Download Word Doc

The following material is taken directly from Dr. Wallace’s class notes in his course on the Thessalonian letters at Dallas Seminary.

We turn now to one of the thorniest textual problems in the NT. In 1 Thess 2.7, the problem of h[pioi/nhvpioi occurs. The first word, h[pio", means ‘gentle.’ The meaning is quite satisfactory: ‘we became gentle among you, like a nursing mother…’ The variant is significantly harder; nhvpio" means ‘infant,’ ‘little child.’ Many have suggested that this reading is too hard: ‘we became infants among you, like a nursing mother…’ The shift in metaphor seems so violent that ‘infants’ is regarded as a scribal error. This might not be the case however. The external evidence is as follows:

The external evidence is especially strong for the ‘little children.’ It is not insignificant that the earliest Alexandrian and Western witnesses in support of hpioi are the second correctors. Such correctors generally follow a Byzantine Vorlage. Hence, apart from A, 33, and 1739, the variant hpioi finds its strongest support in the Byzantine text. However, this is not to say that the reading was developed late: it is found in Clement of Alexandria (c. 215) as well as in some of the Sahidic MSS.¹ But the pedigree for nhpioi is significantly stronger. ⁶⁵ is a third century fragment of Thessalonians, * B constitute the major Alexandrian uncials, just as DFG, along with the Itala, constitute the core of the Western text. It is difficult to explain how, if ‘gentle’ were the original reading, ‘little children’ would have crept into the Western text without deviation. The entire Western tradition—both the Greek witnesses and the versions, not to mention Jerome and other fathers—are on the side of the ‘little children.’ The solidarity of the Itala for nhpioi suggests that this inner-Greek confusion was created after the Vorlage of the Latin witnesses had come into being. Further, at least one Sahidic MS and the Fayumic Coptic texts also have this reading. The reading nhpioi is thus superior externally.

Turning to internal evidence, we begin with a discussion of the transcriptional probability. One could easily imagine a scribe accidentally either dropping the n (haplography) or adding it (dittography), since the previous word ended in n (ejgenhvqhmen). Further, in uncial script, h and n look very similar (nnh/nh). However, it should further be added that if hpioi is original here, a scribe would perhaps be likely to change it to nhpioi, because Paul uses the latter several times in his letters (at least ten times in the corpus Paulinum). But since nowhere else does he apply the term to himself as an adult, a scribe may well have altered the text to read hpioi. (This term, however, occurs only in 2 Tim 2.24 in the whole Greek Bible.) There is another piece of transcriptional evidence that needs to be weighed: What would Paul’s amanuensis do? Our general hypothesis on Paul’s secretaries is that in the earlier letters the secretary would copy down almost verbatim what the apostle dictated; as time went on, the amanuensis would be given more freedom, especially as Paul grew to trust certain individuals.² In this text, there is thus the distinct possibility that the amanuensis heard Paul incorrectly. Since the preceding word ended in a n, the secretary could have dropped it or added it to the next word inadvertently. But since Paul always authenticated his letters—not only by taking the pen from the secretary and writing a personal note but also presumably by checking over the contents of each letter—if the secretary wrote the wrong word here, Paul would have corrected it before it was shipped out. If the secretary had written nhpioi and Paul had corrected it, then our earliest witnesses would almost surely attest to the hpioi reading.³ In the least, we would have expected both earlier witnesses on the side of hpioi and perhaps a few first correctors to have this reading.

Intrinsically, consider the following points. (1) Since Paul uses nhvpio" fairly frequently (at least ten times), and h[pio" only in one other place,⁴ he would be most likely to follow his normal pattern here. Yet this could be countered by the ‘fact’ that when Paul uses nhvpio" it is always applied to his audience, and never to himself (so Metzger, Textual Commentary, 629). Even this is overstated, however: Paul does indeed seem to apply it to himself in at least half of his uses: in 1 Cor 13.11 the word is used five times. Paul uses the first person singular, though in a generic sense (“when I was a child…”). He also seems to include himself with his readers in Gal 4.3 and Eph 4.14. That is the most natural way to take the ‘we’ in each place.⁵ Thus, Metzger’s argument is overstated and not altogether accurate (he also argues this point in his Text of the New Testament³, 232). On the other hand, it could be argued that Paul never uses the term positively (although Rom 2.20 comes close⁶); his usage always implies immaturity, childishness, etc.⁷

