Article

Authorship and Origin

The most common suggestion of pre-Pauline origin is a Semitic or even Aramaic background. Lohmeyer is frequently attributed with identifying a Semitic background, though it was a series of later scholars who pursued this question more deeply. Fitzmyer (1988: 473-76) provides a helpful survey of these develop ments. Martin (1983: 38-41) finds Lohmeyer’s analysis convincing and proceeds to go a step further by hypothesizing an ‘Aramaic original’ based on Lohmeyer’s structure of the verse. The opinion that an Aramaic original lies behind Paul’s Greek rendition depends on the assumption that, not only is the content and/or language of Phil. 2.5-11 divergent from that characteristic of Paul, but also diver gent from Greek language use par excellence. For example, Lohmeyer (1961: 10) sees the use of participles (i.e., participles functioning as finite verbs) as characteristic of Semitic hymnic prayers. This argument and others are merely suggestive, however. From Martin’s perspective, the most convincing argument for an Aramaic original is that it is possible to ‘translate’ the Greek version back into Aramiac, and when this is done, ‘the text has a rhythm and evenness of flow that may well be the mark of an authentic composition’ (1983: 40). The Aramaic of the first century CE is not well attested, so when certain Greek words do not have an appropriate Aramaic gloss, scholars must have recourse to a later period (475). In spite of this hesitancy, Fitzmyer proceeds to provide his own ‘translation’ of the hymn into Middle Aramaic, complete with explanatory notes along the way (476-82). In light of Martin’s comment that an Aramaic retroversion evokes authenticity, it is significant to note that a compari son between Martin and Fitzmyer’s proposals yields strikingly different results.

This is evident even in the first two lines. This, and other differences, reveal that constructing an Aramaic retroversion largely amounts to speculation and borders on special pleading, especially when a convincing translation is the strongest argument in favour of its existence. It is not surprising, then, that many scholars have rejected this proposal including Käsemann (1968), who prefers to see a Hellenistic background, and Beare (1959), who, at best, sees the hymn as composed by someone in the Pauline circle and certainly a Hellenist (77-78). Even if an Aramaic background is rejected, some scholars posit a connection to some form of Jewish Christianity. Kümmel (1950), for example, argues that the hymn originated with the Jewish church. On the other hand, Tobin (2006: 95-102) has argued that the concepts of pre-existence that seem to be present reflect the thought world of Philo, particularly his Logos theology. Tobin’s proposition rests on the understanding that vv. 5-11 are indeed pre-Pauline, but a piece of tradition that Paul and the Philippian church held in common (91). Conversely, as noted above, Käsemann and Beare typify an appreciation of more Hellenistic elements to the hymn and Robbins (1980) has argued that the struc ture evinces the influence of Greek rhetoric. For example, in Ellis’s treatment of pre-formed tradition in Paul, he strongly asserts that Phil. 2.5-11 is evidence of deity Christology that develops very early on in the Christian tradition (2000: 319-20). Such a position is only possible given a particular view on the hymn’s authorship. Despite Lohmeyer’s observations and the subsequent development of his line of thought, there remains a contingent who want to argue for Pauline authorship. From a literary critical perspective, Black (1988) has levelled criticism in that direction, suggesting that the authorship of other poetic elements of Pauline dis course, such as those in 1 Corinthians 13 and Rom. 8.35-39, remain undisputed.

Function and Theology

That the Christ-hymn is an appeal to the Philippian Christians for a particular code of conduct is a popular proposal. According to Hurtado, the language of the hymn reflects both the language of early Christian paraenesis as well as that of the Gospel tra ditions regarding Jesus’ earthly ministry. For example, the servant language of the hymn reflects Jesus’ own servant-hood, the imitation of which was inherent to that role (1984: 124). Submission to the Lordship of Christ implies a return to Christ’s own obedience, which resulted in his emptying and submission to death on the cross (1984: 125). For Nebreda (2011), Paul’s experience at Philippi contextualizes the need for the Philippian Christians to identify with and imitate Christ. Christ imitates or ‘puts on’ Adam, while the Philippian church is to ‘mime’ Christ (2008: 429-30). The themes of Greco-Roman mimesis are strikingly subverted inasmuch as Christ attains downward mobility in his imita tion of Adam, rather than the upward mobility typical of Greek students in an educational setting (2008: 435-36). Eastman’s proposal relies heavily on seeing an Adamic background to the hymn. Dunn (1996: 114-21) has been a major recent and oft-cited proponent in proposing this embedded Adamic Christology in the hymn (though cf. Wanamaker 1987). Dunn’s proposal is situated in his larger assertion that Adam Christology was ‘widely current in the Christianity of the 40s and 50s’, the Philippians hymn being one of the fullest expressions of this attitude (1996: 114). Contrast between the ‘form of God’ and the ‘form of a slave’ and ‘equality with God’ and the ‘likeness of man’ can, according to Dunn, be best explained through allusion to Gen. 1–3. Christ’s being in the form (μορφη Ę) of God recalls Adam’s creation in the image (ε„κw ~ν) of God, while the reference to ‘equality with God’ may well invoke Adam’s temptation to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (1996: 115).

