it. We do not know, however, which kind of information had triggered the Philippians’ response. Possibly, Paul himself could have sent an urgent petition for help, which caused the Philippians to act in the way they did. If there was such a petitionary letter by Paul, it is now lost.11 Possibly also, the message could have reached the Philippians orally. At any rate, their quick response of sending Epaphroditus was motivated by the fact that they were under obligation to  9  As co-senders Paul and Timothy call themselves “servants” (δοῦλοι) of Christ Jesus, but in the following letter Paul is speaking as author in the first person sing., so that the functions of sender and author need to be distinguished. See Reumann, 80–83; and also below, note 91. 10 The peculiar expression of τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ (“my affairs”) occurs also in Col 4:7–9 and Eph 6:21–22; see BDAG, s. v. κατά, Β.6. The similarity of these references, in which the informer is not Epaphroditus but Tychicus, raises the question of what kind of literary relationship may exist here with Philippians (cf. also Act 20:4; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12; and the subscriptiones to Col and Eph [in Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. only]). 11 As happened to Paul’s message to Thessalonica in Phil 4:16.

136

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

act. This conclusion can be drawn from the “receipt” (4:10–20), in which Paul describes in detail what kind of obligation existed on the part of the Philippians. He is referring to the contractual agreement (κοινωνία) they had entered into at the beginning of the Pauline mission (4:14–15). In return, then, his present letter with its description of his situation provides the post factum justification for his urgent petition. The obvious question on the mind of the Philippians seems to have been, whether the contractual agreement is still in force or whether the Pauline mission efforts have in effect come to an end because of his imprisonment and trial in Rome. Therefore, this concern on the part of the Philippian donors is addressed by the first of Paul’s explanations.12 4. In 1:12–20 Paul can reassure the Philippians that the mission efforts are going on without interruption. Much to his own amazement, it seems, the “proclamation of the gospel is making progress” (μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν [v.12]). Paradoxically, the “chains” have turned out to be visible symbols of Christ in the whole praetorium and about everywhere.13 The reaction of the people to the chains corresponds to the usual one in the gospel mission, causing a split between the majority of fellow-Christians who get encouraged and even emboldened to speak out, and others who respond by envy and contentiousness (vv.14–17).14 Whatever the reactions may be, the important fact is that Christ is being proclaimed, and that is the present cause for joy on Paul’s part (v.18), and indeed for good hope toward the future (vv.19–20).15 To be sure, what is at stake in the near future is his own physical existence. He can report that the court trial has passed the first two stages, that of the “defense” (ἀπολογία) and the “presentation of evidence” (βεβαί­ ωσις), both of which concern “the gospel” and are exhibited by his chains (vv.7–8). As a result, Paul is now awaiting the outcome of the verdict, which will be either absolutio or condemnatio, and thus a matter of life or death (v.20: εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου). What kind of verdict it will be, of course,  See the first mentioning of the contract (κοινωνία) in the prayer, 1: 5–6; cf. 4:15.  1:13: ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πάσιν. Obviously, the chains are real and visible, having a symbolic effect. For δεσμοί see 1:7, 13–14, 17; Phlm 10, 13; Col 4:18; 2 Tim 2:9. I take the praetorium to refer to persons associated with this institution in Rome; see BDAG, s. v. πραιτώριον; Reumann, 171–72; 196. 14 Notably, Paul’s relaxed reaction at this point is quite different from the categorical rejection concerning the Galatians’ wavering (cf. Gal 1:6–9; also Act 17:4, 32–34; 28:24–25). 15 The occurrence of the term “progress” (προκοπή) may point to Roman ideas of institutional development. See Phil 1:12, 25; 1 Tim 4:15. For the different importance in Stoic ethics see below. 12 13

2. The literary composition of the letter as a whole

137

Paul cannot predict. Remarkably, he does not mention who his accusers are and what kind of accusational evidence they may have submitted. If neither of them were produced in court, it should lead simply to a dismissal of the case, but Paul does not venture any guesses. Having had experiences with law courts before, it speaks for his prudence that he does not name persons or issues of accusation being before the court. If he has some confidence in the Roman justice system, he also knows that the verdict will be either dismissal or condemnation to death, and that it will be “political” like all things Roman. Given this situation of uncertainty, what can he say about the present state of his affairs? He has stated what he knows (v.19: οἶδα), but what is to be awaited is yet unknown (v.22: οὐ γνωρίζω). In such a situation, what can his answer to the Philippians be? Contemplating the matter, both shallow optimism and pessimism are to be ruled out. The word of the apostle must be realistic and applicable to both alternatives. 5. This realization leads him to present the carefully crafted gnomic sententia in vv.21–26).16 Much like other such sayings compositions known from the literary writers of the time, Paul’s composition has three parts: v.21 states a principle in the form of a gnomic sententia: “For as far as I am concerned, living [is] Christ and dying [is] gain” ( Ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀπο­ θανεῖν κέρδος). Vv.22–25 contain a commentary (expositio) explaining the issues of the saying of v.21. A conclusion (epilogus) in v.26 sums up the result. What exactly is the apostle saying in his conclusion? Close reading is needed to find out. The initial statement “as far as I am concerned” (ἐμοὶ γὰρ) presupposes a dialogical context, in which Paul intervenes by offering his view in contrast to others.17 What this literary context is can be reconstructed from the extensive literature of such sayings.18 Keeping in mind that Paul intends to argue both outcomes of dismissal or condemnation to death, in the commentary (vv.22–25) he distinguishes between two kinds of “knowledge.” When in v.19 the term “I know” (οἶδα) refers to the brute facts of life taking place according to human experience (vv.19–20), in vv.22–26 he can say, “I know by conviction” (πεποιθὼς οἶδα). While this convictional knowledge refers to concrete events, it is in fact ambivalent: “Being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you toward your progress and joy of faith, so that your source of pride may abound in Christ Jesus by me through my appearance 16

 For a detailed interpretation see Chapter II, above.  For dialogical references using the words ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, vel sim., see e. g., Plato, Apol. 18a; 19e; 20e; 21c,e; 26e; Phaed. 61c; 64c–e; 99d; cf. Cicero, Tusc. 1.9: Malum mihi videtur esse mors; and often. 18 On the evidence see Chapter II, section 4, above. 17

138

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

again with you.”19 This contorted sentence is not easy to understand. It can be read in two ways.20 Depending on the verdict of the trial, in the case that Paul is dismissed as innocent he will return to the Philippians once again.21 Or, in the case of condemnation to death he will have to die, but through his dead body Christ will be further glorified by his continued presence among the Philippians “in spirit.”22 The same double-meaning is expressed in vv.25–26: In one respect, the verdict would lead to Paul’s dismissal, his return to Philippi, the continuation of his work for the progress in faith, and ultimately to their eschatological success (καύχημα) on the Day of Christ.23 Differently, in the case of his death, he would continue his apostolic work through his “spiritual presence.”24 6. This latter outcome Paul further specifies at the beginning of the paraenesis by emphasizing that the Philippians’ obedience to the gospel does not depend on his physical presence on earth: “Only let your conduct of civic life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel … .”25 Contained in these words is the idea of two kinds of presence, a presence “in body” (ἐν σώματι) and a presence “in spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι). This explanation is repeated after the citation of the hymn (2:6–11): “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for God is at work among you, both to will and to work for his own well-pleasing.”26  1:25–26: καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα ὅτι μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, ἵνα τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The translation is mine. 20  Notably, the expression μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ occurs only here in Paul, whose emphasis 19

raises the question whether there is more behind it than meets the eye. Cf. the meanings in Plato; Phaed. 62e; 98e–99a; 115d–e. 21  Cf. also 2:24: πέποιθα δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι. 22  See 1:19–20. Thus the term σωτηρία refers both to his physical “rescue” by dismissal and to his eschatological “salvation” described in v.20. 23 For this concept see 1:6, 10; 2:16, cf. 2 Cor 1:14; and BDAG, s. v. ἡμέρα, 3.b.β. 24 1:26: ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 25 1:27: Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν

ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου … (my translation). 26 2:12–13: Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοί μου, καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε, μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε· θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας (my translation).

2. The literary composition of the letter as a whole

139

The idea of a twofold presence (παρουσία) is in fact a literary aspect characteristic of letter-writing in general.27 Most significantly, this literary aspect became a raison d’être in the deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles. Accordingly, the authors of these letters continue to write letters “in the spirit of Paul,” which claims to imply both speaking and seeing: “For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.”28 7. A further point is made regarding future salvation (σωτηρία) of the Philippian church, viewed from Paul’s present position (1:28–30). The experience of divine salvation involves not only “faith” but, as part of it, also “sharing in the suffering for Christ.”29 Considering Paul’s present struggle, the Philippians need to realize that they have on their hands the same struggle as Paul, which they saw in him and are now hearing about.30 Notably, Paul takes a look from his present perspective to the future functioning of his letter, when after Epaphroditus’ return to Philippi it will be read to the congregation. It is not an exaggeration to conclude that Paul’s paraenesis in its entirety (1:27–3:1a; 4:1–9) views his life and work among the Philippians foremost as a matter of the past, which will provide apostolic guidance for their Christian faith and life in the future. This is finally summed up in his “last word” (4:8–9), with the last sentence almost repeating the formulations discussed above.31 Therefore, the centrality of the sayings composition of 1:21–26 for the letter as a whole, including the attachments of 3:1b–21 and 4:10–20, leads to the conclusion that the purpose and function of the letter is to give account of Paul’s present situation (τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ) as post factum justification for accepting the financial contribution from the Philippian church delivered to him by Epaphroditus. This delegate will take all the “mailings” back to Philippi and 27  For this twofold presence see 1 Cor 5:3–5; Gal 1:8–9; 6:15. See also my Galatians, ad loc., and my essay, “Paul’s ‘Second Presence’ in Colossians,” in: Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 121–33. 28  Col 2:5: εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι, χαίρων καὶ βλέ­ πων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. 29  1:29: οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. 30  1:30: τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντας, οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοὶ. Textually, P46 and ms 81 omit the final ἐν ἐμοί, probably as redundant. These witnesses understood correctly that the earlier ἐν ἐμοὶ refers to what the Philippians saw with their own eyes, when he was among them, while the hearing implies the reading of the present letter. See also 2:12 (n. 26, above). Cf. Wachtel and Witte, Die paulinischen Briefe, vol. 2, 101; Reumann, 273–75. For Paul’s struggles witnessed by the Philippians, see also 1 Thess 1:9; 2:1–2. 31  On this sayings composition, see Chapter IV, above.

140

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

submit them to the leadership of the church. The fact that today we possess these “mailings” in the form of the one letter produced by a later redactor proves that Epaphroditus’ mission was accomplished as planned. As it is characteristic of other apostolic letters, so also in Philippians: Having to deal with administrative affairs provides the opportunity for Paul to expand administrative formalities into theological issues underlying both theory and practice. These issues include the prayer of the exordium (1:3–11), the narratio (1:12–26) with the sententia of 1:21 as prothesis, the paraenesis (1:27–3:1a; 4:8–9), and the inserted documentary attachments of 3:1b–21 and 4:10–20. The prescript 1:1–2 and the epilogue of final greetings and blessing (4:21–23) complete the epistolary frame of the letter.

3. The literary and rhetorical environment Looking at the letter to the Philippians in light of the literary analysis as developed in these Studies should be followed by examining its environment in Hellenistic and Roman literature. This, however, cannot be a matter of choice. Living in the Roman prison means that Paul (and Timothy) were cut off from most resources, except their own memory and, perhaps, copies of some of Paul’s own letters. There was, however, no corpus Paulinum as yet, and there are no references to his earlier letters The reference to Thessalonica (4:16) is to the city, but not to 1 Thessalonians. For this reason also, in Philippians there are no references to the Old Testament (LXX). Apart from mentioning a few friends (Phil 1:13–18; 4:21–22), Paul has nothing to say about local Jewish-Christian churches, whether in Philippi or Rome.32 Within this context, Philippians can be placed in a literary tradition which will finally allow us to answer the question of its literary genre. As Paul’s writing suggests, his general position has important analogies and even parallels in Hellenistic and Roman literature about life in Roman prison.33 His placement is determined by the fact that the Apostle languishes in just such a Roman prison under the conditions to be expected there. He is deprived not only of his personal freedom but also of his former support system through the churches in Asia Minor and Greece which he has founded. As a Roman citizen, most of his personal privileges have been suspended, which is graphically 32  See Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2/18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21989); Reumann, 3–4. 33  For the conditions of prison, see Werner Eisenhuth, “Die römische Gefängnisstrafe,” ANRW 1, 2 (1972) 268–82.

