{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02546296296296296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014660493827160493, 'mean_word_length': 4.68640350877193, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Textual Commentary on Philippians 2.5-11

Of all the books on my shelf relating to New Testament textual criticism, none is in more constant use than Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. I welcome the invitation to honor Professor Metzger, and follow the lead he has given in this commentary. Philippians 2.5-11 is one of the most studied passages in the Bible. The secondary literature on the section is enormous, and continues to grow. Therefore anyone who seeks to add to this volume of literature must give a very good reason for doing so. The purpose of this commentary is to argue that the textual variations in the passage have largely been ignored in the interpretive task, and that they offer fresh material and new possibilities for interpretation. Despite all the scholarly attention given to Phil. 2.5-11, there has been a relative neglect of the textual variations. This may be because most scholars would echo the sentiments of J.-F. Collange, who stated: ‘The text is certain; variants are few and unimportant’ (1979: 81). But a growing attention to the textual variations in Phil. 2.5-11, and their significance for exegesis, may be seen by comparing the four editions of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The first three editions list only one variation (2.5, τοῦτο γάρ). The fourth edition (1993) lists four variations in the passage, indicating a growing awareness that the textual variations may be important for interpretation and translation. But a glance at the 27th edition of Nestle/Aland reveals that there are still more variations within the passage, some of which may also be significant for the interpretive task. Tischendorf s eighth edition lists yet more variations. The following textual commentary will consider the important variations in this passage. I believe that several of them may offer fresh material and perspective for interpretive issues in the passage that continue to be debated. The overall impression is that the textual variations need to be much more closely considered in the task of biblical interpretation. They are not merely to be considered in establishing the text that is then interpreted. They are themselves integral to the task of interpretation. Most scholars assume that the Paul is quoting here from an early Christian hymn although there have been some dissenters (Fee 1995: 40-43). This study adopts the majority view that the passage represents a pre-Pauline rhetorical composition. This assumption has an important bearing on several of the variations that we will examine.