The State of the Art in Philippians Scholarship: Past, Present, and Future

1. Philippians: Paul’s Succinct, Yet Significant, Epistle

This current volume reflects recent research from a wide spectrum of varying perspectives and approaches to Philippians from senior and early career Pauline scholars across the globe. It is organized into three main sections: Part I: General Aspects of Philippians (Chapters 1–3; hermeneutical considerations, approaches, and reading strategies); Part II: Philippians 1–4 (Chapters 4–16; essays focusing on Philippians’ four chapters); and, lastly, Part III: Recent (2008–2024) and Forthcoming Scholarship on Philippians (Appendix A to Introduction; a comprehensive bibliography of Philippians scholarship spanning 2008 to forthcoming titles; and currently unpublished dissertations).

The unifying factor inherent in the essays comprising Chapters 1–16 is that they are written by Philippians specialists deeply interested and engaged in the topics at hand, as well as why these topics matter in the reception of Philippians by Christians, other religious communities, and the wider secular culture. The essays aim to foster inter-religious and scholarly discussions that will (hopefully) pave the way for future research and new pathways for exploration and human flourishing. Moreover, each of these essays—in a variety of ways—advances the discussion and plows new ground in biblical and Pauline studies regarding their respective methodologies and topics.

The scope and purpose of this Special Issue of Religions is to highlight the current trends and methods of approaching Paul’s letter to the Philippian saints in attempting to better elucidate and understand the letter’s aim(s), methods, recipients, and theological impact. Paul is an adept epistle writer, and his corpus reflects rhetorical sophistication, pastoral sensitivity, missional zeal, and theological power—all of which are on display in his short letter (four chapters and 104 verses) to the Philippians. As a shorter Pauline epistle—often assumed to be merely a “warm, friendly, joy-filled letter” in the commentary tradition—Philippians has historically been under-appreciated and misunderstood in biblical studies.1 However, recent scholarship has corrected some of this neglect and misunderstanding, and this Special Issue seeks to present some of the latest insights emerging therefrom.

Philippians, far from being a minor member of the Corpus Paulinum, serves as a powerful monument to Paul’s overall seasoned and carefully considered theological, Christological, pastoral, and missional vision. Philippians presents Paul’s mature and artfully argued thinking on a variety of topics important for first-century Philippian believers and contemporary Christians.2 Yet, many theological topics remain under-/unexplored as scholarly trends largely focus on Paul’s larger letters in the Hauptbriefe or focus on Philippians’ specific sections, themes, rhetorical and epistolary structure, and genre without taking into consideration how these questions relate to and impact one another, how they relate to the rest of the letter or wider Corpus Paulinum as a whole, and how they have affected and will continue to affect the reception of Paul, Philippians, and his corpus throughout the past, present, and future.

2. Philippians Studies—Past, Present, and Future

Nearly a decade ago, in 2015, N. T. Wright wrote that three main developments had taken precedence in Pauline studies: the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP), the renewal of apocalyptic readings of Paul, and studies highlighting Paul in his social world (social-scientific studies) (Wright 2015). The further development of some of these trajectories—especially social-scientific readings of Philippians—can be evinced in this present volume. Moreover, the progression of the NPP into what is now often called the “Paul within Judaism” (PWJ) movement is also readily evident in Pauline and Philippian studies.

In a more recent (2022) consideration regarding the status quæstionis of Pauline studies, Matthew Novenson advocates for the continued relevance of historical-critical readings of Paul and Philippians amidst the pervasive popularity of purely theological and political approaches (Novenson 2022). Novensen eschews readings of Paul and Philippians that promote the false dichotomy of “either-or” in arguing for the proverbial and simultaneously erroneous “one right way” to read Paul and his letters.3 Rather than painting a Paul in anachronistic hues that more closely resemble contemporary Pauline scholars than the imago Pauli,4 Paul should be situated and studied, according to Novenson, squarely in his first-century Mediterranean context. In other words, Paul’s Sitz im Leben should appear “weird” to twenty-first-century readers and scholars.5

Even more recently, in the forthcoming (2024) edited anthology titled The State of Pauline Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, the editors note three major prongs of Pauline research that have stood the test of time and garner continued interest amongst current scholars (Gupta et al. 2024b). Namely, those prongs are (1) “which ‘Paul’ are we studying?” (reinvestigating and reevaluating Paul’s disputed letters); (2) “Paul in his own complex world” (social-scientific and historical studies); and (3) “Paul and salvation” (Pauline soteriology).6 Additionally, the anthology notes (contra Novenson) the waning interest in traditional historical-critical approaches to Paul and the increase in global, feminist, womanist, and post-colonial readings of Paul, among others (Gupta et al. 2024a).

