Der Philipperbrief des Paulus
Text2.2. How history-writing “manipulates” letter-writing
In his portrait of Seneca, Tacitus does not seem to be interested in mentioning the philosopher as a literary author (but see ann 12.8.2). In fact, the historian never characterizes Seneca as a letter-writer.1 However, Ker shows how Tacitus, within and even beyond depicting Seneca in his historiographical writings, “appropriated many words, phrases, colors, and thoughts from the writings of Seneca … Tacitus makes intertextual allusions to Seneca that are not robotic but creative, integrating Seneca’s language and thought into his own work” (p. 314). Such a literary principle of an imitative remodeling is reflected by Seneca himself (ep mor 84.5Senecaep mor84,5). How does Tacitus make sense of it? In various Tacitean writings, for instance, ep mor 70Senecaep mor70 is echoed and remodeled (see ann 15Tacitusann15.57Tacitusann15,57 and ep mor 70.19ff.Senecaep mor70,19ff.; ann 15.61f.Tacitusann15,61f. and ep mor 70.5, 27Senecaep mor70,27Senecaep mor70,5) without being mentioned as such. Ker even goes so far as to claim that “Tacitus infuses his Senecan episodes with the complexity of Seneca’s writing, both as a stylistic and conceptual reservoir and as a form of communication that served as a component of the historical Seneca’s actions” (p. 316). Ep mor 70Senecaep mor70, which reflects the “different factors influencing one’s deliberation about suicide” (J. Ker, p. 324), certainly becomes important for how Tacitus depicts the report of Seneca’s exitus (ann 15.61f.Tacitusann15,61f.; ep mor 70.5Senecaep mor70,5, 27Senecaep mor27). In ann 15.62.1, it is not only Seneca’s literary work as such but rather his “life and … the lessons of his writings” that Tacitus alludes to as an exemplar (J. Ker, p. 324).
Moreover, Tacitus provides a variety of allusions to Seneca’s writing without quoting them or making them explicitly visible to his readers. One reason for this must be that Tacitus does not want to quote literary works2 since he considers them to be already known to the public. In ann 15Tacitusann15.63.3Tacitusann15,63,3 Tacitus explains this very phenomenon to his readers: instead of reciting the ultimate discourse Seneca dictates to his secretaries shortly before his death, Tacitus refrains “from modifying” since it “has been given to the public in his own words” (… in vulgus edita eius verbis invertere supersedeo).3
As indicated earlier, Luke alludes several times to Pauline letters in and beyond Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff. We could even see in the very end of Acts, in 28:3105Apg28,31 (παρρησία) an echo of Paul’s language used in Philippians (Phil 1:20; but also: 2 Cor 3:12082 Kor03,12; 7:4). In terms of semantics and specific motifs, Paul’s letter to the Philippians stands clear behind Acts 20:18ff. By not quoting the letter, and by not mentioning it explicitly, Luke does not only leave out valuable information – something different, “manipulative” is going on when letters are reproduced in the frame of history-writing: first, Luke would presuppose the Pauline letters to have reached public status. They are disseminated already and cannot be reproduced as “letters,” but rather within speeches. Second, letters in history-writing, best described as “insertion letters,” per se have a different function: they are either fictitious texts, or they are used (or rephrased) for documentary purpose (e.g., Acts 15:2305Apg15,23b-29; Tacitus, ann 14.11Tacitusann14,11).4 In other words: it is the ancient culture of literary activity as such which prevents Luke (and Tacitus) from documenting “real literary” letters and inserting them into history-writing. However, to ignore Paul as letter-writer also has consequences for how Luke reproduces Paul: third, since Luke consciously wants to reshape the image of the apostle, he remodels the “epistolary Paul” as “free speaking Paul.” While the apostle in his letter to the Philippians says farewellAbschiedsrede(n) to a Macedonian community by epistolary means, indeed as a prisoner, the Lukan Paul gives a speech in Asia Minor. He speaks as a free man and, only in Acts, is Paul able to present his “apostolic” selfSelbst, self, selfhood-understanding to a community delegation of Christ-believers. It is hardly accidental then that only in Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. can Paul do what he normally does in his letters: address Christ-believing communities.
By tremendously re-shaping the image of Paul, Luke himself chooses how much and what kind of Pauline thinking he wants to preserve and to carry forward. At the same time, Luke’s compositional technique cannot simply be seen as contingent or arbitrary. It seems to me that – as stated above – to Luke three principles are decisive when composing (especially the speeches in) Acts: Luke’s image of Paul is based on (a) eyewitness reports, (b) contemporary, evaluative images of the apostle which Luke shares with his audience(s), and (c) Paul’s letter-writing as such. In a conceptual sense then, what Luke does with Paul is not so different to the way Tacitus “manipulates” the image of Seneca as a literary author.
3. Some conclusions for the interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Philippians
Acts 2005Apg20 and Paul’s letter to the Philippians share a lot of semantics and motifs. Luke probably used Philippians when composing the farewellAbschiedsrede(n) speech in ch. 20. Could, however, Luke’s reception of Philippians also illuminate our understanding of the letter – could the phenomenon of intertextuality lead to mutual illuminations of both texts (without necessarily playing themselves out in a kind of a circular argument)? Luke’s supposed reception of Philippians can reveal some intriguing insights, not only into Luke’s compositional technique but also into the early history of reading and interpreting Philippians. Let me conclude with some brief reflections.
(a) As pointed out earlier, Luke does not and cannot see himself limited to sources such as Paul’s letters, for instance the letter to the Philippians, when composing a speech or a farewellAbschiedsrede(n) scene. He has to consider other sources of information as well (s. above). His interpretive task is to combine and reconcile diverse, partly divergent types of sources and to satisfy his reading audience. This view on Luke might shed interesting light on the (authoritative) status of Pauline epistolography (Philippians included) in the end of the 1st century.
(b) In light of Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff., Paul’s letter to the Philippians seems to be perceived by Luke as a farewellAbschiedsrede(n) discourse since the historian draws on it to a remarkable extent. The debate about Philippians’s literary genre and rhetorical purpose (see J. ReumannReumann, John) might be enriched by comparing Philippians to Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. and by observing how the letter was read and interpreted by Luke.
(c) Having said this, we will also have to make crucial distinctions between both texts. Even though Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff. and Philippians are close in terms of semantics and motifs, and even though both texts might share conceptual features of ancient farewellAbschiedsrede(n) discourse literature, significant differences come to light: first, Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. contains a farewell speech, which is pretty close to farewell discourses which we know from the Jewish world (s. above), while Philippians entails consoling motifs also, which rather derive from consoling literature of the Greco-Roman world.1 Second, Luke’s overall purpose of presenting Paul in ch. 20 is apologetic; in his letter-writing to the Philippians, in contrast, Paul intends to implement mimetic ethics. Third, while the epistolary setting has an ethical purpose in Philippians, it widely serves an apologetic purpose in Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. Luke transforms the ethical teacher Paul, whom he finds in Philippians, and Paul’s legacy therein, into the paradigm of a Christ-believing witness who practices apologiaἀπολογία, apologia.ἀπολογία, apologiaSelbst, self, selfhood2 As such a paradigm of an “apologist,” the Lukan Paul finally appears as a moral example: accordingly, the reader might understand in a new way, and indeed different to Phil 2:3, what ταπεινοφροσύνη and παρρησία are about.
(d) In his perception of Philippians, Luke sees himself no longer bound to address any specific congregation: In Acts 2005Apg20 he rather remodels early Christian topography in a quite complex way (MacedoniaMakedonien/Macedonia, EphesusEphesus, MiletusMilet(us)). Luke is obviously less interested in documenting or recording precisely any (written) communication of Paul with particular communities in Asia Minor or Macedonia. Rather, the historian wants to show Paul according to Luke’s own geographical concept: as an orator to the public who will be an ultimate martyr; only because he is forced to selfSelbst, self, selfhood-defense, he will reach Rome and thus finally complete the global missionary strategy.
(e) The book of Acts as a whole and Paul’s letter to the Philippians share a certain affiliation to the city of Rome: in Acts, Luke sends his most prestigious figure – Paul – finally to the caput mundi; in Philippians Paul seems to be in Roman captivity (Phil 1:12ff.; 4:22). How is “Rome” anticipated in both texts? To Luke, Rome is a place of expectation and hope. Here, Paul – a Roman citizen – might receive fair treatment; here, Paul can preach the βασιλεία even in παρρησία and without any hindrance (in contrast to all the obstacles he had to face in his earlier career, especially in Asia Minor). To Paul the letter-writer, the city of Rome – even though it is not explicitly mentioned in Philippians – is a place where a final decision will be made about his personal fortune. As a prisoner the apostle anticipates his sentence of death.
