¹ Muller-Bardorf, Johannes, “Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Jena 7 (1957/1958) 591–604Google Scholar; Schmithals, Walter, “Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes,” ZThK 54 (1957) 297–341Google Scholar (translated with some revisions as “The False Teachers of the Epistle to the Philippians,” in idem, Paul and the Gnostics [trans. Steely, John E.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972] 65–122Google Scholar, here esp. 67–81); Rahtjen, Bruce D., “The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians,” NTS 6 (1959/1960) 167–7310.1017/S0028688500000837CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kay, Barry Sloan Mac, “Further Thoughts on Philippians,” NTS 7 (1960/1961) 161–70Google Scholar; Koester, Helmut, “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III),” NTS 8 (1961/1962) 317–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bornkamm, Günther, “Der Philipperbrief als paulinische Briefsammlung,” in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Freundesgabe Herrn Professor Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collange, Jean-François, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (1973; trans. Heathcote, A. W.; London: Epworth, 1979) 3–15Google Scholar; Vielhauer, Philipp, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 156–70Google Scholar; Schenk, Wolfgang, “Der Philipperbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985),” ANRW 2. 25/4 (1987) 3280–313.Google Scholar

² On the place of travel plans in Pauline letter structure, see especially Funk, Robert W., “The Letter: Form and Style,” in idem, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 250–74Google Scholar; idem, “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance,” in Farmer, W. R. et al. , eds., Christian History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 249–68Google Scholar. Hugh, J. Michael suggested long ago (The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians [New York: Doubleday, 1929] 112Google Scholar) that this section (Phil 2:19–24) may be a fragment from another (lost) Pauline letter.

³ Garland, David E., “The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors,” NovT 27 (1985) 141–73Google Scholar; Watson, Duane F., “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians,” NovT 30 (1988) 57–88Google Scholar; Alexander, Loveday, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,” JSNT 37 (1989) 87–101Google Scholar; O'Brien, Peter T., The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 10–18Google Scholar; Silva, Moisés, Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 14–15.Google Scholar

⁴ Pollard, T. E., “The Integrity of Philippians,” NTS 13 (1966/1967) 57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jewett, Robert, “The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians,” NovT 12 (1970) 40–53Google Scholar; Kummel, Werner Georg, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 324Google Scholar; Gamble, Harry Jr., “Appendix II: Some Notes on the Literary Problems in Philippians,” in idem, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (SD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977)Google Scholar; Culpepper, R. Alan, “Co-Workers in Suffering: Philippians 2:19–30,” RevExp 11 (1980) 349–58Google Scholar; Kurz, William S., “Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3,” in Segovia, Fernando F., ed., Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 103–26.Google Scholar

⁵ Other external evidence that is sometimes mentioned but rarely given much attention involves the mention by early Christian writers of more than one letter of Paul to the Philippians: Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 156?) mentioned Paul's “letters” to the Christians of Philippi (ἐπιστολάς, Phil. 3.2); two letters to Philippi are listed in the Syriac Catalogus Sinaiticus (ca. 400 CE); Georgius Syncellus (8th-9th century) knew more than one letter; see further n. 24 below.

⁶ Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1892)Google Scholar; Harnack, Adolf von, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (2d ed.; 1924; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) 136*–49*.10.1515/9783112649046CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ This description of the divisions is that proposed in Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 156–70.

⁸ Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 289.

⁹ James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924) 478Google Scholar; his words are echoed in the updated edition of James's book by Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “a harmless theological forgery, being a cento of Pauline phrases taken mainly from Philippians and Galatians.”

¹⁰ Harnack, Marcion, 149.

¹¹ Krüger, Gustav, “Laodicenerbrief,” in Hennecke, Edgar, ed., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (2d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1924) 150.Google Scholar

¹² Bauckham, Richard, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107 (1986) 485.Google Scholar

