Abstract
Witherington sets out to present a commentary on Philippians that emphasizes what he calls a “socio-rhetorical” approach. These emphases are combined with traditional elements one might find in a commentary: theological analysis, historical critical comments, and history of scholarship. The strengths of Witherington's work are similar to other commentaries in the field. Witherington provides an ample bibliography to works on Philippians separated into sections on commentaries, monographs, and articles. In accordance with the theme of the commentary, he places marks next to entries that have elements of rhetorical analysis or social analysis. In his introduction, Witherington addresses themes in the letter, history and composition of the city into the fourth century, a discussion of women's roles in the community, the provenance of the letter, a “social analysis” and more. He argues for a historical critical approach that takes into account ancient rhetorical conventions while addressing cultural contexts. The body of the commentary follows the order of the letter. Throughout, he gives his readers ample background, introductions to the wider scholarly discussions, and some theological critique of each passage. Further, he integrates comments concerning Paul's use of ancient rhetoric throughout his analysis of the letter. The volume concludes with helpful indices of subjects, modern authors and ancient texts. Unlike most indices, this one includes an entry on women but none on the archaeological evidence such as the cult of Artemis.
Although the author advocates for the use of a socio-rhetorical model for interpretation, he falls short on the side of the “social” or “cultural” when it comes to integration of his methodological claims in his work as a whole. For example, on pages 87–89, he brackets out a discussion of honor and shame but rarely integrates the usefulness of the model in his commentary as a whole. Also, he utilizes issues of honor and shame as afterthoughts in his section on Philippians 1:3–11 (pp. 62, 70) rather than using the model in a more integrated way throughout his analysis. In his introduction, he attempts to outline the nature of social identity theory as a helpful model for analyzing ancient letters yet does not cite Bruce Malina when discussing dyadic personality or Philip Esler when utilizing Social Identity Theory. Further, when Witherington attempts to use social science methodology, he attacks the very same methodology as anachronistic, undercutting his own work through his criticisms. He directly calls into question the Context Group but he only cites two members (Bruce Malina and John Pilch). At the same time, he readily uses their work.
Witherington goes even further in his rhetoric against those who study ancient culture. He makes claims about the Context Group as if the group promotes an artificial divide between the use of models and social history. His division between the two in regard to the group betrays a lack of knowledge surrounding the group's overall work since both approaches are used and integrated by Context Group members (cf., e.g., the work of John Kloppenborg or Richard DeMaris). In other areas of the commentary, he continues to make veiled criticism of the Context Group, even though this criticism is unfounded. For example, in his section on 2:1–18, Witherington has an excursus on E. A. Judge's work on Early Christianity and Paul. He concludes this section by stating that Judge's work calls us back to the “social facts” and to pay attention to archaeological data before “we try to make the NT lie down in some modern sociological or social-scientific Procrustean bed” (p. 128). In the following paragraph, he returns to analysis of the text, proclaiming that the ancients have an agonistic culture centered on honor and shame. While Witherington wants to appear to be careful in his use of social science criticism, this back and forth between criticism of social science methodology and the contradictory use of social science methodology plague the commentary throughout.
Regarding Witherington's use of rhetoric as a methodological tool, he seems more centered on it without criticism of its use. As with his discussions of social science methods, there are moments in the commentary where he brackets out discussions of rhetoric and its use in Greco-Roman contexts. Although this is the case, these asides seem far more useful since he integrates his rhetorical method more widely throughout the book. For example, he has a section on synkrisis in his section on 3:1–4:1 (pp. 191–93). He cites Quintilian and explains how synkrisis works in a Greco-Roman context. His discussion here centers on the Judaizers and Paul's rhetorical arguments against them and in favor of his leadership. What is problematic about his use of rhetoric is that he still uses Kennedy's work extensively while ignoring studies that have moved the conversation forward. For example, Vernon Robbins' work is not cited nor addressed in the commentary; nor does the author engage with J. David Hester, both scholars who critique earlier understandings of rhetoric that fail to address ideological issues. Kennedy's approach is more descriptive and remains in the vein of form criticism while Hester has demonstrated that it's necessary to address issues of language and power via Foucault. Ignoring these advances in his commentary causes his analysis to fall flat and, at times, his application of rhetorical descriptions offers little interpretative freight.
In the body of the commentary, Witherington continues to make some strides in dealing with gendered issues, but still misses opportunities to move the conversation on this issue forward. He states in his introduction that women were important within the Philippian Pauline community and rightly notes that women were leaders in this Gentile community, but he misses the chance to place gendered issues at the center of some of his analysis. For example, Witherington discusses Paul's remapping of citizenship, but he does not mention how women would have been impacted by a Roman citizenship that was exclusive to elite males rather than inclusive (pp. 93, 101–02). In his comments on 4:2–3, Witherington gives a background of women's issues in the Greco-Roman context and rightly applies these to Euodia and Syntyche's situation, doing more than most commentaries on this section in terms of women.
While uneven in its methodological application, the commentary offers readers an introduction to Philippians that would be useful in the context of upper division undergraduate as well as beginning seminary courses with caveats from other readings and the professor.