My goal in this article is to set forth a brief defense of the literary coherence of Paul's letter to the Philippian believers. That is, to showcase that not only was Paul the sole author, but that the letter was a singular work of his own mind under the inspiration of the Spirit, and was not the work of later scribal redaction. My hope is that this short work will aid the lay Christian in understanding both the arguments set in opposition to the veracity of God's infallible word in our own day, as well as the weighty arguments which we might bring to bear against both liberal and secular scholarship. Now, to the question of literary coherence.
Hawthorne states the question of the literary coherence of Paul’s letter to the Philippian church well, and so his question will pave the way forward for this article, “Is Philippians a single letter, or is it in reality a composite of several letters written by Paul?”[1] Scholars have grounded their arguments for Philippians as a composite of several letters in the following five things: (1) Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, mentions that Paul had written them more than one letter[2], (2) the fact of Paul’s “quiet, orderly preparation for the conclusion of the letter at 3:1,”[3] (3) the apparent change in Paul’s tone from 3:2 through 4:3,[4] (4) the fact that 3:1 fits so well with 4:4,[5] (5) and the fact that Paul waits until the end of the letter to thank the Philippians for their financial partnership with him.[6]
Although, as Hawthorne remarks, the above arguments for Philippians as a composite letter are substantial and weighty,[7] the arguments leveled against it being a composite prove to be more convincing. These arguments will be briefly mentioned here, and will then be elaborated upon subsequently throughout this article. Scholars advocating for the literary coherence of Paul’s letter to the Philippians argue that (1) disjointedness in Paul’s flow of thought can be expected from Paul, as this is a conversational letter and he is accustomed to abrupt shifts in style without notice,[8] (2) there is absolutely no textual-critical evidence, nor is there any testimony from the early church indicating that Paul’s letter was ever found in a different form than the current one,[9] (3) the semantic and argumentative interdependence of the letter’s parts militate against any lack of literary coherence,[10] and (4) a scribe intent upon unifying the various letters would hardly have placed the letters together in their current form.[11]
Arguments for Literary Coherence
First, to advocate for literary incoherence based upon the radical shift in tone from 3:2 to 4:3 is unconvincing due to three factors. The first is that Paul’s letter to the Philippians is conversational in style, and is thus not obligated to conform wholesale to any formally stylistic or tonal structure. Second, it’s possible that this letter was not written all at once, but over a period of time and in different increments. Thus, Paul could have received new information about the Philippian congregation that spurred him on toward a change in tone. Such a thing is not out of the question and could explain the stylistic/tonal shift in the letter body. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it’s evident from the larger Pauline corpus that Paul is quite accustomed to such sudden stylistic shifts. Hawthorn provides Romans 16:16-19 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 as examples of such shifts.[12]
Second, the argument for the literary incoherence of Paul’s letter to the Philippians does not seem to take into account historical evidence (or lack thereof). Simply put, there is no evidence within the manuscript tradition that would indicate that Philippians was ever any shorter or ordered any differently than it currently is. Not only this, but no Patristic sources testify to any difference in the Philippian text either. Such historical silence provides great difficulty for the argument of literary incoherence.
Third, both the semantic cohesion and the interdependence of logical thought within the letter body as a whole militates against any artificial separation of the letter’s parts. As Hawthorne states, “It is difficult to isolate one part of the letter from another because the same terms, word-roots and motifs pervade all of its so-called parts.”[13] And he goes on to assert that the same problem arises with reference to the development of Paul’s argumentation throughout the letter. He says that, “the development of Paul’s argument in one part of the letter often depends on what he has said in another part.”[14] This argumentative development is especially evident in the relationship between 2:6-11 and 3:7-11, and between 2:6-11 and 3:20-21.[15]
And finally, where scholars argue for literary incoherence based upon apparent fractures in the unity of the text, these disjunctions in the text actually provide a solid line of argumentation against such literary incoherence. Hawthorne argues that, if it were the intention of a scribe to unify these separate letters into one cohesive whole, that scribe would hardly structure these letters into the present literary form of Philippians (that is, if the scribe had the same standards of cohesion as these scholars who advocate for the position of literary incoherence). The case for a problem of disjunction between 3:1 and 4:4 is actually quite weak if one posits that it is the result of a scribal tendency toward the cohesive unification of separate letters, because as Hawthorne states, “it is difficult to explain why any thinking scribe intent on unifying the various letters would have placed it here where it seemingly fractures the unity of the whole,” and “the same goes for the so-called letter of thanks (4:10-20).”[16] Thus, such stylistic shifts and tangential lines of argumentation are best explained by the conversational style of the letter, and by the fact that it was written over a longer period of time.
[1] Hawthorn, G. F., “Philippians, Letter to the,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, Eds., (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1993), 709.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.