To claim that there is a “state” of Pauline and Philippians research does not suggest that these fields are somehow “static”. Rather, they are observably living and fluid—ever in flux—as a part of a “symphony” of scholars past, present, and future, whose voices sound various “notes and harmonies” across this “concert” of Pauline studies. It is within this vibrant scholarly community that this present volume resides as a lively, energetic note and a reminder of the importance Philippians plays not only in the “ivory towers” of academia but also in the church and world.

3. Section Summaries

In Part I: General Aspects of Philippians, three essays examine various hermeneutical approaches to Philippians from socio-historic, missional, and neurocognitive trajectories. First, in Chapter 1, Gregory Lamb adopts what he coins a “kaleidoscopic” view of Paul, which transcends the traditional Greco-Roman and Jewish ways of reading Paul and Philippians by employing an “eclectic and pragmatic” approach that considers the complex cultural milieu in which Paul traveled and ministered. For Lamb, these twin, traditional lenses do not adequately account for the amalgam of often competing cultural influences Paul may have encountered along his missionary travels—especially the pervasive Egyptian religio-cultural presence throughout the first-century Mediterranean world as directly evinced in the extant evidence in Philippi. Lamb argues against the pervasive “monocular” readings of Paul and Philippians that promote either a Greco-Roman or Jewish lens, as well as “binocular” readings that emphasize a priori one “lens”—be it Jewish or Greco-Roman—over the other and, as a result, flatten the complex thought world and Sitze im Leben of Paul and the ancient Philippian peoples. Lamb offers a helpful rubric for reading Paul “kaleidoscopically” and gives examples of how a kaleidoscopic reading informs some of the most debated passages in Philippians.

Next, in Chapter 2, Mark Keown continues the discussion via the Carmen Christi (“Christ hymn”) of Phil 2:6–11—the most discussed and debated passage by scholars in Philippians. Keown critiques flattened monolithic readings of the Christ hymn that focus on either the kerygmatic or ethical dimensions of the text. Rather, Keown argues that the passage should be understood “kerygmatically, ethically, socially, and missionally/evangelistically”. In doing so, Keown builds upon the gospel-centric focus of his doctoral thesis (Paternoster 2008) and previous commentary work (Lexham 2017), highlighting what Keown sees as a fivefold missional movement that serves as a hermeneutical lens through which to read the entirety of the epistle. While Keown argues against the false dichotomy of a reductionistic “either-or” reading—that is, Phil 2:6–11 must be read either kerygmatically or ethically—he does not throw out the proverbial “baby with the bathwater” regarding the ethical dimension of the Christ hymn. Keown counters that Christ is, indeed, the ethical Exemplar par excellence, but this truth “is reductionistic unless explained in the direction of social relationships (socioethically) and mission (missioethically)”. Thus, such a kerygmatically ethical perspective does not merely focus on personal, hyper-individualized ethics, as is often the case in Western evangelicalism, but is a priori missional, relational, and communal in nature.

Chapter 3 by Julia Fogg is the last essay in Part I and approaches Paul’s display of emotions throughout the letter from a unique angle, drawing on insights from the field of neurocognition. Fogg builds here on her previous doctoral research into the cognitive aspects of the way of life, which Paul seeks to support across the letter, adding to it a new interaction with recent scientific discoveries of how cognition works within embodied experience. In conversation with Lembke, Menakem, and van der Kolk, among others, Fogg posits a way of thinking about human existence that points to habitual emotional practices that shape that experience. Thus, when Paul invites his auditors to “choose joy”, he is not merely engaging in rhetoric but instead is employing strategies in which he seeks to embody such Christ-produced joy as a habitual practice.

Moving into Part II: Philippians 1–4, Dolly Chaaya’s essay (Chapter 4) focuses on Philippians 1 and features lexical and rhetorical analyses of Phil 1:12–26, highlighting how the repeated, rhetorically alliterative lexemes (namely, χριστός, κυρίος, καταγγέλλω, καύχημα, προσκοπή, and παρρησία) prepare Philippian readers/hearers as a “persuasive tool” for the exemplum of Christ in the Carmen Christi of 2:6–11. Chaaya argues that 1:12–26 is seminally important in establishing Paul’s “self-presentation” via pathos, ethos, and logos (cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1356a3–6) with his Philippian audience through his intentional choice of terminology that aims to persuade the Philippians to adopt hope-filled, Christocentric mindsets that model the supremacy of Christ and “Christ sufficiency” in all matters of living—including inward thoughts and outward deeds—and at all times, whether experiencing exuberant abundance or suffering hardship and lack. Chaaya concludes that Paul’s rhetorical strategy in 1:12–16 serves as a “reframing” device, which bolsters his over-arching motif of “joy in adversity” that, for Chaaya, permeates Philippians.

