The objections on the score of doctrinal diver- gences from the Hauptbriefe are forcibly set forth by Holsten (as also by Baur) and van Manen. It is said that the Epistle is vague and nebulous, that it lacks any leading idea, that it is characterized by monotonous repetition, by lack of profound connexion of ideas, and by poverty of thought, of which the author himself is conscious when he writes 3'. St. Paul is said here also to show a desire for self-glorification (3^"") ; his acknowledgment of the PhUippians' gift is lacking in grace ; his acceptance of it is contrary to his statement in
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 221
1 Co 9'-''- ; he sliows uncerfaiiit-y as to liis future, even expressing doubt as to liis participation in the resurrection (3"). His views of justification, perfection, and the Parousia are not wliat we would expect from tlie genuine St. I'aul. He imitates freely and skilfully, esjiecially 2 Cor. and Rom. ; but, like all imitators, wrongly (cf. his use of iTTixoprjyia. Tou Tlvev/xaro^ 'IiycroD XfjiffroD, Ph 1^"). His attitude of rejoicing in the preaching of those who preach Christ in pretence is wholly unlike the real St. Paul. Holsten collects words used which are unPauline and anti-Pauline as well as non- Pauline. Tlie autobiograpliical section is based on
2 Co ll""'-. In short, whatever agrees with the Hauptbriefe is imitated, and whatever does not is invented. This kind of criticism looks too much like the story of the wolf and the lamb to carry conviction save by opposition. Let any one read van Manen's column (EBi iii. 3709) as to the views of the writer of Philippians concerning Christ, arranged by the critic to convince us that tliey could not have been held by St. Paul, and one feels at once that if these were not St. Paul's views we simply know not what they were.
Van Rlanen feels it necessary to defend the writer from the charge of fraudulency, declaring that he wrote more from modesty than from arrogance. His very defence shows the uneasiness of his conscience. There are ditficulties in the Epistle to the Philippians, but thej' are not difficulties like the above. One of these — perhaps the most serious— is the change of tone in S'"-; and the uns.atisfactoriness of the various attempts to explain the ypdipeiv to. aura, reveals the difficulty and has given rise to various theories as to the integrity of the letter itself — all more or less motived by this so-called chasm. Many feel as if here two distinct strata appear ; and, although it is not possible to say definitely where the second ends, it is, they say, clear that it begins here. This leads us to consider various theories regarding the integrity of the letter.
S. Integrity. — Various attempts since Heinrichs (1810) and Paulus (1799) have been made to find in our Epistle two or more letters fused together. The suggestion was first put forward in 1685 by S. le Moyne (Moine or Mayne), in Varia Sacra, ii. 332 ff., and it is the view (in varying forms) favoured still by many critics (cf. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul, London, 1905, p. 367 f. ; and Kirsopp Lake, Exp, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 487 f.). There is, however, little unanimity as to what portions make up the different letters, or, indeed, how many letters are incorporated in the single canonical Epistle (J. E. Symes, Interpreter, x. 2 [1914] gives five). The view of Heinrichs is that 3'-4'^ is an interpolated communication addressed to the leaders of the Philippian Church, and that l'-2*, 4-''-' was a letter to the church as a whole. It is difficult to reconcile this view witli 4'° where the whole church is addressed and where the tone of rejoicing is again heard. Accordingly, Kirsopp Lake adopts the theorj' that the inter- polated letter stops at 4'. Both are genuinely Pauline letters. A simpler view is that we have two letters, chs. 1 and 2 forming the first (but in time the second), and 3 and 4 forming the second — in point of time the first (Hausrath, Paulus, Heidelberg, 1865, p. 486 ff. ; cf. also Bacon, op. cit. It may be objected to this view that neither of these sections is a complete letter in itself, and also that we have no clear mention of their gift in the first one save the allusion in 2^, for although the Apostle speaks of their ' fellowship ' yet this is too indefinite in itself to be a thanksgiving for their contribution. Besides, it is doubtful if it really explains anything, although it creates fresh diffi- culties. It is meant to free us of 3"'-, as indeed all
such theories are, but with little success. It is surely not necessary to see any contradiction in what is said in 2'-' regarding the brethren with St. Paiil and wliat is said in i", nor to equate those spoken of in cli. 3 with those referred to in 1"* (so al.so Moflatt, LNT, p. 175). The view elaborated by D. Viiltcr (Thcol. Tijdschrift, 1892, pn. 10-14, 117-146) and others as to various interjiolations is also due to a large extent to the difficulty of ex- plaining the TO. avrd of eh. 3 and its different tone, as is also Ewald's view ihat St. Paul wrote first chs. 1 and 2, and then after an interrniition the remainder, possibly in two postscrijits. This is in itself quite conceivable and less violent than the other theories of a similar kind.