3. The literary and rhetorical environment

141

shown by his “chains” and the official guards watching him by day and night. In Philemon v.9 he presents himself sardonically as “just a fellow like me, Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus.”34 As an old man and prisoner he now depends solely on the love and generosity of friends. His life’s work in a world-wide gospel mission (εὐαγγέλιον) easily appears as having ended in failure. In blunt terms, being “on death row,” all he has to look forward to is the likelihood of death. All of his communications, oral or written, are controled by guards, informers, and spies. Out of this dire situation Paul’s letter was written, and, together with its attachments, all the mailings would as soon as possible be taken by the delegate Epaphroditus back to Philippi. Obvious signs of urgency and haste make some passages difficult to understand. In spite of the pressures of time, however, the mailings contain profound theological reflections about the past, present, and future dimensions of his mission as well as the future prospects of the Philippian church. In the Hellenistic and Roman environment, a work like the one Paul is about to send off would fall into the category of praemeditatio futurorum malorum35 or meditatio mortis,36 well-known literary and rhetorical concepts. Indeed, Cicero defines even the task of philosophy along this line: “For the whole life of the philosopher is a preparation for death.”37 Cicero’s definition sums up the current discourses between various Hellenistic philosophical schools, in which the notions of “life and death,” “life after death,” “immortality of the soul,” and “pervasiveness of spirit” were preeminent topics. Paul could presuppose that the Philippians were not unfamiliar with various options of these topics offered in more general discussions. Spelled out more fully, his own views are articulated in Phil 1:10–11, 19–20; 2:6–11, 12–16; 4:5–7, 23; and within the attachments at 3:7–10, 14–16, 20–21; 4:14–20. His primary concern in his last message to the Philippians is that they are not only

 Phlm 9: τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The text is cited according to Nestle-Aland, 27th/28th ed. For commentary see Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 70–77, 111–15; Peter Müller, Der Brief an Philemon (KEK 9/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 108–9. For the meaning of the term πρεσβύτης see BDAG, s. v.; Christian Gnilka, “Greisenalter,” RAC 12 (1983) 995–1094, esp. 1053–55. 35  For the concept see Cicero, Tusc. 3.29–32. 36  Seneca, Epist. 54.2: meditatio mortis; 107.3–4; the concepts point back to Plato, Phaed. 80e–81a: μελέτη θανάτου; 63a–65c; Apol. 30a–b: ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τὴν ψυχήν; Cicero, Tusc. 1.97 referring to Plato, Apol. 40c; Phaed. 61c–69e connecting with the Apology. 37  Cicero, Tusc. 1.74: Tota enim philosophorum vita … commentatio mortis est. Cicero refers here to Plato, Phaed. 67d: τὸ μελέτημα αὐτὸ τοῦτό ἐστιν τῶν φιλοσόφων, λύσις καὶ χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. 34

142

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

instructed, but also remain committed to his teaching of the gospel.38 The recurring exhortation στήκετε (“stand firmly committed”) at the beginning of the paraenesis (1:27) and at its end (4:1) expresses his main concern that his Philippian foundation may not have been “in vain.”39 Parallels in other letters show that Paul’s greatest worries are not those caused by fear of death, but by the wavering of churches only recently founded. He dreads the possibility that the great mission efforts he began may end in “futility.”40 This danger is stated as early as Galatians (1:6–7), condemning the exchange of the Christian gospel for “another gospel, but there is none” (εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο). Thus, the exchange (μεταστρέψαι τὸν εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ) would result in not having a gospel at all, because its blessings would be turning into a curse (Gal 6:16).41

4. A literary genre for Philippians Taking into account the wide range of the literary activities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods and the large number of writers, philosophers, and artists who produced works in many genres, one must realize that only little of it has been preserved until our own days. What is extant is limited to accidental survivals and rediscoveries. Other remnants were saved by becoming part of ongoing traditions or even new creations. In religion and philosophy, precious works and traditions were preserved because they became standard texts or monuments of major “schools” of thought and practice. Philosophical thinking especially by Platonists, Peripatetics, Epicureans, and Stoics became increasingly popular and mixed with religion. During the later Hellenistic periods, most important for the preservation of basic works of classical Greek culture were the Romans who adopted and adapted the culture of the Greeks beginning in the second and first centuries BCE.42 One remembers the dramatic encounter in 156/5 BCE, when a Greek peace delegation of three phi38  For the term εὐαγγέλιον see Phil 1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; most likely, the term λόγος ζωῆς (1:16) is a synonym. 39 2:16: … ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα. 40  On κενός see 1 Cor 15:10, 14, 58; 2 Cor 6:1; Gal 2:2; 1 Thess 2:1; 3:5; κενοῦν Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3; cf. κενοδοξία Phil 2:3; κενόδοξος Gal 5:26. The issue continues after Paul: Col 2:8; Eph 5:6; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16. See BDAG, s. v. κενός κτλ. 41 For the interpretation see my Galatians, 46–52, 320–23. 42 Modern research began with the stimulating paper by Richard Harder, “Die Einbürgerung der Philosophie in Rom,” Die Antike 5 (1929) 291–316; reprinted in his Kleine Schriften (München: Beck, 1960), 330–53.

4. A literary genre for Philippians

143

losophers came to Rome to give lectures.43 They included a Stoic (Diogenes of Babylon), a Peripatetic (Critolaos), and a sceptical Academic (Carneades). In particular two lectures fascinated the Romans: On one day Carneades spoke in favor of Justice, and the next day against it; both times logically convincing. The implication of relativism was realized and caused a storm among Roman conservatives, so much so, that Cato Censorius moved the Senate in 155 BCE to expel all philosophers from Rome.44 This, however, could not prevent the next two centuries from experiencing one of the greatest cultural encounters in ancient history. Greek philosophers moved to Rome, and Roman intellectuals went to Greece to study philosophy and Greek culture.45 Decorating Roman villas with stolen Greek art became the rage among the rich and powerful. At the time when Cicero wrote his fundamental works of philosophy, Romans were still able to study Greek literature with important scholars in Athens, Alexandria, Asia Minor, and Rhodes. Translating or adapting Greek philosophical literature into Latin kept authors like Cicero busy and led to a wave of new literature that was Graeco-Roman (e. g., Ennius, Polybius). Within and through it all emerged a new phenomenon later called “popular philosophy,” that is, a culture of intellectual discourses among urban people who had reached higher levels of education.46 This culture became a kind of praeparatio evangelii for the early Christian churches, and specifically their founder Paul of Tarsus.47 By the time of Paul, Roman intellectuals like Cicero and his friends were able to speak and write in Greek as well as in Latin. Their aim was to develop a new Roman culture that combined Greek and Roman cultural resources. Efforts to understand better the complexities of this enormous intercultural exchange were neglected by scholars for a long time, but their work is at present moving on at full speed.

43  See Cicero, De or. 2.155–161; De rep. 3.8–9; Tusc. 4.3.5; also Carsten Drecoll, “Die Karneadesgesandtschaft und ihre Auswirkungen in Rom. Bemerkungen zur Darstellung der Karneadesgesandtschaft in den Quellen,” Hermes 132 (2004) 82–91. 44  See Plutarch, V. Catonis mai., 22–23. 45  For comprehensive surveys of the present state of research see Hellmut Flashar, ed., [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vols. 4/1–2: Die hellenistische Philosophie (Basel: Schwabe, 1994). 46  Increasingly, “popular religion” became a subject as well; see Arnaldo Momigliano, “Popular Religious Beliefs and the Late Roman Historians,” in his Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1977), 141–59. 47  For New Testament studies see the important works by Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

144

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

After the murder of C. Iulius Caesar on the Ides of March (44 BCE), the deaths of Cicero (43 BCE) and of Caesar’s assassins (31 BCE), the process continued during the Principate of Octavianus Augustus and the emperors of the following centuries, when the great importance of religion for these intercultural developments was recognized, after having been ignored for a long time.48 This development explains also why since the second and first centuries BCE, intercultural encounters increasingly changed all older religious traditions, including Judaism and Christianity, by first hellenizing and then romanizing them. In the case of early Christianity, the change began with the apostle Paul.49 At any rate, these developments are recognized as basic for the “Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians,” and are now set before the reader. In the following, therefore, two major examples will be discussed in greater detail, Cicero and Seneca. Although neither of them knew Paul, and nor did he know them, they were close to him through the impact of their works on the wider public including Paul’s churches. a. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BCE) Among what survived from the enormous bloodshed and destruction of the civil wars and the proscriptions were the major philosophical works of Cicero which deal not only with fundamental issues of morality and ethics, but also with religion and thus with life, death, afterlife, and cosmology. In these works we see him again and again preoccupied with praemeditatio mortis,50 the questions of the immortality of the soul,51 and the phenomena of the cosmos.52 After he had “retired” from politics and was sent to his villas 48  For my views on this issue see my article on “Antiquity and Christianity,” JBL 117 (1998) 3–22; also “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism: Creating a Space for Christianity” and “The Birth of Christianity as a Hellenistic Religion: Three Theories of Origin,” JR 74 (1994) 1–25; all three reprinted in Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze IV (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 100–27, 244–66, 267–90. 49 For the present controversies, see my articles “Christianity as Religion: Paul’s Attempt at Definition in Romans,” JR 71 (1991) 315–44; also in Paulinische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze III (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 206–39; and “Paul’s Ideas about the Origins of Christianity,” ibid., 272–88. 50 On this concept, see section 3, above. 51 For this concept see above, Chapter II, section 4. 52 Most important is Cicero’s “The Dream of Scipio” (De rep. 6.9–29), see Karl Büchner, Somnium Scipionis. Quellen, Gestalt, Sinn (Hermes Einzelschriften 36; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976); Herwig Görgemanns, “Die Bedeutung der Traumeinkleidung im Somnium Scipionis,” WS 81 NF 2 (1968) 46–69; especially also Jerzy Linderski, “Cicero and Roman Divination,” in his Roman Questions. Selected Papers (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995), 458–84.

4. A literary genre for Philippians

145

by C. Iulius Caesar (47 BCE), Cicero wrote during an incredibly short time (in 47–43 BCE) a series of philosophical works that became foundational text-books for Roman civilization. Before and after his death, his secretaries and friends, especially his secretary M. Tullius Tiro,53 and his publisher T. Pomponius Atticus,54 collected and published these works, in addition to large collections of letters.55 After political stability had returned, Cicero’s works on the conduct of ethical life and death came to stand in the center of interest. Without hesitation Cicero used and adapted major works of Greek philosophers still at his disposal (e. g., Panaetius of Rhodes, Posidonius of Apameia, Carneades, Antiochus of Ascalon, Philo of Larissa, and other Stoics and Epicureans).56 Among Cicero’s philosophical works were titles such as De finibus, De officiis, Academica 1, 2, De legibus, De re publica, De natura deorum, De divinatione, Cato maior De senectute, and De fato. Sensing the possibility of his own violent demise, the five books of his Tusculanae Disputationes were devoted specifically to the problems of death awaiting the philosophically minded.57 As Cicero himself states, the great exemplum for him and others was Plato’s Phaedo. The impact Plato’s Phaedo had in later reception history is illustrated by M. Porcius Cato’s (Uticensis) suicide after his troops lost the battle against Caesar at Thapsus in 46 BCE. He took his life with joy after having read twice Plato’s Phaedo: “… Cato departed from life with a feeling of joy in having found a reason for death; for the God who is master within us forbids our departure without his permission; but when God Himself has given a valid reason as He did in the past to Socrates and in our day to Cato, and often to many others, then of a surety your true wise man will joyfully pass forthwith from the darkness here into the light beyond.”58 The principle 53

 See William C. McDermott, “M. Cicero and M. Tiro,” Historia 21 (1972) 259–86.  See Olaf Perlwitz, Titus Pomponius Atticus (Hermes Einzelschriften 58; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992). 55  For present research, see Günter Gawlick and Woldemar Görler, “Cicero,” in: [Ueberweg] Die Philosophie der Antike, 4/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 991–1168; Peter Steinmetz, “Die Stoa,” ibid., 491–989. 56  For present research, see Michael Erler, “Epikur – Die Schule Epikurs – Lukrez,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, 4/1 (Basel: Schwab, 1994), 29–490. 57 In the following we shall be using the edition by Thomas W. Dougan and Robert M. Henry, M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum disputationum libri quinque (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905–34), and the LCL edition and translation by J. E. King, Tusculan Disputations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1927). Helpful is also the German translation with rich commentary by Olof Gigon, Gespräche in Tusculum. Tusculanae Disputationes (Zürich and München: Artemis & Winkler, 21972). 58 Cicero, Tusc. 1.74: Cato autem sic abiit e vita, ut causam moriendi nactum se esse gauderet: vetat enim dominans ille in nobis deus iniussu hinc nos suo demigrare: cum vero causam iustam deus 54

146

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

to be applied here is stated in this way: “For the whole life of the philosopher, as the same wise man says, is a preparation for death.”59 Regarding the literary style, Cicero intends to apply the Socratic form of dialogue, as he sees it in Plato’s dialogues.60 However, Cicero’s use of dialogue in the Tusculan Disputations is different: “The result is that I have put together into five books the dissertations, as the Greeks term them, of as many days. The procedure was that, after the would-be listener had expressed his view, I opposed it. This, as you know, is the old Socratic method of arguing against your adversary’s position; for Socrates thought that in this way the probable truth was most readily discovered; but in order that the course of our discussions may be more conveniently followed I shall put them before you in the form of a debate and not in narrative form.”61 Cicero admits openly that these debates are invented for the sake of introducing Greek philosophy to Roman readers eager to become conversant with it, but undeniably behind it and shining through it are Cicero’s own doubts and hopes facing an uncertain future.62 The construction of each of the five books of the Tusculan Disputations follows the same pattern. After setting out the narrative framework, a sententia puts forth a thesis, which is then to be refuted in a commentary by letting the various philosophical interpreters talk to each other, until a conclusion (epilogue) confirms what is wrong or right with the initial thesis. The first book states the thesis in 1.9: “To my thinking death is an evil” (Malum mihi videtur esse mors).63 The opposing thesis is stated in 1.16: “To ipse dederit, ut tunc Socrati, nunc Catoni, saepe multic, ne ille, medius fidius, vir sapiens laetus ex his tenebris in lucem illam excesserit. 59  Ibid.: Tota enim philosophorum vita, ut ait idem, commentatio mortis est. This statement refers to Plato’s Phaed. 67d: τὸ μελέτημα αὐτὸ τοῦτό ἐστιν τῶν φιλοσόφων, λῦσις καὶ χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. Cf. Tusc. 5.4; and Plutarch, V. Catonis (Uticensis), LCL ed. and transl. by Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919), 68–70. 60  For references to Plato’s Apology and Phaedo see Tusc. 1.55–59, 71–75, 97–103. Moreover, the fact is that Plato’s works form the background not only for Cicero but also for much of other literature he cites or alludes to. 61 Tusc. 1.8: Fiebat autem ita, ut, cum is, qui audire vellet, dixisset quid sibi videretur, tum ego contra dicerem. Haec est enim, ut scis, vetus et Socratica ratio contra alterius opinionem disserendi. Nam ita facillime quid veri simillimum esset inveniri posse Socrates arbitrabatur. Sed quo commodius disputationes nostrae explicentur, sic eas exponam, quasi agatur res, non quasi narretur. On these issues, see Robert Gormann, The Socratic Method in the Dialogues of Cicero (Palingenesia 86; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005). 62 See on this point Cicero’s sketch of cultural history in Tusc. 1.1–7; cf. Acad. 1, 4–32. 63 In substance, this thesis is an antithesis to Paul’s sententia in Phil 1:21; see Chapter II, above. However, Cicero has his own counterthesis to offer.

