Der Philipperbrief des Paulus. Eve-Marie Becker
Christi, des Gefangenen, der in Erwartung eines baldigen Todes auf die KonformitätChristus-Konformität mit Christus in Leiden und Auferstehung hofft (Phil 3,10f.21). Paulus sucht, sich selbst und seinen Lesern am exemplumexemplum Christi (Phil 2,6-11) ethische und eschatologische Orientierung zu geben. Die PolemikPolemik gegen die „Feinde des Kreuzes Christi“ (Phil 3,18) wird zum scharfen Kontrast zum Beispiel des Paulus (Beitrag XV), des demütig gesinnten Nachahmers Christi, der nun für sich selbst, noch vor dem Tag der Parusie, auf eschatologische Vollendung hofft.
3. Kurzer Ausblick und Dank
Die in diesem Band versammelten Aufsätze markieren eher den Anfangs- als den Schlusspunkt meiner Beschäftigung mit dem Philipperbrief.Selbst, self, selfhoodSelf-FashioningDemutPolemikGegner (des Paulus)ἄνω κλῆσιςLuther, MartinLöhr, Hermut1 Die Vorarbeit an einem Kommentar macht zunächst das Nachdenken über sachgerechte Schlüsselfragen notwendig, mit Hilfe derer sich der Text umfassend und möglichst nachhaltig erschließen lässt.
Der mutmaßlich letzte Brief des Paulus verdient zudem längerfristig eine besondere Aufmerksamkeit – via Kommentierungsarbeit und darüber hinaus. So stellen die in diesem Band versammelten Studien eher eine Momentaufnahme nach knapp zehnjähriger Annäherung an den Philipperbrief als eine auswertende Interpretation dar. Gleichwohl lassen sich schon an den hier versammelten Beiträgen hermeneutische Bahnen erkennen, auf denen die Auslegungsarbeit fortlaufend voranschreitet.
Ich danke den Mitherausgeberinnen und -herausgebern der NET-Reihe – Jens Herzer, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Oda WischmeyerWischmeyer, Oda und Hanna Zapp – für die Aufnahme des Bandes in die Reihe. Dem Francke Verlag, besonders Frau Dr. Valeska Lembke, danke ich für die gute und zuverlässige Zusammenarbeit im gesamten Publikationsprozess. Den verschiedenen Verlagen, bei denen die Mehrzahl der Beiträge erstveröffentlicht wurden, danke ich für die Erteilung der Wiederabdruckgenehmigungen (siehe auch Verzeichnis der Erstveröffentlichungen). Einen besonderen Dank schulde ich schließlich Frau stud. theol. et phil. Rebecca Meerheimb (Münster) für ihre verlässliche Arbeit an der Vorbereitung des Gesamtmanuskripts und die Erstellung der Register – ohne ihren Einsatz hätte der Band nicht so bald erscheinen können.
Die verschiedenen, hier versammelten Beiträge zum Philipperbrief verdanken sich überwiegend Aufforderungen zum Mitwirken an Konferenzen, Workshops, Seminargruppen oder Publikationsprojekten. So danke ich allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die auf diese Weise meine Arbeit am Philipperbrief angeregt und gefördert haben, und allen Studierenden in den vergangenen Jahren in Aarhus, Atlanta und Münster, die manche Forschungsthese bereitwillig mitdiskutiert und immer auch kreativ weitergedacht haben.
Münster/Westfalen im Juli 2019
I Paul and “Paul”: Paul’s letter to the Philippians in light of Acts 20:18-36*
1. Luke’s reproduction of Paul in Acts 2005Apg2005Apg20,105Apg20,18-3605Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff.