In that Luke transforms, reproduces, or “manipulates” Paul’s letter to the Philippians in Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff. – a letter being written amidst Paul’s anticipation of his impending death – into a proleptic announcement of his pending leave, the historian finally also crucially remodels the image of Rome and the nature of Paul’s farewellAbschiedsrede(n): first, instead of becoming an estimated place of death in the near future (as indicated in Philippians), Rome is seen by Luke as a promising, if not successful center of coming preaching activities. Second, while Paul in Philippians shapes in effectu a kind of ultima verba which he uses for the purpose of ethical instruction, Luke makes Paul’s farewell in Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. to be a topographical incident: indeed, Paul’s farewell is about his leave from known areas to unknown places like Rome, where the goal of finally “witnessing” globally (e.g., Acts 23:1105Apg23,11; see 1:805Apg01,8; 9:15-1605Apg09,15-16) is reached.
Bibliography
E.-M. Becker, Der Begriff der DemutDemut bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).
E.-M. Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie (WUNT 194; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
E.-M. Becker, The Birth of Christian History. Memory and Time from Mark to Luke Acts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017).
D. R. Blackman/G. G. Betts (ed.), Concordantia Tacitea/A Concordance to Tacitus. Vol. I A-K (Hildesheim etc.: Olms-Weidmann, 1986).
D. R. Blackman/G. G. Betts (ed.), Concordantia Tacitea/A Concordance to Tacitus. Vol. II K-Z (Hildesheim etc.: Olms-Weidmann, 1986).
R. Buitenwerf, “Acts 9:1-25. Narrative History Based on the Letters of Paul,” in: Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity. Studies in Honour of H. J. de Jonge (ed. idem et al.; NT.S 130; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 61-88.
C. Englhofer, “Ultima verbaUltima verba,” in: BPN (2006) (online).
B. Heininger, “The Reception of Paul in the First Century. The Deutero- and Trito-Pauline Letters and the Image of Paul in Acts,” in: Paul. Life, Settings, Work, Letters (ed. O. WischmeyerWischmeyer, Oda; London/New York: Continuum, 2012), 309-338.
C. R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary (Louisville: John Knox, 2016).
J. Ker, “Seneca in Tacitus,” in: A Companion to Tacitus (ed. V. E. Pagán; Malden etc.: Blackwell, 2012), 305-329.
N. Lüke, Über die narrative Koärenz zwischen Apostelgeschichte und Paulusbriefen (TANZ 62; Tübingen: Francke, 2019).
D. Marguerat, “Paul after Paul: A (Hi)story of Reception,“ in: idem, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters (WUNT 310; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1-21.
F. A. Marx, “Tacitus und die Literatur der exitus illustrium virorum,“ in: Ph. 92 (1937), 83-103.
G. L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation. The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature (NT.S 117; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005).
R. I. Pervo, Acts. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009).
R. I. Pervo, The Acts of Paul. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2014).
M. Theobald, “AbschiedsredeAbschiedsrede(n)Abschiedsrede(n),” in: RGG4 1 (1998), 79.
J. Tresch, Die Nerobücher in den Annalen des Tacitus. Tradition und Leistung (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1965).
B. L. White, Remembering Paul. Ancient and modern contests over the image of the Apostle (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).
II Philip MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s reading of Paul’s letter to the Philippians and contemporary exegesis*
1. The quest
Since the 1960/70s, widely initiated by Krister Stendahl’s (1921-2008) deconstruction of the “introspective Self,”Melanchthon, Philip(p)1 the so-called “New PerspectiveNew Perspective on Paul” (NPP) has formulated a strong critique on a Pauline exegesis dominated by Lutheran hermeneutics.2 By Lutheran hermeneutics we generally mean a specific Lutheran readingLutheran reading by which certain theologoumena of reformatory theology are taken as an interpretative frame for reading Paul’s letters and understanding Pauline anthropological thinking.Selbst, self, selfhood3
With its strong focus on terms like πίστις, νόμος, and δικαιοσύνη, Paul’s letter to the Romans was and still is the focus of NPP- and “Radical New PerspectiveRadical New PerspectiveNew Perspective” (RNP)-debates.4 Paul’s letter to the Philippians, by contrast, never really was in the frontline of these discussions. However, when it comes to the interpretation of Paul’s autobiographical narrative in Phil 3:4bff., the question about how to analyze the genitive Χριστοῦ in 3:9 (… διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ) – whether it is an objective or a subjective genitiveHolloway, Paul A.5 – in fact reflects some hermeneutical issues implied in the (Lutheran) justification-concept as uncovered by the NPP.