4. A literary genre for Philippians

147

show you if I can that death is not merely no evil but positively a good.”64. The conclusion sums up the message (1.117): “… we must employ the resources of eloquence and deliver as from a pulpit the message to mankind, either to begin to wish for death, or at any rate cease to fear it.”65 The second book is focused on anxiety (2.10): “fear of pain” (metus quidam et dolor), stated as a thesis (2.14): “I consider pain the greatest of all evils.” (Dolorem existimo maximum malorum omnium). After the discussion, in 2.67 the contrary thesis is summed up: “… when unpleasing and hateful pains assail you, if they should be too keen to be borne, you see the refuge to which you must fly.”66 The third book opens with the thesis to be refused with this observation (3.7): “The wise man it seems to me is susceptible to distress.”67 In dealing with the various forms of distress, there is need to specify the particular phenomena, terms, and root causes of distress. Then they need to be treated accordingly (3.81–84). In conclusion (3.84), “A great undertaking and a hard one, who denies it? But what noble undertaking is not also hard? Yet, all the same, philosophy claims that she will succeed: only let us consent to her treatment.”68 The fourth book offers a further skeptical intervention (4.8): “It does not appear to me that the wise man can be free from all disorder of soul” (Non mihi videtur omni animi perturbatione posse sapiens vacare). The discussion exposes the full extent of the emotional anxieties in analogy to the physical diseases and defects (4.29): “But in the soul we can only separate disease from sickness theoretically. Defectiveness, however, is a habit or a disposition which is throughout life inconsistent and out of harmony with itself. So it comes that in the one perversion of beliefs the result is disease and sickness, in the other the result is inconsistency and discord.”69 The conclusion states (4.83): “But there is one method of healing both distress and all other diseases of the soul, namely to show that all are matters of belief and consent of the will 64

 1.16: Ut doceam, si possim, non modo malum non esse, sed bonum etiam esse mortem.  1.117: Quae cum ita sint, magna tamen eloquentia est utendum atque ita velut superiore e loco contionandum, ut homines mortem vel optare incipiant vel certe timere desistant. 66  2.67: … sic urguentibus asperis et odiosis doloribus, si tanti sint, ut ferendi non sint, quo sit confugiendum vides. 67  3.7: Videtur mihi cadere in sapientem aegritudo. The term aegritudo translates the Greek λύπη. 68 3.83: Magnum opus et difficile, quis negat? quid autem praeclarum non idem arduum? sed tamen id se effecturam philosophia profitetur, nos modo curationem eius recipiamus. 69  4.29: Sed in animo tantum modo cogitatione possumus morbum ab aegrotatione seiungere, vitiositas autem est habitus aut adfectio in tota vita inconstans et a se ipsa dissentiens. Ita fit ut in altera corruptione opinionum morbus efficiatur et aegrotatio, in altera inconstantia et repugnantia. 65

148

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

and are submitted to simply because such submission is thought to be right. This deception, as being the root of all evil, philosophy promises to drag out utterly.”70 The final fifth book is the high-point and conclusion of the work. Addressed to Brutus, it brings it all together in the Stoic conviction of the sufficiency of virtue. In 5.1 Brutus is addressed: “for from the book you have written with such sedulous care and dedicated to me, as well as from the numerous conversations I have had with you, I have realized the strength of your conviction that virtue is self-sufficient for a happy life.”71 This fundamental presupposition is then defended by arguments throughout the history of philosophy until Brutus’ final affirmation (5.12) against all alternatives up to Epicurus and his school (5.88–119). At the end of the day, they all agree (5.119). Whatever their differences, “… they think that the wise man is always happy, what, pray, do you conclude that philosophers who go back to Socrates and Plato ought to do?”72 Whatever benefits the five books will have for others, Cicero himself confesses: “… at any rate in my cruel sorrows and the various troubles which beset me from all sides no other consolation could have been found.”73 In terms of literary categories, Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations use a rich rhetorical inventory as building components for the dialogues. This includes gnomic sententiae, diatribes, historical anecdotes and exempla, quotations, metaphors, and explanations of Greek terms in Latin. Of course, the rhetorical genre of dialogue is also presupposed in other major genres, especially in collections of philosophical sententiae and epistles. Their close relationship is exemplified by Epicurus’ sayings collections such as Kyriai Doxai74 and Epis70  4.83: Sed et aegritudinis et reliquorum animi morborum una sanatio est, omnes opinabiles esse et voluntarios ea reque suscipi, quod ita rectum esse videatur. Hunc errorem quasi radicem malorum omnium stirpitus philosophia se extracturam pollicetur. 71  5.1: … placere enim tibi admodum sensi et ex eo libro, quem ad me accuratissime scripsisti, et ex multis sermonibus tuis virtutem ad beate vivendum se ipsa esse contentam. 72 5.119: ei tamen semper beatum censent esse sapientem, quid tandem a Socrate et Platone profectis philosophis faciendum iudicas? 73 5.121: … nostris quidem acerbissimis doloribus variisque et undique circumfusis molestiis alia nulla potuit inveniri levatio. 74 For editions see Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Diogenis Laertii Vitae Philosophorum (BT; 3 vols.; Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1999–2002). A major source for Epicurus’ works is contained in Book 10; see the LCL edition and translation by Robert D. Hicks, ed., Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1938). For research and bibliographies see Erler, “Epikur,” in: [Ueberweg,] Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/1, 29–202. On the Epistles, see 75–80, 120–21; on the Kyriai Doxai (Ratae sententiae) and other gnomologiae, see 80–83,

4. A literary genre for Philippians

149

tles.75 The literary connections between the various works of Epicurus are highly complicated. The genre of the epitome of sententiae was imitated later by Arrian in his Encheiridion of Epictetus.76 At least since Epicurus, collections of philosophical sententiae have been created also in the form of letters. These letters can be “real” letters, edited and published by identifiable editors and publishers, such as we have from Epicurus and Cicero. Or they can be “literary” letters, written by members of the “school” and using the genres of epistolography as instruments for distributing philosophical teachings. b. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) There appears to be a consensus among scholars that Seneca’s collection entitled Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales is a major work not only documenting his version of Stoicism, but even more showing his literary brilliance.77 The appearance in 1967 of the Tübingen doctoral dissertation by Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier offered new insights about the literary character of this work by Seneca.78 While there is no doubt of Seneca being the author of the work,79 the addressee named Lucilius is now seen primarily as a literary fiction. If this hypothesis is accepted, two major challenges follow from it. 121–23; for a selection of sources, with translations, see Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1, 25–157; vol. 2, 18–162. 75  Diog. L. 10.29–135; Erler, Epikur (see previous note). 76  See Henricus Schenkl, ed., Epicteti Dissertationes ab Arriani digestae (BT: Stuttgart: Teubner, 1965); for the Ench. pp. 1*–38*; the LCL ed. and translation is by William A. Oldfather (2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928), vol. 2, 479–537. 77  See the editions by Leighton D. Reynolds, Senecae Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21978, 1980); Richard M. Gummere, Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales, with an English translation (LCL; 3 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1925). 78  Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier, Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Spudasmata 18; Hildesheim: Olms, 1967); Eadem, “Seneca’s Collection of Epistles: A Medium of Philosophical Communication,” in: Adela Y. Collins, ed., Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture. Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), 88–109; repr. in: Eadem, Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 325–41. 79 It includes 124 letters and was written before Seneca’s enforced suicide by Nero in 65 CE. On Seneca, see Pierre Grimal, Seneca: Macht und Ohnmacht des Geistes. Translated from the French and edited by Karlhans Abel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978); esp. 315–27; Karlhans Abel, “Seneca: Leben und Leistung,” ANRW 2, 32.2 (1985) 653–775, esp. 700–56; Manfred Fuhrmann, Seneca und Kaiser Nero. Eine Biographie (Berlin: Fest, 1997), 298–321.

150

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

First, the literary genre of this form of epistolography needs to be explained; second, the philosophical relationship with Stoicism needs to be reconsidered. “Seneca’s Epistulae morales, as they have come down to us, are a series of 124 letters, all written by Seneca and addressed to his friend Lucilius. They do not constitute a correspondence, since there are no answering letters, nor are they half of a correspondence. They are a literary work which includes the addressee’s response as an integrated part of the composition. Thus, these letters are fictional, insofar as they were neither sent nor received, nor gathered by the addressee or someone else. The subdivision into books (we have twenty, but there is evidence that there were at least twenty-two) belongs to a composition following philosophical needs and literary categories. The entire topic of letter-writing is present and used to create the literary framework of the genre; at the same time it is transformed into a medium of this particular philosophical project, namely, a communication among friends about moral progress, or should we say a moral autobiography in dialogue?”80 Second, the carefully designed sequence of the letters provides a way to express “progress” (προκοπή), not “in virtue” (ἀρετή), because according to Stoic doctrine “virtue” either exists or not, independent of one’s effort to attain it. There is, however, “striving toward virtue.”81 The sequence of letters represents a course of moral development set up as a dialogue within the imaginative mind of the reader impersonating two friends, the teacher as well as the learner. The aim of the project is to provide a highly personal course of moral education. The outcome envisioned is the master of wisdom (ὁ σοφός). “The same purpose should possess both master and scholar – an ambition in the one case to promote, and in the other to progress.”82 “Seneca developed all this within the framework constructed by the first and the last sentences of this letter. In the very end Seneca promises to respond, in a following letter, to what Lucilius had demanded, and what had properly been the starting point for Epist. 108. At the beginning (108.1) Seneca recalled that Lucilius had required books ‘embracing the whole department of moral philosophy’ and offered advice as to how to digest all this knowledge; the advice, realized 80  Cancik-Lindemaier, “Seneca’s Collection,” 102. Cf. Erwin Hachmann, Die Führung des Lesers in Senecas epistulae morales (Orbis antiquus 34; Münster: Aschendorff, 1995), 12: “Die Auffassung, dass die Briefe in ihrer Gesamtheit fingiert sind und dass von vornherein der Plan bestand, aus ihnen nach methodischen und didaktischen Gesichtspunkten ein gegliedertes Corpus zu schaffen, dürfte, wenn nicht endgültig bewiesen, so doch wesentlich erhärtet werden.” 81 See Cancik-Lindemaier, “Seneca’s Collection,” 88–101; Erwin Hachmann, L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistulae morales. Brief 66: Einleitung, Text und Kommentar (Lateres 3; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2006). 82 Cancik-Lindemaier, “Seneca’s Collection,” 108, referring to Epist. 108.3.

4. A literary genre for Philippians

151

as the communication of Seneca’s personal experience, eventually occupies the whole of a long letter. The topic of letter-writing provides the means of integrating this message into a carefully balanced composition.”83 In addition to the literary analysis of the corpus of Seneca’s Epistulae morales as a whole, as well as of individual letters that are part of it, the overall category of the work belongs to the tradition explained earlier by Cicero under the terms of praemeditatio futurorum malorum or more specifically as praemeditatio mortis.84 Regarding this tradition, attested as early as Plato and carried on by Seneca, it can be taken for granted that Seneca was familiar with Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, and of course with Epicurus’ Epistles and Ratae Sententiae.85 As a result Seneca can formulate: “And what is death? It is either the end, or a process of change. I have no fear of ceasing to exist; it is the same as not having begun. Nor do I shrink from changing into another state, because I shall, under no conditions, be as cramped as I am now.”86 c. Paul of Tarsus For all the reasons adduced above, the conclusion is justified that Paul can draw on a tradition, such as we stated above, which was also in his purview. How can all this be related to Paul’s Philippians? The fact that both authors, Paul and Seneca existed and died at about the same time in Rome may simply be a coincidence. The assumption would be rather speculative that Paul could actually have known of Seneca’s work, because there is no evidence for it. There may, however, be something to such an acquaintance, even though it cannot be proven.87 What evidence there might have been is lost like much else. To be sure, given the general dearth 83

 Ibid. Cf. Margaret Mitchell’s response, “Reading to Virtue,” ibid., 110–21. the basic study on “Seelenleitung” (psychagogia, “guidance of the soul”) by Hadot, Seneca, 39–71, with references to Cicero, Tusc. 3.29–32, Epicurus, Epictetus, and Seneca. Cf. also Seneca’s cosmology, for which see Bardo Maria Gauly, Senecas ‘Naturales quaestiones’: Naturphilosophie für die römische Kaiserzeit (Zetemata 122; München: Beck, 2004), 164–90. 85  On Epicurus, see Hadot, Seneca, 62–71. 86 Epist. 65.24: Mors quid est? Aut finis aut transitus. Nec desinere timeo, idem est enim, quod non coepisse, nec transire, quia nusquam tam auguste ero. From the many parallels, see especially Epist. 24.19–21; 98.1–18; 101.1–5; 102.1–30. On the whole, see Ulf Gregor Hamacher, Senecas 82. Brief an Lucilius. Dialektikkritik illustriert am Beispiel der Bekämpfung des Metus Mortis (BzA 230; München: Saur, 2006). 87 Seneca’s works, however, document the wide knowledge of the school traditions concerning the violent death of philosophers, especially Socrates, Cato, Cicero, and others; see, e. g., Epist. 24.6–10; 28.8; 67.6–7,13; 104.21–31. See also Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier, “Seneca und Tacitus,” in: Von Atheismus bis Zensur, 295–323; Friedrich A. Marx, 84 See

152

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

of sources, there are similarities which call for explanation. The literary traditions confirm that the violent deaths of eminent intellectuals, philosophers, and poets were widely known topics of discussion.88 Both Seneca’s Epistulae morales and Paul’s Philippians were written by authors who under similar conditions were forced to face up to the likelihood of becoming victims of Nero’s infamous regime, which was known for its brutal murdering of suspected enemies. Knowing him all too well, Seneca himself was prepared for Nero’s aggression against him. When Nero’s order was handed over to him, he noted the absurd logic of killing his teacher and mentor after he had already done away with the closest members of his family.89 It would be difficult to argue with reason that topics of such discussions could have remained unknown to Paul. On the other hand, in the case of Paul there is no historically reliable record of how he died. To be sure, in the eyes of Nero and his thugs, a man like Paul, had he been encountered by them, would have figured as a foreign prisoner, a Jew arrested and dispatched from the Jewish heartland to Rome for trial, a Christian troublemaker, and a rebellious intellectual with an increasing crowd of dubious followers. In short, it is more probable than not that Nero’s spies had noticed Paul, and that they had reported this man to be a threat to the emperor. Whether Paul’s court-trial was properly conducted to the end we do not know. Most likely, the trial was abruptly broken up together with the collapse of the Roman judicial system after 62 CE, when the rogue Ofonius Tigellinus had replaced Seneca. Thus, it is most likely that Paul may have become a victim of the lawless gangs of thugs roaming through the city.90 These are the prospects under which the Apostle describes how he is facing up to these eventualities at present and in the future. However, at the time he wrote Philippians the Roman court seems to be still functioning. Therefore, by not fully giving up his hopes for survival, his assessment remains cautious. Yet, it is true that his letter to the Philippians is not expecting an answer from them. It is meant to be his “last word.” “Tacitus und die Literatur des exitus illustrium virorum,” Ph. 92 (1937) 83–103; Alessandro Ronconi, “Exitus illustrium virorum,” RAC 6 (1966) 1258–68. 88  Actually, the question is not new. See Lightfoot’s careful study “St. Paul and Seneca,” in his commentary St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 270–333; Alfons Fürst, Therese Fuhrer, Folker Siegert, Peter Walter, eds., Der apokryphe Briefwechsel zwischen Seneca und Paulus, zusammen mit dem Brief des Mordechai and Alexander und dem Brief des Annaeus Seneca über Hochmut und Götterbilder (SAPERE 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 89 Tacitus, Ann. 15.60–64; see Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, vol. 4, 296–311; Dieter Flach, Tacitus in der Tradition der antiken Geschichtsschreibung (Hyp 39; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973); Fuhrmann, Seneca und Kaiser Nero, 298–345. 90 See on this my essay, Paulus in Rom, 43–45.

