Rome early in 59. Hence, in all likelihood, Philippians was written towards the close of the year 61, when matters had taken so favour- able a turn that the Apostle could reasonably expect a speedy release (see Turner’s article, op. cit.). Ror the new chronology see O. Holtz- mann, Ν. T. Zeitgeschichte, Ὁ. 125 ff., Harnack, Chronologie, p. 233 ff.; for the received view, Schirer, fewish People, i., 2, pp. 182-184, and note 38 with exhaustive list of literature, and in Zeitsch. f. τοῖς». Th., Bd. xli., Hft. 1, pp. 21-42. On the whole question of place and date consult Steinmetz, Die zweite rém. Gefangenschaft d. Ap. Paulus, Leipz., 1897, pp. 4-9, and especially Th. Zahn, Eznleit. in d. N. Τ., Bd. I., pp. 380-392, whose arguments appear quite conclusive for placing Phil. after Eph., Col. and Philem.
GENUINENESS. (a) There is no lack of external evidence for this Epistle. References are found to it in Church writers from the earliest times. These begin with Polycarp (πρὸς Φιλ., iii., 10 [Παῦλος]
. ὃς kal ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς), and include the ancient letter from the Christians of Vienne and Lyons (Eusebius, H. £., v., 2), as well as the Fragment of Muratori on the Canon,
(b) The internal testimony is equally convincing. Perhaps no Pauline epistle bears more conclusively the stamp of authenticity. There is an artlessness, a delicacy of feeling, a frank outpouring of the heart which could not be simulated. Like 2 Corinthians, this letter is a mirror of the Apostle’s personal life. It reflects his vary- ing moods at a great crisis in his history. It throbs from first to last with eager emotion. It gives a most vivid picture of Paul’s intimate relations with the Churches which he has founded. The whole composition of the letter is devoid of any artificial plan. The Apostle moves from subject to subject by rapid transitions and un- expected turns of thought. If this Epistle betrays the compiler’s hand, no internal proof of authenticity may be held valid at all, and literary criticism becomes irrelevant. For, in the case before us, every circumstance can be understood from the conditions existing in the life and times of Paul. This is the problem with which criticism has always and alone to deal.
None the less has the genuineness of Philippians been stoutly challenged. Baur was the first to enter the field in his Paulus, Bd. II., p. 50 ff. The objections he raised were: (1) the echo of Gnostic ideas in ch. ii. 6-9, (2) the lack of a genuine Pauline content, (3) the extraordinary nature of some of the historical details. To a sober judgment these difficulties do not exist. The Gnosticism of ch. ii. is the phantasy of a biased imagination. If the content in this Epistle be not Pauline, we may be said to know nothing of the Apostle’s