Claromontanus' rejection

I've had occasion to mention a Claromontano Group of Biblical manuscripts: the bilinguals 06, 10, 12 and (looking it up) Sangermanensis 0319 and 0320. Among "D-Cluster" and/or "western" texts these had a Tendency, at least their exemplars did (0319 and 0320 may or may not assert corrections). Tertullian argued from the text-type but Tertullian left our Church, or at least his followers ended up forming their own denomination.

On the Alexandrine side, is 𝔓⁴⁶ with its own tendency (we'll get to that). This ancient B-Cluster papyrus shouldn't share much in common with (adulterated!) "western" manuscripts.

Ryan Kristopher Giffin reports these MSS share this much: Philippians 3:12, which plus has Paul admit he is not yet justified (pdf). Giffin further notes that 𝔓⁴⁶ tended to shorten Paul's text; perhaps as a breviary for personal use, never meant to be employed in (say) a lectionary. (This, by the way, could explain the papyrus' omission of all four Pastorals including Philemon.) I'll add Jennifer Wyant (pdf) had seen similar truncations in 𝔓⁴⁵ and 𝔓⁷⁵. Giffin argues for the plus as authentic Paul.

This Philippians plus lasted long in the West, cited by Irenaeus and then by his own Latin translator and by several Latin homilists. I have to assume that Tertullian as a Claromontanine knew it as well. But I don't think all those Church fathers were Claromontani; Irenaeus, for one, was not. And Tertullian didn't challenge Marcion on this verse implying that these protoPaulicians shared his text here whatever it was. The plus is in the Gothic Epistles, translated from Greek. 𝔓⁴⁶ shows how we cannot restrict this variant to the West.

Giffin thinks that the omission is accidental. I wonder.

Giffin had to make his case that Paul considered himself unjustified in this context but justified in others. Readers noticing a contradiction might hope to resolve that contradiction, especially if the omission doesn't hurt the sense of the verse. Meanwhile, copyists orthodox and Marcion-curious (like Bezae although this one only did Gospels+Acts) both might have considered its presence not just in the Claromontani codices but also in foreign and Arian Bibles and in Pelagius' Expositions. And who knows, maybe in Tertullianist material we haven't found yet.

To Jerome especially, that version of Philippians just looked sus.