and under Thracian control.4 In his quest to strengthen Macedo-
nia's situation in the east, Philip II (Alexander the Great's father)
managed to seize control of the flourishing Greek gold-mining
town of Krenides. After he drove the Thracian ruler Ketriporis
from the city, Philip promptly repopulated Krenides with Mace-
donians, renamed the city Philippi, and incorporated the city into
his ever-growing Macedonian state in 356 B.C.5 Thus Philippi's
earliest history indicates that it was a Greek city-state, populated
by Greeks.6
ans (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 828–30; Jean-Francois Collange, L'epitre de
saint Paul aux Philippians, Commentaire du Nouveau Testament (Neuchatel:
Delachaux & Niestle, 1973), 28–30, 110; O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians; 33;
Moises Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 3–5, 168–71; Mikael Tellbe, "The Sociological Factors
behind Philippians 3:1–11 and the Conflict at Philippi," Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 55 (1994): 97–121; and Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians, 9,
293–97.
4 Krenides was founded as a result of Greece's expansion activities during the
sixth century B.C. Paros initially colonized Thasos, a large island in the north
Aegean Sea, which in turn secured gold and silver settlements on the mainland.
These mainland settlements, however, were not without struggles against the
warlike Thracians. Krenides was one such settlement (Strabo, Geography 7.34;
Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 16.3.7; Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger, eds.,
Greece and Rome, vol. 1 of Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean [New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988], 215; Oswyn Murray, Early Greece, 2d ed.
[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993], 102–23, esp. 115–17).
5 Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 16.8.6–7. When Berisades, the Thracian ruler
of the Pangaion mining area, died, his children divided their father's kingdom
among themselves. Ketriporis received the Greek gold-mining town of Krenides.
However, a dispute arose between Ketriporis and the people of Krenides. Erring-
ton describes how "Philip executed his program of aid for Krenides with his usual
uncompromising persistence" (R. Malcolm Errington, A History of Macedonia
[Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990], 45–48; cf. Paul Collart,
Philippes, ville de Macedoine depuis ses origines jusqu' a la fin de l'epoque ro-
maine [Paris: de Boccord, 1937], 157-60).
6 Murray has suggested that Greeks may have intermarried with Thracians dur-
ing their early expansion activities on Thasos. After the colony was established,
however, the practice was discouraged or prohibited (Murray, Early Greece, 115).
If this is true, it may explain Thracian carvings of the so-called Thracian Horse-
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 41
Although Philippi was part of the Macedonia state for nearly
190 years, Rome's aggressive activities in the east eventually
terminated Macedonia's autonomy. After the Battle of Pydna
(Third Macedonian War) in 168 B.C., Rome dismantled the
Macedonian state and eventually annexed Macedonia as a Ro-
man province in 148 B.C.7 With its gold mines exhausted,
Philippi's population declined to a small Greek settlement. How-
ever, because of circumstances in Rome, Philippi eventually rose
to a place of prominence as a Roman city. Octavian and Antony,
who desired to avenge the assassination of Julius Caesar (on
March 19, 44 B.C.), pursued and defeated Cassius and Brutus
(Julius Caesar's assassins) on the plains of Philippi in 42 B.C.8 As
a result of this victory, Octavian refounded Philippi as a military
colony, repopulated it with retired veterans, and named it Colonia
Victrix Philippensium. After his defeat of Antony at Actium in 31
B.C., Octavian further colonized Philippi with veterans, this time
discharged veterans from Antony's army, and renamed the city
Colonia Julia Philippensium. In 27 B.C. when Octavian was des-
ignated August, he once again lengthened Philippi's name—
Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensium. He also bestowed Roman
citizenship on the people of Philippi.9 Thus Octavian (Augustus)
man (a Horseman/Hero cult comparable to Asklepios, a Greco-Roman healing god)
on the acropolis—a hill near Philippi that served as an open-air shrine for pagan
cults. Abrahamsen suggests that Thrace "deeply influenced Philippi's religious
development" (Valerie Abrahamsen, "Christianity and the Rock Reliefs at
Philippi," Biblical Archaeologist 51 [March 1988]: 46-56). Perhaps this influence
began on Thasos and was transported to Krenides when Thasian Greeks expanded
to the mainland. Regardless of these archaeological findings, Philippi was a Greek-
speaking, Greek-populated, Greek-cultured city-state.
