PHILIPPIANS 2:4 e[kastoj On the basis of the weight of external evidence and the fact that everything else in the context is plural, a majority of the Committee preferred e[kastoj (î46 a C D K L P most minuscules itd syrp, h copsa, bo goth _al_), considering e[kastoi (A B F G Y 33 81 104 462 itg v... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:5 tou/to {B} A majority of the Committee was persuaded that, if ga,r were present originally, no good reason can be found for its deletion, 2 whereas the anacoluthon involved in tou/to standing alone seems to cry out for a connective, whether ga,r or ou=n or kai, (each of which is fo... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:7 avnqrw,pwn Instead of avnqrw,pwn several early witnesses read avnqrw,pou (î46 syrp, pal copsa, bo Marcion Origen Cyprian Hilary Ambrose). Although it is possible that the Adam-Christ typology implicit in the passage accounts for the substitution, it is more likely that the singular... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:9 to. o;noma {B} The Textus Receptus, following D F G Y and many minuscules, lacks to,, resulting in the meaning that Jesus was given an unspecified name subsequently defined as _that_ name which is above every name. While the article before o;noma may have been inserted in order to... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:11 evxomologh,shtai {C} Although the subjunctive may be a scribal assimilation to ka,myh|, the indicative may be an assimilation to the indicative ovmei/tai (“shall swear”) in Isaiah 45:23. Faced with such a balance of possibilities, the Committee preferred to adopt the reading suppo... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:12 w`j {A} The omission of w`j from B 33 42 234 618 1241 _al_ is probably accidental, although copyists may have deliberately deleted it as superfluous; in any case, the presence of the word is strongly supported by î46 and representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western type... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:26 u`ma/j {C} While the external evidence for and against the insertion of ivdei/n after u`ma/j is very evenly balanced, a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that scribes were more likely to add the infinitive, in accordance with the expression evpipoqei/n ivdei/n in Romans... [ Continue Reading ]
PHILIPPIANS 2:30 Cristou/ {B} Although it can be argued that the original reading was to. e;rgon without any genitive modifier (as in C), and that the variety of readings is due to supplementation made by various copyists, the Committee preferred to regard the omission of the word from one manuscri... [ Continue Reading ]