Verse 7 delivered a single past verdict: the things that were gains to Paul, he has come to consider (perfect ἥγημαι) loss for Christ’s sake. Verse 8 escalates that verdict on four axes at once, and the escalation is the whole point of the sentence:

1. Tense — from perfect ἥγημαι (v. 7, a settled reckoning) to present ἡγοῦμαι: the accounting is not a closed transaction but an ongoing one, repeated twice in this verse.
2. Scope — from ἅτινα … ταῦτα (v. 7, that specific list of Israelite credentials, vv. 5–6) to πάντα, then to the articular τὰ πάντα: everything whatsoever, without remainder.
3. Ground — from the bare διὰ τὸν Χριστόν (v. 7) to the fully titled τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, with the possessive pronoun making it personal confession rather than doctrine.
4. Register — from the commercial ζημία to the crude σκύβαλα, a word Paul uses once in his life.

The governing metaphor is a merchant’s ledger, running from 1:21 (τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος) through this passage. Paul does not say the credentials were worthless in themselves — they were real κέρδη — but that in the presence of what surpasses them, they have been reclassified. The κερδήσω at the end closes the loop: everything moved to the loss column so that one item may be entered as gain.

The verse is also grammatically overloaded — a stack of particles, an interrupted main clause, a relative clause that swallows its own antecedent, and a second ἡγοῦμαι whose object must be supplied. That roughness is not scribal corruption; it is a man piling up qualifications faster than syntax can carry them.

Four particles in a row (ἀλλά + μέν + οὖν + γε + καί), and every one of them is doing work. This is the densest particle cluster in Philippians.

• ἀλλά is not adversative here. Per the policy already fixed at Phil 1:18 (ἀλλὰ καί, ascensive), ἀλλά followed by an intensifier heightens rather than contradicts. Paul is not correcting v. 7; he is raising it.
• μενοῦνγε (μενοῦν + γε) is a strengthened inferential-corrective particle, rare in the NT (Luke 11:28; Rom 9:20; 10:18 — and in each case it caps or corrects a preceding statement upward). BDF notes that classical Greek avoids μενοῦν at the head of a sentence; Koine does not. The force is roughly ‘yes indeed, and what is more.’
• καί is adjunctive, attaching to ἡγοῦμαι: not only did I once reckon (v. 7), but I also, still reckon.

Translating this as a flat ‘Indeed’ or ‘What is more’ collapses three distinct moves into one. The rendering here uses ‘Yes, and more than that’ so that the affirmation (ἀλλά), the intensification (μενοῦνγε), and the addition (καί) each land.

Built onbdf · bdag · obrien-nigtc · silva-becnt

The aspectual shift is the spine of the verse and is regularly lost in translation.

• v. 7 ἥγημαι — perfect: a completed act of reckoning whose result stands. At conversion, the ledger was rewritten.
• v. 8 ἡγοῦμαι ×2 — present: the reckoning is current, ongoing, renewed. Not ‘I once decided’ but ‘I keep on deciding.’

O’Brien and Fee both press this: the past verdict of v. 7 is not a memory Paul recites but a judgment he continues to make from prison, thirty years on. English cannot mark aspect on ‘consider’ without awkwardness, so the smooth tier uses ‘I go on considering’ for the first occurrence and lets the repetition of the plain verb carry the second.

The double ἡγοῦμαι also frames the verse: the ground clause (διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον …) and the relative clause (διʼ ὃν …) sit between the two verbs, so the accounting language brackets the christological ground. That structure is worth preserving in the line-breaks of any printed text.

Two forms of πᾶς, and the article matters.

• πάντα (anarthrous, neuter plural, object of ἡγοῦμαι) — ‘all things’ with unrestricted, qualitative scope. Not ‘all those things’ from vv. 5–6, but everything whatsoever that might be entered as an asset.
• τὰ πάντα (articular, object of the passive ἐζημιώθην) — anaphoric: the whole lot, now referring back to the πάντα just named. BDF on articular πᾶς: the article bounds and totalizes the set already in view.

