Despite the extensive attention that has been given to Philippians 2:6–11 in relation to its Christology, the possibility that v8 alludes to the story about Jesus in Gethsemane has received only cursory mention when it has been considered at all. Philippians 2:8 and the Gospel tradition converge in depicting Jesus choosing to be obedient to God even to the point of death, in the absence of an interpretation of that death as itself salvific. The historical allusion, offered in the midst of a heavily theologized Christological statement, offers an excellent test case for an approach to history which accepts that fact and interpretation are inseparable, and yet still proceeds under the conviction that critical historiography remains possible.
See also Christine JacobiJesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter2015) ebook sections 4.2 5.3.3 and 6.2 on connections between the imperative to be watchful in the Gethsemane story and 1 Thessalonians (print edition pp. 123–188).
Alfred PlummerA Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to The Philippians (London: Robert Scott1919) p. 47. Interestingly Jean-Francois Collange The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (London: Epworth 1979) p. 99 briefly mentions the possibility of seeking to escape apprehension at Gethsemane being in view in Phil.2:6.
Carolyn OsiekPhilippians and Philemon (Nashville: Abingdon2000) pp. 62–63. Osiek also points out the centrality of obedience to what follows in the letter (p. 69). See likewise Gordon Fee Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995) p. 216.
Barbara Saunderson“Gethsemane: the missing witness”Biblica70 (1989) pp. 224–233 (231–233) notes the likelihood of increased activity on the Mount of Olives during holidays that saw increased numbers of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. On the one hand increased numbers of people moving between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives might have obscured the nature of one approaching group coming to apprehend Jesus. On the other hand the same increased activity would have facilitated Jesus’ escape if he had sought to avoid apprehension. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that the custom of closing one’s eyes when praying may not go back to the first century. Matthew 26:39 mentions Jesus falling on his face but does not specify that he remained in that position throughout his time of prayer.
See Scot McKnightJesus and His Death (Waco: Baylor University Press2005) pp. 127–128 for the cup at various places throughout the Jewish Scriptures as symbol of divine judgment and thus the “Final Ordeal.” Also Downing “Jesus and Martyrdom” p. 287 on the imagery as it appears in the Martyrdom of Isaiah.
Cf. McKnightJesus and His Death pp. 6–7; Michael J. Thate Remembrance of Things Past?: Albert Schweitzer the Anxiety of Influence and the Untidy Jesus of Markan Memory (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013) pp. 297–302; Joel L. Watts Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Eugene: Wipf & Stock 2013) pp. 33 234.
See Karl Olav SandnesEarly Christian Discourses on Jesus’ Prayer at Gethsemane (Leiden: E.J. Brill2015) p. 114. In addition to the words and behavior of Jesus the failure of the disciples also adds to the probability that the story has a historical basis. See for instance Joel B. Green “Gethsemane” in Craig A. Evans (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge 2008) pp. 224–225.
Theissen and WinterQuest pp. 239–241call this the “criterion of resistance to tendencies of the tradition.” Contrast Rafael Rodriguez “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus” in Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne (eds.) Jesus Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity (London: T&T Clark 2012) pp. 132–151 (143–4) which on the one hand cannot escape the “common sense” character of this criterion when applied wisely and judiciously yet on the other fails to recognize that ongoing conflict with opponents who also recalled the past can explain why the developing tradition did not simply drop material such as the accusation of demon possession.
Anthony Le DonneHistorical Jesus: What can we know and how can we know it? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans2011) p. 134; “Theological Memory Distortion” pp. 167–168. There he also writes (165) “the historian’s task is not simply to sift through the facts (from which they will create their own interpretations) but to account for these early interpretations by explaining the perceptions and memories that birthed them.”