5. Conclusion

153

5. Conclusion For all the reasons stated above it is our judgment that his letter belongs to the genre of praemeditatio mortis. Whereas both works by Seneca and Paul belong to the literary genre of “letter,” the differences between them within that genre are also obvious. Both letters are dialogical, but the forms of dialogues are different between them. Seneca’s Epistulae morales are a fictional composition of a continuous dialogue conducted by the author Seneca and his “friend Lucilius” as the literary partner. The dialogue is imaginary and its purpose is a plan of philosophical self-education. It is also “real” in the sense that Seneca is working out his own mental praemeditatio mortis by projecting himself in a continuous dialogue between himself as both teacher and inquisitive learner. Moreover, it is “real” in the sense that the written work is designed as a model for enabling all future readers as individuals to adopt and adapt in their own mental preparation for facing up to all kinds of evils (praemeditatio malorum futurorum). It seems that Seneca’s dialogues remain unfinished. By comparison, Paul’s letter to the Philippians is certainly his own literary composition, and it has its own complicated ways which must be articulated. The letter is “real” in the sense that it is the result of historical events. Its function is “real” also in the sense that it creates further historical facts. To repeat the facts: Its immediate cause was the arrival of the delegate Epaphroditus in Rome, sent from Philippi and appearing unexpectedly at the location of the prison, in order to deliver a sum of money to Paul, together with the oral request for information concerning his situation (Phil 1:12). Presupposed is that the Philippians were informed, perhaps through a (now lost) message, of Paul’s imprisonment and trial in Rome. Thus, the sending of Epaphroditus to Rome must have been the result of a decision by the church in Philippi. Then the letter sent by Paul and Timothy (1:1) is evidence of substantial discussions and a consensus reached by Paul, the co-sender Timothy, the delegate Epaphroditus, and other fellow-Christians mentioned in the letter. The “mailings” which Epaphroditus took back to Philippi contain Paul’s response to the Philippians’ request for information, together with two attachments, the memorandum of Phil 3:1b–21 and the “receipt” of 4:10–20.91 Together, these mailings are the result of a consensus between Paul and his collaborators in Rome. Since only Paul is the prisoner on trial, he has formulated the substance of his praemeditatio mortis. It can be presupposed that he wrote his response on the basis of his apostolic authority, but it certainly is also the result of a consensus among his collaborators who 91 See

Chapters III and V, above.

154

VII. On the Question of the Literary Genre

were thoroughly familiar with Paul’s thinking.92 The recommendations of Timothy (2:19–24) and Epaphroditus (2:25–30), and the greetings (4:21–22) also validate the identity of the people named.93 It is of course understood that these validations will lead to new facts and dialogues after the arrival of Epaphroditus and the “mailings” in Philippi.94 Paul’s response to the Philippians’ request for an assessment of his situation is summed up in the form of the gnomic saying in 1:21–26.95 This saying states the principle on which also the paraenesis of the letter is based. While this tightly argued saying appears to be a new work by the apostle, it was hardly formulated on the spur of the moment. By contrast, his citation of a fragment of a hymn to Christ (2:6–11) can be assumed to be familiar to all persons involved in the community (κοι­ νωνία). As a reminder of the christology it states the authoritative foundation of everything else Paul has to say in his response to the Philippians. By citing the hymn Paul anticipates that the singing of it by the Philippians during their worship service will express their affirmation of Paul’s message in the whole of the communication. Based on this affirmation, the final blessing in 4:23 pronounces the liturgical conclusion. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit” ( Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν). If the “Amen” was added by part of the textual tradition, it anticipates the liturgical assent by the church whenever Paul’s letter is being read in the worship service. Consequently, his letter to the Philippians involves every reader, whether privately or publicly, in this praemeditatio mortis.96

92

 Notably, Paul does not attribute to himself the title “apostle,” and he calls Epaphroditus “messenger” and “assistant” (ἀπόστολος, λειτουργός, 2:25). This avoidance can be explained as caution because of Phlm v.1, where only D* and ms 629 add ἀπόστολος, avoiding possible suspicions by Roman censors. For this omission cf. also Phlm v.1. 93  Somewhat peculiar is the fact that Timothy as co-sender (1:1) validates his own recommendation by Paul (2:19–24). 94  Evidence for the continuation of dialogue in Philippi and beyond are the Pastoral Epistles 1 and 2 Timothy, but this is not the place for opening up another subject altogether concerning the relationships between the Pastoral Epistles and Paul’s Philippians. 95  See Chapter II, above. 96 The addition of the ἀμήν (“Amen”) is part of the manuscript tradition (P46 ‫ א‬A D K L P Ψ 33 81 104 365 etc.). Cf. Lohmeyer, 190; Gnilka, 182–83; Reumann, 734–35.

Bibliography The Bibliography contains the titles of works consulted or cited. It uses the conventions of scholarship in the areas of Biblical and Humanities studies. Sources in ancient Greek and Latin languages are cited according to easily identifiable abbreviations. Secondary literature follows the abbreviations in Siegfried M. Schwertner, TRE Abkürzungsverzeichnis (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 21994), and Abkürzungen Theologie und Religionswissenschaft nach RGG4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Commentaries on Philippians and Philemon are cited by the names of the authors only.

1. Ancient Greek and Latin Sources Aristotle Aristotelis Ars rhetorica, ed. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, with an English translation by John Henry Freese (LCL; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1975). Anaximenes, Ars rhetorica quae vulgo fertur Aristotelis ad Alexandrum, edited by Manfred Fuhrmann (BT; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010). Nicomachean Ethics, with an English translation by H. Rackham (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). Cicero, Marcus Tullius M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum disputationes libri quinque, edited by Thomas W. Dougan and Robert M. Henry (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905– 1934). Cicero, Marcus Tullius, De finibus bonorum et malorum, recensuit Claudio Moreschini (BT; München and Leipzig: Saur, 2005). M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato maior De senectute, Laelius De amicitia, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Jonathan G. F. Powell (SCBO; Oxford: Clarendon, 2006). Cicero, De re publica, De legibus, with an English translation by Clinton Walker Keyes (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928). Cicero, Brutus, with an English transation by G. L. Hendrickson; Orator, with an English translation by H. M. Hubbell (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). M. Tullius Cicero, Brutus, lateinisch-deutsch, ed. Bernhard Kytzler (Tusculum; München & Zürich: Artemis, 41990).

156

Bibliography

Cicero, De oratore I–III, with an English translation by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942). Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum, with an English translation by H. Rackham (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951). Cicero, De officiis, with an English translation by Walter Miller (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913). Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, with an English translation by J. E. King (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Cicero, Gespräche in Tusculum, lateinisch-deutsch, mit ausführlichen Anmerkungen neu herausgegeben von Olof Gigon (Tusculum; München and Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 21970). Cicero, Cato maior De senectute, with an English translation by W. A. Falconer (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1923). Cicero, Cato maior De senectute, edited with an introduction and commentary by Jonathan G. F. Powell (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum, edited by Arthur St. Pease (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968). Cicero, De natura deorum; Academica, with an English translation by H. Rackham (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956). Cicero, Philippics, with an English translation by Walter C. A. Kerr (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991). Cicero, Philippics, edited and translated by John T. Ramsey and Gesine Manuwald (LCL; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 2009). Cicero, Philippics 3–9, edited Gesine Manuwald (Texte und Kommentare 30/1–2; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007). Cicero, Über die Wahrsagung. De divinatione, lateinisch-deutsch, edited by Christoph Schäublin (Tusculum; München and Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1991). Diogenes Laertius Diogenis Laertii Vitae philosophorum, edited H. S. Long (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1964). Diogenis Laertii Vitae philosophorum, edited Miroslav Marcovich (BT; 3 vols.; Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1999). Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, with an English translation by R. H. Hicks (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925). Epictetus Epictetus, Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae, recensuit Henricus Schenkl (BT; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1965). Epictetus, The Discourses, as reported by Arrian, the Manual, and the Fragments, with an English translation by William A. Oldfather (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928).

1. Ancient Greek and Latin Sources

157

Epicurus Epicurea, edidit Hermann Usener (Leipzig: Teubner, 1887; repr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966). Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus, Vita, with an English translation, by Houstin St. J. Thackeray (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926). Lucian of Samosata Lucian, with an English translation by A. M. Harmon et al. (LCL; 8 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1913). Menander Menander, with an English translation by W. G. Arnott (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979). Panaetius Modestus van Straaten, Panétius: sa vie, ses écrits et sa doctrine, avec une edition des fragments (Amsterdam: Patis, 1946). Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta, collegit iterumque edidit Idem (Leiden: Brill, 31962). Plato Platonis Opera, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit John Burnet (SCBO; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1900–1907). Plato, with an English translation by Harold N. Fowler et al. (LCL; 12 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927). Reginald Hackforth, Phaedo, translated with an introduction and commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955). Ps.-Plato [Philipp of Opus] Leonardo Tarán, Academica: Plato, Philipp of Opus and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975). Plutarch of Chaeronea Plutarchi Moralia, recensuerunt et emendaverunt C. Hubert et al. (BT; 7 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1925–1978). Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae, edidit Konrat Ziegler (BT; 4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1970– 1998). Plutarch’s Moralia, with an English translation by Frank C. Babbitt (LCL; 16 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1927–2004). Plutarch’s Lives, with an English translation by Bernardotte Perrin (LCL; 11 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1926).

158

Bibliography

Presocratics Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch, herausgegeben von Hermann Diels und Walther Kranz (3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 51974–1975). G. S.  Kirk, J. E.  Raven, M. Schofield, eds., The Presocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21983). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch, lateinisch, deutsch; Auswahl der Fragmente und Zeugnisse, Übersetzung und Erläuterungen von Laura Gemelli Marciano (Tusculum; 3 vols.; Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler, 2007–2010). Lucius Annaeus Seneca L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libri duodecim, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Leighton D. Reynolds (SCBO; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, edidit Leighton D. Reynolds (SCBO; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Moral Essays, with an English translation by John W. Basore (LCL; 3 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1934). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales, with an English translation by Richard M. Gummere (LCL; 3 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1925). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Naturales quaestiones, Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, lateinisch-deutsch, herausgegeben von Otto und Eva Schönberger (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998). Stoa Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, collegerunt Hans von Arnim et al. (BT; 4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1924). Ludwig Edelstein and I. G. Kidd, eds., Posidonius (4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31999). Johan C. Thom, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. Text, Translation and Commentary (STAC 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Stobaeus, Ioannes Anthologium, recensuerunt Curtius Wachsmuth et Otto Hense (5 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1958). The Greek Anthology, with an English translation, by William R. Paton (LCL; 5 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1927). Vergil P. Vergilius Maro, Opera, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit R. A. B. Mynors (SCBO; Oxford: Clarendon, 1969). Vergil, Aeneid, with an English translation by Rushton Fairclough (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1936).

2. Commentaries on Philippians and Philemon

159

Xenophon of Athens Xenophon, Memorabilia and Oeconomicus, with an English translation by E. C. Marchant (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923).

2. Commentaries on Philippians and Philemon Aland, Barbara and Kurt, et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 271993, 8th revision; 282012). Aland, Kurt, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2/3, Die paulinischen Briefe: Galaterbrief bis Philipperbrief (ANTF 18; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991). Aletti, Jean-Noël, Saint Paul, Épître aux Philippiens (EtB n.s. 55; Paris: Gabalda, 2005). Ambrosiaster, In Epistolam ad Philippenses (ML 62, 177–298). Arzt-Grabner, Peter, Philemon (PKNT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). Bockmuehl, Markus, The Epistle to the Philippians (Black’s NTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998). Bonnard, Pierre, L’épître de saint Paul aux Philippiens (CNT 10; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950). Calvin, Ioannes, Epistola Pauli ad Philippenses [1539] (CR J. Calvin, 52:5–76); ET by T. H. L. Parker, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). Chrysostomus, Ioannes, In Epistolam ad Philippenses Commentarius (PG 62, 177–298); ET by Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians (Writings from the Graeco-Roman World 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2013). Collange, Jean-François, L’Épître de saint Paul aux Philippiens (CNT 10A; Neuchâtel: Delachaux-Niestlé, 1973). Cousar, Charles B., Philippians and Philemon. A Commentary (The NT Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). Dibelius, Martin, An die Thessalonicher 1; 2, An die Philipper (HNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31937). Edart, J.-B., L’Épître aux Philippiens. Rhetorique et Composition stylistique (EtB n.s. 45; Paris: Gabalda, 2002). Ellicott, Charles J., A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (London: Parker, 1857). Erasmus, Desiderius, Adnotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses (Basel: Froben, 1518); in: Opera Omnia, 6:861–880 (repr. London: Gregg, 1962). Ernst, Joseph, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1974). Fee, Gordon D., Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Gnilka, Joachim, Der Philipperbrief (HThK 10; Freiburg: Herder, 1968; 41986). Haupt, Erich, Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (KEK 10–12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 71902).

