apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
6oi
the connexion of the thoughts ;
and he supposes the main purport of
the letter to be the condemnation of the crime of Valens. From his
own point of view he has been refuted by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 499 sq),
who has taken the passages in detail and this refutation leaves ;
nothing
to be desired. I would only urge one additional consideration. One
of the chief passages which he omits is § 9.
As it mentions the connexion
of the Philippians with both S. Paul and S. Ignatius, its omission
is vital to his theory. Yet no one can say that it is unconnected with
its context. The writer has been speaking in § 8 of Christ as the
pattern of patience. He then proceeds in § 9 to remind the Philippians
of examples of patience in certain saints and martyrs of whom they had
personal knowledge. Then in § 10 he continues, 'In his ergo state et
Domini exemplar sequimini
'. Ritschl himself is
obliged to allow the
connexion of subject, though he discerns some incongruity in the mode
of introduction. But if we accept his omission, what is the result
The words will then run ; /^i/xT^rai ovv yevwfJb^Oa 717 vtto/xov^s avTOv Kat
idv TracTT^w/xev
8ta to ovo/xa avTov So^a^a)/xev auTov* tovtov yap rjjxiv
rov
8t'
VTToypaixfjiov eOrjKe iavTov, Koi '
T^yaei
touto iTrLcrrevaafjiev'
Dommi
exemplar sequimini Here we have an '. intolerable tautology. The
last clause is a mere repetition of the first— a repetition quite unintelligible
when it stands in this close proximity, though natural enough
as the resumption of the main subject after the digression of a whole
chapter.
But, whatever may be thought of the loss or gain to
the connexion
by the omission of the passages supposed to be interpolated, the identity
of style and character is a stubborn fact which testifies to the identity
of authorship. To this point, which has been overlooked, I desire to
call attention. Thus in § 3 there is a string of relative sentences os
y€VO/Aevos...6s koI a7ra)v...ets as ia.v...r]TL