PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO TUE. One of the New Testament letters, whose authorship is generally assigned to Paul. It was written to the church at Philippi to correct tendencies toward faction and self-seeking among its members (ii. 1-4. 14; iv. 2-5), to warn them against evil in fluences in their midst (iii.). to encourage and strengthen them in their Christian life and work (i. 12-30: ii. 12-16; iv. 1. 4, 6, 8), and to thank them for their practical ministry to the Apostle's needs in his imprisonment ( iv. 10-19). It differs from the principal Pauline Epistles in the marked absence from its contents of controversial topics, while, on the other hand, it is unlike most of the subordinate writings of the Apostle in containing passages which have formed the gath ering points of considerable theological debate. These are chiefly the notable Christological pas sage of the second chapter (vs. 5-11 ) and. though to a much less degree, the well-known soteriologi cal passage of the third chapter ( vs. 3-16).
lu spite of the denial of the Epistle's Pauline origin by the Tfibingen school (1845) and by as recent and able a scholar as llolsten (1898), the letter is to-day almost universally accepted as from the Apostle—its rejection by the modern Dutch school of criticism (1882) merely forming a part of their peculiar negative position with regard to all the New Testament books. A phase of this Dutch critical attack, however, is the de nial of the Epistle's integrity, in which position certain outside the school have joined (Spitta, 1893; Clemen. 1894). But, though there are rec ognized difficulties in its sequence of thought, especially in the connection of the third chapter with its preceding and following context. the letter's unity is generally maintained by critics to-day. Scholars have almost without exception settled upon Rome, during Paul's first imprison ment. as the place and time of the Epistle's com position, Thiersch (1879) and Maepherson ( 1892 ) being practically alone among later writers in the assertion of an origin at Caesarea before Paul's voyage to Rome.
That which may be said to he of chief interest in the criticism of the Rook is the I piestion of its relative order to the other Epistles of Paul's first Roman imprisonment. The opinion more generally in favor to-day is that it is the last of this captivity group. It is argued that (a)
the large size of the Church of Rome 12-14) ; (h) the evidence of success from Paul's evangelis tic work (i. 1218), which would follow the state ments made in Colossians and Ephesians of de sire for such success (Col. iv. 3-4; Eph. vi. 19 30) ; (c) the several journeys between Philippi and Rome involved in the Philippians' ministry to the Apostle (ii. 25-27; iv. I8) ; OD the deser tion of the Apostle by his friends 19,21), which shows itself to he the climax of Col. iv. II and at the same time stands in contrast to iv, 10.14 and Philemon 23.24; (e) the ex pectation of the near approach of his trial and the decision for life o• death (i. 20-22 ii. 17, 24-20; iii. 101—that these all show more nat urally a later rather than an earlier date of writing. On the other• hand, it is held that the similarity of much of the contents of the Epistle to the ehoracterktie thought of Romans. and of muc•li of the contents of Colossians and EpheFsians with that which marks the thought of the pa 5•, t ora k, show in both eases a state of mind on the Apostle's part which would most naturally fit in with a nearness in composition of the respect ively related Epistles. Whatever may be said, however, as to the reasonableness of either line of argument, it is quite clear that the passage regarding the variant preachers in Rome (I. 14 i8), with its bearing upon the state of the Ro man Church when the Apostle wrote his letter to it, must be fully understood before the ques tion of the date of this Philippian letter can he finally settled. To this study is being directed to-day.
linutonnaenv. Besides the standard New Tes tament introductions, consult the following com mentaries and discussions; Klfipper (Gotha, 1893) ; Lightfoot (London, 1894) ; Eaupt, in .1/cacr-Rommentor (Gottingen, 1897) ; Lipsius, in Hoitzinann Iland-Kommcntar (Freiburg, 1892) ; Motile, in Cambridge Bible for Schools (Cambridge, 1803) ; id., Philippian Stiolies(Lon don, 1897) ; Vincent, in International Critical Commentary (New York, 1897) ; Baur, I'oulus (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1873-75): $pitta, Zur Geschichte des Urchristrniums ( Giittingen, 1803 ) ; C lemon, Einheitliehkeit tier panlinischen Brick (Gottingen, 1894) ; Gifford, The Incomple tion (New York, 1897) ; Ilolsten, Paulinische Theologie (Berlin, 1898).