Philippians 2 is the focus in Chapters 5–8. In Chapter 5, Melissa Tan highlights the intrinsic correlations derived from a recognition of one’s positionality—that is, how one’s worldview, gender, class, ethnicity, and other contextual factors influence their reading of texts—especially in regard to the discipline of biblical studies. Tan tests her theories employing a social-scientific methodology comprising a “nuanced understanding of honor–shame” from a “collectivist” cultural perspective birthed from her understanding of Confucianism, which she applies to Phil 1:27–2:4 as a case study. Tan argues that ancient texts and realia derive from a social context, and as social beings/actors, researchers should be aware of their own positionality and the presuppositional baggage and biases they hold—for better or worse—when analyzing and researching such texts, cultures, and artifacts. Tan highlights the criticism of earlier studies that were plagued by generalizations, stereotypes, anachronisms, and flattened, surface-level (rather than thick) descriptions of the data, which could have likely been avoided—in whole or at least in part—if said researchers were aware of their own positionality and etic perspective as outsiders to the cultures they were trying to describe. Tan concludes that the collectivist Philippians were attuned to Paul’s intentional use of “honor–shame” vernacular as he exhorted the Philippians to heed his advice in seeing suffering as a gift rather than a curse in 1:27–2:4 and throughout the rest of the epistle.

Similar to Tan’s focus on positionality, Chapter 6 features Teresa Bartolomei’s comparative analysis of Paul’s “puzzling” usage of σχήμα in Phil 2:7d in comparison with the articular τὸ σχῆμα of 1 Cor 7:31 and his usage of the verbal “semanteme” μετασχηματίσει in Phil 3:21. Bartolomei suggests that it is only through the comparative analysis of the Pauline usage of σχήμα that the correct interpretation of this slippery “rare and ‘cultured’ term” can be determined in Philippians’ Christ Hymn. Thus, these passages, when read together, serve, for Bartolomei, as a synergistic, hermeneutical cipher providing windows of illumination into Paul’s intent for inclusion and respective meanings. Bartolomei notes the risk of mistranslating σχήμα, which results in a “camouflaged Christ” who merely appeared or seemed (in the docetic, outward sense) to become like a human while remaining ontologically alien and divine—like the pagan gods, who temporarily donned an outward human visage but were altogether distinct from mortals. Bartolomei concludes that in Phil 2:7d, σχήμα denotes not only the incarnation of Christ as extrinsic and unchanging but also necessarily intrinsic and mutable—indeed, the “pre-messianic existence” and “essence” of humanity and the cosmos. This corrupted cosmos is transformed and transfigured, according to Bartolomei, via the redemptive power of Christ’s incarnation and resurrection.

In Chapter 7, Alex Muir builds upon Paul Holloway’s pioneering work in Philippians—specifically, Holloway’s consolation thesis. Muir succinctly suggests Phil 2:6–11 relates to the larger discourse of the epistle (cf. Phil 1:27–2:16) by illustrating and exemplifying how the flourishing aspects of “comfort (παράκλησις), consolation (παραμύθιον), and joy (χαρά)” can even be experienced by Paul and those Philippians facing the pains of persecution and poverty. By comparing the ταπειν- terminology and exaltation elements in LXX-Isaiah and Philippians, Muir concludes that Christ is a “consolatory example”, rendering it possible for those in Christ to progressively become like God via the right ethical imitation of Christ in this present life as reflected in their inner thought life (Phil 2:5) and deeds, as well as a “total transformation” in the afterlife, which transforms the bodies of humiliated saints into “the glory of Christ (Phil 3:21)”.

