Philippians

Notes and Apparatus

Philippians: Epiphanius p. 182: “‘Likewise (as with Philemon), we have chosen nothing from it either, because it lies distorted with him.’” On the invalidity of the justification for this remark, and the origin of the error, see above at the beginning of the note on 1 Thessalonians.

I, 14–18 Tertullian (V, 20): “‘When he lists the variety of preaching, “that some, out of confidence in his bonds, declared the word more boldly, 15 some out of envy and contention, but some also out of a certain estimation of eloquence [in their preaching], 17 the majority out of love, 16 some out of rivalry, and already some also out of a spirit of strife, preached Christ” … 18 “what does it matter to me,” he says, “whether by occasion or in truth Christ is proclaimed”’” A few lines later: “‘the faith of some who preach is genuine, that is, simple; of others, overly learned.’” — 14 “the word” with Dc, K, many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, against “the word of God” — 15 “estimation of eloquence” (see “overly learned faith”) is otherwise unattested, against “goodwill.” Marcion substituted “the glory of eloquence” and thereby meant to strike at vain Christian scholasticism, just as at Col. 2:8, through his correction, he pilloried pagan philosophy — 17 “and already some out of strife”: freely inserted by M.; if he found it necessary to add “out of rivalry” (that is, the motive of contentiousness), and did this through “simultas” (“rivalry/contest”), then he can only have intended either to have the apostle rebuke in advance the catholics’ factional struggle against his own church, or — and this is more likely — ecclesiastical factional struggles in general — 18 “it does not matter to me” (an independent [reading], but see Gal. 2:6), against “for what [does it matter], except that in every way,” the reason for this change is obscure — 23 Esnik (Schmid p. 201): “‘They say the apostle said: I desire to go out [p. 123*] of the body and to be with the Lord.”’” The [manuscript] tradition otherwise offers “Christ,” and it is unlikely that M. altered this; he will also probably have read “to be released.”

II, 6. 7 Tertullian (V, 20): “‘Plainly, the Marcionites think that the apostle here too supports them regarding the substance of Christ …, when he says that, “being constituted in the form of God, he did not consider it plunder to be made equal with God,” 7 “but emptied himself, having taken the form of a servant” (not in truth/reality), “and in the likeness of man” (not in a man), “and being found in fashion as a man”’ (not in substance, that is, not in flesh)” — 7 elsewhere “he emptied himself” — “of a man” [singular] with Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Victorinus, against “of men” [plural] — M. did not read “having become,” and also not “as”; thus arose the sense he wanted: “he was found (only) as a man, because his form and bearing were those of a man.” That this passage was a foundational text for M.’s Christology is also attested by Chrysostom (Homily 7 on Philippians) and Esnik (pp. 176–177).

8 Tertullian (V, 20): “‘“subjected to death,”’ he added, “‘and death on a cross.”’” The assumption of a different text as against “having become obedient unto death, even death on a cross” is scarcely justified.

III, 4. 5. 7–9: 7 “‘But what had he formerly counted as gain? Which he also enumerates above (4): the glory of the flesh, 5 in the token of circumcision, his lineage as a Hebrew of a Hebrew, the title of the tribe of Benjamin, the rank of a “shining” Pharisee. 7 these he now counts as loss to himself: not god, but the stupor of the Jews. 8 he counts these things even as dung, in comparison with the knowledge of Christ. 9 having a righteousness now not his own, which is from the law, but which is through him, namely through Christ, from God. Therefore, you say, by this distinction the law will not be from the same God as Christ. Rather clever. But take note more subtly: for when he says, “not that which is from the law, but that which is through him,” he would not have said “through him” of anyone other than the one whose the law was.’” 7 “now” is otherwise unattested — 8 “of Christ” is otherwise unattested, against “of Christ Jesus” or “of Jesus Christ.” According to Celsus (Origen VI, 53), the Marcionites called themselves “dung” — 9 “righteousness my” [δικαιοσύνην ἐμήν, in this word order] with ℵc, against “my righteousness” [ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην]; “already” is otherwise unattested (similar to v. 7’s “now”); elsewhere it is also phrased “not having my own righteousness.” — “that through him, from God” is otherwise unattested, against “that through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God.” Perhaps M. offered “the righteousness through him, from God,” but even so the significant change remains: [p. 124*] “through him,” [in place of] “faith of Christ.” One understands why, because immediately afterward “upon the faith” follows. By writing this way, M. gained a double advantage: he avoided the at-least-apparent tautology, and brought out the contrast with “righteousness from the law” more forcefully and objectively.

20. 21 Tertullian (V, 20): “‘“Our,” he says, “citizenship is in the heavens” … for if, therefore, Christ, coming from the heavens, “will transform the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of his glory,” then this our body will indeed rise again.’”