In his famous and well-known chapter on methodology (“Methodenkapitel”), the Greek historian ThucydidesThukydides/Thucydides1,22 reflects about the function of speechesspeeches in history-writing (1.22). Here he reveals some remarkable insights into his compositional techniques as a history-writer:
As to the speeches that were made by different men it has been difficult to recall (διαμνημονεῦσαι) with strict accuracy (ἀκρίβειαν) the words actually spoken, both for me, as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports (ἀπαγγέλλουσιν). Therefore the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.1
As we learn from this short passage of the Peloponnesian War, the historian’s composition of speeches has to deal with a few technical issues and interpretive challenges because he writes partly about events he has not witnessed himself: the composition of speeches is (a) based on different types of reports and sources; (b) should reach authenticity, and (c) has to be adjusted to the overall narrative purpose. The composition of speeches thus necessarily has to go through historiographical interpretation. Particularly in and by means of speeches, the historian can and must articulate to a huge degree his particular interpretive view of history. Consequently, a reshaping of historical protagonists will take place especially when the historian frames his figures as orators.
Since Martin DibeliusDibelius, Martin (“Die RedenReden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung”) the insights on ancient methods and aims of historiographical “speech-making” have been applied consistently to Lukan studies. In the case of Acts, it is now a widely shared scholarly methodology to read the diversity of speeches inserted into the narrative as the historian’s intentional attempt to make his narrative sound authentic. The historian, for instance, implements a “biblicizing style” or “archaizing effect” (e.g., Acts 3:13),2 or points to the diversity of languages that are used by the different protagonists of his story (Acts 2:805Apg02,8; 21:4005Apg21,40; 22:205Apg22,2; 26:1405Apg26,14). The historian, in other words, uses the speeches as elements for further interpreting the history of events (pragmata): the elements of analepsis and prolepsis are inherent to speeches as they help arrange the narrative account into a coherent more story. In regard to the quest for Lukan sources – especially in the case of Pauline speeches (Acts 13-2805Apg13-28) – scholarly opinions still differ: did Luke know and use Pauline letter-writing when he shaped or re-shaped the image (or “picture”)3 of Paul – especially as an orator – in Acts?4
The quest concerning Luke’s usage of Pauline letter-writing is frequently put into a much wider interpretive frame. On the one hand, we could discuss how the image of Paul is (re)shaped in a variety of post-Pauline writings up to the end of the 2nd century CE: from Pauline pseudepigraphy up to the Acts of Paul we could explore how Paul is perceived and reproduced as an apostle – including or excluding his own letter-writing activity.5 Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, on the other hand has, among others, broadened the debate about Lukan sources in Acts far beyond the speech sections: he even suggests reading a re-narrating passage like Acts 9:1-2505Apg09,1-25 as a “narrative history based on the letters of Paul.”6 By showing how Acts 9 recalls or echoes several Pauline letters (esp. Gal, 1 and 2 Cor), Buitenwerf ultimately reaches the conclusion that Acts in general “depends” on Pauline letters (p. 85). As many other scholars before and after him (e.g., R. I. Pervo), Buitenwerf also finds it difficult to imagine “that the author of Acts … did not have access to Paul’s letters” (p. 85). Pauline letters had been spread. They must have been known especially to an author like Luke who in general and by (selfSelbst, self, selfhood)definition was so eager to collect all kinds of available materials on the past (Lk 1:1-403Lk01,1-4). Even though we can thus presuppose a Lukan knowledge of Paul’s letters, I would make two critical remarks to Buitenwerf’s proposal:
First, I would avoid the use of the term “literary dependence” when describing Luke’s way of “using” Pauline letter-writing. As I intend to show in this paper, the relation between Acts and Pauline epistolography is much more complex – as the general principles of how Luke (re)shapes the image of Paul in Acts are much more diverse (s. below). Second, in contrast to how Buitenwerf in his interpretation of Acts largely repeats the long lasting prejudice that “as historiography, Acts is not very reliable” (p. 61), I would argue, instead, that – seen specifically in light of ThucydidesThukydides/Thucydides1,22’ methodological reflections mentioned above – Luke’s attempt to reshape rather than to record Paul by creative means has to be seen as an authenticating strategy. This is especially true when Luke presents Paul as an orator and creates speeches that cannot be verbatim reports, and thus are hardly “historically precise” – because Luke has to rely on various, manifold, and partly divergent kinds of “sources.” Luke in fact reproduces Paul. Luke himself would consider this way of (re)shaping Paul to be the most accurate