• See G. A. Deissmann, hicht vom Oaten^, Tiibinpea, 1909, p. 57, Eng. tr., Light/rom the Ancient East, London, 1911, p. 84.
218 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
here is evident from the fact that what we have is 'bishops,' not 'bishop.' That the author of tlie letter is not advocating any special ecclesiastical or<janization is evident from the casualness of the reference, and from the absence of any further allusion to these officials. It may be taken for granted that every church would have an organiza- tion of some sort. It was not easy — perhaps not possible — for the individual Christian to maintain tiis position without the social strength of his brethren behind him. Is it possible, then, to think of two orders in a church like tliat of Philippi, in the lifetime of St. Paul ? There were officers in the Thessalonian Church called oi Kowiufret, ol wpol'tTTa./xei'OL, ol vovBiTovvres (1 Th 5'"}, but it is clear that their authority was a moral one, and their position due to their spiritual influence. The terras used evidently describe the same persons from difl'erent points of view. Haupt regards both terms in our letter as applied to the same persons, but it is probable that two orders are in view.
Elsewhere (Ac 20-"-) we understand that the essential constituted officials were irpcapurepoi, and that these were also known as 'bishops.' They formed the essence of church government.
P'rom the Pastorals also it is clear that Tpetr^vrepoi and iiri(TKoiToi are interchangeable terms (Tit P"-, 1 Ti 3'- '-). With the alterations in later times in the usage of these terms we are not concerned ; only with this, that there seems no ground for suspicion as regards their occurrence here. It is certainly preferable to regard them as interpola- tions than to reject the whole letter as spurious, but it is not necessary to do this if the terms are dissociated from later associations. As we shall see, one main cause of writing the letter was to thank the Philippians for monetary help, and it is not inappropriate to regard these persons as being instrumental in the collecting and dispatching of this money.
Certain individuals are mentioned by name, especiallj' two women — Euodia and Syntyche (4-- '). ' Euodia I beseech, and Syntyche I beseech that they show practical agreement in the Lord.' It is surely the reductio ad ridiculum of criticism to find here, under assumed names, subtle references to church parties. Zahn gives an account of the subtle hidden meanings found in these names (now proved to be so common, although not yet attested for Philippi) by Schwegler, Baur, Hitzig, and Holsten, and calls them ' fantastic conceits ' (op. cit. i. 561 f.). This is now the unanimous opinion, so that one need not further dwell on it. What we have to do with is a quarrel between two women, the origin or extent of which we know not (although it cannot have been serious). A certain person (Synzygus) is asked to help in their reconciliation : ' I would request you (ipuiru), genuine Synzygus (or yokefellow), help those women, inasmuch as they laboured with me in the gospel and with Clement and other fellow-labourers of mine whose names are in the book of life ' (4-"^). There is some doubt as to the interpretation of the passage. Some take the writer to mean that Clement and his fellows should help in settling this diU'erence (Lightfoot, Zahn) ; others — and this seems the only feasible view — that the women laboured with the apostles and with Clement. Indeed, from the tone of the passage one would naturally conclude that Clement was already dead. To identify this Clement with Clement of Konie on the ground that no other of that name is known to us from either history or legend (Baur, Paul, Eng. tr.^, 2 vols., London, 1873-75, pp. 63, 77), is foolish, as the name Clement seems to have been common (cf. Zahn, op. cit. i. 534). Moreover, this Clement is a Philippian, not a Roman. That women sliould have a conspicuous place in the Philippian Church I
agrees with Ac 16, and, indeed, as I^ightfoot points out (Philippians, p. 56), with the conditicms in Macedonia generally. Various attempts have been made to identify one or other of these women with Pydia, on the ground that Lydia is not a proper name but simply means ' the Lydian lady ; but there is no certainty in the results. It is certainly curious that neither Lydia nor the jailer is men- tioned, but the omission of their names is no ground for identifying the one with Euodia or Syntyche or the other with Clement. It seems a strong proof of authenticity rather than the reverse.
The only other person mentioned in the letter as belonging to Philippi is Epaphroditus (see above). He is, however, with the writer at the time of writing, preparing to go back after having de- livered their gift to St. Paul : ' I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that come from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God ' (4'").
That St. Paul should have written to Philippi is a priori very probable. Is there any reason to reject our present letter, then, as an authentic communication by the Apostle to this church? It is extremely difficult to see anj'thing in this artless aft'ectionate letter which raises any suspicion, and the onus probandi lying on him who would reject it owing to difficulties which may reasonably be explained otherwise is very great.