Abstract
A handful of Greek manuscripts of Phil 3.12 (including P46 and 06) attest to a remarkable variant reading known as the justification clause, which has Paul claiming he had not already been justified (Οὐχ … ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι). Some have viewed the reading as problematic within Paul’s discourse in Phil 3, while others have viewed it as fitting nicely within this literary context. These divergent views have been held by scholars who agree on the secondary nature of the reading. Which view is correct? The objective of this article is to address that question by way of a reading of Phil 3:2-21 and to explore the implications for the authenticity question. The author concludes that the reading is not problematic but harmonizes well with its surrounding discourse, and that this is a point in favor of the authenticity of the reading.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.