![\"Cave](\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/Cave%20Canem.jpg\")
<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
So here’s my commentary on this Philippian text.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Vs. 2 <\/b>begins with a warning— ‘CAVE <\/p>\n It is hard to doubt that there were <\/span>G.D. \n Without question kun? <\/b>on Jewish lips (and others) could [1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Osiek, Philippians, <\/span><\/u> <\/span>p. [1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> G.D. [2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Fee, Philippians,
\nCANEM’ to use the familiar Latin phrase.
\n<\/span>Although ‘dog’ here in Philippians is in the plural nevertheless this was a very
\nfamiliar warning found in the marble floors of entry ways to villas in Roman
\ncities all over the Empire, normally with accompanying picture of a dog on a
\nleash. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nsuch houses in Philippi, a Roman colony
\ncity. <\/span>Only now in an interesting twist,
\nPaul is suggesting that the Philippians should not allow the dogs into their
\nhouses and house church meetings, rather than a literal dog keeping such <\/span>dog gone people out. But is Paul talking about
\na mere hypothetical potential situation, or an actual one? <\/span><\/p>\n
\nKilpatrick has argued that the verb blepete
\n<\/b>with an object in the accusative can have the sense of ‘consider’ rather
\nthan ‘beware’. <\/span>He points to a text like
\n1 Cor. 1.26 where Paul urges “consider your calling”, or possibly even more apt
\n1 Cor. 10.18 where he urges “consider (blepete<\/b>)
\nIsrael
\naccording to the flesh”.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>If one goes with the translation ‘consider’ in
\nPhil. 3.2 then Paul would mean ‘consider the example of my perennial thorns in
\nthe flesh, the Judaizers’ used as a negative example, without any implication
\nthey are currently plaguing the Philippians.
\n<\/span>Here is where rhetorical analysis comes into play. <\/span>Notice the threefold repetition of blepete <\/b>here and the sense has to be
\n‘watch’ in the sense of ‘watch out for’ as this is a clear threefold warning
\nchanging the epithets used to describe the singular adversary warned about–an
\nexample of rhetorical ‘amplification’[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The warning is rhetorically strengthened by
\neach of the objects of the term beginning with the Greek letter kappa–kunas, kakous, katatom?n. [3]<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/span>“<\/b>Since
\nPaul repeats the imperative watch out <\/i>three
\ntimes and each time attaches dangerous direct objects…to the verb, the direct
\nobjects color the verb with the meaning of a warning to be aware of or watch out for <\/i>something hazardous…harmful
\nadversaries.”[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>This is why the translation’beware’ is
\nperfectly appropriate here, especially when we consider the common clich\u00e9 about
\ndogs. <\/span>I doubt Paul has in mind mere wild
\ndogs or scavengers.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>He is talking about guard dogs, in this case
\n‘dogs’ who see themselves as guardians of Jewish orthopraxy. This is invective and polemics of the highest order.<\/p>\n
\nbe and often was a derisive term, in this case which could refer to
\nuncircumcised, hence unclean, persons, including especially Gentiles (Deut.
\n23.18; Is. 56.10-11; 2 Pet. 2.22; Rev. 22.14-15 and see the handling of Exod.
\n22.31 in Mishnah Ned. 4.3 and Bek. 5.6).
\n<\/span>Generally speaking dogs were not pets in antiquity, but rather ran wild,
\nbut there was an exception— the guard dog (see above). <\/span>Paul with rhetorical flair here has changed
\nthe term ‘dog’ so it refers to those who insist on circumcision. <\/span>Osiek calls this the vehemence of conventional
\nrhetoric in which opponents are excoriated, to create emotional distance in the
\naudience from such people and their views.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n82. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nKilpatrick, “Blepete, <\/i>Philippians 3.2” <\/i>in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, <\/u>eds.
\nM. Black and G. Fohrer <\/span>(Berlin:
\nTopelmann, 1968), pp. 145-48. <\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/u>p. 293 n. 37.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n