¹ Mounce, R., ‘Philippians’ in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary (ed. Pfieffer, C. F. and Harrison, E. F.; Chicago: Moody, 1962) 1320.Google Scholar

² Fitzgerald, J. T., ‘Philippians, Epistle to the’, in ABD (gen. ed. Freedman, D. N.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5.320–2.Google Scholar

³ Swift, R. C., ‘The Theme and Structure of Philippians’, BSac 141 (1984) 257–75.Google Scholar

⁴ Watson, D. F., ‘A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question’, NovT 30 (1988) 57–88.Google Scholar

⁵ Alexander, L., ‘Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians’, JSNT 37 (1989) 87–101.Google Scholar

⁶ Luter, A. B. Jr, ‘Philippians’ in the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (ed. Elwell, W. A.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) 1034–48.Google Scholar This was one of the present writers' earlier struggles with the unity, structure and theme of Philippians.

⁷ Dalton, W. J., ‘The Integrity of Philippians’, Bib 60 (1979) 97–102.Google Scholar

⁸ Garland, D. E., ‘The Composition and Unity of Philippians’, NovT 32 (1985) 140–73.Google Scholar

⁹ Garland, , ‘Composition and Unity’, 143.Google ScholarHock, R. F., ‘Philippians’ in Harper's Bible Commentary (ed. Mays, J. L.; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1088)Google Scholar goes so far as to say that ‘this proposal [that Philippians is a composite document] has convinced few scholars’ (1220). Hock has apparently ignored such recent weighty voices against the unity of Philippians as, e.g., Collange, J.-F., L'Épître de Saint Paul aux Philippians (CNT 10a; Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé 1973)Google Scholar = The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (London: Epworth, ET, 1979);Google ScholarKoester, H., ‘Philippians, Letter to the’, IDBSup, 665;Google ScholarPerrin, N. and Duling, D., The New Testament: An Introduction (2nd ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace Jonavich, 1982);Google ScholarPatte, D., Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983);Google ScholarSchenk, W., Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohl-hammer, 1984);Google Scholar and Reumann, J., ‘Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and Earliest Christianity’, NTS 38 (1993) 438–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Interestingly, Craddock, F. (Philippians [Interpretation; John Knox, 1985])Google Scholar essentially avoids the question by focusing on ‘the text of Philippians as we have received it’ (48).

¹⁰ Dalton, 101.

¹¹ L. Alexander's (‘Hellenistic Letter-Forms’) recent proposal that ‘reassurance’ (cf. Phil 1.12) is the ‘central business’ of Philippians (96) rests completely on proving that Philippians is a ‘family letter’ of the day. That endeavour and other possibilities for a central theme, such as joy, martyrdom/suffering, or gospel (only), have not met widespread scholarly acceptance.

¹² The extensive parallel, complementary and distinctive terminology in the opening (1.1–2) and closing (4.21–3) greetings sections may well mark them off as either the outer layer of the grand chiasm of the epistle or as an elaborate inclusio. For a compact discussion of such a constant overarching Pauline inclusio, see ‘Grace’ in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin and D. Reid; Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1993) 393–4.Google Scholar

¹³ BAGD, ‘πραιτώριον’, states, ‘If the letter was written fr. Rome, the words are best taken to mean in the whole praetorian (or imperial) guard’ (697).

¹⁴ For an explanation of the meaning of this important phraseology, see A. B. Luter, ‘Name’, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

¹⁵ This same sectional division is adopted by F. Craddock (Philippians), who also notes the long-observed ‘conclusion-like nature of 2.17–3.1a’ (47). If a chiastic structuring of Philippians is valid, 2.17–3.1a does function, in effect, as the letter's ‘conclusion’, though located at its midpoint. It is also worth noting that those who view Philippians as composite ordinarily see the break between two of the smaller letters after 3.1a (e.g., Collange, Philippians, 121–2).

¹⁶ Not only does this συν- prefix noun fit nicely with the theme of ‘partnership’, it is also a part of an impressive pattern of συν- usage throughout the letter (some 15 instances in this brief letter).

¹⁷ Blomberg, C., ‘The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7’, Criswell Theological Review 4 (Fall 1989)4–8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Dalton, ‘Integrity’, 101.

¹⁹ Garland, ‘Composition and Unity’, 160–73.

²⁰ Garland, 157–9.

²¹ Additionally, it can be noted that the numbers of verses in parallel sections are not balanced exactly (example B-B'). However, Blomberg's chiastic outlines of 2 Cor 1.12–7.16 also displays some obvious disparities in size, which do not seem to present a significant problem.

²² E.g., O'Brien, , Commentary on Philippians, 314,Google Scholar who succinctly addresses the sense that 2.17–3.1a is ‘out of place’.

²³ Blomberg, ‘2 Corinthians 1–7’, 7.

²⁴ Sadly, O'Brien (313–44) and Hawthorne (107–21) give barely half as much space proportionately in their comments on this section as Paul allotted to the passage in the letter.

²⁵ Culpepper, R. A., ‘Co-Workers in Suffering: Philippians 2.19–30’, RevExp 77 (1980) 349–58,Google Scholar expertly answers these hypotheses before insightfully expounding the central passage.

²⁶ Another argument is the use of τ λοιπόν, which is taken to indicate that Paul is ending the letter in 3.1a. However, as Garland notes, this use is ‘inconclusive’, since it has been shown that it frequently functions as a transitional particle, not just as a closing formula (D. E. Garland, ‘Composition and Unity’, 149).

²⁷ Martin, R. P., Philippians (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 116.Google Scholar

²⁸ Culpepper, ‘Co-Workers in Suffering’, 350.

²⁹ Garland, ‘Composition and Unity’, 163.

³⁰ Watson, D. F., ‘A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question’, NovT 30 (1988) 71;Google Scholar Garland, ‘Composition and Unity’, 153, sees this passage as central to dealing with what was ‘uppermost’ in Paul's mind: ‘The dissension that had emerged in the community's ranks’.

³¹ Culpepper, ‘Co-Workers in Suffering’, 349–58.

³² Dalton, ‘Integrity’, 101; Luter, ‘Philippians’, 1035; see also the excellent study of Sampley, J. P., Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).Google Scholar

³³ Without pushing the observation, it is perhaps relevant to note that the textual centre of Philippians (whether by counting verses or words) is found in the 2.17–3.1a pericope.

³⁴ Blomberg, ‘2 Corinthians 1–7’, notes that ‘recent studies have shown that chiasmus had thoroughly permeated the ancient Near East’ (18). Also worthy of note here are the plethora of examples (though some are highly questionable) included in the NT portion of Welch, J., ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981).Google Scholar

³⁵ Originally published by the University of North Carolina Press in 1942.

³⁶ Here note the older, but still helpful, study of smaller Pauline chiastic structures in Jeremias, J., ‘Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen’, ZNW 49 (1958) 145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ It is quite possible that the compounds are related to the usage of σύν in the opening greetings section (1.1) and in the closing greetings (4.21).

³⁸ See, e.g., the detailed responses to Schenk's commentary in Semeia 48 by H. J. B. Combrink, D. Dormeyer and J. W. Voelz (135–69).

³⁹ Dibelius, M., A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (New York: Scribners, 1936) 166.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Though the preceding treatment falls considerably short of a thoroughgoing discourse analysis approach to Philippians, the present authors have profited significantly from the textlinguistic insights regarding Philippians of Prof. David Alan Black of Talbot School of Theology and Golden Gate Baptist Seminary and the helpful volume he edited, Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman, 1992).Google Scholar