Variants to Consider This section takes a look at the major variants in the letter to the Philippians in order to determine

whether or not they should be examined as apologetically motivated variants in the next chapter. The variants will be given a cursory examination to determine if apologetic motivation was behind scribal changes. Philippians 1 The first major variant to consider can be found in 1:1 where su;n episkovpoiV, represented by most MSS, can be viewed as original as compared to sunepiskovpoiV, represented by B3 Dc K 075 33 1739 itr Arm. Chrysostom. The difference in meaning is subtle, yet noticeablewith the overseers versus co-overseers.1 The second reading is secondary to the original reading and more than likely arose from dogmatic or ecclesiastical interests from a later date, which indicates that this variant was intentional but that it should not be examined further for possible apologetic influence.2 Another major variant to consider is found in 1:3, where tw/: qew/: mou is represented by most MSS and tw/: kuriw/: hJmw:n is represented by three major Western witnesses D F G. The second reading can be seen as secondary to the original reading based on both internal and external considerations. The difference in meaning is once again subtle, yet noticeably nonPauline as Paul normally gives thanks to God not Lord.3 While this variant does include non-

Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 603. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 544.
3 2

Comfort, NT Text and Translation, 604.

Pauline language, the change does not seem to indicate apologetic influence and should not be considered further. In 1:6, the first occurrence of the transposition of the words for Christ and Jesus can be found in the text. Cristou: =Ihsou: represented by P46 B D Maj. text can be seen against =Ihsou Cristou: represented by a A F G K P 075 33 1739 Syr. This change occurs throughout the text of the epistle and could be mechanically explainable but is more than likely a theological change emphasizing Jesus role as Messiah, which should be examined for possible apologetic influence. Another major variant can be found in 1:11. Here several readings can be seen: dovxan kai; e[painon qeou: represented by a A B D2 075 33 1739 Maj. versus dovxan kai; e[painon Cristou: represented by D* versus dovxan kai; e[painon moi; represented by F G versus dovxan qeou: kai; e[painon ejmoi; represented by P46. The first and second variants seem to be somewhat explainable, but a look at all the evidence together seems to suggest some kind of intentional change is occurring here. At stake is the object of glory and praise. Although these differences seem to be intentional, they do not seem to be theological in nature only an attempt to clarify the object of praise. In 1:14, the reading to;n lovgon lalei:n represented by P46 D2 1739 Maj. matches up against the readings to;n lovgon tou: qeou: lalei:n represented by a A B D* P 075 33 Syr. and to;n lovgon kuriou: lalei:n represented by F G. These variants represent areas where scribes seem to be trying make the meaning of the word clearer. Although the external evidence is somewhat scattered, the change would more than likely have been to add of God or of the Lord rather than take it away. The meaning would have been evident to Pauls readers, so these

scribal alterations do not seem to indicate theological or apologetic change. This variant unit, therefore, should not be examined in the next chapter. The reading in 1:16-17 involves a transposition of verses 16 and 17 to follow the order put forth in verse 15. This transposition is an intentional change, but does not seem theologically or apologetically motivated as it can be explained mechanically and should not be investigated in the next chapter. Another place of variation can be found in 1:20 where ajpokaradokivan is represented by the majority of MSS and karadokivan by F G. The first reading seems to be original while the second represents a change to an earlier, better known form of the text. The first reading represents the form of the word only found in Christian writings.4 This change does not reflect apologetic influence and should not be investigated. Another place of variation can be found in 1:27, where ejn eJni; pneuvmati represented by B 69 TR is read against ejn eJni; pni represented by P46 a A C D F G 33 1739. The issue here is the use of nomina sacra for the word spirit. Whereas B and other MSS did not use nomen sacrum for the spirit, which may signal human aspects, many other witnesses used the Spirit marked as nomen sacrum possibly to signal divine aspects. The use of nomina sacra does not necessarily indicate divinity, thus this unit should probably not be investigated. In 1:28, h{tiV ejsti;n aujtoi:V e[ndeixiV ajpwleivaV, uJmw:n de; swthrivaV represented by a A B C2 P 33 1739 is read against h{tiV aujtoi:V me;n ejsti;n e[ndeixiV ajpwleivaV, uJmi:n de; swthrivaV represented by D1 075 Maj. and h{tiV ejsti;n aujtoi:V e[ndeixiV ajpwleivaV, hJmi:n de; swthrivaV represented by C* D* F G vgms. The first reading is decidedly original, leaving the second and third as secondary. The first variant seems to be an attempt to balance the

Ibid., 606.