160

Bibliography

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Philippians (WBC 43; Waco, TX: Word, 1983). Jowett, Benjamin, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes and dissertations (2 vols.; London: Murray, 21859). Junack, Klaus et al., eds., Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, 2. Die paulinischen Briefe, Teil 1: Röm., 1.Kor., 2. Kor. (ANTF 22; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1989). With an introduction by Barbara Aland. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868; 121913; repr. Lynn, MA: Hendrickson, 1981). Lohmeyer, Ernst, Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK 9/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 81930; 91953; with Beiheft by Werner Schmauch, 1964). Idem, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon (KEK 9/2; ibid., 1930; 91953, 101954, by Werner Schmauch). Metzger, Bruce M., ed., The Greek New Testament (New York; United Bible Societies, 4 1993). Idem, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Society, 22000). Michaelis, Wilhelm, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (ThHK 11; Leipzig: Deichert, 1935). Müller, Peter, Der Brief an Philemon (KEK 9/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). Müller, Ulrich B., Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (ThHK 11/1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993). O’Brien, Peter T., The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Osiek, Carolyn, Philippians, Philemon (Abingdon NT Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000). Reumann, John, Philippians (The Anchor Yale Bible 33B; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). Schenk, Wolfgang, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984). Strecker, Georg, and Schnelle, Udo, eds., Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 2/1: Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1996). Silva, Moisés, Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). Wachtel, Klaus, and Witte, Klaus, eds., Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, 2. Die paulinischen Briefe, Teil 2: Gal, Eph, Phil, Kol, 1 u. 2 Thess, 1. u. 2. Tim, Tit, Phlm, Hebr, (ANTF 22; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1994). With an introduction by Barbara Aland. Weiss, Bernhard, Der Philipper-Brief ausgelegt und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt (Berlin: Hertz, 1859). Wettstein, Johann Jacob, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Novum Testamentum Graece (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Dommer, 1751–1752; repr. Graz: 1962).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

161

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature Anglet, Andreas, Der ‘ewige’ Augenblick. Studien zur Struktur und Funktion eines Denkbildes bei Goethe (Kölner Germanistische Studien 33; Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 1991). Arzt-Grabner, Peter, 1. Korinther (PKNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Idem, 2. Korinther (PKNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). Idem, and Kreinecker, Christina M., eds., Light from the East. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 39; Wiesbaden; Harrassowitz, 2010). Asher, Jeffrey R., Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15. A Study in Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUTh 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Back, Frances, Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus (WUNT 2/153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Bagnall, Roger, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Baird, William, History of New Testament Research (3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992–2013). Baltes, Matthias, ΔΙΑΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ. Kleine Schriften zu Platon und zum Platonismus (TBAW 123; Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1999). Bauer, Thomas J., Paulus und die kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie: Kontextualisierung und Analyse der Briefe an Philemon und an die Galater (WUNT 276; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Bauer, Walter; Danker, Frederick W., et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 32000). Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Paulus der Apostel Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre (Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845). Becker, Eve-Marie, “Die Person als Paradigma politisch-ethischen Handelns: Kriton 5a und Phil 1:23 f. im Vergleich,” in: Klumbies and Du Toit, eds., Paulus – Werk und Wirkung, 129–48. Eadem and Pilhofer, Peter, eds., Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus (WUNT 187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Benz, Ernst, Das Todesproblem in der stoischen Philosophie (TBAW 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929). Betz, Hans Dieter, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paränetische Parallelen (TU 78; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961). Idem, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament (BHTh 37; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1967). Idem, ed., Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Idem, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ‘Apologie’ 2 Korinther 10–13 (BHTh 45; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972).

162

Bibliography

Idem, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Idem, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Idem, The Sermon on the Mount. A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27; Luke 6:20–49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Idem, Hellenismus und Urchristentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). Idem, Synoptische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). Idem, Paulinische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze III (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Idem, Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze IV (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Idem, Paulinische Theologie und Religionsgeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze V (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Idem, The ‘Mithras Liturgy’. Text, Translation, and Commentary (STAC 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Idem, “Jesus’ Baptism and the Origins of the Christian Ritual,” in: Hellholm, David, et al., eds., Ablution, Initiation and Baptism, vol. 1, 377–96. Idem, Der Apostel Paulus in Rom (Julius-Wellhausen-Vorlesung 4; Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2013). Bénatouïl, Thomas, and Bonazzi, Mauro, eds., Theoria, Praxis, and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle (PhAnt 131; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012). Bienert, David C. et al., eds., Paulus und die antike Welt. Beiträge zur zeit‑ und religionsgeschichtlichen Erforschung des paulinischen Christentums. Festgabe für Dietrich-Alex Koch zum 65. Geburtstag (FRLANT 222; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). Billerbeck, Margarethe, “Die dramatische Kunst des Tacitus,” ANRW 2, 33.4 (1991) 2752–2771. Blass, Friedrich; Debrunner, Albert; Rehkopf, Friedrich, eds., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 141975). ET: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. and trans. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Blome, Peter, “Die imagines maiorum: Ein Problemfall römischer und neuzeitlicher Ästhetik,” in: Boehm, ed., Homo Pictor, 305–22. Blümel, Carl, Römische Bildnisse. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen (Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1933). Boehm, Gottfried, ed., Homo Pictor (Colloquium Rauricum 7; München and Leipzig: Saur, 2001). Böttrich, Christfried, “Verkündigung aus Neid und Rivalität. Beobachtungen zu Phil 1:12–18),” ZNW 95 (2004) 84–101. Bonhöffer, Adolf, Epictet und die Stoa. Untersuchungen zur stoischen Philosophie (Stuttgart: Enke, 1890; repr. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1968). Bormann, Lukas, Philippi. Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (NT.S. 78; Leiden: Brill, 1995).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

163

Bowersock, Glen W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Bringmann, Klaus, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer (3 vols.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985–2000). Brunt, Peter A., Studies in Stoicism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Büchner, Karl, Somnium Scipionis. Quellen, Gestalt, Sinn (Hermes Einzelschriften 36; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976). Idem, Marcus Tullius Cicero, De re publica (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und römischen Schriftstellern; Heidelberg: Winter, 1984). Bultmann, Rudolf, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910; repr. 1984). Idem, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 91984). Idem, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel (2 vols.; New York: Scribner’s, 1951–1952); reprinted with a new introduction by Robert Morgan (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007). Idem, Theologie als Kritik. Ausgewählte Rezensionen und Forschungsberichte, eds. Matthias Dreher and Klaus W. Müller (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Burke, Trevor J., and Elliott, J. K., eds., Paul and the Corinthians. Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall (NT.S. 109; Leiden: Brill, 2003). Burkert, Walter, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 22011). Idem, Creation of the Sacred (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996). Idem, Kleine Schriften 1–8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001–2008). Campenhausen, Hans von, Die Idee des Martyriums in der Alten Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21964). Cancik, Hubert, Römische Religion im Kontext. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1: Kulturelle Bedingungen religiöser Diskurse (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Idem, Religionsgeschichten. Gesammelte Aufsätze 2: Römer, Juden und Christen im römischen Reich (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Cancik-Lindemaier, Hildegard, Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Spudasmata 18; Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Eadem, Von Atheismus bis Zensur: Römische Lektüren in kulturwissenschaftlicher Absicht (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2006). Cassidy, Richard J., Paul in Chains. Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul (New York: Crossroads, 2001). Chester, Andrew, Messiah and Exaltation. Jewish Messianic Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Christ, Karl, Krise und Untergang der römischen Republik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 42000). Collins, Adela Yarbro, ed., Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture. Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Eadem, and Mitchell, Margaret M., eds., Antiquity and Humanity. Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Daube, David, “Societas as a Consensual Contract,” Cambridge Law Journal 6 (1938) 381–403.

164

Bibliography

De Vogel, Cornelia J., Greek Philosophy (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 21964). Deissmann, Adolf, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 41923). Idem, Light from the Ancient East. The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, transl. by Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927). Dibelius, Martin, and Conzelmann, Hans, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972). Dillon, John, The Middle Platonists 80 B.C to A.D 220 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 21996). Idem, The Heirs of Plato. A Study of the Old Academy 347–274 B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003). Dodd, Charles H., New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953). Döring, Klaus, Exemplum Socratis. Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynisch-stoischen Popularphilosophie der frühen Kaiserzeit und im frühen Christentum (Hermes Einzelschriften 42; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979). Dörrie, Heinrich, and Baltes, Matthias, eds., Der Platonismus der Antike, vol. 6/1–2 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2002). Dorandi, Tiziano, “Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern,” ZPE 27 (1991) 11–33. Drecoll, Carsten, “Die Karneadesgesandtschaft und ihre Auswirkungen in Rom. Bemerkungen zur Darstellung des Karneades in den Quellen,” Hermes 132 (2004) 82–91. Dunn, James D. G., Jesus, Paul and the Law; Studies in Mark and Galatians (St. Louis: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990). Idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Dupont, Jacques, ΣΥΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ. L’union avec le Christ suivant saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952). Dyck, Andrew R., A Commentary on Cicero, De officiis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996). Ebert, Theodor, Platon, Phaidon, in: Platon, Werke 1/4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). Ebner, Martin, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief. Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus (fzb 66; Würzburg: Echter, 1991). Eisenhut, Werner, Virtus Romana. Ihre Stellung im römischen Wertsystem (STA 13; München: Fink, 1973). Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, “Stoicism in Philippians,” in: Idem, ed., Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 256–90. Idem, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000). Idem, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response,” HTR 101 (2008) 15–44. Idem, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

165

Engels, Johannes, “Die HYPOMNEMATA-Schriften und die Anfänge der politischen Biographie und Autobiographie in der griechischen Literatur,” ZPE 96 (1993) 19–36. Erler, Michael, Platon, in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, 2/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 2007). Idem, “Epikur – Die Schule Epikurs – Lukrez,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/1 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 203–490. Fiore, Benjamin, The Function of the Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986). Flashar, Hellmut, ed., [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/1–2: Die hellenistische Philosophie (Basel: Schwabe, 1994). Fornberg, Tord, and Hellholm, David, eds., Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts and Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995). Forschner, Maximilian, Die stoische Ethik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21995). Frede, Dorothea, Platons ‘Phaidon’. Der Traum von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999). Frede, Hermann Josef, Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt von der Erzabtei Beuron, vol. 24/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966). Frey, Jörg; Rothschild, Clare; Schröter, Jens, eds., Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie (BZNW 162; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009). Fuhrmann, Manfred, Seneca und Kaiser Nero. Eine Biographie (Berlin: Fest, 1997). Fürst, Alfons; Fuhrer, Therese; Siegert, Folker; Walter, Peter, eds., Der apokryphe Briefwechsel zwischen Seneca und Paulus, zusammen mit dem Brief des Mordechai und Alexander und dem Brief des Annaeus Seneca über Hochmut und Götterbilder (SAPERE 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Gabriel, Gottfried, and Schildknecht, Christiane, eds., Literarische Formen der Philosophie (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1990). Gallazzi, J. Claudio, et al., eds., Ostraca greci del museo egizio del Cairo (O. Cair. GPW) (Papyrologica Florentina 14; Firenze: Gonnelli, 1986). Garbe, Irmfried, et al., eds., Greifswalder Theologische Profile (GThF 12; Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang, 2006). Garland, David E., “The Composition and Unity of Philippians. Some Neglected Literary Factors,” NT 27/2 (1985) 141–73. Gauly, Bardo Maria, Senecas ‘Naturales Quaestiones’: Naturphilosophie für die römische Kaiserzeit (Zetemata 122; München: Beck, 2004). Geist, Hieronymus, Römische Grabinschriften, ed. by Gerhard Pfohl (Tusculum; München: Heimeran, 1969). Gelzer, Matthias, Cicero. Ein biographischer Versuch (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969). Gielen, Marlis, “Paulus – Gefangener in Ephesus?” BN 131 (2006) 79–103, 133 (2007) 63–77. Gnilka, Christian, Sieben Kapitel über Natur‑ und Menschenleben (ΧΡΗΣΙΣ 9; Basel: Schwabe, 2005).

