In defence of the traditional text of Philippians 4:13
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
If I knew of the textual variant at Philippians 4:13, I had apparently forgotten about it. My memory was jogged, however, by some students in an online New Testament course I was teaching. One of the course’s early discussion board assignments asked students to choose a New Testament passage and compare it in various translations to discover any significant differences between the versions. Two students wrote on Philippians 4:13, pointing out a slight but significant variation found in some translations of this verse. Their discovery led me to write this article.
What is the issue with the text of Philippians 4:13?
Philippians 4:13 is a classic Christian text, one that is often memorized by believers as children or youth who grow up in Christian homes and in faithful churches. I remember a time when my daughter was of elementary school age and was facing a particular difficulty in her schooling. Our family was driving in the car when my wife and I heard her in the back seat repeating over and again, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. I can do all things through Christ….” We were sorry that she was facing this momentary difficulty but very pleased to hear that she was recalling this verse from memory and using it as a resource for comfort and encouragement. This verse is also one that I cite or paraphrase nearly every Sunday in my church at the conclusion of our afternoon service. I typically say in prayer, something like, “Lord, if we face any unexpected trials this week, help us to remember what the apostle Paul taught us, that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.” I have also very often used this verse in pastoral care, personally sharing or texting it to friends and fellow church members going through various hardships.
What, then, is the issue that my students found in this verse? One can easily discover the variant by comparing the classic English translation, the King James Version (KJV), based on the traditional Greek text, with a modern translation, like the popular English Standard Version (ESV), based on the modern critical text. Here is the verse in both translations (emphasis added):
Philippians 4:13 KJV: I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Philippians 4:13 ESV: I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
The key difference in the two translations is the contrast between the phrase “through Christ” (KJV) and “through him” (ESV). The issue, then, is the identity of the agent who strengthens Paul (the believer). Is it Christ or is it “him” (a pronoun used in reference to the Godhead)? The ESV could be paraphrased to read (emphasis added), “I can do all things through God who strengthen me.”
The difference in the two translations is not merely a matter of updating the English wording. The source of the difference is found in the underlying Greek text which undergirds each translation. For the KJV we can examine this verse in Scrivener’s edition of the Textus Receptus (TR), and for the ESV we can consult the Westcott and Hort text (1881), which is the same in this verse as the most recent modern Greek handbook, the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28, 2012):
Philippians 4:13 Scrivener TR: παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με χριστω [panta ischuō en tō endunamounti me christō].
Philippians 4:13 WH: παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με [panta ischuō en tō endunamounti me].
Those who read Greek will notice that the difference between the two texts is a single word. The TR includes the dative masculine singular noun χριστω [christō] as the object of the preposition εv [en], resulting in the translation “through Christ who strengthens me.” This word is absent in the WH text. The ESV and other modern translations based on this text take the participial phrase τω ενδυναμουντι με [tō endunamounti me] as the object of the preposition, thus translating, “through him who strengthens me.”
Several important questions arise, including: Which text is original? Which translation is most accurate? Why did some reject the traditional Protestant text in favour of the modern critical text? To provide responses to these questions, we will examine both the external and internal evidence regarding Philippians 4:13.
The external evidence:
We begin with the external evidence. By external evidence we mean the evidence provided by examination of the currently extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, ancient versions of them, and citations in the Church Fathers. Our source for this examination will be the critical apparatus of the NA28, which provides evidence supporting both the traditional and modern critical reading.
Evidence regarding the traditional text:
The entry for the traditional text (inclusion of χριστω [christō]) in the NA28 begins with a reference to 1 Timothy 1:12. The apparent suggestion is that the addition of “Christ” here was influenced by harmonization to this verse. Here is 1 Timothy 1:12 in the KJV and the TR (emphasis added):
1 Timothy 1:12 KJV: And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.
1 Timothy 1:12 Scrivener TR: και χαριν εχω τω ενδυναμωσαντι με χριστω ιησου τω κυριω ημων οτι πιστον με ηγησατο θεμενος εις διακονιαν [kai charin 14cho tō endunamōsanti me christō iēsou tō kuriō hēmōn hoti piston me hēgēsato themenos eis diakonian].