statement. The second variant makes the second statement inclusive. These changes do not seem to signal a theological change and should not be examined further. Philippians 2 In 2:2, to; en fronou:nteV represented by P46 a2 B D F G 075 1739 Maj. it vgms Syr. against to; aujtov fronou:nteV represented by a*A C 33 vg. External and internal evidence seem to indicate the second reading as secondary. This change represents as an attempt to make the phrase match the earlier phrase in the text. This variant seems to be explainable as an attempt to make the two phrases the same, therefore explainable and not worthy of mention for this study. Another variant unit to consider is 2:3, where hJgouvmenoi represented by most MSS is read against prohgouvmenoi represented by P46 D 075. While the first reading seems to be the original, some important witnesses contain the second reading, and both fit well according to internal evidence. The difference in meaning is not that great (esteeming vs. lead the way), and does not seem to point to theological motives. This variant should not be considered in the next chapter. In 2:4, e{kastoV represented by P46 a C D 075 1739 Maj. is read against e{kastoi represented by A B F G 33. All the other words in this verse are plural, leaving the possibility that the first reading was changed to the second reading to make everything plural in the sentence. This evidence seems to suggest that the change is mechanically explainable and should not be examined for apologetic interests in the next chapter. In 2:5, two readings exist: Tou:to represented by a* A B C 33 vgmss Origen Augustine versus Tou:to ga;r represented by P46 a2 D F G 075 1739 Maj. External evidence seems to be split, but internal evidence seems to suggest that if ga;r was present originally it would be hard to explain why it was deleted. Also, Tou:to seems to be wanting a connective, in order to connect

this section to the previous four verses.5 Either way, no theological or apologetic interests can be detected, even though the variant seems to be difficult in explaining. Another variant to consider is 2:7, where ajnqrwvpwn represented by a B 33 Maj. is seen against ajnqrwvpou represented by P46 vgmss Marcion Origen Cyprian. The change is seen by some as being theologically motivated, but is more than likely an assimilation to the singular douvlou in the same verse.6 This variant should not be explored further. In 2:9, the reading aujtw/: to; o[noma represented by P46 a A B C 33 is read against aujtw/: o[noma represented by D F G 075 Maj. The second reading is without doubt the secondary reading to the original the name. This so-called Western reading represents a slight theological change that might shed some light on Christological motives and should be examined for possible apologetic concerns. In 2:11, ejxomologhvshtai represented by P46 a B Fc Irenaeus is seen against the reading ejxomologhvsetai represented by A C D F* G P 075 33 1739. This difference could simply be an orthographic shift, but could also represent a change from subjunctive mood to future indicative mood. It is difficult to determine which reading is original and which reading is secondary, although based on external evidence, the nod should go to the first reading. If this is the case, the difference in meaning is slight but noticeableshould confess changes to will confess. This unit should be investigated for possible apologetic concerns. In 2:12, wJV can be found in P46 a A C D F G 075 Maj. whereas it is omitted in B 33. This change seems to be either a careless omission or an intentional dropping of what seemed to

Metzger, Textual Commentary, 545. Moises Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005),

115.

be a superfluous word. This omission does not seem to be theologically motivated and should not be examined. Two major readings are found in 2:15. First, gevnhsqe represented by a B C D2 075 33 1739 is read against h\te in P46 A D* F G. These variants represent similar verbs (both are verbs of being). The question is: can a theological difference be determined in the shift from be to become or vice versa? The difference in this case seems to be negligible, and the variant should not be examined further. The second major variant, on the other hand, should more than likely be investigated. In this part of the verse, a[mwma is read in P46 a A B C 33 whereas ajmwvmhta is read in D F G 075 1739 Maj. The first reading is original and the second seems to be a Western change. The shift could represent an attempt on the scribe to match the influence of Deut 32:5,7 which could mark an apologetic change according to Kannaday. In 2:19, the readings are kurivw/ represented by P46 a A B C 33 and Cristw/: represented by D F G 1739. Although external evidence seems to suggest the first reading is original, the change here represents a more Pauline form. This variant should be examined for possible apologetic interests. In 2:26, ejpipoqw:n h\n pavntaV uJma:V represented by ac (B) F G 1739 is read against ejpipoqw:n h\n pavntaV uJma:V ijdei:n represented by a* A C D 33 69 and ejpipoqw:n h\n pevmyai pro;V uJma:V represented by P46vid. External evidence seems divided, although the first reading is used in most English translations. The change is slightPaul was yearning for you all or he was yearning to see you all or he was yearning to send [word] to you all. The meaning of Pauls intentions here seem to be explained by the addition of the infinitive, therefore no theological change is here necessarily.

