IS PHILIPPIANS ORGANIZED?

This popular epistle of Paul has caused an unusual amount of confusion among Bible scholars concerning the way in which it is organized. The major concern is due to the unexpected appearance of the word “finally” at 3:1, nowhere near the actual conclusion to the letter. Since the material which follows is more negative in tone than what has preceded, there is the suspicion that another letter of Paul's has been included at this point, or that Paul wrote the letter over several separate time periods. (R.E. Brown, Childs)  Reumann's major commentary on Philippians actually defends the proposal that portions of three different letters were cobbled together in no chronological order to form our current text. He sees no proof from either a literary analysis or rhetorical criticism that would argue for the unity of the letter.

But contrary evidence supporting a unified composition may come from the fact that “believe/belief” appears ten times in the text as do references to practical wisdom with the word group phron- (Tousley and Kallenberg); “Jesus” with an added term such as “christos” occurs exactly 21 times; “in Christ” some fourteen times; “in the Lord (Jesus)” and koinoina seven times; and theos for God and mou 24 times. Such multiples of symbolic numbers appear in other biblical texts as a sign of purposeful intent.

If there is in fact a digression beginning around 3:1, scholars are in disagreement as to where it actually ends (3:19, 3:21, 4:1, 4:3, 4:7 and 4:20 have all been proposed). This last controversy stems, in turn, from another difficulty: the absence of clear markers to delineate the individual sections of the epistle. Melick, for example, notes: “The fabric has few clear seams since firsthand references and bases of appeal occur throughout.” And Ryken states, “The book is nearly impossible to outline.” In spite of this difficulty, a random sampling of ten commentaries showed that at least six agreed on the following verses as starting points of literary divisions within the letter: 1:3, 1:12, 1:27, 2:19, 3:1, 4:1, 4:10 and 4:21.

Finally, Paul's epistles often begin with doctrinal discussions followed by ethical considerations. This is not the case with the present work under consideration. The poet Dana Gioia characterizes the structure Paul employs here as “subjective and digressive,” “confusing” and “conversational.” This pattern of digression may actually provide a major clue as to the letter's organization. Thus, Melick discerns an alternation between the use of indicative verbs in 1:12-26; 2:19-30 and 4:10-15 (sections in which Paul provides information about himself) and the use of imperative verbs in 1:27-2:18 and 3:1-4:9 (exhortations to the church). Craddock formulates the more elaborate pattern shown below involving the above elements plus that of thanksgiving.

    Salutation (1:1-2)

        Thanksgiving (1:3-11)

            Autobiographical Disclosure (1:12-26)

                Exhortations (1:27-2:16)

            Autobiographical Disclosure (2:17-3:1a)

                Exhortations (3:1b-4:9)

        Thanksgiving (4:10-20)

Closing (4:21-23)

Raymond Brown's proposed divisions for this epistle also lend themselves to a roughly chiastic organization.

    Address and thanksgiving (1:1-11)

        Paul's situation (1:12-26)

            Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

                Paul's interest in the Philippians (2:17-3:1a)

                    Warning against false teachers (3:1b-4:1)

            Exhortation (4:2-9)

        Paul's situation (4:10-20)

    Concluding greeting and blessing (4:21-23)

In favor of this latter structure are the following considerations: (a) it places the word “finally” appropriately at the conclusion of the first half of the letter and (b) it provides a purposeful contrast in the center sections between the motives of Paul and coworkers and those of the “evil-workers.”