Simon Dürr (Chapter 8) addresses the scriptural language that Paul deploys throughout Phil 2:12–18. Building on others working within the field of the New Testament’s Use of the Hebrew Bible, Dürr builds the case for an important and influential strain of themes that emerges from the convergence of multiple scriptural sources (Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Daniel) as Paul develops his communal exhortation in this passage of the letter. Most importantly, Dürr highlights the way that Paul’s depiction of the “word of life”, which he portrays his auditors as “holding fast to/holding out” (Dürr remains open to both options), is able to draw on key aspects of the divine and life-giving “word” that emerges from all three of these scriptural texts. By developing how the specific language that Paul uses taps into elements of the broader flow of each of these scriptural backgrounds (e.g., the idea of God’s “word” being sure in Isa 45:23; 40:8; Isa 55:10), Dürr demonstrates the type of “obedience” that Paul can then commend within this community (cf. Phil 2:12), which he admonishes them to maintain on into the future.

Chapters 9–13 mark the transition to Philippians 3, the most discussed portion of this present volume, with five essays. Three of these essays (Chapters 9–11) discuss in sundry ways Paul’s boasting and the topic of periautology (“self-praise”). In Chapter 9, Jean-Noël Aletti focuses on the rhetorical function of Paul’s periautology in Philippians, which, according to Aletti, is a much-neglected theme in Pauline studies. Specifically, Aletti examines Phil 3:2–16 and argues that these verses form a cohesive “rhetorical unit” representing Paul’s most forceful and original use of periautology within the Corpus Paulinum. Structurally speaking, rather than highlighting an awkward editorial insertion and multiplicity of letters, Phil 3:2ff mark Paul’s intentional periautological development. In comparing Paul’s self-praise in Philippians with Plutarch’s scathing remarks against those employing periautology to vainly honor themselves (Mor. 539a), Aletti concludes that Paul employs periautology in Philippians in a “permissible way”. For Aletti, Paul effectively reverses self-praise to point not to his own righteousness from the law—contra the “Judaizers’” fleshly self-righteousness—but to the superiority of Christ and being “in Christ”. Thus, according to Aletti, Paul rhetorically mimics in his own journey of self-description the self-abasing, yet eschatologically triumphant, journey of Christ in the Carmen Christi.

Trevor Clark continues the discussion of Pauline periautology and joy in Philippians in his essay (Chapter 10). Clark provides a counter-reading to Schellenberg’s recent (2021) treatment of the letter in terms of Paul’s human—and therefore non-rhetorical—self-presentation in the letter. Clark directs us to the concept of “framing” as a way to understand how Paul uses the theme of boasting in this letter. In order to define this concept, Clark cites Gamson, “facts have no intrinsic meaning. They take on their meaning by being embedded in a frame…” Thus, it is the frame that the apostle gives in the letter that helps us to understand why he is boasting and what meaning such boasting might hold. Clark argues that the frame of boasting undergirds every chapter of this short epistle, not as the central topic but as an important “affixed complement”. Ultimately, Clark shows how attending to the language and strategy of boasting, which Paul draws from scriptural antecedents, builds a richer portrait of the apostle’s aims throughout the letter.

In Chapter 11, Francesco Bianchini focuses on Paul’s self-presentation in Philippians 3, where readers gain access uniquely to “the profound and mysterious relationship which binds [the apostle] to his Lord”. Building on his 2006 Italian monograph on the subject, Bianchini argues that Paul engages in this section of his letter to the Philippians with the well-known literary form of periautologia, or speaking about the self. In conjunction with Schmeller (2015), however, Bianchini argues that this popular convention of periautologia has been paradoxically transformed by Paul in Phil 3:1–4:1 into speaking about Christ (perichristologia?) in light of the way that Paul links himself with Christ through the empowerment that he experiences in Christ for his virtuous behavior. Thus, “the Apostle’s ‘I’ is not actually placed at the center, but rather the person of Christ”. That is, Paul’s presentation remains focused on the I. It is self-talk, only “the identity of the Pauline ‘I’ [has been] completely transformed…. he is able to speak of himself as ‘other-than-self’”. Bianchini especially notes the self-boasting features of 3:4b–14, which can be viewed in three steps, from boasting about the past (3:4b–6, the “Jewish boast”) to boasting about the past–present (3:7–11, the “boast turned upside down in Christ”), to boasting about the present–future (3:12–14, the “moderated Christian boast”). Each of these segments is marked by a verb of “thinking” or “considering”. Hence, the apostle effectively “upends all the classical conventions of the periautologia”, modeling a way of life that locates all of one’s praise and boasting in the person and activity of Christ, thereby guiding his friends at Philippi to follow his model of participating in Christ to such an extent that Christ becomes their very life. This discussion of Paul’s technique of boasting in Philippians 3 nicely balances with Chaaya’s essay (Chapter 4), which alternatively focuses on both Paul’s self-presentation and the boasting that arises from it in Philippians 1.

