Abstract
Holloway’s introduction treats key general matters including historical background and context, literary integrity, and genre. Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Holloway’s approach to Philippians is his interpretation of this text as a letter of consolation. He starts with an extended discussion of Greek and Roman perspectives on consolation. While many people today tend to associate “consolation” exclusively with sympathy, Holloway notes that Greeks and Romans would include in “consolation” items such as discourses and arguments against grief and additional practical advice; thus, the “goal of consolation was to defeat grief . . . and replace it with its contrary, joy” (p. 2). He further reflects on the theme of consolation in Jewish culture, examining relevant material from wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic Jewish traditions. Especially with respect to the latter genres, consolation tends to be concentrated more eschatologically on hope of restoration and the dissolution of grief and evil. When it comes to consolation in early Christianity, Holloway points to the role of the Messiah (Jesus) in comforting the afflicted, and the promise of the consummation of new creation, which is thematically coherent with Jewish apocalyptic thought. All of this is historically insightful, but readers would have benefited from a brief discussion of the unique nature of Jewish-style lament. A question could be raised: is it fundamentally necessary in Jewish perspective to eliminate grief as soon as possible? On the matter of the genre and specific letter-type of Philippians, Holloway agrees with those who have labeled it as a letter of consolation, but he insists that it is a specific kind of consolatory letter; one in which “a sufferer writes to console those grieved by the sufferer’s own misfortune” (p. 35, italics original).
In the introduction, Holloway also addresses the letter’s integrity, as well as the place and date of composition. He is largely convinced that Roman imprisonment informs a reading of the letter and is evident in Paul’s reference to the praitōrion (1:13), which pertains to military personnel (and not a building), i.e., the Roman imperial guard. Holloway also notes the reference to “the household of Caesar” in 4:22. On the matter of dating, he places Philippians within the range from 61‒63 CE.
Regarding the situation behind Philippians, Holloway practically discounts Acts 16 as a credible source of information. From his reading of evidence within the letter itself, Holloway notes the health condition of Epaphroditus, the reception of the Philippians’ gift, the problem of persecution for the Philippians, and “mounting fractiousness” in the church, especially between Euodia and Syntyche (p. 27).
In his verse-by-verse exegesis, Holloway offers a number of fresh readings and shows particular strength in the area of socio-historical contextualization. For example, with respect to cultural opposition to Paul and Pauline Christianity, he offers a helpful excursus on “Roman Attitudes toward Foreign Cults” (pp. 90‒91). With respect to the so-called “Christ Hymn,” Holloway rightly treats it as “encomiastic prose” revolving around a “Christ-myth” (p. 115). He also helpfully draws insight from ancient inscriptions to inform lexico-semantics in Philippians. All of these contribute to his ability to bring Philippians to life and to situate the letter more precisely.
However, there are also some problems or limitations in Holloway’s commentary. The first and most critical issue to mention is Holloway’s presumption of Paul’s knowledge and re-appropriation of Greco-Roman (especially Stoic) philosophical topoi, assumptions, and values. It is almost as if Paul’s disposition and counsel in the letter represent a Christianized Stoic perspective. This presumption at least needs defending if Holloway believes it to be accurate. Another concern is that Holloway downplays or ignores allusions to the Hebrew Bible in Philippians. The clear use of LXX Job 13:16 in Phil 1:19 only receives a brief footnote, with no substantive discussion. Similarly, Holloway mentions the connection between LXX Isa 45:23 and Phil 2: 5‒11 in passing, but does not attempt to draw out any christological and intertextual implications. While it is true that Paul does not quote sacred Jewish texts with an introductory formula or at length in this epistle, there are enough clear allusions to merit some discussion of the influence of the Hebrew Bible on Paul’s thought and on this letter in particular.
My final concern with this commentary is that it does not engage or mention many important contributors to Philippians scholarship. It is unfair to expect a commentary to include everyone, but given the level of scholarship expected of a Hermeneia volume, there are glaring omissions (e.g., N.T. Wright on Paul and empire in Philippians, Bauckham and Hurtado on Christology in Philippians, Tellbe and Geoffrion on politics and civic engagement, and most importantly, Hellerman on Roman Philippi). Holloway still offers a plausible reading of Philippians, but readers should be aware that he is very selective in his dialogue partners.
This leads me to an overall comment on the nature of this commentary. While many commentaries function inductively, making exegetical observations in a sometimes disjointed way, Holloway’s book functions more like a monograph or deductive commentary. He presents a Stoic-like Paul who writes a very specific kind of letter of consolation. In this respect, it is a fascinating study with plenty to offer. Yet readers should be aware that Holloway does not present the breadth of perspectives one might find in other technical commentaries. Still, this commentary, written by an expert, deserves to be widely read and carefully studied, because it makes a significant contribution to Pauline, and in particular Philippians, scholarship.