Ver. The authorities are pretty evenly balanced in the case of the alter- native readings ἕκαστος and ἕκαστοι (see crit. note), Probably edd. are right in
28
434
5. Chap. iii. μενοι ™ ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν"
4. μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοπεῖτε,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστος. 5. τοῦτο γὰρ" φρονείσθω" ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ
1So ΜΟΌΕΚΙ;Ρ, d, e, go. syrr., Bas., Ephr., Chr., Thdrt., Hil., Victorin.,
Ambrst. Euth.cod., Amb.
Edd. (Trg., W.H. mg.) εκαστοι with ΑΒΕ 17, 116, f, g, πι, vg., Bas.,
2So L, Chr., Thdrt., Dam. Edd. σκοπονντες with RABCDEFGP, d, e, f, g, πι,
vg. go. arm. Bas., Euth.cod., Hil., Ambrst.
5 Om. και D*FGK δι, d, e, f, g, πι, vg., Victorin., Ambrst., αἱ,
* So KL, ἆ, go. syrr. arm., Chr., Thdrt.,
Dam. Edd. εκαστοι with NABCVi.Der.
Eer-P 17, 31, 47, cop. Bas., Euth.cod., Victorin., Aug. Om. FG, f, g, m, vg. xth.,
Ambrst.
5 9ο Myr. with NcDEFGKLP, d, e, f, torin., Ambrst.
NAC 17, Cyr. join ἕκαστοι to following words.
So W.H. mg. 6, m, go. syrP-, Chr., Thdrt., Hil., Vic-
Om. yap edd. with ΝΑΒΟ 17, 37, 73, Κδε., cop. arm. zth.,
Euth.cod. Myr. holds that yap came to be omitted because the preceding ἕκαστοι (ver. 4) with the reading φρονειτε (ver. 5) was supposed to begin a new sentence.
® So Myr. with C°KLP, cop. arm. go., Or., Eus., Ath., Bas., Chr., Thdrt.
Edd.
Φρονειτε with NABC*DEFG 17, 67**, d, ε, ἢ, g, πὶ, vg. syrr., Euth.cod., Cyr.,
Victorin., Ambrst.
preferring the latter, both on account of the variety of its witnesses and its aptness in the context. Besides, as the more difficult, it would be very liable to correction. σκοποῦντες has overwhelm- ing authority in its favour. ‘No party having an eye for its own interests alone but also for those of the τες. ἕκαστοι (frequent in this sense in classical Greek) = each group, each combination.—iré- ρων. Used with strict correctness as opposed to ἑαυτῶν. It often has a less strict usage in N.T. From the gentle way in which he deals with them, we cannot suppose that there was as yetany serious rent in the Philippian Church. Probably he has already in mind the arty feeling roused by the disagreement --- Euodia and Syntyche. The opinion of the Christian community was divided. This might, of course, lead to serious issues. He has already implored them to be of the same mind (ver. 2). The way of reaching this harmony 18 unselfishness. ‘Paul's ethic is at least as much a social as an individual ethic"
(Hitzm., N.T. Th., ii., τ62. Instructive discussion). Vv. 5-11. THE CONDESCENSION AND
EXALTATION OF ΟΗΗΙ5Τ. As to form, vv. 5-10 appear to be constructed in care- fully chosen groups of parallel clauses, having an impressive rhythm (sce
Weiss, Beitr., pp. 28-29).—Ver. 5. yap ought probably to be rejected with the best group of MSS. Φρονείσθω, as the harder reading, has much in its favour, but φρονεῖτε is far better attested. τοῦτο φρονεῖτε κ.τ.λ. The ordinary translation
Myr. retains φρονεισθω as the harder reading.
runs, ‘ Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus". This means the supplying either of ἐφρονεῖτο (ἐφρονήθη) or ἦν in the latter half of the verse after 6. Certainly any past tense (passive) of φρονέω is not only very harsh, but, when analysed, yields no appropiate sense. ἦν is scarcely less “Ὁ for it would presuppose τοῦτο φρονεῖν (not τοῦτο alone) as the antecedent of 6. Deissmann (following Hfm.) supplies φρονεῖτε (cf. parallel construction in 2 Tim. i. 5), and translates, ‘‘ Have this mind within your community (so also Hoelemann) which ye have also in Christ Jesus". This keeps the local meaning with both occurrences of ἐν (for we have here the common Pauline phrase ἐν Χ. Ἰ. as the sphere of the Christian life). It gives a vivid force to καί. It gets rid of the apparently superfluous use of ἐν ὑμῖν after φρονεῖτε. And φρονεῖτε is, of course, the easiest word to supply. The sense is thoroughly apt. Christians then, as now, were often different in their ordinary dealings and relations from what they were in their strictly Christian life. The two spheres were at times kept dis- tinct. Those who professed to have made great sacrifices for the sake of Christ might never dream of making even the slightest fora brother. The keenest zeal may be displayed in religious work, ac- companied by singular laxity of principle in the common concerns of daily business and social intercourse. At first sight the interpretation, perhaps, repels by its unfamiliarity. But it appears less diffi- cult than the other possible expositions,