The existing corpus policy distinguishes distributive πᾶς with anarthrous singular nouns (‘every knee,’ 2:10) from collective articular πᾶς (‘they all,’ 2:21). This verse has neither of those but a third case: anarthrous neuter plural (unbounded ‘all things’) followed by articular neuter plural (‘the all things,’ bounded by the prior mention). The literal tier keeps both, ugly as ‘the all things’ is, because the progression from unbounded to bounded is Paul’s own rhetoric of narrowing to a specific historical loss.

Built onbdf · obrien-nigtc

Articular neuter participle of ὑπερέχω, substantivized: ‘the surpassingness,’ ‘the thing that surpasses.’ The corpus already fixed ὑπερέχω as surpass / be superior to (Phil 2:3, with genitive of comparison), and the same root returns at 4:7 (ἡ εἰρήνη … ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν).

The construction here is a substantival participle taking a dependent genitive (τῆς γνώσεως). Two parsings of that genitive:

• Genitive of comparison — ‘what surpasses, [namely] the knowledge of Christ’ is awkward, since the genitive would then name what is surpassed, and the knowledge of Christ is not what gets surpassed.
• Epexegetical/possessive genitive — ‘the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ,’ i.e. the excellence belonging to that knowledge. This is the reading nearly all commentators take, and it is what the English ‘surpassing worth’ conveys.

English needs a noun of value here (‘worth,’ ‘excellence’) because a bare ‘the surpassing’ is not idiomatic; the supplied noun is bracketed in the literal tier. Avoid ‘because I know that nothing compares’ — that is paraphrase, and it dissolves the participle into a clause Paul did not write.

Built onbdag · obrien-nigtc · silva-becnt

γνῶσις here is not information but relational, covenantal knowing — the LXX’s דַּעַת אֱלֹהִים (Hos 6:6; Jer 31:34; Isa 53:11), knowledge that is fellowship and allegiance. Verse 10’s τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν makes the personal object explicit and settles the sense for v. 8.

The crux is the genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ:

The English ‘of’ construction would preserve the ambiguity; ‘knowing Christ’ resolves it. Given v. 10, resolution is warranted here — but the literal tier retains ‘the knowledge of Christ Jesus’ so the reader can see the Greek construction.

Note also that Paul must be talking about knowledge that is not strictly a Christian innovation in category: this is prophetic vocabulary. What is new is the object. Contrast Jer 9:23–24 LXX, where boasting is excluded except in knowing YHWH — a text standing behind Phil 3:3 (καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) and now behind v. 8. That transfer, from knowing YHWH to knowing Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ κύριός μου, is a divine-identity claim of the sort Bauckham traces through this letter.

Built onbdag · muraoka-lxx · obrien-nigtc · fee-nicnt · silva-becnt · bauckham-god-crucified

The full title Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου is the only place in the acknowledged Pauline corpus where κύριος takes a first-person singular possessive. Paul writes ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν constantly; ὁ κύριός μου once, here.

That singular is not stylistic. It marks the whole sentence as personal testimony rather than doctrinal statement — which is why the verse can carry the crudity of σκύβαλα without becoming a general rule imposed on the Philippians. Fee: the confession is Paul’s own, and its force is autobiographical.

Per §1 of the ruleset, κύριος is rendered Lord and never converted to YHWH. But the substrate should be named: the possessive-κύριος formula is the Psalter’s (κύριέ μου, Ps 34:23 LXX; ὁ θεός μου, already fixed in this corpus at Phil 1:3), where the referent is YHWH. Hurtado’s point about early devotional practice is exactly this — the language of personal covenant address to YHWH is being used of Jesus, in an undisputed letter, within thirty years of the crucifixion, without argument or apology. It is presupposed, not defended.

The accumulation Χριστός (title) + Ἰησοῦς (name) + ὁ κύριος (divine title) + μου (personal claim) is deliberate and should not be trimmed in translation.

