Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:39:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Yuri Kuchinsky 
To: Corpus-paul
Subject: Philippians, Munro, and Loisy

Esteemed Corpus-Paul list members,

I have been following discussions on this list on and off for some time,
but recently I noticed that a subject I'm quite interested in had been
brought up for discussion. So here's my contribution to the discussion of
the Philippians. 

Also I've seen a query recently about the late Winsome Munro and her
excellent book,

Munro, Winsome. _Authority in Paul and Peter_: The Identification of a
   Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and in 1 Peter. Society for
   New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Edited by R. McL. Wilson and
   Margaret E. Thrall. Vol. 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

In her book, Munro clarifies methodological issues for identifying
interpolations in the Pauline letters, of which there are great many
according to her. She also analyses the socio-historical context in which
these interpolations would have been made.

In her work, Munro follows up on the research of the great French biblical
scholar Alfred Loisy. She's one of the very few modern scholars who are
aware of his extensive work on the Pauline corpus. Here is his most
extensive work on the subject,

LOISY, ALFRED, Remarques sur la litte'rature e'pistolaire du
     Nouveau Testament. Paris 1935. 

A short treatment in English can be found here,

LOISY, ALFRED The origins of the New Testament. Translated by
     L.P. Jacks. London 1950. 

And here's some more useful bibliography,

Winsome Munro, "Interpolation in the Epistles: Weighing Probability,"
NTS 36 (1990), 431-443:443.

William O. Walker, Jr., "The Burden of Proof in Identifying
Interpolations in the Pauline Letters," NTS 33 (1987), 610-618:615.

And here's a very good article available online about this subject,

Darrell Doughty: _Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity_, in the THE

About Winsome Munro, her life and work (includes bibliography),

And now, about the Philippians specifically. This message is based on the
one posted previously to Crosstalk-l (the old Crosstalk). I have revised
it a little.

25 Mar 1999
Subject: Philippians reconstructed
From: y.kuchinsky

According to Alfred Loisy, Phil consists of two short authentic letters of
Paul, plus a lot of later gnostic and other stuff added to them. But the
letters were transposed, and the earlier one was placed later in Phil. I
call them letters A and B in the following.

(Also some recent scholarship proposes that three letters are included in
Phil, which sort of amounts to the same thing, except that the third
letter is thought to begin at 3:2, where there seems to be a break, and an
abrupt change of tone, and to continue up to 3:21 [or perhaps including
later passages as well, although I doubt it]. Loisy thinks this passage
3:2-21 directed against "false teachers" secondary, so in a manner of
speaking it _is_ a "third letter", but non-authentic.) 

What seems to give away the reversal of the two letters, is the mention of
Epaphroditus twice, first in 2:25, and then 4:18. But in 4:18 he has just
brought some money to Paul, who is apparently imprisoned in Rome. And in
2:25 he's already getting ready to depart, after a very serious and
presumably long illness while being with Paul. So the letter A (4:10-22)
seems to be a short thank-you note from Paul upon the receipt of the gifts
sent by the Philippians. And the letter B (starting at 1:1) would have
been sent considerably later. It seems somewhat more somber than the
first, and one can guess that Paul's spirits flagged somewhat, which would
be natural considering the circumstances.

It seems rather clear to me that the two letters were written by Paul from
the Roman prison. I don't see any need to place this imprisonment in
Ephesus, or elsewhere. 

Also, in the next two messages, I will add some more re Phil from the past
Crosstalk discussions, and I will post my reconstruction of the original
parts written by Paul.

Best regards,

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
                                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian                  

Click here to go one level up in the directory.