The Literary Integrity and Purpose(s) of Philippians

The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters

The literary integrity of Philippians is suspect. Many scholars, according to Stanley Porter, claim that Paul’s letter to the Philippians was not originally a single letter, but instead, a composite of several letters or smaller works were redacted or compiled into one letter.^[1] The reasons for the assertion that the book lacks literary integrity are numerous. For example, Porter explains that the abrupt change in tone that occurs in Philippians 3:2 may signify disunity, the term “finally” in Philippians 3:1 and 4:8 may indicate a division in the letter, and the travel plans in Philippians 2:19-24 that normally terminate a letter may suggest a break.^[2] Although Porter recognizes the ambiguity of discourse analysis, he also tentatively acknowledges its potential benefits in analyzing the literary unity of Philippians.^[3]

David Black’s journal article, The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics, specifically addresses the literary integrity of Philippians using discourse analysis. Black argues that “Philippians is an integral composition whose primary rhetorical function is deliberative, that is, the bulk of the letter is directed toward solving the issue of disunity.”^[4] Simply stated, deliberative rhetoric is an attempt to persuade listeners to act. In the case of Philippians, Black asserts that the main thematic initiative or overarching framework is summarized in Philippians 4:2-3, which focuses on living in harmony for the cause of the furthering the gospel. Finally, Porter assists in defining discourse analysis by explaining that it focuses on the text’s cohesiveness to analyze the overall literary structure and illuminate certain key ideas.^[5]

Black proceeds to engage in discourse analysis in an attempt to prove his thesis with regard to the book of Philippians. Specifically, he focuses on the macrostructures of the letter that bind the work, and then he assesses whether the microstructures fit.^[6] The practical step in performing discourse analysis is to identify the functions of the language in order to locate the macro thread that keeps the work intact. Accordingly, Black provides a rather detailed outline of the functions of the text. For example, Black identifies certain aspects of the letter as functioning as warnings, while others function as exhortations.^[7] Black’s analysis of the functions then suggests that Paul develops his argument in two parts using deliberative rhetoric to convey opposing rhetorical categories: persuasion and dissuasion.^[8] Ultimately, Black concludes that the interlocking macro-theme in the book of Philippians is the concept of unity as exemplified by his analysis of the book’s macrostructure.^[9]

Personally, I find Black’s argument unconvincing. To be clear, I do not think Black’s argument is unreasonable. It is possible that the macrostructure of the letter revolves around the theme of unity; however, it seems the eclectic nature of the book could also point the interpreter to other potential macrostructures built upon different thematic initiatives such as joy, humility, and mindset. For example, maybe it is the Christian’s mindset or the believer’s humility that ultimately coheres the message of unity; maybe one of these themes represents Paul’s ultimate point. In other words, I am not suggesting that Philippians lacks literary integrity, but instead, I am suggesting that I am not convinced that unity provides the cohesive glue as other reasonable alternatives exist.

In sum, I agree with Porter that discourse analysis is potentially valuable but  often ambiguous because, although the tools do provide “criteria for judging integrity…the criteria themselves do not establish integrity; this must be established on other grounds.”^[10] Accordingly, I am reticent to feel the necessity to identify any one purpose of the book of Philippians just as other books, such as Romans, do not absolutely require one and only one purpose. Less formally, I have never had a recipient of one of my letters or emails require that  they understand the macrostructure of the correspondence or my overarching thematic initiative for an understanding of various points to be understood. I recognize that the analogy has significant limitations, and I have been reminded that my emails obviously have not and will not be canonized. However, Paul had multiple purposes for writing to his friends and, although the eclectic nature of the letter in no way requires suspicion regarding literary integrity, I humbly (and may have to joyfully) admit that the major or most prominent purpose currently alludes my mindset.

________________________________________

[1] Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016), 334.

[2] Ibid., 336–37.

[3] Ibid., 340.

[4] David Alan Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics,” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1 (1995): 16.

[5] Porter, The Apostle Paul, 340.

[6] Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians,” 22.

[7] Ibid., 43–44.

[8] Ibid., 44–46.

[9] Ibid., 44.

[10] Porter, The Apostle Paul, 340.

Bibliography

• Black, David Alan. “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics.” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1 (1995): 16–49.
• Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016.