In contrast to the ethical view, Käsemann (1968) has proposed a ‘purely keryg matic’ perspective. Following Käsemann, Martin (1983: 287-89) argues that the Christ-hymn portrays a soteriological drama or theological treatise on the actions of Christ—an ‘early Christian kerygmatic confession’ (1983: 21). From this per spective, ethics may be present, but only as an extension of the primary chris tological/soteriological meaning—the Philippian Christians may act according to their standing in Christ (289). Lightfoot argues that the Pauline tradition clearly indicates that Jesus’ birth was the first moment of his humiliation, thus his ‘being in the form of God’ could only occur before this moment. Christ’s pre-existence is a logical inference from the description of the μορφη Ę θεου ˜ (132). Gibbs (1970) is not far removed from this perspective as he attaches a cosmic dimension to Christ’s lordship given the universality of those who will bend the knee to Christ the redeemer at his exultation. This cosmic ele ment marks the endpoint of a trajectory that began with pre-existence and saw Christ’s servant-hood and death as the fulcrum. Kenotic theology stems from the pre-existence interpretation to the extent that Christ’s kenosis (™κšνωσεν) is an emptying of his divinity.
Bockmuehl (1998: 8-10) has argued against a Jewish presence in and around the city of Philippi, and, in concert with this assertion, scholars have tended to seek out social and literary backgrounds to the hymn that do not rely on Jew ish cultural expressions (such as Dunn’s Adamic Christology). Moessner (2009) draws out elements of crucifixion and honor/shame in the hymn as typical of a slave’s death, connecting it with the Roman Imperial presence in the city of Philippi. Christ’s taking on of a servant’s form and submitting to crucifixion becomes all the more striking when read in the context of Roman Philippi. Gun dry (1994: 276) draws this out in relation to the servant’s form, suggesting that δου ˜λου draws a sharp contrast to the use of κÚριος to refer to Christ. Wortham (1996) explores similar themes to Moessner, though from a social-scientific per spective, inquiring into the social status of the Philippian Christians. Wortham concludes that the Philippian church would probably have been a Gentile com munity made up of individuals from a variety of social strata. The christological expression present in Phil. 2.5-11 thus serves as a means of social unity, binding the members of the various strata together (1996: 274).
This is accomplished by the hymn’s description of a social drama in which Christ achieves status rever sal (282). Reversal emerges as a distinctive theme in 2.5-11 as social status is reversed and an enslaved God becomes an agent of liberation (see Briggs 1989). Similarly, Hellerman (2005) has given reasonable attention to the material evi dence at Philippi, offering the proposal that Christ’s actions would be viewed as cursus pudorum given Philippi’s intense pre-occupation with social status. It is also argued (Hellerman 2010) that Paul and Silas’s experience in Roman Philippi provides a tangible example for following Christ’s emptying and counter- cultural submission. In a similar vein, the passage may reflect anti-Imperial sentiments, given the audience’s setting in Roman Philippi. Heen (2004) notes that the notion of equal ity with God (isa theō) was a characteristic of the Roman Imperial cult, which would have had a significant presence in the Roman colony of Philippi. Espe cially if Phil. 2.5-11 was used in a public worship setting, the repetition of the hymn by the community would have functioned as public form of resistance against the Imperial cult (2004: 126-27). The anticipated universal proclamation that ‘Jesus is Lord’ is another feature that could explicitly reject Roman Imperial propaganda that tended to dictate that ‘Caesar is Lord’ (Oakes 2001: 129-74).