v. THE GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY OF ΤῊΣ EpisTLE.—The genuineness of Philippians was de nied by Baur ail his scholars Schwegler, Volkmar, etc., and by Hitzig. The mention of bishops and deacons in the greeting betrayed, they main tained, a later date than the lifetime of St. Pau! They found in it, moreover, evident traces of the Gnosticism of the 2nd century. Its teaching regard ing the Kenosis of Christ (2*) was a retlexion of the Valentinian myth of the fall of Sophia from the Pleroma to the Kenoma. In 2 they found the Gnostic Docetic teaching about the body of Christ ; and in 2° Marcion’s doctrine of a Descensus ad Inferos. In Clement, who is mentioned in 4, they ‘perceived a reference to the Clement of the Clementine Romances, The design of the Epistle, according to Baur, was to repel Ebionite assaults, and to promote unity between the two sections of the Church. The views of Baur with regard to this Epistle possess at present only a historical interest. The Epistle to the Philippians ir accepted, if not by all, at least by a great majority of NT
844 PHILISTIA
critics. Many who reject Ephesians and are doubtful of Colossians (6.9. Jiilicher, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Lipsius), accept Philippians as the genuine work of the apostle. Holsten in his latest work (Paulinische Theologie, 1898), although he continued to place it among the Epistles FEY ascribed to Paul, admitted that its cee wholly Pauline. A theory was broached recently by Voelter (TAT, 1892) that the Epistle is in part the work of Paul, in part by another hand. The genuine parts are, according to Voelter, 11:7. 12-14. 18-26 917-29 410-21. 23, The ΤΕΟΒΗΘΟΒΊΒΟΙΙΕ are not genuine. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Lit. d. Urchristenthums, 1893) also denies the integrity of the Epistle. C. Clemen (Die Einheit d. paulin. Briefe, 1894), while rejecting the theory of Voelter and defending the genuineness of the whole of the Epistle, maintains that it consists of two letters of the apostle, written at different times, and made into one by an editor. 2% 32-48 4*-* he holds to belong to the second leer. The expression of Polycarp, that Paul wrote ‘letters’ to the Philippians, is relied upon as giving a certain traditional authority to this Lege Did the rtions which are considered as belonging to ifferent letters follow one another consecutively, the theory might deserve some consideration ; for two letters by the same author might easily have got fastened together, and would in time have been regarded as one letter. But it is hard to see what motives could have induced an editor to transform two connected letters into a document of artificial piecework. Chapter 3 alone gives some colour to the idea that foreign matter may have found its way into the Epistle, but is not sufficient to lead us to accept Clemen’s theory.
Lrrerature.—INTRODUCTION.—F. O, Baur, Paulus derA postel Jesu Christi, 1866-67 (Eng. tr. by Menzies, 1873]; A. Hilgenfeld, Histor.-krit. Einleitung in das NT, 1875; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das NT, 1885 : Theodor Zahn, Hinleitung in das NT, 1897; F. Godet, Intro- duction to the NT’, 1894.
CoMMENTARIES.—J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, a revised text, with Introduction, No and Dis- sertation, 1895; O. J. Ellicott, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip- faery 1865; E. Haupt, ‘Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe neu bear-
itet,’in Meyer’s Kommentar 6, 1897 ; A. Klopper, Der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper, 1893; R. A. Lipsius, Hand- Commentar, 1891; Wohlenberg in Kurzgef. Comm. 1895; John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, edited by W. Young, Gr. and Eng. 1884; 0. J. Loe eo St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Gr. and Eng. 1885 ; H. O. G. Moule, ‘The Epistle to the Philippians,’ in Camb. Bible for Schools, also Philippian Studies, 1897 ; E. H. Gifford, The Incarnation, A Study of Philippians ti. 5-11, 1897 ; J. A. Beet, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1890; M. R. Vincent, ‘ Philippians and Philemon’ (in Jnternat. Crit. Comm.), 1897. . GIBB.
PHILISTIA.—See next article, and PALESTINE.
PHILISTINES (ovav>s, in Am 97 and 1 Ch 14” [Kethtbh] orgs ; Φυλιστιείμ in the Hexa- teuch, and ἀλλόφυλοι elsewhere ; in Josephus and other Greek writers Φυλιστῖνοι or Παλαιστῖνοι). -- ‘ Philistines’ is the gentilic plural of πρὸ, in AV ‘Palestina,’ ‘Palestine,’ ‘the Philistines,’ but in RV always ‘Philistia’; in Assyr. ‘ Palastu,’ ‘ Pilistu’; in Gr. Παλαιστίνη, but in LXX always transmuted into the word for ‘ Philistines’ (he 154, Is 14%, Ps 608 837 874 108°, 7] 34). The Hebrew name as well as the Greek has been explained, though with very doubtful warrant, as by derivation denoting ‘ immigrants.’
1. The Name.—It is probabl Semitic. It hasa peculiar grammatical use. The Hebrew has two usual ways of designating a people as such. One way is by the use of the primitive noun without modification, just as proper names of persons are used. _ For example, ‘Asshur,’ ‘ Assyrian,’ ‘the Assyrian,’ ‘the Assyrians’ are in Hebrew all alike Asshur, this noun denoting either the founder, the country, the nation, or the people, and in
PHILISTINES
-------ο.-..--.
each meaning used in the masculine singular, aid without the article. But no such use is ever mide of any primitive from which Pélishtim might be derived. The other way is by the use of the gentilic adjective in the masculine singular, with the article. We have, for example, ‘the Moabite,’ ‘the Jebusite,’ ‘the Ekronite,’ ‘the Gittite,’ in the singular, alike for an individual and for the people as a whole, though the English versions pluralize words of this class when they denote peoples. In contrast with this, the word Pélishtt 1s used in the singular only of individuals, the instances being Goliath (1S 178! and often) and the Philistine of 2 S 21”, and is always plural when it denotes the Philistine people. Further, it is regularly used without the article, though there are some exceptions, 6.4. Jos 137,18 47 78 13” 1751, 2S 51% 2112 (Keth.), 1 Ch 11%, 2 Ch 2115. These facts differentiate this name, in a very usted way, from most other biblical names of eoples. Ῥ This differentiation becomes the more marked when we note that it serves to affiliate the Philis- tine name in certain directions, as well as to sever itin other directions. Perhapsthe name Caphtorim and the six other unusual names mentioned with Pélishtim in Gn 1014 follow completely the same usage, though the number of instances is too small to be decisive. The word Réphaim, when used as a gentilic name, follows the same usage; and the other proper names of the giant peoples follow it in that they are used in the plural (see GIANT, οἷο). The name "ἜΣ, denoting the Egyptian people, is ΤΙΣΙ except in Ezr 91. The words ‘wia, ‘Ethiopian,’ .3}Ὁ, ‘Lybian,’ “v2, ‘Chaldzan,’ denoting peoples, are always plural, and are regularly definite without