166

Bibliography

Idem, “Ultima Verba,” JbAC 22 (1979) 5–21. Görgemanns, Herwig, “Die Bedeutung der Traumeinkleidung im Somnium Scipionis,” WS 81 NF 2 (1968) 46–69. Görler, Woldemar, “Älterer Pyrrhonismus, Jüngere Akademie, Antiochos aus Askalon,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 717–990. Idem, and Gawlick, Günter, “Cicero” (ibid., 1084–1125). Gorman, Robert, The Socratic Method in the Dialogues of Cicero (Palingenesia 86; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005). Graf, Fritz, ed., Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie (Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1997). Gray, Vivienne J., The Framing of Socrates. The Literary Interpretation of Xenophon’s Memorabilia (Hermes Einzelschriften 79; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1998). Grässer, Erich, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (ÖTBK 8/1–2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005). Griffin, Miriam, and Barnes, Jonathan, eds., Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1989, 1997). Grimal, Pierre, Seneca: Macht und Ohnmacht des Geistes, aus dem Französischen übersetzt und herausgegeben von Karlhans Abel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). Güting, Eberhard, and Mealand, David L., Asyndeton in Paul. A text-critical and statistical enquiry in to Pauline style (Lewiston: Mellon, 1998). Hachmann, Erwin, Die Führung des Lesers in Senecas Epistulae morales (Orbis Antiquus 34; Münster: Aschendorff, 1995). Idem, L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistulae morales, Brief 66 (Lateres 3; Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang, 2006). Hadot, Ilsetraut, Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung (QSP 12; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969). Hamacher, Ulf Gregor, Senecas 82. Brief und Lucilius. Dialektikkritik illustriert am Beispiel der Bekämpfung des metus mortis (BzA 230; München: Saur, 2006). Hanges, James C., Paul, Founder of Churches. A Study in Light of the Evidence for the Role of ‘Founder Figures’ in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (WUNT 292; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Hani, Jean, Plutarque. Consolation à Apollonius (Etudes et Commentaires 78; Paris: Klincksieck, 1972). Harder, Richard, “Die Einbürgerung der Philosophie in Rom,” Die Antike 5 (1929) 291–316; repr. in his Kleine Schriften (München: Beck, 1960), 330–53. Harrauer, Hermann, Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2010). Heid, Stefan, ed., Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2011). Heitsch, Ernst, Platon, Phaidros. Übersetzung und Kommentar, in: Platon, Werke, 3/4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). Hellholm, David et al., eds., Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (BZNW 176/1–3; Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2011).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

167

Helm, Rudolf, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906). Hengel, Martin, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press, 1991). Idem, Der unterschätzte Petrus. Zwei Studien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Hengst, Joachim, ed., Griechische Papyri aus Ägypten als Zeugnis des öffentlichen und privaten Lebens (Tusculum; München: Heimeran, 1978). Hillgruber, Michael, “Die Kunst der verstellten Rede. Ein vernachlässigtes Kapitel der antiken Rhetorik,” Ph. 144 (2000) 3–21. Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer, ed., Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Götterbilder, Gottesbilder, Weltbilder (RVV 54; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2005). Idem, et al., eds., Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der frühen Kaiserzeit. Literaturgeschichtliche Perspektiven (STAC 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Hirschfeld, Otto, Kleine Schriften (Berlin: Weidmann, 1913). Holloway, Paul A., Consolation in Philippians. Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategie (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm, Das Ende des Paulus. Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte (BZNW 106; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2001). Hotze, Gerhard, Paradoxien bei Paulus. Untersuchungen zu einer elementaren Denkform in seiner Theologie (NTA NF 33; Münster: Aschendorff, 1997). Hunger, Herbert, et al., eds., Geschichte der Textüberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur (2 vols.; Zürich: Atlantis, 1961). Ingenkamp, Heinz Gerd, Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen (KPS 35; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967). Inwood, Brad, Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Jewett, Robert, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007). Kaser, Max, Das römische Privatrecht (HA 10.3.3.1; München: Beck, 21971). Idem, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (HA 10.3.4; München: Beck, 21996). Kenyon, Frederic G., The Palaeography of Greek Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). Klauck, Hans-Josef, Alte Welt und neuer Glaube. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (NTOA 29: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994). Idem, Ancient Letters and the New Testament. A Guide to Content and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006). Idem, Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum (WUNT 152; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Klein, Hans, Das Lukasevangelium (EKK 1/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard, and Du Toit, David S., eds., Paulus – Werk und Wirkung. Festschrift für Andreas Lindemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Knoche, Ulrich, “Der römische Ruhmesgedanke,” Ph. 89 (1934) 102–24. Koch, Bernhard, Philosophie als Medizin der Seele. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros ‘Tusculanae Disputationes’ (Palingenesia 90; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006).

168

Bibliography

Köhn, Andreas, Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer. Studien zur Biographie und Theologie (WUNT 2/180; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Idem, ed., Ernst Lohmeyers Zeugnis im Kirchenkampf: Breslauer Universitätspredigten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Koester, Helmut, Paul & His World. Interpreting the New Testament in its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007). Koestermann, Erich, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, Band 4, Buch 14–16 (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und römischen Schriftstellern; Heidelberg: Winter, 1968). Kortus, Michael, Briefe des Apollonios-Archivs aus der Sammlung Papyri Gissenses (Giessen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1999). Koster, Severin, Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur (BKP 99; Meisenheim: Hain, 1980). Krämer, Hans Joachim, “Die Ältere Akademie,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3 (Basel: Schwabe, 22004), 1–174. Krauter, Stefan, Studien zu Römer 13,1–7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit (WUNT 243; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Kreinecker, Christina M., 2. Thessaloniker (PKNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Krentz, Edgar, “Civic Culture and Philippians,” Currents in Theology and Mission 35 (2008) 258–63. Idem, “Military Language and Metaphors in Philippians,” in: Bradley H. McLean, Origins and Methods, 105–27. Idem, “Paul, Games, and the Military,” in: J. P. Sampley, ed., Paul in the Greco‑Roman World, 344–83. Krüger, Gerhard, Einsicht und Leidenschaft. Das Wesen des platonischen Denkens (Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann, 51983). Kurczyk, Stephanie, Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit. Autobiographisches Schreiben in der späten römischen Republik (Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 2006). Laato, Timo, Paulus und das Judentum. Anthropologische Erwägungen (Åbo: Akademis Förlag, 1991). Lampe, Peter, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (WUNT 2/18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21989); ET: From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. by Michael Steinhauser, ed. by Marshall D. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Landmesser, Christoph, “Umstrittener Paulus. Die gegenwärtige Diskussion um die paulinische Theologie,” ZThK 105 (2001) 387–410. Lattimore, Richard, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: University of Urbana Press, 1942; repr. 1962). Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.: München: Huber, 2 1973). Lausberg, Marion, Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm (STA 19; München: Fink, 1982).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

169

Leeman, Anton Daniël, “Das Todeserlebnis im Denken Senecas,” Gymnasium 78 (1971) 322–33; repr. in his: Form und Sinn. Studien zur römischen Literatur (1954– 1984) (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1985), 257–67. Lefèvre, Eckard, Panaitios’ und Ciceros Pflichtenlehre. Vom philosophischen Traktat zum politischen Lehrbuch (Historia Einzelschriften 150; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001). Lindemann, Andreas, Paulus – Apostel und Lehrer der Kirche. Studien zu Paulus und zum frühen Paulusverständnis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Lindersky, Jerzy, “Cicero and Roman Divination,” in his Roman Questions. Selected Papers (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995), 458–84. Lohmeyer, Ernst, Christuskult und Kaiserkult (SGV 90; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1919). Idem, Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,5–11 (SHAW.PH 1927/28, 4; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961). Idem, “Die Idee des Martyriums in Judentum und Urchristentum,” ZSTh 5 (1927) 232–49. Idem, Kultus und Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942). Lohse, Eduard, “Christus des Gesetzes Ende? Die Theologie des Apostels Paulus in kritischer Perspektive,” ZNW 99 (2008) 18–32. Malherbe, Abraham J., Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem, “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in: Fornberg, Tord, and Hellholm, David, eds., Texts and Contexts, 813–26. Manuwald, Gesine, Cicero’s Philippics 3–9 (2 vols.; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2001). Marx, Friedrich A., “Tacitus und die Literatur der exitus illustrium virorum,” Ph. 92 (1937) 81–103. Maurach, Gregor, Seneca. Leben und Werk (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21996). Mayser, Edwin, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften (2 vols.; Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter, 21923–1934). McDermott, William C., “M. Cicero and M. Tiro,” Historia 21 (1972), 259–86. McLean, Bradley H., ed, Origins and Methods: Toward a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (JSNT.S 86; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 105–27. Meeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New­ haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983). Meister, Klaus, “Autobiographische Literatur und Memoiren (Hypomnemata) (FGrHist 227–238),” in: Verdin, Herman, et al., eds., Purposes of History, 83–89. Merz, Annette, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Untersuchungen zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA 62; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). Metzger, Bruce, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 22000).

170

Bibliography

Michaelis, Wilhelm, “Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Paulus und antike Gefangenenbriefe,” NKZ 36 (1925) 586–95. Misch, Georg, Geschichte der Autobiographie (8 vols. in 4; Frankfurt: Schulte-Bulmke, 4 1976); ET: A History of Autobiography, trans. by E. W. Dickes; London: Routledge, 1950; repr. 1973. Mitchell, Margaret M., “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992) 641–62. Eadem, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (HUTh 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Eadem, “The Corinthian Correspondence and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics,” in: Burke, T. J., and Elliott, J. K., eds., Paul and the Corinthians, 17–53. Eadem, and Duncan, Patricia, “Chicago’s ‘Archaic Mark’ (Ms 2427): Reintroduction to its enigmas and a Fresh Collation of its Readings,” NT 48 (2006) 1–35. Eadem, Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Early Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Mitteis, Ludwig, and Wilcken, Ulrich, Grundzüge und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1912; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1963). Momigliano, Arnaldo, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1977). Moulton, James, and Milligan, George, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1949). Idem, and Turner, Nigel, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 31988). Nanos, Mark D., The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). Newman, Robert J., “Cotidie meditare: Theory and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism,” ANRW 2, 36.3 (1989) 1473–1517. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, Heidenapostel aus Israel. Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). Nietzsche, Friedrich, Also sprach Zarathustra, edited by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, Kritische Studienausgabe, vol. l (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988). Norden, Eduard, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956). Oberlinner, Lorenz, Kommentar zum 1. Timotheusbrief (HThK 11/2; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1994). Omerzu, Heike, Der Prozess des Paulus. Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2002). Opelt, Ilona, Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie (BKAW NF, 2. Reihe; Heidelberg: Winter, 1965). Eadem, Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischen Literatur von Tertullian bis Augustin (BKAW NF, 2. Reihe 63; Heidelberg: Winter, 1980).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

171

Parsons, J. Peter, and Rea, J. R., Papyri Greek and Egyptian, ed. by various hands in honour of Eric Gardner Turner on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Graeco-Roman Memoires 68; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1981). Peek, Werner, Griechische Grabgedichte (SQAW 7; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960). Idem, Greek Verse Inscriptions. Epigrams on Funerary Stelae and Monuments (Chicago: Ares, 1988). Peres, Imre, Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie (WUNT 157; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Perlwitz, Olaf, Titus Pomponius Atticus (Hermes Einzelschriften 68; Stuttgart. Steiner, 1992). Pervo, Richard, Acts. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009). Peterman, Gerald W., Paul’s Gift from Philippi. Conventions of Gift-Exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Peterson, Erik, Apostel und Zeuge Christi. Auslegung des Philipperbriefes (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 21942). Pilhofer, Peter, Philippi, vol. 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas; vol. 2: Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi (WUNT 87; 119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995; 2000). Plett, Heinrich, F., Einführung in die rhetorische Textanalyse (Hamburg: Buske, 31975). Pohlenz, Max, Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung (2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1948–1949; 92009). Idem, Kleine Schriften, ed. by Heinrich Dörrie (2 vols.; Hildesheim: Olms, 1965). Preisigke, Friedrich, Girowesen im griechischen Ägypten (Strassburg: Schlesier & Schweikhardt, 1910). Idem, Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-römischen Zeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915; repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1975). Idem; Bilabel, Friedrich; Kiessling, Emil, eds., Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten (8 vols.; Strassburg: Trübner et al, 1913–67). Idem, and Kiessling, Emil, eds., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (4 vols.; 3 Suppl.; Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben, 1856–1924, 1971–1988, 1991, 2000). Rettig, Heinrich C. M., Quaestiones Philippenses (Giessen: Heyer, 1831). Roloff, Jürgen, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK 15; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988). Roskam, Geert, On the Path to Virtue. The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and Its Reception in (Middle‑) Platonism (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 33; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005). Rupprecht, Hans-Albrecht, Studien zur Quittung im Recht der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri (MBPF 57; München: Beck, 1971). Russell, Donald A., Criticism in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981). Sampley, J. Paul, Pauline Partnership in Christ. Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Idem, ed., Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003). Idem, and Lampe, Peter, eds., Paul and Rhetoric (New York and London: Clark, 2010).

172

Bibliography

Sanders, Ed P., “Jesus, Paul, and Judaism,” ANRW 2, 25.1 (1982) 390–450. Idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Sänger, Dieter, and Mell, Ulrich, eds., Paulus und Johannes (WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Schenk, Wolfgang, “Der Philipperbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985),” ANRW 2, 25.4 (1987) 3280–3313. Schinkel, Dirk, Die himmlische Bürgerschaft. Untersuchungen zu einem urchristlichen Sprachmotiv im Spannungsfeld von religiöser Integration und Abgrenzung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert (FRLANT 220; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Schmid, Joseph, Zeit und Ort der paulinischen Gefangenschaftsbriefe (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1931). Schmidt, Willibaldus, De ultimis morientium verbis (Marburg: Schaaf, 1915). Schmitz, Otto, Aus der Welt eines Gefangenen. Eine Einführung in den Philipperbrief (Berlin: Furche, 21924) Schnelle, Udo, Apostle Paul. His Life and Theology, trans. by Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005). Schönegg, Beat, Senecas Epistulae morales als philosophisches Kunstwerk (Bern and New York: Lang, 1999). Schrage, Wolfgang, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKK 7/1–4; Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001). Schubart, Wilhelm, Griechische Papyri, Urkunden und Briefe, vom 4. Jahrh v. Chr. bis in 8. Jahrh. n. Chr. (2 vols.; Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1927). Schunck, Peter, “Studien zur Darstellung des Endes von Galba, Otho und Vitellius in den Historien des Tacitus,” SO 39 (1964) 38–82. Schwarz, Andreas B., Die öffentliche und private Urkunde im römischen Ägypten. Studien zum hellenistischen Privatrecht (ASAW.PH 31/3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1920). Schweitzer, Friedrich, ed., Religion, Politik und Gewalt. Kongressband des XII. Europäischen Kongresses für Theologie, 18.–22. September 2005 in Berlin (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006). Schwyzer, Eduard, Griechische Grammatik (HA 2.1.1–3; 3 vols.; München: Beck, 31959–1960). Seider, Richard, Paläographie der griechischen Papyri (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967–1990). Smith, Nicholas D., “Plato on Knowledge as Power,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 38 (2000) 145–168. Spicq, Ceslas, Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire (OBO 22/1–3; 3 vols.; Fribourg, Suisse: Editions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978–1982). Standhartinger, Angela, “Die paulinische Theologie im Spannungsfeld römisch‑imperialer Machtpolitik. Eine neue Perspektive auf Paulus, kritisch geprüft anhand des Philipperbriefs,” in: Friedrich Schweitzer, ed., Religion, Politik und Gewalt, 364–82. Eadem, “‘Join in imitating me’ (Philippians 3,17). Towards an Interpretation of Philippians 3,” NTS 54 (2008) 417–35. Steinmetz, Peter, “Die Stoa,” in: [Ueberweg], Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4/2 (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 491–716. Strycker, Emile de, Plato’s Apology of Socrates. A Literary and Philosophical Study, with running commentary (Mn.S 137; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