7 Errington, A History of Macedonia, 216-17; and Pliny, Natural History 4.10.39.
Although Macedonia functioned as an independent Greek state after the Second
Macedonian War, the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 B.C. led to Macedonia's becom-
ing a Roman province. Errington contends, "The external spheres of dominion and
influence that had turned Macedonia into a great power had been abolished, and
the Romans took care that they were never reestablished" (Errington, A History of
Macedonia, 204).
8 Plutarch, Lives 6.38.1-52.5; Cassius Dio, Roman History 47.42.1-49.4; and
Collart, Philippes, 191-219.
9 Julius Caesar and Octavian (Augustus) are credited with establishing most of
the military colonies for veterans and civilian settlers. Paul visited and estab-
lished churches in five such military colonies: Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-50),
Lystra (14:4-20), and Troas in Asia Minor (16:8-11; 20:6-12; 2 Tim. 4:13); Corinth in
Achaia (Acts 18:1-18); and Philippi in Macedonia (16:11-40). See A. N. Sherwin-
White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1963), 176-78. During New Testament times Roman citizenship outside of
Rome was rare. Even Caracalla's extended Roman citizenship in A.D. 212 was lim-
ited to male free (nonslave) people (Chris Scarre, Chronicles of the Roman Em-
perors: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome [London:
Thames & Hudson, 19951, 136-46, esp. 146). For archaeological discussions see Col-
42 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January-March 1998
transformed the ancient Greek city-state Philippi into a Roman
municipality with significant rights and privileges granted only
to Roman citizens (i.e., it possessed lex Italicum). In essence
Philippi was a Greco-Roman city with clout.
By the time Paul came to Philippi in A.D. 50/51 the city was
populated by both Greeks and Romans. In fact the few people
Scripture specifically mentions in connection with the Philippian
church had Greek (Lydia, Acts 16:14-15; Euodia and Syntyche,
Phil. 4:2) and Roman (Clement, Phil. 4:2) names. Although the
"frequent theme of Acts," might support Schwartz's claim that
"Paul's accusers in Philippi are Jewish not Gentile,"10 Acts
clearly indicates that no significant Jewish population existed in
Philippi. When Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke arrived at
Philippi, they went outside the city gate to the Gangites River,
where they expected to find a "place of prayer" (proseuxh<, Acts
16:13a).11 Traditionally ten men were needed to establish a syna-
gogue (Pirke Abot 3.7). Philippi's Jewish population, however,
seems to have been unique in that it consisted of women only;
Luke wrote that he and the others spoke "to the women who had as-
sembled" at the place of prayer (16:13b). Thus the Jewish popula-
tion at Philippi was not only scanty in number,12 but also it seems
lart, Philippes, 240–41; and Marcus N. Todd, "Notes on Two Published Inscrip-
tions," Annual of the British School at Athens 23 (1918–19): 94–97.
10 Schwartz believes the accusers in Acts 16:20–21 were Jewish. He cites three
reasons in support of this. (1) "Acts frequently shows born Jews, who are now
Christians, practicing and teaching non-Jewish practices (and beliefs)—and at
times attacked by Jews for doing so" (Acts 4:1–3; 5:17–18; 6:8–14; 7:52, 57–58; 8:1–4;
9:1–2, 23; 12:3; 13:6–8, 45, 50; 14:19; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12; 19:9; 20:3; 21:11, 27; 22:22; 23:12–15,
30; 28:19). (2) "Conversion to Christianity was not forbidden by law until the mid-
second century, well after both the incident and the composition of Acts." (3) Paul
and Silas were charged with teaching Christianity, not Judaism (1 Thess. 2:2). Con-
sequently Schwartz suggests translating Acts 16:20–21 in the following manner:
"And they brought them to the magistrates, saying: ‘Although they are Jews
( ]Ioudai?oi u[pa
they are teaching practices which are unlawful for us (i.e., Jews) to accept or do, be-
ing Romans'" (Daniel R. Schwartz, "The Accusation and the Accusers at Philippi,"
Biblica 65 [1984]: 357–63). Although Schwartz's rendering of Acts 16:20–21 is gram-
matically possible, the historical and immediate context does not support his
translation. In addition Gentile insurrection against Paul in Philippi is not an iso-
lated event in Acts, as Schwartz suggests. Gentile insurrection occurred in Eph-
esus (16:23–34) and insulting Gentile reaction against Paul occurred in Athens
(17:18, 32).
