Corpus-Paul

[Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>]

At 03:55 PM 5/16/99 +0100, you wrote:
  I 
>wonder what you make of an intruiging textual variant in Phil. 1.11 
>which has long puzzled me.
>
>The majority reading has the final prepositional phrase EIS DOXAN KAI 
>EPAINON THEOU.  But  F, G, Ambrosiaster and an old latin MS read KAI 
>EPAINON MOI (cf. p46).  It seems to me that we can more easily explain a 
>scribal alteration clarifying that such things are due to God, rather 
>than one which takes a reference to God and refers it to Paul.

But there is more than one criterion of decision.  Textual witnesses are
weidghed, not counted, is but one.  The others are well known as well.  It
seems to me that P46 does INDEED represent a very ancient variant- but the
variant actually has:
eis doxan qu kai epainon emoi
i.e., into God's glory and my fame.  I.e., what P46 has is a declaration
that God receives Glory and the philippians recognize Paul as the means by
which God's glory is made known to them.
Thus, in fact, there is no real problem here as Paul is not suggesting that
he receive glory- rather the scribe merely suggests that Paul be recognized
for being God's instrument.

>
>The only person, to my knowledge who adopts the harder reading as 
>original is J. M. Ross in an article in NovT 25 (1983), 70.

It may be original- later scribes finding it difficult while failing to
understand it- and therefore removing it.

>
>What do folks think,  Could Paul really affirm that the Philippian's 
>eschatological redemption was to his praise?  

No- what he is affirming, assuming P46 is right, is that God's glory is made
known and they recognize Paul for his part in their hearing about it.

>
>Sean F. Winter (Revd Dr)
>Baptist Minister, Reading, England

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest AT highland.net
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest