Looking Over My Shoulder (VI)

It is my personal conviction that the strongest argument for the unity of Philippians as being originally one letter, versus two or three stitched together at a later point, is an overall structure that could not have reasonably just “happened” when the multiple mini-letters got pasted together. Sadly, though, for a long time, it was the widespread disagreement on the structure of Philippians that opened the door for the plausibility of the multiple source views.

What do I mean by that? If you are not aware, for a long time, Philippians and James were the New Testament books that virtually defied outlining. Fortunately, that has changed in the last generation for both books (though I will not be discussing James here), but it is odd that both were so difficult to outline for so long.

As a result of the scholarly inability to figure out the overall flow of thought in Philippians, it was not uncommon on through the 1960s for commentaries to treat the epistle almost like it was the latter part of the Book of Proverbs–just one short “nugget” of thought after another. The idea expressed for why Philippians was put together this way was usually that it was such an intensely personal and practical book that it did not need to be carefully structured, like most–if not all–of Paul’s other letters.

With all due respect to the older scholars who perpetrated this garbage, Balderdash! At least one beautifully structured, and culturally sensitive, outline was there all along in Philippians and they simply did not grasp it. It was like a hand in front of their face, but they could not see it.

In the Greek world of the first century AD, rhetoric–the polished presentation of the spoken word–was “king.” In a culture that had no TV or movies, moving, persuasive oratory was the best entertainment around and critically important in motivating the hearers to certain attitudes or behavior (which hasn’t changed that much in 2,000 years, other than than there are so many other entertainment options available today).

When I wrote my commentary segment on “Philippians” for the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Baker, 1989), I employed a slightly simplified rhetorical outline, adapted from my friend Bob Swift’s article, “The Theme and Structure of Philippians,” published in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra. However, since that time, I have run across a better thought-through version, done by Ben Witherington III in his volume, Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians, in ‘The New Testament in Context’ series (Trinity Press International, 1994). The following is how Witherington breaks down Philippians, according to the rhetorical approach of that day:

Epistolary Prescript (1:1-2)

Exordium and Thanksgiving Prayer (1:3-11)

The Narratio (1:12-26)

The Propositio (1:27-30)

The Probatio (2:1-4:3)

- Appeal 1 (2:1-18)

- Appeal 2 (2:19-30)

- Appeal 3 (3:1-4:1)

- Appeal 4 (4:2-3)

The Peroratio (4:4-20)

- Division I (4:4-9)

- Division II (4:10-20)

Epistolary Closing/Subscription (4:21-23)

I will pick up here and explain what each of those formal Latin terms means in the next post. I simply do not have time to do so today.

But, this is not the only elaborate structuring of Philippians that is very likely to have been in the Apostle Paul’s mind. An even more elegant understanding of its contours will be the primary focus of my next post.

Coming Thursday: “Another–and, in My View, Better–Structuring of Philippians”