11 Although "place of prayer" (proseuxh<) can mean a synagogue, Conzelmann con-
tends that "it is strange that the author then says ou$ e]nomi
posed there was a place of prayer.' It is even stranger," he continues, "that only
women were there" (Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 130).
12 "To the scanty numbers and feeble influence of the Jews," Lightfoot believes, "we
may perhaps in some degree ascribe the unswerving allegiance of this church to
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 43
to have been composed exclusively of women. Hence no syna-
gogue or large population of Jews existed in Philippi.
Before Paul's visit, Philippi was composed of Greek and
Roman Gentiles, with some Jewish women, and at least one
woman, Lydia, who was a God-fearer or "worshiper of God"
(sebomen qeo
gogue, the presence of a small Jewess population, or the mention
of only Gentile conversions in Acts 16 does not eliminate the pos-
sibility that Paul's opponents there were Jewish. Nevertheless it
helps to know that historical reconstructions are necessary to
support Jewish ethnicity of the opponents typically referred to as
Judaizers. Two reconstructions are noted.
One reconstruction is that Jewish missionaries followed
Paul to either "reconvert" or to further convert Gentile Chris-
tians. However, the Jews in Acts are depicted as following Paul
not to reconvert or proselytize Christians but to persecute them
(14:19; 17:5-9; cf. 9:1-3). In addition Jewish Christian Judaizers,
whose supposed mission was to follow Paul and "further convert"
Gentile churches, seem to have limited their appearances to
Galatia, Corinth, and Philippi. Why? Why not Ephesus and
Colossae as well? Also lexical parallels frequently made with
Galatians and 2 Corinthians to support the Jewish Judaizer view-
point13 overlook the different tones and emphases that exist be-
tween Philippians, Galatians,14 and 2 Corinthians.15
the person of the Apostle and to the true principles of the Gospel" (J. B. Lightfoot,
St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [London: Macmillan, 1913; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1953], 53). Also see Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of
Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990), 2:196, n. 4; and
F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testa-
ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 331.
13 Several plausible arguments have been presented to connect Galatians and 2
Corinthians with Philippians in an attempt to identify Paul's opponents as Jewish.
See Ellis, "Paul and His Opponents," 264–98; Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians,
294–97; and O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 355–56.
14 According to Lea the teachings of the Jewish Judaizers in Galatia were viewed
as "a threat to the spiritual condition of his converts" (6:12) and "if legal obedience
were a method of salvation, the death of Jesus was unnecessary (Gal. 2:20–21 [sic] )"
(Thomas D. Lea, "Unscrambling the Judaizers: Who Were Paul's Opponents?"
Southwestern Journal of Theology 44 [1994]: 23–29). In Philippians, however, the
opposers were not a threat to the spiritual condition of the saints in Philippi nor
was their method of salvation based on obedience to the Law. It seems that despite
their motivation for preaching Christ, Paul rejoiced in that Christ was being
preached (Phil. 1:15–18); mentioning the opponents' eternal doom, Paul encouraged
the saints to maintain an unwavering and unified stance against them (1:27–28);
and Paul used them as an object lesson to encourage the community to avoid mixing
the ritualistic practices of Judaism with Christianity (3:2). Thus differences in
tone mitigate against identifying the opponents in Philippians with those in Gala-
tians.
