BeDuhn has simply:
also about] Christos Jesus, 6 who,
although he existed in God’s form,
did not consider a seizure of equality to God,
7 but emptied himself, taking a slave’s form,
becoming in the likeness of a human being;
8 and being found in an appearance as a human being,
[he humbled himself and became] obedient as far as death,
even a death by staking.
Vinzent provides something very similar.
The canonical version is of course:
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
assuming human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a human,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God exalted him even more highly
and gave him the name
that is above every other name,
10 so that at the name given to Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
So both remove Phil 2:9-11. BeDuhn's notes read simply:
That's it? Simply that this is unattested? Does Vinzent provide any greater justification? How can such an important set of passages be brushed away with so little justification? I'm not saying its wrong, just that the footnote leaves a lit to be desired here.