(2) Apart from questions of lexical frequency in Paul, nhvpioi is the more difficult reading. Part of the argument in its behalf is Pauline style: he is not altogether consistent with his metaphors. Gal 4.19 is a classic text in which Paul mixes his metaphors: “My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you…” (NRSV). Here he switches between calling his readers ‘little children’ who are once again in his spiritual womb to Christ being in their womb! Paul is not known for his consistency of figures, and those who advocate nhvpioi in 1 Thess 2.7 are quick to point out that the very inconsistency here argues that the reading is authentic. On the other hand, although admittedly nhvpioi is the more difficult reading, it may well be too difficult, for otherwise the metaphor of a nursing mother with her children undergoes too violent a shift (this consideration led Metzger and Allen Wikgren to disagree with the majority of the UBSGNT³ committee; it is significant that in the second edition h[pioi became the text reading, though the committee reversed its decision and went back to nhvpioi in the 3^rd/4^th edition). In other words, if nhvpioi is read, and if it functions as a predicate nominative (which would be most natural),⁸ it destroys the metaphor (“we became babes, as a nursing mother cherishes her children”). The wJ" clause in this instance is meaningless. Further, not only does it destroy the metaphor, but the logic of Paul’s argument vanishes, for if Paul and Silas had become babes, they would have been burdensome (though not in terms of authority, certainly in terms of upkeep—the very point that Paul is arguing against!).

(3) It is possible to repunctuate vv 7-8 so that a full stop concludes ajllaV ejgenhvqhmen nhvpioi ejn mevsw/ uJmw'n (thus, “we became little children in your midst”). Then, wJ" ejaVn trofov" begins a new sentence in which a comparison is made between a nursing mother (7b) and “we… gave to you our very lives” (v 8). (See the note on v 8 for more discussion of the punctuation and sense problem related to it.) This possibility gains ground when we recognize that wJ"...ou{tw" form a correlative pair in the NT frequently enough: ‘as…so [also].’ The construction occurs 14 times, the largest group of which are correlatives.⁹ If the repunctuation holds good, then the metaphor is not in distress, and the nhpioi is not too difficult a reading. We will continue this discussion when we look at v 8.

(4) One other consideration, that is often overlooked in this passage: Paul uses familial language throughout this chapter that truly mixes the metaphors. Assuming nhvpioi to be authentic, notice the following: (a) Paul and Silas are ‘little children’ in v 7; (b) Paul and Silas are ‘nursing mothers’ in v 7; (b) the Thessalonians are ‘brothers [and sisters]’ in v 9; (c) Paul and Silas are now ‘fathers’ to these believers in v 11; (d) the Thessalonians are once again called ‘brothers [and sisters]’ in vv 14, 17; and (e) Paul and Silas are, once again, children in v 17, but this time they are ‘orphaned children’ (ajporfanisqevnte") when they become separated from the Thessalonians. Thus, Paul and Silas, in the space of eleven verses regard themselves in relation to the Thessalonians: children, mother, brothers, father, brother, brother, and orphaned children! The whole context speaks of family, and the nhvpioi plays that tune well.

Our conclusion is that, although the nhvpioi reading is difficult, if the text is repunctuated the difficulty is not too severe. The internal evidence can be read many different ways, but the external evidence is decidedly on the side of nhvpioi. I would rate it a C or C-, which means that next week I may change my mind once again! For what it is worth, the NET Bible is the first English translation to follow this reading.¹⁰

wJ" ejavn—very rare in NT;¹¹ probably ‘as a nursing mother cherishes her own children’ (thus, as if the ‘if’ were absent).

2.8—

ou{tw"—Note the difference in punctuation: this conjunction may form the second of two halves with the preceding wJ" clause (thus, “as a nursing mother cherishes her own children, so…’) or it may begin a new sentence (thus, “because we were longing for you, we considered it good…”) The problem is compounded by the textual variant in 2.7. For example, if nhvpioi is read, and if it is a nominative for vocative, then the wJ" clause functions (semantically more than syntactically) as the PN to (hJmei'") ejgenhvqhmen (“we became like a nursing mother…”) This is unlikely, however (see footnote in v 7 that discusses the vocative view). If, however, nhvpioi is read as a PN (as we are taking it), then it is possible to end v 6 with a full stop. If so, then dunavmenoi (which, by any view, is concessive) starts a new sentence. The ajllav in v 7 gives the positive statement. The biggest difficulty with this is that the ajllav becomes superfluous, dangling in a very unPauline manner, or else dunavmenoi is turned into an independent participle.¹² Thus: “Although we could have been a burden to you as Christ's apostles, but we became…” or “We could have been a burden to you as Christ’s apostles, but we became…”¹³ If, however, nhvpioi is authentic, this is most likely how the text needs to be punctuated. This problem illustrates the interplay that textual criticism has with other NT subdisciplines. In this case, grammatical options in v 8 impact the textual decision in v 7, and vice versa.