Comfort, NT Text and Translation, 609.

In 2:30, three readings exist: to; e[rgon Cristou: represented by P46 B F G (D Maj.), to; e[rgon represented by C, and to; e[rgon kurivou represented by a A P 075 33. These readings could represent an apologetic change on the part of scribes as an assimilation, for Paul never uses the term the work of Christ.8 Philippians 3 In 3:3, the three readings are as follows: oiJ pneuvmati qeou: latreuvonteV represented by a* A B C F G 33 1739, oiJ pneuvmati qew/: latreuvonteV represented by ac D Maj., and oiJ pneuvmati latreuvonteV represented mainly by P46. The first reading is more than likely original as it is the one that best explains the second reading. The third reading seems to be a careless mistake on the part of the scribe of P46. This reading should not be considered further as it is mechanically explainable. In 3:6, diwvkwn th;n ejkklhsivan represented by P46 a A B D 33 69 1739 Maj. is pitted against diwvkwn th;n ejkklhsivan qeou: represented by F G. The first reading seems original based on internal and external considerations, and the second reading more than likely reflects a harmonization to Gal 1:13.9 This variant should probably not be explored because of its ability to be explained by mechanical means. In 3:7, ajlla; can be found in ac B D 044 69 1739 Maj. and is omitted in P46 a* A 33. The original reading seems to be the omission of the conjunction, which suggests that a later scribe wished to highlight the contrast of Pauls behavior before and after his conversion. Not much theological significance exists in light of the addition of a conjunction, for the ideas contrast each other enough in themselves. This variant should probably not be explored.

Ibid., 610. Ibid., 611.

In 3:10, the reading th;n koinwnivan tw:n paqhmavtwn represented by P16vid a* A D F G 33 1739 Maj. can be seen against the reading koinwnivan paqhmavtwn represented by P46 ac B. The difference between the two readings is the absence of articles in the second reading. The original reading seems to be the absence of the articles. The secondary reading, however, does not seem to be a theological change but a change to make the phrase parallel to the previous statement. This variant should probably not be examined. A couple major readings can be found in 3:12. First, the reading h[dh e[labon h] h[dh teteleivwmai represented by P16 P61 a A B 33 1739 Maj. is seen in contrast to the reading h[dh e[labon h] h[dh dedikaivwmai h] h[dh teteleivwmai found in P46 D (F) Irenaeus Tertullian. This variant deals with justification that has not yet come. This is a complicated variant that may have been intentional but does not seem to have theological implications and should not be investigated. Second, the reading Cristou: =Ihsou: found in P46 P61 a A 075 1739 Maj. is read against Cristou: found in B D F G 33 it Copt. Origen Tertullian. At issue here is the presence or absence of Jesus. The external evidence seems to be split, with the absence of Jesus represented by B and several Western and church father witnesses. This could represent a lengthening of the divine title, suggesting the second reading as original. There could be some semblance of apologetic interests here and this variant should also be investigated. In 3:13, ouj is read in P46 B D2 F G 1739 Maj. Origen while ou[pw is read in a A D* 075 33 Clement Tertullian. The difference between readings here is slight but somewhat significantnot versus not yet. This change was more than likely from not to not yet as some scribes might have added yet in regard to the fact that in 2 Tim 4:7-8 indicates that Paul

completed his race, which represents an intentional change but not necessarily an apologetic change. The major reading in 3:14 is somewhat complicated: th:V a[nw klhvsewV tou: qeou: ejn Cristw/: =Ihsou: represented by P61vid a A B D2 33 1739 Maj. versus th:V a[nw klhvsewV tou: qeou: ejn =Ihsou: Cristou: represented by P16 versus th:V a[nw klhvsewV ejn kuriw/: =Ihsou: Cristou: represented by F G versus th:V a[nw klhvsewV tou: qeou: ejn kuriw/: =Ihsou: Cristou: represented by D* versus th:V a[nw klhvsewV qeou: represented by P46 versus th:V ajnegklhvsiaV tou: qeou: ejn Cristou: =Ihsou: represented by 1739 Tertullian. This is a variant that could fall under the umbrella of the universal change surrounding Jesus name and divine title. There are transpositions and the addition of Lord. This variant should probably be included in the larger discussion of possible apologetic interests in regard to the divine title. In 3:15, the reading fronw:men is found in P16 P46 A B D F G 075 1739 Maj. against the reading fronou:men found in a L. This variation represents a shift from subjunctive mood to indicative mood and is more than likely an inadvertent change. This variant should not be examined further. In 3:16, the reading tw/: aujtw/: stoicei:n represented by P16 P46 a* A B 33 1739 is read against tw/: aujtw/: stoicei:n kanovni, to; aujto; fronei:n represented by a2 075 Maj., to; aujto; fronei:n represented by 1881, to; aujto; fronei:n, tw/: aujtw/: stoicei:n represented by D* (F G) Old Latin, and to; aujto; fronei:n, tw/: aujtw/: stoicei:n kanovni represented by D2. The first reading is decidedly original based on internal and external evidence and the others are secondary. The other readings seem to be clearing up the meaning of the original reading and should probably not be examined for possible apologetic influence.