3. Further Commentaries and Scholarly Literature

173

Sundermann, Hans-Georg, Der schwache Apostel und die Kraft der Rede. Eine rhetorische Analyse von 2 Kor 10–13 (EHS.T 575; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1996). Tarán, Leonardo, Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975). Taubenschlag, Rafael, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in Light of the Papyri 332 B. C. – 640 A. D. (Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica, 21955; repr. 1972). Teichert, Dieter, “Der Philosoph und Briefschreiber. Zur Bedeutung der literarischen Form von Senecas Briefen an Lucilius,” in: Gabriel, Gottfried, and Schildknecht, Christiane, eds., Literarische Formen der Philosophie, 62–72. Thom, Johan C., The Pythagorean Golden Verses. With introduction and commentary (RGRW 123; Leiden et al.: Brill, 1995). Thrall, Margaret E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–2000). Thümmel, Hans Georg, Die Memorien für Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Die archäologischen Denkmäler und die literarische Tradition (AKG 76; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1999). Trobisch, David, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Briefsammlung (NTOA 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). Verdin, Hermann et al., eds., Purposes of History. Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries B. C. (Studia Hellenistica 30; Leuven: Orientaliste, 1990). Vittinghoff, Friedrich, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur ‘damnatio memoriae’ (Neue Forschungen 84; Berlin: Juncker & Dünnhaupt, 1936). Vogel, Manuel, Commentatio mortis. 2 Kor 5,1–10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi (FRLANT 214; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). Vögtle, Anton, Die Tugend‑ und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (NTA 16/4–5; Münster: Aschendorff, 1936). Vollenweider, Samuel, Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie (WUNT 144; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Idem, “Politische Theologie im Philipperbrief,” in: Sänger, Dieter, and Mell, Ulrich, eds., Paulus und Johannes, 457–69. Idem, et al., eds., Epiktet, Was ist wahre Freiheit? Diatribe IV 1, eingeleitet und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen (SAPERE 22; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Vos, Johan S., Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (WUNT 149; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Wansink, Craig S., Chained in Christ. The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonment (JSNT.S 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Weber, Friedrich, Untersuchungen zum gräko-ägyptischen Obligationenrecht. Modalitäten der Leistung im Rechte der Papyri (MBPF 15; München: Beck, 1932). Weiser, Alfons, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKK 16/1; Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003). Weiss, Johannes, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). Idem, Das Urchristentum, ed. by Rudolf Knopf (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917); ET: The History of Primitive Christianity, trans. by Frederick C. Grant (2 vols.; New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937).

174

Bibliography

Welborn, Lawrence L., Paul, the Fool of Christ. A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophical Tradition (JSNT.S 293; London and New York: Clark, 2005). Wick, Peter, Der Philipperbrief. Der formale Aufbau des Briefs als Schlüssel zum Verständnis des Inhalts (BWANT 135; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994). Winter, Bruce W., Philo and Paul among the Sophists (SNTSMS 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Wolff, Hans-Julius, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats (HA 10.5.1–2; München: Beck, 1978–2002). Zeller, Dieter, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Zuntz, Günther, The Text of the Epistles. A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1946; London: Oxford University Press, 1953). Zwierlein, Otto, Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse mit einer kritischen Rezension der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (UALG 96; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009). Idem, Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom: Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten (UALG 109; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2013).

Indices 1. Greek Literature Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.4.3 100 2.21.2 24 2.21.4 24 2.21.6 25 2.22.1–17 24 2.23.1–26.5 24 3.13.1–3 25 3.19.1–4 25 Nicomachean Ethic 1.7.6 (1097b.7–8) 100 5.6.4 (1134a.26–27) 100 10.6.1–8–8.13 100 10.6.2 (1177b.5–6) 100 10.7.4 (1177a.4) 100 10.7.7–8 (1177b.7–8) 100 10.7.9 (1178a.5) 100 Democritus, D.-K. 68 B 176, 209, 210, 246 98 Dio Chrysostom, Oratio 3.51–85 101 Diogenes Laertius 2.24–25 98 6.11 99 7.39–41 76 7.117–131 101 7.127 100 10.123 41 10.130 99 Epictetus, Dissertations 4.13.8–10 21

Encheiridion 5 35 Epicurus, Epistula ad Menoeceum 41–42 K. D. 1–2

34, 41, 42

Frag. 210

88

Euripides, Fragm. (Nauck) 452 35 Lucian of Samosata, De luctu 35, 39 Hermotimus 3–7 61 Vitarum auctio 9 61 20 106 Plato Apology 18a; 19c; 20e; 21c,e; 26e 137 30a–b; 40c; 61c–69e; 67d 141 40c–42a 30 19e; 39b; 39c–42a; 99c–115a; 105c– 27, 29 106e 39e 31 Cratylus 339d

29

176

Indices

27, 29 Critias 43c 54e 29 Menon 97c

31

Phaedo 99c–115a; 40b–c; 23, 29 105c–106e 63b–67d 30 62c–d; 86c–d; 98d–99a; 115d 31 78b–84b; 102b–107b 40 65c 78 61c; 62e; 64c–e; 138 99d; 98e; 99a 63a–65c; 115c–e; 80e–81a 141 67d 146 Phaedrus 245c–250c 40 Philebus 67a

99

Politeia 271d

99

Protagoras 342a 26 335d 31–32 Republica 369b; 387d 99 Symposium 176c 99 Theaetetus 143a–c 169d 99 198b 71 Timaeus 34b–37c; 41d; 43a; 90a–d 33d; 68c

40–41 99

Ps.-Plato, Epistulae 7, 341c–d 12, 359c–e 13, 363e

55 52 52

Definitiones 411a 100 412b 100

Plutarch Vita Catonis min. 12.5 26 68.2 38 Vita Catonis mai. 22–23 143 Moralia 75B–86A 101 440D–452D 101 De Stoicorum repugnantia 13 71–72 De profectibus in virtute 75C 101 De laude ipsius 539A–547F 106 Fragmenta (Tyrwhitt) 41 Ps.-Plutarch, Consolatio ad Apollonium 39 Stobaeus, Anthologium 23, 33 4.51–53 7.471 38 7.566 38 7.576 38 9.111 35 10.59 35 10.65 35 10.88 37 Strabo, Geographica 14.5.14 84 Xenophon 1.2.14 99 1.6.10 99 4.8.11 99

Indices

2. Latin Literature Cicero Brutus 62

26

De oratione 2.155–161 143 2.219 26 Orator 87 26 Philippica

51

Laelius 27–28 80 Academica 1.4.-32 146 Epistulae ad Atticum 420, 425

84

De legibus 1.58–62 76, 80, 101 2.1.3–5 65 2.3.6 65 2.4.8–9 65, 66 2.7.16 66 De re publica 3.8–9 143 6.9–29 145 6.13, 15–16, 26–29 107 6.15–16 31 De finibus 3.14 78 4.50 73 5.41–44 101 De officiis 1.153–60

108, 143

Tusculanae Disputationes 1.1.1 81 1.1–7 146 1.8 146 1.9 137, 146 1.15–17 40 1.16 146–147

1.50–56 107 1.52 146 1.55–59 146 1.60 108 1.71–75 146 1.74 141, 145, 146 1.8 146 1.9 137, 146 1.97 141 1.97–103 146 1.115 39 1.117 147 2.10 147 2.14 147 2.67 147 3.1–2 101 3.7 147 3.12 39 3.13–18 108 3.29–32 141 3.7 147 3.81–84 147 4.2.5 143 4.29 147 4.8 147 4.83 147, 148 5.1 81, 148 5.1–2 101 5.4 146 5.5.12 81 5.23.67 79 5.43–45 73 5.5 80 5.5.41 81 5.5.121 81 5.64–66 79 5.68–72 76, 80 5.70–72 101 5.72 81 5.73 82 5.88–119 148 5.121 148 Plinius, Naturalis historia 22.96 83

177

178

Indices

Seneca Ad Marciam De consolatione 39 Ad Polybium De consolatione 39 De consolatione ad Helviam 39 De tranquillitate animi 1.1–17 83 2.3 84 3.1–4.1 84 3.4 83 7.2 84 17.12 84 De constantia 1.1–4 102 7.1 102 De vita beata 7–9 108 De beneficiis 7.13 120 Naturales quaestiones 1–16

107. 110

Epistulae ad Lucilium 6 101 10.5 84 11.8–10 87–88 24.6–10 151 24.19–21 151 28.8 151 32.1 88

41.1–2 88,101,102 42 101, 102 52.1–9 88 63.14–16 83 65.24 151 66 76,105, 108 67 105,107, 108, 151 71 103–104, 105, 107 105, 107 74 79 107 87.21 102 94–95 103 98.1–18 151 101.1–5 151 102.1–30 151 104.21–31 151 108 150–51 115 101 Suetonius Nero 10.1 21 Tacitus Historiae 46 21 Annales 2.50 21 3.25–28 21 4.13.13 83 4.15.60–64 84 4.16.21–35 86 15.60–64 152 15.62–63 85

3. Old Testament (LXX) and Hellenistic Judaism Genesis 1:11–12 28 2:15 28 3:17 28 17:10–14 55 Deuteronomy 32:10 96

Psalms 104:23 28 128:2 28 Proverbs 14:23 28 24:31 (30:8) 96

Indices 4 Maccabees 9:9 96

34:28 96 40:18 96

Sirach 5:1 96 11:24 96

Psalms of Solomon 5:16 96

4. New Testament and Apocrypha Matthew 5:17–48 57 5:20 57, 59 6:1 119 7:6 51 15:26–27 51 Mark 1:1 119 Luke 6:21 97 6:24–26 95 12:16–21 97 15:11–32 98 16:21 51 John 1:14 5 20:16–18 58 20:19–29 58 Acts 1:4 136 1:32–34 136 6:1 56 7:8 54 7:51 54 8:3 56 9:1–29 58 9:4 56 9:11 66 9:29 56 9:30 66 10:33 116 10:44 54 11:18 54

11:20 56 11:25 66 11:29 116 11:29–30 11 13–14 119 13:21 56 15:1–5 54 16:6–40 11 16:9–10 119 16:37 66 16:38 66 17:1–9 12 17:1–15 129 19:33 22 19:38 22 19:40 22 20:1–6 11 20:4 135 20:23 119 21:34 22, 23, 50 21:37–39 56 21:40 56 22:1 56 22:1–21 22 22:3 66 22:3–21 58 22:4 56 22:7–8 56 22:25 66 22:26 66 22:29 66 22:30 22, 23, 50 23:6 56 23:8–9 56 23:16–27 21 23:27 66 22, 23 23:28

179

180 23:29 22 23:30 22 23:35 22 24:2 22 24:8 22 24:10 22 24:13 22, 23 24:19 22 25:5 22 25:7–8 22 25:8 22 25:9–12 23 25:11 22 25:16 22, 66 25:16–21 23 25:18 22 25:26 50 26:1–23 22 26:2 22 26:5 56 26:7 22 26:9–20 58 26:14 56 26:14–15 56 26:24 22 26:32 23 27:1–28:16 127 28:10 120 28:17–22 23 28:19 22 28:24–25 136 28:31 111 Romans 1:3 43 1:3–4 43 1:4 43 1:7 127 1:8 131 1:9 53 1:11 29, 75 1:13 28 1:14 31 1:15 127 1:16 59, 94 1:16–20 43 1:18–32 64 1:20 94

Indices 1:21–23 82 2:4 117 2:17 53 2:25–26 54 2:25–29 53, 54, 60 2:29 53 4 54 4:14 142 5:2 53 5:3 53 5:3–5 71 5:5 44 5:8 44 5:11 53 6–8 45 6:1 31 6:1–8:39 54 45, 60 6:5 6:8 30 6:8–11 46 6:18–23 46 6:21 64 8:1–39 67, 109 8:3 43, 44 8:6 64 8:8–9 27, 53 8:9–39 60 8:12–17 31 8:13 64 8:17 60 8:19 64 8:23 64 8:24–25 109 8:25 64 8:29 60, 67, 87 8:30 87 8:32 44 8:35 107 8:35–39 44 9:1–5 12, 55 9:3 43 9:4 55 9:5 43 9:6a 55 9:22 64 9:23 117, 131 9:27b 55 9:31 55

Indices 10:3 59 10:14–18 75 11:1 55, 56 11:13 VI 11:22 31 11:23 31 11:25–36 67 11:33–36 10 11:36 131 12:1 71 12:1–2 73, 121, 130 12:2 67, 74 12:13 118, 120 13:11–12 60, 109 13:13–14 58 14:1 58 14:8–9 30 14:17 64 14:18 121 14:22 74 15:1–2 31 15:13 94 15:16 VI, 119 15:17 31 15:19 94 15:22–26 127 15:23 29 15:24 127 15:25–29 119, 129 15:26–27 119 15:27 118, 119 15:28 28, 120, 127 15:30–32 127 15:33 75 16:1–2 126 16:4 119 16:5 128 16:17 63, 74 16:17–20 12, 50, 63, 64 16:20 75 16:22 49 16:27 117, 122 1 Corinthians 1:4 131 1:7 64 1:9 118 1:17 142

1:17–18 64 1:18 59, 94 1:18–24 43 1:18–25 82 1:22–23 64 59, 94 1:24 1:31 53 2:4 94 2:4–5 59 2:5 94 2:10–16 43 2:16 43 3:12–17 64 3:13 74 3:18 55 3:18–23 82, 94, 95, 106 3:21–23 95 67, 74 4:6 4:11–13 107 4:16 87 4:16–17 63 4:17 74, 126 4:19 59 4:20 64 5:3–5 139 5:4 94 6:9 64 6:16 31 7:19 54 7:28 69 7:29 71, 109 7:40 27 8:6 27 8:8 97 9:1 57 9:15 142 9:16 31 9:19–21 59 9:23 118 9:24 61, 62 9:24–17 110 9:24–26 61 10:16 118 10:18 55, 118 10:20 118 11:1 87 11:21 97 11:23 74

