I did not find Doughty's argument compelling. In particular, his main contention that the opponents portrayed in Phil. 3.2-21 are Jews and Judaism in general rather than particular Judaizing missionaries who wish Paul's circumcise Paul's gentile converts is not a necessary reading of the text.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:10 pm Darrell Doughty's article "Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3:2-21 as a Deutero-Pauline Passage" brings some much needed skepticism to the Pharisee claim:
This wholly polemical passage (most of chapter 3 of Philippians!), in other words, has all the marks of being from a later time, and from the circle that composed Acts. It is highly polemical, and exaggerates all the themes of more genuine Pauline texts. The purpose is to define Christianity over against Judaism in the crudest way possible, to claim that Christians are the true Israel, that those who practice circumcision (i.e. Jews as such) are "dogs," and so forth.The portrait of Paul in Philippians 3:4-9 is exceptional. Elsewhere Paul's previous persecution of the church of God testifies that his call to be an apostle was by the grace of God (1 Cor 15:9-10; Gal 1:13-15). In Phil 3, however, it serves as evidence for his righteousness under the law. Nowhere else in the Pauline writings is Paul identified as a Pharisee. And nowhere else in these writings is there an appeal to Paul's blamelessness with regard to righteousness under the law. Only in Acts, where Paul's strict observance of the law is a central concern, are both his identity as a Pharisee and his persecution of the church set forth as evidence of his blameless conduct as a Jew (Acts 22:3-5; 26:4-5, 11). Nowhere else does Paul refer to Christ as "my Lord" (v 8), although such language is implied by the accounts of Paul's Damascus experience in Acts (9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Nowhere else does Paul speak in such a way of "gaining Christ" (v 8) or being "found in Christ" (v 9); and the meaning of this language is obscure.
See the whole article.
of this passage are related to assumptions concerning its
authorship. If this passage were written by Paul, it might be
reasonable to assume that Judaizing opponents of some kind are in
view. If the teachings in this passage are addressed to a deutero-
Pauline situation, however, other interpretations might be more
plausible. And, conversely, the plausibility of a different interpretation
of these teachings would support their deutero-Pauline
character. We will first argue that the image of the apostle in Phil
3.4-9 is deutero-Pauline, and then propose an interpretation of
this material that reflects a deutero-Pauline situation. But these
arguments are interdependent [Doughty, 106-107).
This is certainly true. If the teachings are addressed to a post-Pauline situation, we might read it in a different way. But I see no compelling reasons to assume it is. The opponents against whom Paul is polemicizing in Philippians 3 might well be Jewish-Christian missionaries who wish to circumcise Paul's gentile converts ('mutilate the flesh), just as the opponents in Galatians 5.12 are, about whom Paul says: 'I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!'. The boasting in this section is very similar in tone to that in 2 Cor 11.21-29:
And then there's the passage from Gal. 1.13-14 that John 2 has already cited:
In Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians, Paul is laying out his credentials against the those of opposing missionaries. In each case, there are elements he doesn't use in the other two, but there is a strong family resemblance among the three.
Nor do I find it particularly un-Pauline for the author to say that he was blameless as to righteousness under the law. In 1 Cor. 4.4 he says he is not aware of anything against himself. There are also some similarities between Philippians 3 and the other letters that would suggest, if the passage is indeed post-Pauline, the author studied Paul's letters and grasped Paul's thought better than the author of Acts did. These include Paul's urging the Philippians to 'imitate me' (as opposed to following other teachers) just as he had the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4.16, and the righteousness that comes from the "faith in/of Jesus Christ' in 3.9. I don't see what would compel us to reject Phil. 3.2-21 as non-Pauline if we are accepting Philippians as authentic in the first place (though I realize many on this forum would not).
Best,
Ken