44 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March 1998
A second historical reconstruction speculates that Paul
merely addressed a potential problem. It is argued that Paul,
though absent at the time of his writing, prepared the Philippians
for a potential conflict with Jewish Christian Judaizers.16 Yet
Paul's letters usually, if not always, addressed real—not poten-
tial—problems that required immediate instruction or guidance.
Thus with these and similar reconstructions many writers con-
clude that the opponents in Philippi were mission-minded Jews—
whether propagandists, Christian, or Gnostic17—who followed
Paul and sought to supplant his message.
A third historical reconstruction less frequently argued is
that the opponents were “Gentile Judaizers.”18 Perhaps a group of
professing Christians existed in Philippi who entertained Jewish
practices (e.g., circumcision), but they were Gentiles and hence
were local Gentile Judaizers. This suggestion raises several
questions. How could a Gentile be circumcised or observe Jewish
15 According to Garland, "the parallels between Phil. 3 and 2 Cor. 11 are by no
means precise." After noting the fact that Paul was not on the defensive in Philip-
pians and his apostleship was not in dispute as it was in 2 Corinthians, Garland
points out that "there is no hint of circumcision in 2 Corinthians; nor is there any
hint in Philippians that the church has fallen prey to intruders (see 2 Cor. 11:4) or
that they would even be received sympathetically" (David E. Garland, "The Compo-
sition and Unity of Philippians," Novum Testamentum 27 [1985]: 141-73, esp. 168, n.
94). In fact 2 Corinthians 10–13 is more of an apologetic against clear accusations.
Again differences in tone mitigate against identifying the opponents in Philippi
with those in Corinth.
16 Lightfoot suggests that Paul's flow of thought was "interrupted." "He is in-
formed," Lightfoot supposes, "of some fresh attempt of the Judaizers in the
metropolis to thwart and annoy him. What if they should interfere at Philippi as
they were doing at Rome, and tamper with the faith and loyalty of his converts?
With this thought weighing on his spirit he resumes his letter" (St. Paul's Epistle
to the Philippians, 69–70). Fee argues, "There is no suggestion in the text that they
(i.e. ‘[apparently] Jewish Christians’) are actually present in Philippi" (Fee,
Paul's Letter to the Philippians, 9, 293).
17 Koester describes them as Jewish Christian Gnostics who preached a message
of perfectionism that was part of a "radicalized spiritualistic eschatology" (Helmut
Koester, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," New Testament Stud-
ies 8 [1962]: 317–32; cf. Ralph Martin, Philippians, New Century Bible Commentary
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 22-34, 124–26). Holladay agrees but refers to their
eschatology as an "over-realized eschatology" (Carl R. Holladay, "Paul's Opponents
in Philippians 3," Restoration Quarterly 12 [1969]: 77–90). Also see Joseph B.
Tyson, "Paul's Opponents at Philippi," Perspectives 3 (1976): 82-95. For a discus-
sion of the weaknesses of this view see O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 27-
29, and Chris L. Mearns, "The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi," New Tes-
tament Studies (1987): 194–204.
18 Grayston argues that they were "a Gentile semi-gnostic group who had adopted
ritual circumcision in a manner which Paul regarded as outrageous and shameful"
(Kenneth Grayston, "The Opponents in Philippians 3," Expository Times 97 [March
1986]: 170-72).
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 45
practices, and still be considered a Gentile? Antiquity reveals,
however, that circumcision is not the sine qua non for Gentile
conversion. Nor is the observance of Jewish rituals an indication
of one's proselytism. If this is true, then what in antiquity differ-
entiated a Jewish sympathizer or semi-Jew from a Jewish prose-
lyte?
DEFINING JEWISHNESS
The pervasive influence of Judaism throughout the Mediter-
ranean during the first century cannot be ignored easily. On the
one hand Josephus lauded Judaism's influence in the Mediter-
ranean area. "The masses have long since shown a keen desire
to adopt our religious observances; and there is not one city,
Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of
abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and [in