Philippians and Philemon - MR Vincent - 1906.pdf

xxiv INTRODUCTION
to Thessalonica, thus carrying the news of the apostle's removal
to Rome. But for this there is not a particle of evidence.
On the other hand, Lightfoot's constructive argument for the
earlier date of the letter is anything but conclusive, and is, I
venture to think, illogical in method, although it has the weighty
indorsement of Dr. Hort. Lightfoot urges that in style and tone
this epistle more resembles the earlier letters than do the epistles
to the Ephesians and Colossians ; that it represents the transition
from the conflict with Pharisaic Judaism to that with the new type
of error which was emerging in the Asiatic churches. But grant-
ing the striking parallels between Romans and Philippians, and
granting that Ephesians and Colossians exhibit an advanced stage
of development in the churches both on the side of heresy and
of Christian knowledge, surely it by no means follows that the
order of composition corresponds with the stages of development.
The special circumstances in the case of each church must be
taken into the account. I cannot see the force of Farrar's statement
{Paul, ii. p. 419) that the Philippian epistle, if it had been
written later than the Asiatic epistles, must have borne traces of
the controversy with the incipient gnosticism of the Colossian,
church. Why?— "The incipient gnosticism of the Colossian
church " had not reached Philippi. As Professor Ramsay ob-
serves, " It was not in Paul's way to send to Philippi an elaborate
treatise against a subtle, speculative heresy which had never af-
fected that church." And, in any case, it is not easy to construct,
on the data furnished by these epistles, a scale of church development
so accurately graded as to furnish a satisfactory basis of
reasoning in a case like this. Philippians, it is true, presents
some striking parallels with Romans ; but parallels with Romans
may be pointed out in both Ephesians and Colossians (see v.
Soden, Hand-Comm. Koloss., Einl. iv.) ; and it would not be dif-
ficult to make out a case for a development in the Philippian
church quite as advanced as that represented in Ephesians, though
possibly on different Hues.
Nothing in the epistle compels us to place it later than the
others, and nothing prevents our placing it earlier ; but it must
be admitted that positive evidence for the earlier date is lacking.
It may be remarked that the Philippians would follow the apostle's
movements as closely as possible. It is not impossible that the news