Reumann reviews several additional (semi-)symmetrical structures for the book, summarized below:

    a. Rolland proposes a chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) structure with 1:1-11 // 4:10-23; 1:12-2:18 // 3:1-4:20; and 2:19-30 as an “interlude.” Pesch further subdivides the first set of parallels into 1:1-2 // 4:19-23 and 1:3-11 // 4:10-18.

    b. Aspen's chiastic structure is similarly flawed in not even including 3:2-4:1 or 4:10-20.

    c. Wick proposes two parallel cycles for the letter, which he supports by examples of similar language in the paired sections. It can be diagrammed as follows:

Prologue (1:1-2)

    A. 1:12-26

        B. 1:27-30

            C. 2:1-4 (+ 5-11)

                D. 2:12-18

                    E. 2:19-30

    A'. 3:1-16

        B'. 3:17-21

            C'. 4:1-3

                D'. 4:4-9

                    E'. 4:10-20

    Postscript (4:21-23)

Note that this organization does not include Philippians 1:3-11 and places the hymn 2:5-11 in an ambiguous position. However, Wick does recognize that there may be parallel as well as mirror-image relations in the letter. Reumann inexplicably labels the hymn the “center” of this proposal.

    d. Luter and Lee propose a thorough-going chiasm for the letter which incorporates all of the present text.

    Opening Greetings (1:1-2)

        A. Prologue (1:3-11)

            B. Comfort/Example (1:12-26)

                C. Challenge (1:27-2:4)

                    D. Example/Action (2:5-16)

                        E. Midpoint (2:17-3:1a)

                    D'. Example/Action (3:1b-21)

                C'. Challenge (4:1-5)

            B'. Comfort/Example (4:6-9)

        A'. Epilogue (4:10-20)

    Closing Greeting (4:21-23)

This attractive proposal has, however, been severely critiqued in the literature for its inadequacy in proving the parallel nature of each pair of sections.

    e. Finally, Davis proposes a somewhat similar structure to that of Luter and Lee in which all the elements relate back to 2:19-30:

    A. 1:1-2

        B. 1:3-26

            C. 1:27-2:18

                D. 2:19-30

            C'. 3:1-4:9

        B'. 4:10-20

    A'. 4:21-23

Parenthetically, Reumann concludes by rejecting all these structural analyses since they “vary and often contradict each other.” However, an alternative method of analysis by assigning classical rhetorical categories to each section of the letter results in even more disagreement among its proponents, as amply demonstrated by the examples he provides in his commentary. This is not surprising, perhaps, in light of evidence cited by Weima showing that the principles of classical rhetoric had little effect on the actual composition of letters in the Greco-Roman world.

My own proposal is a minor variation of Craddock's structure, tweaked so that the section divisions coincide better with the majority consensus and a firmer internal structure for each division results.

Figure 1: Structure of Philippians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:3-11)

III. Paul's situation (1:12-26)

IV. Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

III'. Paul's situation (2:17-3:1a)

IV'. Exhortation (3:1b-21)

II'. Thanksgiving and Prayer (4:1-20)

I'. Conclusion (4:21-23)

Detailed evidence for such a symmetrical arrangement is given in the post “Philippians: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” But even it admits of a possible alternative variation.

Most scholars see the literary unit beginning at 1:27 as ending at either 2:16, 2:18 or 2:30. However, such a division is not universally held (see, for example, the paragraph divisions in RSV). It is possible to consider redrawing the lines so that Section IV concludes at 2:11 and Section III' now consists of 2:12-30. The most compelling reasons for considering such a division are:

(a) It places as the conclusion to Section IV, and the conclusion of the second half of the whole epistle, the glorious hymn of Phil. 2:5-11, which has been the subject of numerous monographs and a book-length commentary by Ralph P. Martin. Even Dana Gioia, who has little good to say elsewhere concerning the style of Paul's letter, praises this passage as being “the spiritual and literary focus” and “the most eloquent and mysterious part of Paul's epistle.”

(b) It causes Section III' to now begin with the common opening address “beloved” (also found at the start of II').

(c) It repositions all six appearances of “glory” to the end of major sections II, II', IV and IV'.d) 

(d) Although Craddock opts for the traditional limits to Section IV, he sees close ties between parts of ch. 1 and 2:1-11, but not the subsequent verses.

So, in conclusion, the question with which I started should probably have been reworded as “Which of the many proposed organizations of Philippians is the correct one?” rather than “Is Philippians organized?”