181

182 11:23–26 75 11:24 97 11:28 74 11:34 69, 71 12:6 43 12:31 74 13:1–13 44 13:11 71 14:31 74 14:35 74 14:37 55 15:1 74 15:1–11 12 15:3 74 15:3–8 75 15:8–10 57, 106 15:9 VI, 56 15:9–11 92 15:10 107, 108, 142 15:12 109 15:12–27 109 15:12–58 60 15:27–28 67 15:32 36 15:33 36 15:35–57 67 15:43–44 94, 131 15:49 87 15:50 64 16:1–4 11, 118, 120, 128, 129 16:3 49 16:5 129 16:10–11 126 16:15 128 16:17 32, 97, 121, 128 16:21 2, 49 2 Corinthians 1:7 118 1:8–11 107 1:9 53 1:12 32 1:14 32, 138 1:16 129 1:22 54 2:11 130 2:13 128, 129

Indices 2:14 121 2:16 121 2:17 130 3:1–4:18 57 3:6 125 3:7 55 3:7–8 57 3:8 131 3:11 131 3:13 55 3:17 82 3:18 67, 87 4:4 87 4:4–6 57 4:6 57 4:8–10 107 4:10–11 60 4:11 43 4:18 63 5:1–10 67 5:14–21 43 6:1 108, 142 6:4–10 107 6:6–7 71 6:7 59 6:11–13 32 7:2–4 32 7:5–7 128, 129 7:6–7 32 7:7 29 8 11 8–9 117, 118, 128, 129 8:1 129 8:1–4 119, 120 8:2 97, 117, 118, 121 8:6 74 8:7 97, 118 8:14 97 8:22 74 8:23 118, 131 8:23–24 126 9 11 9:2 56, 129 9:3 142 9:5 31, 57, 130 9:6–10 28 9:6–14 121, 128, 130 9:8 97, 118, 121

Indices 97, 118, 119 9:12 9:12–14 119 9:14 97 9:15 131 9:26 118 10:1–12:10 12 10:2 71 10:3 27, 53 10:7 71 10:10 32 10:11 71 10:17 53 11:1–13:10 50 11:2 56 11:4 64 11:5 118 11:7 97 11:8 130 11:8–9 129 11:9 97, 118 11:11 75 11:13 51 11:13–15 67 11:15 64 11:18 55 11:22 55, 56 11:23–29 107 11:23–33 108 11:25 120 12:5 108 12:7 53 12:7–10 53 92, 94, 97, 107, 12:9–10 108 12:14–18 130 12:21 97, 131 13:4 30 13:5 74 13:11 69, 71 13:13 118 Galatians 12, 57 1:1 1:5 117, 122, 131 1:6–7 142 1:6–9 50, 64, 136 1:8–9 139 1:9 74

1:10–14 12 1:12 57, 74 1:13 VI, 56 1:13–14 56 1:14 32, 55, 56 1:15–16 57 1:22–23 56 1:23 VI, 56 2:1–10 57, 61, 118 2:2 55, 142 2:3 54 2:4 21, 63 2:4–5 12, 50 2:6 55 2:9 55 2:10 11 2:11–14 12 2:15 55 2:19–20 30 2:20 27, 53 3–4 54 3:2 74, 75 3:5 75 4:4–6 54 4:9 61 4:14 53 4:16 63 4:19 60, 67 4:26 65 4:29 56 5:1–12 50, 63 5:2–3 54 5:5 64 5:7 61, 62 5:7–12 12, 64 5:12 52, 64 5:13 31 5:19–21 64 5:19–23 44 5:22–23 43, 81, 82 5:25 62 63, 74 6:1 6:6 118, 119 6:7–8 64 6:11 3, 49 6:12 53 6:12–13 54, 63 6:12–14 54

183

184

Indices

6:12–15 12 6:12–16 50 6:13 53 6:13–14 53 6:13–15 64 6:15 53, 139 6:15–16 62 6:16 55, 56, 75, 142 12, 60 6:17 Ephesians 1:7 117 1:13 75 2:7 117 2:11–13 54 3:3 117 3:3–13 18 3:16 94, 117 3:21 117, 122, 131 4:8 120 4:20 74 4:21 75 5:1–2 87 5:2 121 5:6 142 5:10 121 6:10 94, 97 6:21 75 6:21–22 135 6:22 75 6:23 75 Philippians 1:1 13 1:1–2 19, 135, 140, 153 1:1–3:1a 135 1:3 131 1:3–11 12, 15, 19, 135, 140 1:4 118 1:5 16, 20, 118, 119, 127, 136, 140, 153 12, 32, 136 1:5–6 1:6 13, 16, 94, 108 1:7 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 27, 73, 87, 108, 119, 136, 142 1:9 44, 97, 118

73, 74, 138 1:10 1:10–11 16 1:11 28, 121, 131 1:12 VI, 12, 19, 20, 32, 40, 108, 119, 125, 135, 136, 140, 153 1:12–15 11 1:12–18 20, 127, 140, 142 1:12–20 61, 136 1:12–26 140 135, 142 1:12–3:1a 1:13 20, 21, 27, 131, 136 1:13–18 13 1:14 20, 43 1:15 128 1:15–17 13 1:15–18 12 1:15–20 108 1:16 20, 22, 27, 44, 119, 142 1:17 20, 110, 136 20, 27, 29 1:18 1:18–20 118 1:18c–19a 21 1:19 21, 26, 27, 44, 110, 137, 138 1:19–20 13, 20, 60, 94, 108, 110 1:19–23 32 1:19–26 110 1:20 21, 23, 26, 27, 33, 110, 111 1:20c 22 13, 25, 26, 27, 28, 1:21 29, 30, 32, 33, 43, 57, 59 1:21–25 13 1:21–26 14, 16, 19–46, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 40, 61, 110, 137, 139, 146, 154 1:22a–b 28 1:22 13, 23, 27, 31, 43, 53, 120, 137 1:22–25 25, 27, 33 28, 29, 31, 33, 67, 1:23 108

Indices 1:23–25 28 1:24 27, 31, 43, 53 1:24–25 33 1:24–26 13, 14 1:25 31, 32, 108, 110, 118, 136, 138 1:26 13, 16, 25, 32, 33, 97, 118, 131, 138 1:26–28 64 1:27 14, 20, 44, 64, 75, 94, 108, 119, 140, 142 1:27–30 12, 14 1:27–3:1a 139, 140, 142 1:28 20, 44, 63, 110 1:28–30 139 1:29 108 1:29–30 16 1:30 27, 61, 75 2:1 16, 44, 71, 72, 94, 108, 118, 131 2:1–2 44 2:1–4 15 2:1–18 14 2:2 118 2:2–4 72, 108 2:2–11 108 2:3 67, 97, 142 2:4 63 2:5 15, 87, 108, 131 2:5–11 72 2:6 60 2:6–7 67 2:6–11 10, 14, 15, 43, 44, 46, 64, 87, 108, 138, 154 2:7–8 67 2:8 46, 97 2:9 44, 45 2:9–11 67 2:11 43, 44, 131 2:12 14, 32, 44, 110 2:12–13 16 15, 108 2:12–18 2:13 43, 94, 108 2:14 75 2:16 15, 32, 43, 138, 142

185

2:16–18 16 2:17 15, 118, 119 2:17–18 15, 16 2:18 118 2:19 60 2:19–24 13, 14, 63, 110, 154 2:20 14, 97 2:21 128 2:22 20, 108, 119, 142 2:23 14, 60 2:24 14, 110, 138 13, 108, 110 2:24–26 2:25 8, 14, 31, 57, 118, 119, 120, 124, 154 2:25–26 14 2:25–28 75 2:25–30 4, 11, 12, 14, 48, 110, 154 2:26 29 2:28 118, 126 2:29 118 2:30 13, 108, 119 3:1a 48 71, 118 3:1 3:1–21 47, 69 3:1b 48, 49, 50, 53 3:1b–21 VI, VII, 10, 12, 47–67, 48, 49, 134, 135, 139, 140, 153 3:2 50, 51, 52, 60, 63, 64 3:2–21 20, 48, 49, 50, 51 3:3 16, 27, 32, 43, 44, 53, 60, 94, 108, 131 53, 60 3:3–11 3:4a 55 3:4 27, 43, 53 3:4–6 55 3:4–11 53, 54, 61 3:4b 55 3:5–6 55 3:6 VI, 119 3:6–10 VI 3:7 27, 56, 58 3:7–8 58 3:7–11 56, 57

186

Indices

43, 58, 59, 60 3:8 3:9 59 3:10 16, 43, 60, 94, 108, 118 3:10–11 16, 45, 67 3:11 57, 60, 61, 67 3:12 16, 61, 62 3:12–14 53, 62 53, 61–62, 107, 3:12–16 110 3:13 50, 62, 71 3:14 62, 131 3:14–15 61 3:15 15, 62, 87 3:15–16 53 3:16 62 3:17a 53 3:17 15, 16, 18, 45, 50, 63, 86 3:17–21 53, 63–67, 63, 67 3:17b 53 3:18 53, 63 3:18–19 61 3:19 15, 64, 87 3:19–20 16, 64 3:20 15, 43, 64 3:20–21 16, 44, 53, 108, 110 3:21 43, 48, 67, 97, 108 4:1 29, 48 4:1–7 15 4:1–9 14, 135, 139 4:2–3 128 4:3 20, 108, 119, 142 4:4 118 4:4–7 69 4:7 43, 131 4:8 43, 72, 73, 79, 82 4:8–9 15, 16, 48, 63, 69–89, 91, 95, 115, 140 4:9 69, 74, 75, 84 4:10 12, 15, 87, 118 4:10–13 91–111 4:10–20 VII, 10, 11, 12, 69, 89, 91, 94, 107, 113–131, 133, 134, 136, 139, 140, 153

74, 97, 98, 120 63, 91, 92–93, 95, 107 4:11–19 115, 118 4:12 67, 92, 97, 118, 121 4:13 93, 107 4:14 16, 92, 108, 110, 118 4:14–16 11 4:15 20, 32, 89, 108, 118, 119, 128, 136, 142 12, 92, 120, 135, 4:16 140 4:17 28, 92, 119, 120, 127 4:18 8, 10, 11, 12, 91, 92, 97, 110, 130, 134, 135 4:19 120, 121, 131 4:19–20 122 4:19–24 110 4:20 12 13, 16, 69 4:21 4:21–22 89 4:21–23 135, 140, 154 4:22 21 4:23 89, 154

4:11 4:11–13

Colossians 1:7 74 1:23 31 1:24 97 1:24–29 18 1:27 117 2:1 61 2:2 117 2:5 87, 139 2:8 142 2:11 54 2:20 30 3:3 30 3:4 27, 131 4:7–9 135 4:17 74 4:18 3, 49, 136

Indices 1 Thessalonians 1:1 13 1:6 63 1:6–8 59, 129 1:7 87 1:10 43, 67 2:1–2 129, 142 2:2 61 2:5 130 2:12 64 2:13 74, 75 2:14 63, 87 2:14–16 129 2:14–18 12 2:16 64 2:17 30, 75 2:18 120 3:2 13 3:2–5 129, 142 3:6 13, 29, 75 3:9 53 3:10 75 4:1 69, 71, 74 4:1–2 63 4:13–18 67 4:13–5:11 60 4:14 30 4:17 30 5:1–11 109 5:10 30 5:21–22 73, 74 5:23 75 2 Thessalonians 1:5 64 3:1 69, 71 3:6 74 3:7 63 3:7–9 87 3:16 75 3:17 3, 49 1 Timothy 1:12 94 1:13 56 1:17 117, 122, 131 2:11 74 2:16 75

187

3:1 30 3:16 131 4:8–10 61 4:11–16 63 4:12 63 4:15 32, 136 4:16 31 5:4 74 5:13 74 6:6 97 95, 96 6:6–8 6:9–10 96 6:12 61 6:20 142 2 Timothy 1:3 53 1:4 29, 75 1:7 94 2:1 94, 97, 108 2:9 136 2:14–15 75 2:15 52 2:16 32, 142 2:18 109 3:7 74 3:9 32 3:13 32 3:14 74 4:2 117 4:6 30 4:7 61 4:12 135 4:17 94, 97 4:18 109, 117, 122, 131 Titus 3:12 135 3:14 74, 120 Philemon 13, 154 1 4 131 6 118 9 14, 141 10 136 11 27 13 136

188

Indices

16 27 17 118 18 27 19 3, 49 22 32 23 13 24 13

2:22 51 3:15–16 49 2 John 4 118 3 John 3 118 6 116

Hebrews 6:16 22 12:22 65 13:21 117

Revelation 1:11 116 7:8 56 22:15 51

James 2:8 116

Gospel of Thomas (NHC 22/2, 102) 51

2 Peter 1:19 116

5. Patristic Literature Augustine, Confessions 7.11–12, 29–30 58 Didache 9:5 51 Ignatius, Ephesians 1:2 18 7:1 51

11:2 94 12:1–2 18 Smyrnaeans 4:2 93 Polycarp, Philippians 93, 115 1:1 3:2 18 9:1–2 18

6. Modern Authors (selective) Beckby, H.  33, 35 Böttrich, C.  16, 63 Bultmann, R.  18,76, 92, 93 Burkert, W.  42, 130–31 Cancik, H.  4, 66–67 Cancik-Lindemaier, H.  149–51 Deissmann, A.  117, 121 Engberg-Pedersen, T.  82, 83, 119

Gnilka, J.  48, 79, 113 Güting, E.  26, 30 Holloway, P.  133–34 Klauck, H.-J.  88, 133 Köhn, A.  16–17 Koster, S. 50–51 Lampe, P.  140 Lattimore, R.  33–34, 37

Indices Lightfoot, J. B.  6, 31, 47, 48, 55, 113, 115, 152 Lohmeyer, E.  10, 15, 16–18, 20, 23, 70, 71–72, 92, 113, 130

Roberts, C. H.  26 Russell, D. A.  7 Sampley, J. P.  118, 124 Standhartinger, A.  64

Malherbe, A. J.  133, 143 Mitchell, M. M.  2, 6, 124–25, 127, 151

Thom, J.  37

Nietzsche, F.  23–24

Vollenweider, S. 30, 33–34, 64

Paton, W. R.  33, 35, 37, 38 Peek, W.  34 Peres, I.  34 Pfohl, G.  33–34, 36–37

Weise, C.  7 Weiss, B.  6, 113 Wettstein, J. J.  33, 36, 69, 78

Reed, J. T.  49 Reumann, J.  7, 47, 49, 69, 113, 115, 130, 133, 134, 135

Zuntz, G.  25–26

189