In many ways, Paul’s letter to the Philippians is an interesting test case for the study of reformatory exegesis: The topics of “law,” “faith” and “circumcision” appear most prominently in Phil 3. Likewise, Paul’s polemics against those who practice “mutilation” (3:2) is of constant interest for studying Philippians in light of the NPP or RNP.6 So far, however, the role of Paul’s letter to the Philippians for reformatory theology has not been studied systematically.7 This applies despite the fact that reformatory exegesis has – based on Pauline exegesis – produced fresh ideas about Paul and his life course as the discussion about the interpretation of Phil 4:3 most impressively shows.Clemensstrom3.448BWeiß, Bernhard071 Kor07071 Kor07,88
In this contribution, I shall provide some observations on Philip MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s approach to Philippians. Beside a rather “Lutheran”-inspired reference to Philippians in his Loci Communes (see 2.), Melanchthon shows multiple hermeneutical interests when reading and interpreting Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Melanchthon’s multi-faceted interest in Philippians becomes evident especially in his “Oratio in funere reverendi viri D. Martini Lutheri” from 1546 (see 3.).
2. MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s interpretation of Philippians in the Loci Communes (1521)
Protestant theology in the first half of the 16th century emerged in a specific historical context, where its theological pragmatics (justification of the believer) and hermeneutical principles (“Schriftprinzip”) had socio-political relevance (critical attitude towards religious authorities).Melanchthon, Philip(p)1 In this context, the theologoumenon of justification played an important role. Gerhard EbelingEbeling, Gerhard once has pointed out that LutherLuther, Martin’s idea on the justification sola fide cannot be seen as an
arbitrary preference of a favorite teaching …, but rather as a declaration of what the inner structure of all theological assertions are about.Ebeling, GerhardRechtfertigungLuther, Martin2
EbelingEbeling, Gerhard’s statement, however, also implies that biblical theology and Pauline exegesis in particular is the material center of Lutheran hermeneutics. In a similar way and inspired by LutherLuther, Martin’s hermeneutics,Melanchthon, Philip(p)3 MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) makes use of the theologoumenon of justification. His interpretation of Paul’s letter-writing is widely informed by a Lutheran theological hermeneutics.
2.1. MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s approach to Philippians in the Loci
MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s approach becomes evident in his most prominent writing, his “Hauptwerk,”Melanchthon, Philip(p)1 which at the same time is commonly known as the first “protestant dogmatic”: the Loci Communes (1521). Melanchthon formulates one of the central theological statements already in the introduction (0.13):
Nam ex his (= vis peccati, lex, gratia [0.12]) proprie Christus cognoscitur, siquidem hoc est Christum cognoscere beneficia eius cognoscere, non, quod isti docent, eius naturas, modos incarnationis contueri.Melanchthon, Philip(p)2
In his comment to this Locus, Horst Georg Pöhlmann emphasizes how MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) partly has based this thesis of protestant theology on his reading of Paul (see “Declamatiuncula in Divi Pauli Doctrinam”, 1520). Melanchthon partly refers to LutherLuther, Martin’s “Heidelberger Disputation” (1518) and Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521).Melanchthon, Philip(p)3 How can we best describe the potential of “protestant” – or, more specifically: Lutheran – hermeneutics as articulated here?
There are two hermeneutical insights implied in MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s proposition – one is critical or analytical, the other one is constructive:Melanchthon, Philip(p)JerusalemLuther, Martin4 The critical or analytical dimension leads to a substantial deconstruction of a theologia gloriae, as represented by Scholastic theologians like Thomas of AquinasMelanchthon, Philip(p)5 (… non, quod isti docent, eius naturas, modos incarnationis contueri). It leads, at the same time, to a disclosure of what beneficium actually contradicts (vis peccati, lex, gratia, 0.12).
