Is there any external ground for holding to the theory of a double letter ? We have already dis- cussed the evidence in Polycarp (see above), of which so much is made, and have come to the conclusion that nothing definite can be found there to substantiate a double letter. Nor is the com- parison with 2 Co 10-13 wholly convincing. Tliere is nothing a priori improbable in the idea that St. Paul wrote more letters than one to Philippi ; indeed, there is every reason to suppose this to have been the case, yet it goes no way towards proving that we have these communications fused together in our extant Epistle. If this theory can be established, it must lie established on other grounds, and it must satisfy the facts better than the one-letter theory. The chief difficulty is to explain the to, aiird ypatpeiv. Does this refer to the contents of the letter itself, or to some special prominent thought in it? Some find this leading idea to be ' rejoicing.' This is Baur's idea: 'The TO. avTo, ypd<fi€iv refers to nothing but the x^'pff i" Kvpiip, that is, to the contents of the Epistle gener- ally, for the key-note and the leading thought of it are expressed in this constantly recurring xalpcre' (Paid, Eng. tr.^, vol. ii. p. 70). But it cannot be said that this is convincing although it is the most natural thought that one would gather from the words. The idea occurs often in the letter
(Ph l'« 2"- '8- 28 31 44. 10 . _.^lgo 14. 25 O... 29 4!)^ 1,,,^ .jv|,y
should there be special safety in repeating it ?
Others say that the reference is to the dangers of dissensions already present in the Church at Philippi (!-' 2-"') (Lightfoot), and this agrees with the passage following, although the language (6KVT]pbv, a.a<j>a\is) is very strong considering the vagueness of the allusions to these previous dis- sensions. Some critics find the idea referred to in biKaioijvvi), or in raireipofppoirOvTj (so Maurice Jones, Exp, 8th ser., viii. [1914] 471), but both these .sug- gestions are f.ar from self-evident. The idea that perhaps St. Paul was referring to previous written communications accordingly suggests itself, and perhaps satisfies the conditions better, or the similar idea that he was interrupted, and that in the meantime he had received disconcerting news of probable .Jewish aggressiveness in Philippi. It may, however, be explained on subjective grounds. If St. Paul himself was at this point suddenlj- arrested by the experience of Jewish fanaticism towards himself, it might very well occasion this outburst, which is undoubtedly characteristic of the Apostle, although it is difficult to account for tA aiira on such a view.
At any rate there is not here sufficient ground either for eliminating 3' or, what is worse, discredit- ing the unity of the letter itself. This unity is apparent in spite of the admitted difficulty ; and no one has recognized it more clearly than van Manen : ' The epistle as a whole does not present the appearance of patchwork. Bather does it show unity of form : we find a letter with a regular beginning and ending ( !"• 4™"-^) ; a thanksgiving at the outset for the many excellences of the persons
222 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
addressed (!»-"; cf. Ro !«•'», 1 Co 1<"), notwith- standing tlie sharp rebukes tliat are to be adminis- tered later ; personalia ; exhortations relating to the ethical and religious life ; all mingled together yet not without regard to a certain order. Here and there some things may be admitted to interrupt the steady How of the discourse ; 3' or 3"" raises the conjecture of a new beginning; the "things" spoken of here are not ditlerent from those which we meet with elsewhere in other Pauline Epistles — even in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal. There also, just as here, we repeatedly hear a change of tone, and are conscious of what seems to be a change of spirit. Yet even ajiart from this, to lay too great stress upon the spiritual mood which expresses itself in S-**, as contrasted with that of 1'", or, on the whole, of 1-2, would be to forget what we can read in 1"" 2-' and the calm composure shown in 3/.' (EBi iii. 3708). What one has to remember is that in real letters we must expect such sudden changes. A recent editor (J. D. Duft) of Pliny's Letters (bk. vi., London, 1906, Introd. p. xix) says : ' . . . these letters [i.e. Pliny's] are not genuine letters in the sense that they were not written merely for the information or pleasure of the person addressed but mainly with an eye to future publication. If they are compared with genuine letters such as Cicero's the difference is at once apparent. Pliny never repeats himself, never sends news which has to be corrected in a later letter, never betrays a sign of real excitement or depression. He never jumps from one subject to another, and then back again as everyone does in a natural letter to a friend. . . . Few people are so fortunate in their surroundings that their letters to intimate friends contain nothing but praise of the persons mentioned' (cf. Ph 2'-'). If these be the criteria of a real letter, they are all present in this one — repetitions, excitement, depres- sion, jumps from one subject to another, and pos- sibly expectations that were not fulfilled.