Built onhurtado-ljc · bauckham-god-crucified · fee-nicnt · obrien-nigtc

διʼ ὅν — διά + accusative, causal, with a personal relative pronoun: ‘on account of whom,’ ‘for whose sake.’ Consistent with the corpus policy on διά + acc. The antecedent is Christ, drawn out of the preceding genitive chain — a slightly loose construction typical of Paul under momentum.

ἐζημιώθην — aorist passive of ζημιόω, cognate with the noun ζημία two clauses earlier. The wordplay is untranslatable in a single English word but must be visible: Paul reckons things loss (ζημία), and he was made to lose (ἐζημιόω) them.

The voice matters. ζημιόω in the passive regularly means ‘be fined, be made to forfeit, suffer loss of’ — a legal/commercial term for a penalty imposed. Two consequences:

• The subject of the imposing is unexpressed. It is not Paul who did the divesting; something happened to him. Whether the implied agent is God, or simply the circumstances of his conversion and its social cost, Paul does not say.
• The aorist points to a definite past event — the Damascus road and its aftermath — not a continuous asceticism. The present ἡγοῦμαι is ongoing; the ἐζημιώθην is done.

‘I have suffered the loss of all things’ is defensible in English. But note that τὰ πάντα is an accusative of the thing lost with the passive verb (a retained accusative), not the subject; the wooden tier reflects this with the awkward ‘the all things I was made to suffer loss [of].’

Built onbdag · bdf · obrien-nigtc · silva-becnt

NT hapax, and the most difficult word in Philippians to render honestly.

Range. The evidence supports two overlapping domains:

1. Excrement, dung. Josephus, War 5.571, uses σκύβαλον of what starving Jerusalemites were reduced to eating; Sirach 27:4 LXX uses it of what remains after sieving. Medical writers (Galen) use it for feces. The Vulgate takes this line: ut stercora.
2. Refuse, garbage, scraps — what is thrown out from a table or a threshing floor, including table-scraps thrown to dogs. Attested in papyri and in the lexicographical tradition.

The two are not really alternatives; σκύβαλα is whatever is discarded as worthless and offensive, and dung is the paradigm case.

Register. This is not polite vocabulary. Whether it was outright vulgar or merely coarse is debated, but no one argues it was neutral. Two contextual pressures push toward the harsher end:

• τοὺς κύνας in v. 2. If σκύβαλα includes what is thrown to dogs, and Paul has just called his opponents dogs, the sequence is a deliberate and brutal inversion: the circumcision party is the dog-pack, and the credentials they prize are the dog-scraps.
• The whole passage is polemical, and Paul elsewhere reaches for shocking language when the gospel’s sufficiency is at stake (Gal 5:12).

Decision here: ‘refuse’ in the main text, ‘dung’ in the literal tier, ‘garbage’ in the colloquial tier. This preserves the discard-image (which pairs with the ledger metaphor and with κύνας) without importing a modern obscenity whose force exceeds the evidence. But the contest is real and is flagged rather than resolved — a translator who chooses ‘dung’ is not being crude; they are reading the papyri and Josephus.

Supplied object. Greek gives ἡγοῦμαι no object the second time. English must supply one (‘them,’ ‘it all’). The most natural antecedent is τὰ πάντα.

Built onbdag · muraoka-lxx · obrien-nigtc · fee-nicnt · silva-becnt

ἵνα + aorist subjunctive, telic: purpose, not result. Per corpus policy the aorist is complexive — a single decisive gaining, not a repeated one. The clause governs both ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα and, looking further back, the whole reckoning of vv. 7–8; grammatically it attaches to the nearest verb, but the sense reaches across the sentence.

κερδήσω closes the ledger metaphor opened by κέρδη in v. 7 and by κέρδος at 1:21. The lexical chain across the letter:

• 1:21 τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος — dying is gain
• 3:7 ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη — those things were gains
• 3:7 ζημίαν — now loss
• 3:8 ζημίαν … ἐζημιώθην — loss, and made to lose
• 3:8 Χριστὸν κερδήσω — that I may gain Christ

One metaphor, sustained across two chapters, and the English must keep a single accounting vocabulary throughout or the reader cannot see it. ‘Advantage,’ ‘benefit,’ ‘profit from’ all break the chain (see the standing glossary entries for κέρδος and ζημία).