¹³ Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, “The Epistle to the Laodiceans,” in NTApoc (1964) 2. 131Google Scholar; Schneemelcher repeats this judgment in the revised English translation, NTApoc (1992) 2. 44.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In addition to the works cited in nn. 8–13, the following studies of Laodiceans discuss its possible origin and retain useful information about its transmission: Anger, Rudolf, Über den Laodicenerbrief: Eine biblisch-kritische Untersuchung (Leipzig: Gebhardt & Reisland, 1843)Google Scholar; Zahn, Theodor, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1890–92) 2. 566–87Google Scholar; Harnack, Adolf, “Der apokryphe Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Laodicener: Eine marcionitische Fälschung aus der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts,” Sitzungsberichte der preuβischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923)Google Scholar; Pink, Karl, “Die pseudo-paulinischen Briefe II,” Bib 6 (1925) 179–200Google Scholar; Quispel, Gilles, “De Brief aan die Laodicensen—een Marcionistische vervalsing,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 5 (1950) 43–46Google Scholar; Ebied, Rifaat Y., “A Triglot Volume of the Epistle to the Laodiceans,” Bib 47 (1966) 243–54.Google Scholar

¹⁵ According to James (The Apocryphal New Testament, 478), “the oldest copy is in the Fulda MS. written for Victor of Capua in 546.” Lightfoot (Colossians and Philemon, 289–90) gave strong arguments for considering the Latin a version of a Greek original. On the Pauline epistles in the Old Latin tradition, see especially Frede, Hermann Josef, Altlateinische Paulus-Handschriften (Freiburg: Herder, 1964)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ On travel plans, see Funk, “The Letter: Form and Style”; and idem, “The Apostolic Parousia”; for a discussion of financial concerns, see Kiley, Mark, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Lightfoot's rétroversion of Laod. 13 (βλἐπετε δἐ τοủς αἰσχροκερδεîς, “look out for the dogs”) seems overly influenced by the βλἐπετε of Phil 3:2. The Vulgate of this verse renders βλἐπετε with videte (“look”), while the Latin version of Laod. 13 reads praecavete (“beware”).

¹⁸ Harrison, Percy N., Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lindemann, Andreas, “Paul in the Apostolic Fathers,” in Babock, William S., ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1991) 41Google Scholar. See also Lindemann's large-scale study, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHTh 58; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1979).Google Scholar Zahn had made a similar suggestion (Geschichte des Kanons, 1. 814–18), in particular claiming that Polycarp referred to Paul's three Macedonian letters (Philippians and 1–2 Thessalonians) as a unity.

²⁰ Harrison (Polycarp's Two Epistles, 291–95) argued that Polycarp's language shows that he knew at least Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, and probably also Ephesians, possibly Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, perhaps 1 Thessalonians, but clearly not Philemon. See further Zahn (Geschichte des Kanons, 1. 814–21) and Westcott, Brooke Foss (General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [6th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1889] 36–39).Google Scholar

²¹ See Campenhausen, Hans von, “Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe,” in idem, Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1963) 197–252Google Scholar; Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982) 306–8.Google Scholar

²² Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2: Ignatius, Polycarp (3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1889–90) 3. 327.Google Scholar Lightfoot later added (Philippians, 140–41) references from other Greek authors that he thought showed that both singular and plural forms of the word eniaxrArj could refer to a single letter, but I find his examples ambiguous.

²³ Zuntz, Günther, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures for 1946; London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1953)Google Scholar 14. Zahn discussed (Geschichte des Kanons, 1. 811–39) a similar dating based on his analysis of passages in I Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

²⁴ Lightfoot (Philippians, 142 n. 2) quotes Georgius Syncellus's comment on Paul's “first letter” to Philippi while discussing I Clement: τοùτοu κα;ἱ ò ᾴπóστολος έv τῆ πρòς Φιλιππησίους μἐμvηται πρώτη ἑπιστολῆ (“the apostle mentions him in his first letter to the Philippians“; Chron. 1 [ed. Wilhelm Dindorf; Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1828] 651).Google Scholar

²⁵ Lightfoot, Philippians, 138–42; Zahn, Geschichte des Kanons, 1. 814–16. Lightfoot reported elsewhere (Philippians, 69 n. 1) that a scholar named Le Moyne (not known to me) had already suggested a partition theory based on the use of the plural ἐπιστολαἰ in Polycarp.

²⁶ Moffatt, James, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918) 171Google Scholar; Michael, Philippians, 4–7; Schmithals, Walter, Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung z.u den Korintherbriefen (FRLANT 66; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956)Google Scholar 11 n. 5. The issue is discussed usefully by Lohmeyer, Ernst, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (1930; 13th ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964) 10–13Google Scholar; Best, Ernest, “Bishops and Deacons: Philippians 1,1,” in Cross, F. L., ed., Studia Evangelica 4 (TU 102; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968) 371–76Google Scholar; and Georgi, Dieter, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 27–32.Google Scholar