¹ Coptic is usually divided into its principal dialects; among them, Sahidic and Bohairic are the most frequently cited for NT MSS. Sahidic is earlier than Bohairic, being developed around the second and third centuries AD.

² This may help to explain why Ephesians and the Pastorals come up short on Pauline style: they are among Paul’s last writings.

³ This is unlike the problem in Rom 5.1 (where I have suggested that Tertius heard Paul incorrectly and Paul corrected the subjunctive to an indicative) in two respects: (1) by the mid-50s, Paul’s churches had gotten into the habit of circulating his letters—even at times according to his instructions (cf. Col 4.16). A church would copy a letter and pass on the copy, or perhaps pass on the original and keep the copy. But there is no hint that 1-2 Thessalonians were immediately so treated; even Paul specifically mentions that the letters were to have application for that congregation—he gives no suggestion that his advice also would be helpful to other churches. (2) The textual evidence in Rom 5.1 actually shows hints that the indicative was suppressed early on. 0220 (our earliest witness in this text) apparently had the indicative, and the first correctors of major uncials also reverted the text back to the indicative. The situation in 1 Thess 2.7 is quite different from that.

⁴ It is frequently pointed out that 1 Tim 2.24 is the only place in the Greek Bible in which h[pio" is found. Though true, the adverb hjpivw" is found in 1 Clement 23.1 of God giving grace, and the noun hjpiovth" is found often enough, especially of God and Christ, in early patristic writers (cf. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, for references). The point is that though h[pio" is a biblical hapax legomenon, in the patristic period its cognates occur more frequently; scribes living in that era would not be unfamiliar with the word and may well have altered the text of 1 Thess 2.7 to conform to this notion.

⁵ See ExSyn, 393-99.

⁶ Cf. Louw-Nida 9.43: “the Greek expression didavskalon nhpivwn, literally ‘teacher of little children,’ may be better understood in a sense of ‘teacher of the ignorant’ or ‘teacher of the unlearned.’”

⁷ Although this word does not implicitly connote such pejorative meanings. Cf. Louw-Nida, 9.43, and Matt 21.16.

⁸ Though Crawford takes it to function as a vocative (or, more technically correct, a nominative for vocative), thus, “We became, little children, like a nursing mother…” (Charles Crawford, “The ‘Tiny’ Problem of 1 Thessalonians 2,7: The Case of the Curious Vocative,” Bib 54 (1973) 69-72. A number of difficulties are present with this view: (a) The fact that the word immediately follows a copula (ejgenhvqhmen) suggests that it should be taken as a predicate nominative; (b) Paul’s normal vocative is ajdelfoiv (he could, of course, have followed a different practice in his earlier writings, however); (c) calling them ‘little children’ before he gets to the metaphor seems to be putting the cart before the horse: they would not have understood his meaning until they had read further; (d) calling them ‘little children’ now suggests their immaturity—yet, throughout this letter Paul constantly reminds them of how much they have grown (cf. 1 Cor 3.1; Eph 4.14); and (e) we would not at all expect the subjunctive qavlph/ if nhvpioi were a vocative: this would seem to be a rather unGreek expression (as well as unPauline), for the sense required of the wJ" clause would be “like a nursing mother cherishing her own children.” Instead, we should expect the participle qalpou'sa as an adjectival participle to the predicate nominative trovfo". (It is this final argument that is the weightiest against the vocative view.)

⁹ Cf. Acts 23.11 (“for as you have testified about me… so also you shall testify…”); Rom 5.18 “As one man’s trespass led to condemnation… so also…”); 1 Cor 7.17 (“As the Lord has assigned… so also let each one walk”); 2 Cor 1.7 (“As you are sharers in our suffering… so also you are shares of our comfort”), 2 Cor 7.14 (“as we spoke all things to you in truth, so also our boasting before Titus proved to be the truth”); Eph 5.24 (“as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything”).

¹⁰ The TNIV, released this week, also follows this reading.

¹¹ This is the only instance in which ejavn follows wJ" within nine words in the NT. However, there are a few constructions of wJ" a[n, all of which are in Paul (cf. Rom 9.29; 15.24; 1 Cor 11.34; 12.2; 2 Cor 10.9; Phil 2.23).

¹² This is rare enough in the NT, but especially rare when the participle functions like an indicative.

¹³ The first translation treats dunavmenoi far more naturally, but makes the ajllav awkward; the second translation retains the need for ajllav but makes dunavmenoi an independent participle. Of these two options, I prefer the first.