Philippians

As with the versions of some other epistles in the Apostolicon, Epiphanius stated that he would not comment on the text on Philippians because it had too many changes from the Pauline version:

The Epistle to the Philippians, number ten, for this is its position in Marcion, tenth and last, but in the Apostle it stands sixth. Likewise I make no selections from it either, since in Marcion it is distorted.

However, Lardner noted that:

Tertullian has quoted several passages from this epistle, but doth not accuse Marcion of any particular corruptions. Nor doth any other author, that I can find, except Epiphanius.

Tertullian made the following references to the text:

Philippians 1:14-18

And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. [1:14] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: [1:15] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: [1:16] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. [1:17] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. [1:18]

Tertullian refers to a significant portion of the text of these verses:

When (the apostle) mentions the several motives of those who were preaching the gospel, how that some, "waxing confident by his bonds, were more fearless in speaking the word," while others "preached Christ even out of envy and strife, and again others out of good-will," many also "out of love," and certain "out of contention," and some "in rivalry to himself," he had a favourable opportunity, no doubt, of taxing what they preached with a diversity of doctrine... Therefore, says he, it matters not to me "whether it be in pretence or in truth that Christ is preached," because one Christ alone was announced, whether in their "pretentious" or their "truthful" faith.

It is clear that he is referring to the Pauline text as, before mentioning Marcion, he writes:

Now, if it were a completely different Christ that was being introduced by the apostle, ...

However, even though there are differences due to Tertullian using these verses to pose a 3rd-person question, he does appear to see text in Php that is different to what we see, in particular that some were preaching "in rivalry to himself."

Philippians 2:5-8

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [2:5] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [2:6] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [2:7] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [2:8]

Tertullian refers to much of these verses, but without suggesting that Marcion had changed anything. He refers to "a man" in v. 2:7 (as in P⁴⁶) rather than "men."

For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality, "and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in fashion as a man," not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh; just as if to a substance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion... Therefore, as He was found to be God by His mighty power, so was He found to be man by reason of His flesh, because the apostle could not have pronounced Him to have "become obedient unto death," if He had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more plainly does this appear from the apostle's additional words, "even the death of the cross."

Philippians 3:4-7

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: [3:4] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; [3:5] Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. [3:6] But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. [3:7]

As he often does Tertullian does not quote these verse exactly, but uses the third-person instead of the first-person. He writes:

But "those things which he had once accounted gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding verse— "trust in the flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as "an Hebrew of the Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin," his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee — he now reckons to be only "loss" to himself; (in other words,) it was not the God of the Jews, but their stupid obduracy, which he repudiates.

Tertullian refers to a 'loss to himself' (ie. to the writer of the epistle), and not a "loss for Christ." Most translations have "for the sake of Christ" or "because of Christ," suggesting that Tertullian saw the majority reading. Note that where Tertullian refers to "the preceding verse" it is more accurate to translate this as "the preceding passage."

Philippians 3:8,9

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [3:8] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: [3:9]

Again using the third-person, Tertullian refers to most of both verses:

These are also the things "which he counts but dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ" (but by no means for the rejection of God the Creator); "while he has not his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through Him," i.e. Christ, "the righteousness which is of God."

For when (the apostle) says, "Not (the righteousness) which is of the law, but that which is through Him," he would not have used the phrase "through Him" of any other than Him to whom the law belonged.

In v. 3:8 Tertullian has "Christ" rather than "Christ Jesus my Lord," and in v. 3:9 has (in three places) "Him" instead of "the faith of Christ." From what he writes it seems clear that he saw "Him" in the Pauline text as well. However, this could be just a translation issue, as the NET has "Christ’s faithfulness," and comments:

Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” ... Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

Tertullian refers to "dung" in v. 3:9, about which the NET comments:

The word here translated “dung” was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.

Philippians 3:20, 21

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: [3:20] Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. [3:21]

Tertullian quotes from parts of both verses:

"Our conversation," says he, "is in heaven." I here recognise the Creator's ancient promise to Abraham.

If, again, Christ in His advent from heaven "shall change the body of our humiliation, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body," it follows that this body of ours shall rise again, which is now in a state of humiliation in its sufferings and according to the law of mortality drops into the ground.

The NET gives the following literal translation of v. 3:21a as: "“transform the body of our humility” which is basically what Tertullian had.

Summary

In common with First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, and Philemon, Tertullian finds no difference between Php and the version in Marcion's Apostolicon (McPhp), whereas Epiphanius saw so many differences between Php and McPhp that he did not even attempt to comment on them. The quotes and references from Tertullian given above give us no reason to think that what Tertullian saw in McPhp differed in any significant way from what we see in Php today. Given that we have no evidence of a very different version of Php, then unless Epiphanius is completely mistaken, the copy of McPhp that he saw differed greatly from what Tertullian saw.

Next: Laodiceans