Tliere is also cumulative evidence that both Ignatius and Clement of Rome were acquainted with our letter (see Lightfoot, PhiUppians, p. 75 f.). It is quoted by Eusebius (HE v. ii. 2) in the Epistle from Lyons and Vienne. According to Cleiu. Alex, and Hippolytus it was recognized by the heretical Valentians and Sethites who quoted 2", the latter to prove their own doctrine. The Apologists recognize it (Epistle to Diognetus, v. 9 = Ph 3-" and elsewhere), and it is found in all the 2nd cent, canons as well as in the Apostolicum of Marcion. IreniEus, Tertuliian, and Origen also recognize it. The fact is, the genuineness of tlie letter was never questioned till within recent times, and that solely on internal grounds (see Vincent, ICC, ' Philipp'ians and Philemon,' Introd.; C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of tlie NT, Edin- burgh, 1907, and, indeed, all books on the Canon of Scripture).
(b) Internal evidence. — It is impossible and fortunately unnecessary to review in detail the various arguments that have been brought against the authenticity of the Epistle to the Philippians since F. C. Baur (Paul, Eng. tr.^, ii. 45-79). Perhaps the three most formidable opponents are Baur himself, Holsten, and van Manen. Baur laid special stress on Gnostic affinities, especially in 2'''''-. According to him, the writer knew the theories concerning the seon Sophia, its bold actus rapiendi to gain an equality with the All -Father and its consequent degradation into the region of darkness and emptiness (iv cr/ciais Ko2 KcvJifiaToi rdiroit). The occurrence of words like ix6p(pacn% and Kivui/xa (not ipTrayij.6i) lends colour to this view, and the Gnostic descent into hell was, it is held, well known to the writer. The whole passage is thus explicable only on the supposition ' that the writer's mind was tilled with certain Gnostic ideas current at the time' (Eng. tr.-, vol. ii. p. 46). The writer was not, of course, advocat- ing these ideas, but they were employed by him with the necessary modifications for liis own purpose. 0. Pfleiderer still holds to this view (Das Urchris- tentum, Berlin, 18S7, j). 320 f.), although he believes in the genuineness of the letter, and so is compelled to regard the passage as interpolated (ib. p. 153). It was, however, given up by Holsten, and van Manen (EBi, art. ' Philippians [Epistles] ') does not refer to it.
More recently attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the conceptions used in tlie passage to primitive apocalyptic traditions (see W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, Gottingen, 1907) of an apxavSpairos, or Urmensch, pre-existent in the highest heaven, who descended to the lowest, such a view for instance as is given in the Ascensio Isaice, x. 29 f. Isaiah hears God telling His Son to descend into the world, and the stages of this descent through the heavens are given. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we have phrases which readily suggest affinity with Ph 2*''-
(cf. Benj. X. 7 : ' worshipping the king of the heavens who appeared on earth, eV iJ.op(p^ dpOpunrov; Zeb. ix. 8 : ec (rx^/AaT-t avSptiiirov). Tliese, however, are probably borrowed from Christian traditions. It is well known that I'liilo had the conception of an ideal man (rfe Conf. Linrj., ed. Mangey, i. 411), and that there are vague indehnite references in Enoch (Simile), Psalms of Solomon, Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.
Mofl'att quotes (LNT, p. 172) from Poimandres (after Reitzenstein) the description of this Original Man : addvaros ihv Kai trdvTwv rriv t^ovalav ^^^v to. dvy)rod ■jrdax^'- inroKeificfo^ ry elfiapix^vQ- inrepafoi yap uv TJjs dpfjLovias ivapfidvtos y{yovi ooOXos.
Holsten was greatly concerned with the repre- sentation of Christ in Philippians because it contradicted the 'heavenly man' view of Ro 5'^''' and 1 Co 15. But it is clear, on a careful examina- tion of these passages, that what St. Paul has in mind is the contrast between the glorilied pneu- matic body of the Redeemer and the earthly bodies of His j)eople. Holsten is right, however, in maintaining that in Philippians what we have is not a Christ originally man — but a Divine Being, and a Divine Being showing His Divinity in becom- ing man and in the energy of His exalted power. It is extreme!}' doubtful if St. Paul has in his writ- ings at all the conception of a pre-existent man eitlier ideal or actual (see H. A. A. Kennedy, Exp, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 97 11'.). The danger in these re- searches into origins is to conclude that vague hints in popular traditions suggest to St. Paul tlie facts. The facts were prior and creative, causes not etl'ects. They were not suggested by his e.ariy acquaintance with a Rabbinic doctrine of a Heavenly Man.
Whatever the affinities or affiliations with vague traditions may be — whether he has Adam, Lucifer (Is 14'-'"') or an dpxdrdponros in mind is very un- certain ; what is certain is that Christ's life on earth and St. Paul's own e.xperience of His exalted power necessarily suggest to him these transcendent views of His worth (cf. 2 Co 8^ and especially Col.).
The attempts of Baur to find in the yvrjcne avv^uye (4') a mediator of the two extreme parties in early Christianity and the identification of the Clement of our Epistle with Clemens Romanus and T. Flavins Clemens need not be further commented on (see aliove). Objections also to our Epistle on the ground of what Baur calls ' the questionable- ness of some of the historical data' — viz. the refer- ences to the Praetorium and the saints of Caesar's household — are due to an inadequate exegesis, and Baur himself readily admits their credibility were it not for his theory of a conflict of parties in the early Church. Besides, the mention of bishops and deacons (!■) lends no support to the theory of false historical references when one remembers that bishops are just the presbyters found in all churches, and the deacons servants of the Christian community under them. We are not to think of these officers as sacramentally mediating grace, but as spiritually guiding the community. One feels that the objections to such terms are to a large extent exhibitions of annoyance at our own ignorance of 1st cent, conditions, and are largely biased by modern associations.