Chapters 12–13 feature a more general discussion of Philippians 3. In Chapter 12, Eric Covington presents the bold claim that Philippians ought to be read as intentionally participating in philosophical dialogue. Such a reading of the letter furnishes ways forward for understanding the repeated references to opponents throughout the epistle, insofar as Paul has “craft[ed] the letter as a philosophical dialogue between the assumed position of the ‘opponents’ and Paul’s own perspective”. By bringing in philosophical discourse, Covington is not trying to set up an either-or dichotomy between Hellenistic and Jewish influences of the text, which dichotomy he rightly (as does Lamb’s essay in Chapter 1) rejects. Instead, Covington sees Paul’s Jewish interests in a crucified and risen Messiah converging with his presentation of transformed phronesis in order to create a new “way of life” for the Christ-following community at Philippi. For Covington, the concept of a “dialogue” becomes an important tool in the hands of the apostle for differentiating between the correct “way of life” in Christ for which he advocates in in the letter, and the erroneous way of life that must be avoided.

Rounding out Philippians 3 is Chapter 13, which features Laurie Wilson’s essay. Wilson places Paul’s comparative language in dialogue with the philosopher slave Epictetus, uncovering both “deep parallels” and striking dissimilarities in how each thinker handles that which is to be valued most in life. In terms of similarity, both Paul and Epictetus are in agreement that once the greatest good has been identified, this should then determine how all lesser things should be regarded and handled. Insofar as Paul views Christ as that which has “unsurpassable value”, all other possible goods can be regarded as σκύβαλα, whereas for Epictetus, such unimportant things are to be viewed as ἀδιάφορα, “unnecessary”. But the differences between these two thinkers arise in the fact that Paul still upholds the intrinsic good of externals (Wilson here also points to Augustine’s further development of Paul’s line of thought in the later church father’s ordering of loves), where Epictetus disregards external things since within his system that is the only way for an individual to be self-sufficient in maintaining one’s own joy.

Philippians 4 occupies Chapters 14–16 and concludes Part II of this volume. Heiko Wojtkowiak’s essay (Chapter 14) continues the social-scientific explorations of Philippians—another common thread woven throughout this volume. Wojtkowiak explores the economic dimensions of the so-called danklösen Dank (“thankless thanks”) of Phil 4:10–20 and the socio-economic situation of the Philippian Christ community. In his succinct study, Wojtkowiak clarifies the “uncertainties” and the “limited scope” inherent within social-scientific studies of Paul and Philippians and the “challenges” that must be addressed for social-scientific criticism/interpretation to remain a viable research methodology for biblical studies. As a result, Wojtkowiak offers a helpful rubric to refine such socio-economic inquiries of Philippians and other ancient texts. Using this rubric, Wojtkowiak concludes that the thesis of “religious oppression” best fits the data when considering the delay between the Philippians’ gifts to Paul and their socio-economic decline.

In Chapter 15, Isaac Blois tackles the knotty interpersonal issue raised by Paul when he addresses (publicly!) the two individuals, Euodia and Syntyche. Blois argues that the particular language that Paul employs (“who have striven together with me for the gospel”, 4:3) provides a powerful commendation of these two female co-workers, thereby establishing the importance of their leadership role among the community of Christ-followers at Philippi. While the exhortation the apostle issues to these leaders does seek to draw them back into a renewed en Kurio pattern of thought and activity, far from ostracizing these women, Paul’s words hold them up as significant leaders within the community.

Lastly, in Chapter 16, Peter-Ben Smit investigates the motif of “peace” (εἰρήνη; Phil 1:2; 4:7, 9), which frames Philippians’ beginning and end. The twin occurrences of εἰρήνη in Philippians 4 are the foci of Smit’s study, which suggests that Paul’s use of peace in Philippians foreshadows the flourishing, eschatological peace that in-Christ saints will enjoy as heavenly citizens of God’s kingdom. Smit highlights the eschatological tension of the “now” and “not yet” in that such peace is present for the progressively persecuted Philippian saints presently in the communal relationships of the marginalized Christ community (ἐκκλησία)—albeit in an imperfect, limited fashion—but will be experienced in a more fulsome, perfected way in the eschaton. In Smit’s schema, the Philippian Christ community becomes the sacred space through which Christocentric “virtuous” behaviors are taught, modeled, and imitated both as a respite from their present persecution and as a result of their eager expectation of God’s restored world to come (Phil 3:20).