Two readings can be found in 3:21. First, the reading suvmmorfon tw/: swvmati th:V dovxhV aujtou: represented by P46vid a A B D* F G 1739 Tertullian can be viewed against the reading eijV to; genevsqai aujtov represented by D1 075 33 Maj. Irenaeus. The first reading seems to be original and the second secondary. The variant once again seems to be the result of a scribe clearing up the meaning and syntax of the verse, therefore representing a mechanically explainable variant. This variant should not be examined. Second, the reading aujtw:/ found in
a*

A B D* F G 075 33 1739 is seen against eJautw/: found in a2 D2 L. This change represents an

attempt on the part of the scribes to emphasize the reflexive nature of the pronoun, although the sense would have been just as certain in the ancient world. This variant is mechanically explainable and thus should not be examined. Philippians 4 The first major variant in chapter four is found in 4:3, where kai; tw:n loipw:n sunergw:n mou represented by P46 ac A B D F G 33 1739 Maj. it vg Syr. Copt. Origen is read against tw:n sunergw:n mou kai; tw:n loipw:n found in P16 a*. The second reading is clearly secondary and transposes loipw:n and sunergw:n as well as adding a definite article signaling two groups instead of one. These changes mark a difference in meaning, including a possible anti-feminist reading that should be examined for possible apologetic influence. In 4:7, the reading ta; nohvmata found in P46 a A B D 33 1739 Maj. can be seen against ta; swvmata found in F G and ta; nohvmata kai; ta; swvmata found in P16vid. This variation is a difficult change to account for. The first reading seems to be original with the other two secondary. These variants could possibly be explained as dealing with martyrdom, but the

evidence is scant.10 No apologetic reason for the change can be deduced, so this variant unit should probably not be examined. In 4:8, the reading e[painoV found in P46 a A B 33 1739 Maj. is seen against the Western reading e[painoV ejpisthvmhV found in D F G. The first reading is more than likely original. The second reading is more than likely just an attempt to clarify what is meant by the first reading and is thus not theologically motivated. This variant should not be examined. In 4:13, one of the more famously quoted verses in Philippians, tw/: ejndunamou:nti me represented by a* A B D* 33 1739 is read against tw/: ejndunamou:nti me, Cristw/: represented by a2 D2 (F G) Maj. No reason exists for scribes to have taken Christ out of the phrase, therefore the original reading was more than likely the first with the second reading being added to clear up the meaning on the part of some scribes. The first reading shares the same meaning as the second as context provides who the one is. This variant unit should not be examined. In 4:16, four readings exist: eijV th;n creivan moi is represented by a B F G 33 1739 Maj. versus th;n creivan moi found in P46 A versus th;n creivan mou found in D* 075 versus eijV th;n creivan mou found in D1. The change here marks an attempt to provide a direct object for ejpevmyate and does not mark a theological change. This variant unit should probably not be examined. Another major variant to consider is found in 4:19, where plhrwvsei found in P46 a A B D2 Maj. is read against plhrwvsai found in D* F G 075 33 1739. This variant could be explained as an orthographical shift, but this explanation does not include a reason as to why there would be somewhat diverse readings. This change could indicate a scribes desire to change the language from promise to prayer. The internal evidence seems to suggest that Paul already

10

Silva, Philippians, 199.

believes God will take care of the Philippians needs. This could be an apologetic charge against those who see Christians suffering as a sign of the illegitimacy of the new Christian faith and should be investigated further. The last variant to consider is found in 4:23, where meta; tou: pneuvmatoV uJmw:n represented by P46 a* A B D F G 075 33 1739 is read against meta; pantw:n uJmw:n represented by a2 044 Maj. This change could represent an attempt on the parts of scribes to harmonize with other epistles, however it more than likely emphasizes the theme of unity in one spirit seen earlier in the letter.11 No apologetic motivation seems to be present here.

11

Comfort, NT Text and Translation, 617.