Abstract
Nina Nikka commences this study with the striking observation that while Paul’s Letter to the Philippians conveys a sense of being a warm and friendly piece of correspondence, simultaneously it contains ‘some of his most belligerent polemic’ (p. 3). Having recognised the occurrence of polemic passages in Philippians at various points this study seeks ‘to examine polemical passages in Philippians from the three interrelated viewpoints of history, identity construction, and rhetoric’ (p. 26). To achieve its goal, the volume is divided into five parts—although only four parts are listed in the table of contents, the discussion of contents in the introduction describes ‘Part 5: Conclusions’ (p. 8).
Part two comprises two chapters dealing with matters of methodology and outlining some contextual considerations. In terms of methods, Syreeni’s ‘three-world model’ is utilised in order to provide an overt recognition of keeping all three aspects in focus in order to better critically evaluate the historical and symbolic spheres behind the text. In terms of assessing the rhetoric of the textual polemics a mirror reading approach informed by the insights of Barclay and Sumney is adopted. Lastly, a social identity approach (SIA) is utilised to ‘make visible the symbolic world between the textual and historical worlds’ (p. 47). The contextual chapter outlines various issues pertaining to Philippians such as the status of Jews and Christ-believers in the Roman empire, tradition discussions of date, location and unity of the letter, and the history and contemporary setting of the Philippian church (pp. 65–89).
Part three also functions as a preliminary discussion, tracing Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem community prior to the writing of Philippians. It is suggested that by the time of his last visit to Jerusalem, “Paul’s hopes and plans, however, failed’ (p. 131). Moreover, it is argued that Paul’s collection had been rejected, that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem held strong reservations in regard to Paul, and there ensued ‘a rift between Paul and the Jerusalem community at this point in history’ (p. 133). This historical understanding forms the background to the analysis if the polemical passages in Philippians.
Chapters five to eight (part four) form the heart of the argument, treating the polemical passages in detail. It is argued that the same group of opponents is in view throughout the letter. Moreover that ‘the opponents should be identified as the same Jewish Christ-believers as in the beginning of Phil 3’ (p. 235). Interestingly it is argued that the apparent charges of libertinism at the end of Phil 3 is not designating a separate group accused of actions typically associated with gentiles. Rather, this is reflective of standard ancient polemic where ‘any kind of enemies could be accused of licentiousness with little worry about the historical accuracy of the claims’ (p. 235).
The contribution of this study is to present a portrait of Paul that sees him frequently in conflict with the Jerusalem community and on poor terms with Jewish believers in Christ. Paul employs polemical rhetoric to help Philippians believers to form and maintain their identity in accord with Pauline understandings of being a believer in Christ, and without influence or input from his Jerusalem-based opponents. This volume offers a rich contribution to the ongoing scholarly discussion of Paul’s perennially fascinating letter to the nascent Christ-believing community in Philippi.