In a constructive sense, MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) shows how the perception of Christ is defined (… hoc est Christum cognoscere beneficia eius cognoscere …) and what “beneficium” ex positivo means and presupposes (vis peccati, lex, gratia). The “constructive potential” of Melanchthon’s theological proposition becomes most evident in the way in which he later on in the Loci explicitly refers to Paul and his letter to the Philippians (7.34; 7.90f.):
(a) In 7.33f., MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) discusses the fact that justification is not yet reached completely. He refers to LutherLuther, Martin as well as to Augustine, Cyprian and Paul (RomRom 7:23; 12:2). Melanchthon claims: “… quatenus credimus, liberi sumus, quatenus diffidimus, sub lege sumus.”Melanchthon, Philip(p)6 In that context, he adds a reference – not a direct quotation7 – to Phil 3:12 in order to show that Paul himself was conscious about the continuous need of aiming for “perfection.” I cannot discuss here in detail how Melanchthon interprets the meaning of “law.” More importantly, the basic idea here is to shape in a noetic sense an “Existenzbeschreibung” that follows up the distinction between credimus = liberi sumus, and diffidimus = sub lege sumus.
In other words, MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) develops a type of a Christ-believing Existenzbeschreibung in which the “law” has a constitutive function for the believer’s selfSelbst, self, selfhood-understanding. From this point of view, Melanchthon also approaches Phil 3:12 – a text that can be read differently from a modern exegetical perspective. When Paul talks about his imperfection in Phil 3, he points to his eschatological hope (Phil 3:14) as well as to his current personal situation: the biographical context in prison (Phil 1:7 etc.). Paul does not necessarily develop an anthropological statement but rather reaches an interpretation of his personal fortune, which might be of relevance for his “imitators” (see Phil 3:17) who are like himself emulators of Christ.
(b) Another example of how MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) approaches Philippians via the hermeneutical key of iustitia ex lege, can be found in his interpretation of Phil 3:8f. The Pauline passage is still framed by Paul’s autobiographical narratio (Phil 3:4bff.). Herein, it refers to Paul’s selfSelbst, self, selfhood-understanding as a personal example to his readers. In his interpretation of that passage in the Loci (7.90f.), however, Melanchthon reads the Pauline statement in light of the theologoumenon of the iustitia ex deo est (per fidem est Christi). We, thus, get the impression that Melanchthon, again, narrows Paul’s thinking, such as in his letter to the Philippians, in that he makes it first of all to be a contribution to the theological discourse about iustitia and lex.
Is MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s approach to Phil 3 legitimate in terms of hermeneutics? In a motific sense it is: In Phil 3:9 Paul talks about πίστις, νόμος, and δικαιοσύνη. However, in the argumentative frame of Phil 3 it becomes evident that the theologoumenon of justification does not really stand in the center of the Pauline argument but only supports Paul’s conceptualization of his own personal exemplumexemplum that he provides for his readers. In his interpretation of Phil 3 in the Loci Melanchthon thus narrows or even misconceives Paul’s crucial argument of apostolic selfSelbst, self, selfhood-reflection.
I shall add here a philological remark to Phil 3:9, where MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) quotes the Pauline text, while he only alludes to it in the cases of Phil 3:8 and 3:12 (see above). In the case of Phil 3:9 the Pauline text obviously is of specific theological importance. It seems as if Melanchthon does not have the Vulgata-text in mind but that he himself translates the Greek text: Melanchthon’s Latin text is much closer to the Greek than contemporary Latin translations, especially when it comes to the complicated interpretation of the prepositions that are used here:
The Vulgata-text says: … sed illam quae ex fide est Christi quae ex Deo est iustitia in fide.
The Greek text, however, says: … ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει – a phrase that is much better expressed in MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p)’s translation in his Loci: … sed eam, quae per fidem est Christi, quae iustitia ex deo estMelanchthon, Philip(p)8 – per fidem equals διὰ πίστεως.
The art of Greek philology finally leads MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philip(p) to a significant concept of “faith”: Melanchthon’s translation – even though it might reflect reformatory theology here – is much more than the Vulgata-tradition close to the Pauline Greek in a philological sense. Melanchthon’s expertise as a Greek philologist is an important contribution to the reformatory movement since it attests to the reformatory movement in humanism.Melanchthon, Philip(p)9