One will notice that the word “Christ (χριστω [christō])” appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 in the same lexical form as in Philippians 4:13. There is also a participial phrase, τω ενδυναμωσαντι με [tō endunamōsanti me], in 1 Timothy 1:12, which is similar, though not identical, to that found in Philippians 4:13 (τω ενδυναμουντι με [tō endunamounti me]).
After the references to 1 Timothy 1:12, the NA28 lists the extant evidence that supports the traditional reading. First, there are Greek manuscripts, which have the traditional reading. These include the second corrector of Sinaiticus (Aleph), the second corrector of Beza (D), codices G and F (though these are placed in parentheses, indicating they have the reading but with some minor variation in word order or spelling), and various other uncial and minuscule witness, including K, L, P, Psi, 075, 81, 104, 365, 630, 1175, 1241, 1505, 1881, and 2462. Finally, the apparatus notes that the traditional reading is found in the majority of extant Greek manuscripts. With respect to ancient translations, the traditional text is the reading of the entire Syriac tradition. This means it not only appears in the Peshitta Syriac, but also in the old Syriac manuscripts, both in the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac. The apparatus also notes that the traditional text is found in the writings of Jerome (though not in his Latin Vulgate translation).
Evidence regarding the modern critical text:
The entry for the modern critical text reading at Philippians 4:13 begins with the evidence from the extant Greek manuscripts. Several early uncials support this reading, including the original hand of Sinaiticus (Alpeh), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), the original hand of Beza (D), and codex I. Three minuscules are cited, including 33, known at the “queen of the cursives” for its frequent agreement with the so-called Alexandrian readings, 629, and 1739. With regard to versions, it is also the reading found in the Latin Vulgate, in some Old Latin manuscripts, and in the Coptic. Among the early ecclesiastical writers, it is cited by Clement of Alexandria. Geographically, most of the earliest evidence in support of the modern reading appears to be Egyptian (Aleph, A, B, Coptic, Clement), but there is also some Western support (D* and the Vulgate).
Internal evidence:
We now turn to the internal evidence. This is evidence based upon analysis of the contextual literary, grammatical, and stylistic content, as well as assessments of possible scribal practices and tendencies.
Modern textual critics have suggested that internal evidence clearly supports the omission of “Christ” as original. In the first edition of Bruce M. Metzger’s influential Textual Commentary (1971, 1975) this variant is not even addressed. In the second edition (1994), however, Metzger supplies an entry for this variant, giving an “[A]” rating to the modern critical text of Philippians 4:13, and adding this comment:
In order to identify who it is that strengthens Paul, the Textus Receptus, following several of the later uncials and many minuscules, adds Χριστῷ. If the word had been present in the original text, there would have been no reason to omit it.
Philip Wesley Comfort in his A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament says the inclusion of “Christ” came about as the result of “scribal gap-filling wherein a scribe was influenced by 1 Timothy 1:12.”
The conclusions of Metzger, Comfort, and other modern textual critics regarding this verse, however, are not above evaluation. Here are three questions that might be raised:
First: Would a scribe copying Philippians have been influenced by a disconnected passage from 1 Timothy?
Second: If a scribe added “Christ” to harmonize with 1 Timothy 1:12 why did he add only “Christ”? Why did he not add, “Christ Jesus our Lord,” as it stands in the text of 1 Timothy 1:12?
Third: If “Christ” was original, is there really no plausible reason which can be imagined as to why a scribe might have omitted it?
The first two questions raise doubts as to whether a scribe would have attempted to harmonize Philippians 4:13 with 1 Timothy 1:12. Such a suggestion rests on no direct evidence and is clearly speculative.
The third question challenges the notion that no possible reasons can be conceived as to why “Christ” might have been omitted or suppressed from this verse. It is not hard to imagine that omission might have taken place for at least two reasons. First, omission might have been accidental. A simple act of parablepsis, a copyist’s “slip of the eye,” might easily have resulted in the omission of a single word. Second, it is also possible that omission might have been intentional.