Note the theological asymmetry: the objects of loss are things (πάντα, τὰ πάντα); the object of gain is a person (Χριστόν). Paul does not trade assets for better assets. He is not calculating a return — v. 9’s εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ makes the gain incorporative rather than acquisitive. Still, the mercantile image is live and stays literal (§8): Paul chose a merchant’s word, and ‘gain Christ’ is what he wrote.

Built onbdag · obrien-nigtc · fee-nicnt · silva-becnt

NA28 prints the verse without brackets and the apparatus is light. Three points worth recording:

1. μενοῦνγε — the reading of the major uncials. Some witnesses divide or simplify the particle cluster (μὲν οὖν, μενοῦν without γε). This is orthographic/scribal smoothing of an unusual pile-up, not a semantic variant; NA28’s text stands on both external weight and the principle that scribes simplify rather than complicate particles.

2. σκύβαλα — some witnesses add εἶναι (‘to be refuse’), harmonizing to the ζημίαν εἶναι construction earlier in the verse. The shorter, harsher reading without εἶναι is original; the addition is exactly the kind of syntactic tidying scribes perform.

3. τοῦ κυρίου μου — a few witnesses read ἡμῶν for μου, assimilating to Paul’s overwhelmingly common ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν. The singular is the harder and better-attested reading, and as argued above it is exegetically load-bearing. This is a textbook case of a scribe normalizing a distinctive locution toward the familiar formula.

None of these affects doctrine, and Metzger’s committee did not treat the verse as requiring extended discussion. But item 3 is a good illustration of why the manuscript evidence is worth consulting rather than inheriting: the theologically interesting reading is the one a later hand smoothed away.

Built onna28 · metzger-tc

The patristic reading of v. 8 is remarkably consistent on one point: the credentials Paul discards were genuinely good, and that is what makes the comparison work.

• Chrysostom (Homilies on Philippians, hom. 11) presses the accounting language hard. His argument is that Paul does not call the Law evil; he calls it loss by comparison, as a man holding a lamp in daylight has no use for the lamp — not because the lamp is bad. Chrysostom is emphatic that σκύβαλα is a comparative verdict, not an absolute one, and he reads the harshness of the word as a measure of the greatness of Christ rather than of the worthlessness of the Law.
• The Latin tradition’s ut stercora (Vulgate) shows that σκύβαλα was heard as strong language early and was not softened by ancient translators.
• Theodoret reads διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην of Paul’s concrete social losses — family, standing, reputation among his own — rather than of an inward renunciation, which fits the passive voice well.

This patristic emphasis is a useful check on a common modern flattening. If the credentials of vv. 5–6 were worthless in themselves, the argument of v. 8 collapses: there is no achievement in discarding trash. The rhetorical force depends on Paul’s list being an impressive one, honestly valued, and then repriced in the presence of something that surpasses it.

• ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καί → ‘Yes, and more than that —’ (three particles, three moves: affirm, intensify, add). Not ‘but.’
• ἡγοῦμαι (pres.) → ‘I go on considering,’ marking the aspectual advance over v. 7’s perfect.
• πάντα / τὰ πάντα → ‘everything’ / ‘it all’; literal tier keeps ‘all things’ / ‘the all things.’
• τὸ ὑπερέχον → ‘the surpassing worth’ (noun supplied, bracketed in literal tier); root kept identical to 2:3 and 4:7.
• τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ → ‘knowing Christ’ in smooth text (objective genitive settled by v. 10); ‘the knowledge of Christ’ in literal tier.
• τοῦ κυρίου μου → ‘my Lord’; singular possessive retained, YHWH substrate footnoted not imported (§1).
• ἐζημιώθην → ‘I was made to lose,’ keeping the passive and the cognate link to ζημία.
• σκύβαλα → ‘refuse’ (main), ‘dung’ (literal), ‘garbage’ (colloquial); contest flagged, not resolved.
• κερδήσω → ‘gain,’ preserving the ledger metaphor unbroken from 1:21.