It is this second possibility (intentional omission) that deserves more attention. Why might a scribe have omitted the word “Christ” in this passage? We know there were groups under the broad umbrella of “early Christianity” who admired Jesus but denied his deity. One such sect was a Jewish faction known as the Ebionites. Eusebius of Caesarea says the Ebionites had “poor and mean opinions concerning Christ,” holding him to be “a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character.” He adds that they eventually came to reject all “the letters of the Apostle [Paul].” Perhaps some scribe(s) who had “adoptionist” tendencies, like that of the Ebionites, thought it more appropriate to say that believers were strengthened by God, rather than by Christ, based on unitarian theology and low Christology. Metzger’s claim that if “Christ” was original “there would have been no reason to omit it” appears particularly tone deaf to early Christological controversy. This is especially the case, given the fact that the earliest extant manuscripts which omit “Christ” come from about the mid-fourth century (Aleph, A, B), when such discussions were taking place at a fever pitch.
Paul’s use of “Christ” here is certainly not inconsistent or incongruent with his style or theology as demonstrated elsewhere in Philippians. As regards style, the word “Christ” by itself appears numerous times in Philippians (cf. 1:10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29; 2:1, 16, 30; 3:7, 8, 9, 18). The prepositional phrase “in Christ (εν χριστω [en christō])” or “in Christ Jesus (εν χριστω ιησου [en christō iēsou])” is also common (cf. 1:1, 13, 26; 2:1, 5; 3:3, 14; 4:7, 19, 21). The affirmation of Christ as the agent of strengthening believers is also in perfect harmony with Paul’s Christology in Philippians (cf. the “Christ Hymn” in Philippians 2:5-11 where Paul declares in verse 6 that Christ was “in the form of God” and “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”).
Conclusion
Given our survey of both external and internal evidence, what conclusion can we draw concerning the text of Philippians 4:13? With respect to external evidence, one cannot overlook the fact that the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts read “Christ” in Philippians 4:13. The omission of “Christ” thus represents only a minority voice from the historical evidence which remains. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox embraced the traditional text of Philippians 4:13 when they published their printed editions of the Received Text. It is noteworthy, in particular, that they affirmed this reading over against that found in the Latin Vulgate. Every Protestant translation, based on the TR, included “Christ” at Philippians 4:13 until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The omission of “Christ” in this verse in Protestant texts and translations is, therefore, a contemporary novelty.
Theologically speaking, there is nothing heretical about saying that Christians are strengthened by God, rather than explicitly saying they are strengthened by Christ. Since orthodox Trinitarianism affirms the “inseparable operations” of the triune God, one can gladly affirm that when he says that one person of the Godhead does something, he also affirms that it is done by all three persons of the Godhead. Creation, for example, is done by the Father, by the Son, and by the Holy Spirit (cf. Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2). We can simply say, however, that the triune God created the world. Likewise, when the traditional text says that believers are strengthened “through Christ,” it is not wrong to say that it is also affirming that they are strengthened “through him [God].” This does not mean, however, we should overlook places where the inspired penmen write explicitly with reference to some work which is done by one person of the Godhead, in particular.
Why do the modern textual critics, starting in the nineteenth century, and continuing to our present day, embrace the omission of “Christ” in Philippians 4:13? On one hand, one might perhaps most charitably conclude that they do so merely out of a zeal supposedly to “restore” the original, which they hold to have been “corrupted.” Their decision, one might conclude, was simply due to the outsized influence and weight that they have attributed to the uncials (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in particular). In the case of Philippians 4:13, as with many other New Testament passages, there is no extant very early papyri evidence to shed light on this verse.
On the other hand, one might also suggest that the modern preference for the reading that omits “Christ” demonstrates a “low Christology,” as supposedly being representative of what some wrongly consider to be a more “primitive” expression of Christianity. In Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Zondervan, 2011), he offers this observation on modern higher criticism and Christology:
The liberal trajectory leading from Reimarus’ Fragments to D.F. Strauss’s Life of Jesus and Adolf von Harnack’s Essence of Christianity is essentially Arian (or “Adoptionist”). “The Gospel as Jesus preached it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son,” Harnack declared.
In the end, there is no compelling reason to justify the abandonment of the traditional text of Philippians 4:13 and many reasons to continue to affirm it. It has overwhelming extant external support from the majority of Greek witnesses. We have plausible reasons to suggest why, if original, some might have attempted to alter it. Thus, we can continue confidently to affirm: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”
Jeffrey T. Riddle is pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia USA