TEXTUAL CRITICISM ON 1 THESSALONIANS 2:7:

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE TEXTUAL VARIANTS BETWEEN ΝΗΠΙΟΙ
AND ἬΠΙΟΙ

Alberto Solano Zatarain

NT855 New Testament Textual Criticism
September 24, 2015
  

INTRODUCTION

The text of 1 Thessalonians 2:7 reads, “δυνάµενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ

ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλʼ ἐγενήθηµεν νήπιοι ἐν µέσῳ ὑµῶν. ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς

τέκνα,”1 There are two possible readings in this verse, the difference being whether Paul

used to word νήπιοι (“children”) or ἤπιοι (“gentle”). According to USB5 and NA28 the

reading should be with νήπιοι, while the TR and the Byz have written it as ἤπιοι. Likewise

scholars are divided. In favor of ἤπιοι are Tregelles, Tischendorf, Wescott-Hort (in

marginal notes), Metzger (in his Commentary), Weiss, Ellicott, Bornemann, von

Dobschütz, Moffat, Dibelius, Neslte, Merk, Vogels, Lemonnyer Vosté, Wanamaker, and

Bruce. While on favor of νήπιοι are Lachmann, Wescott-Hort (in the text), Metzger (on the

text), Zimmer, Baljon, Lightfoot, Findlay, Wohlenberg, Frame, and Milligan.2

Transcriptionally, the problem is not easy to solve. Since the manuscripts would have

been written in capital letters without spaces in between, a scribe could have easily copied

the letter twice, since the previous words, ἐγενήθηµεν, ends with the same letter that begins

νήπιοι. However, just as much as it could have been dittography (writing a letter twice by

accident), it could also have been a problem of haplography (accidentally leaving out a

letter that was supposed to be there). If the problem was of dittography, then the reading

most likely would have been: ἘΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕΝΝΗΠΙΟΙ. On the other hand, if the problem

was haplography, then reading would have been, ἘΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ.3

                                                                                                               
1
Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (Eds.). (2014). The
Greek New Testament (Fifth Revised Edition., 1 Th 2:7). Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
2
B. Rigaux, Saint Paul Les épitres Aux Thessaloniciens, ed. J. Duculot, Études Bibliques (Paris:
Gmbloux, 1956), 418.
3
It has also been suggested that a third explanation could be that the amanuensis penning the letter
could have misheard Paul as he dictated. However such explanation has little to no basis, as it is both
speculative and impossible to verify. It is worth noting the comment made in the NET Bible: “It is even
  

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

The exteral evidece is devided almost evenly between the two possible readings,

making is difficult to define a single reading based entirely on external evidence. The

following is a chart dividing the most important manuscripts and the wieght they bring into

the discussion:

External evidence that reflects νήπιοι:

Byzantine Alexandrian Western Other

65
Papyri P
Uncials F, G, I, Ψ* ‫א‬, B, C, 0150 D
Minuscule 459 104, 263
Lecturers 147, 592, 593,
603
Versions itar, b, d, f, g, mon, o,
vgcl, w, copsa, bo
(gr1/3, lat
Church Origen , Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, Augustine
Fathers

External evidence that reflects ἤπιοι:

Byzantine Alexandrian Western Other

Papyri P65
Uncials Ψc ‫א‬c, A, C2, 075 D2 ,
Minuscule 365, 424, 1241, 6, 33, 81, 256, 1319
1573, 1852, 436,
1881, 1912,
2127, 2200,
2464,
Lecturers
Versions vgst, syrp, h,
copsa, fay, arm
(geo)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
possible that νήπιοι was caused by an error of hearing right from the beginning: The amanuensis could have
heard the apostle incorrectly. But such a supposition cuts both ways; further, Paul would no doubt have
corrected the reading in the ms before it was sent out. If so, one would surely have expected both earlier
witnesses on the side of ἤπιοι and perhaps a few first correctors to have this reading” in Biblical Studies
Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Thess 2:6–7). Biblical Studies Press.
  

Church Clement, Origen2/3, Basil, Chrysostom, Theodorelat

Fathers

As noted in the two charts above, both sides contain well-attested manuscripts to

defend their case. The following considerations must be taken. First, although νήπιοι is

supported by ‫א‬, B, and the early papyrus P65, one cannot overlook Codex Bezae and the Old

Latin manuscripts which support ἤπιοι. Secondly, the dating of these manuscripts reveals

that the readings which reflect ἤπιοι were, in their majority, penned after the manuscripts

which reflect νήπιοι. However, one can make also the case that these later readings were

altered in order to rectify a previous error known to early correctors. Thus, a later reading

could very well reflect the original text.4

Regarding Church Fathers, the first comment on 1 Thessalonians 2:7 comes from

Clement of Alexandria. It is interesting to note that his words reflect that he had knowledge

of this textual difference as early as the end of the second century. In light of the

differences, he seems to favor ἤπιοι over νήπιοι, although it also seems that he attempted to

combine both readings.5 On the other hand Augustine favored νήπιοι more so than ἤπιοι,

most likely due to the fact that most of the times he utilized an Old Latin copy that read

parvulus.6 Likewise, Origen favors νήπιοι, even though he too sympathized with the idea of

                                                                                                               
4
Craig L. Blomberg comments, “Complicating matters, however, are the number of early witnesses
that were later altered from “babes” to ‘gentle.’ On the one hand, the fact that ‘babes’ was written by the
initial copyist in so many texts (astericked in the apparatus) that were later changed to ‘gentle’ suggests
‘babes’ as the original reading. On the other hand, so many potentially independent correctors could indicate
knowledge of one or more earlier manuscripts that did in fact read ‘gentle’” in Craig L. Blomberg and
Jennifer Foutz Markley, A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 28.
5
Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, I.5.19; see also R. J. Deferrari, ed. Fathers of the
Church: A New Translation (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947) 23:19-20; Peter
Gorday, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v.
“2:7 We Were Gentle Among You.” 9:65.
6
Augustine, Sermons 10.8. Furthermore, in his work, On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 10.15,
Augustine writes that Paul became, like Christ, “a little child in the midst of us (and) like a nurse cherishing
  

combining both readings in order to emphasize the gentle humility and lowliness of the

apostle Paul.7 Chrysostom does not deal with the probable νήπιοι reading and concludes

that Paul is speaking about how “gentle” they had been towards the church.8

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Internal evidence that reflects νήπιοι:

First, it must be noted that Paul would have most likely used νήπιοι, given the fact

that he uses this word seven times (Rom 2:20; 1 Cor 3:1; 13:11; Gal 4:1, 3; Eph 4:14; Heb

5:13), while only once more does he use the word ἤπιοι (ἤπιος) to refer to “gentleness” (2

Timothy 2:24). Every other time the word “gentle” is translated in most common

translations, it is not ἤπιοι but πραΰτης.9 Since Paul immediately utilizes the metaphor of a

mother’s care for her children, one could argue that Paul would have had the imagery of a

child and a mother already in his head, and therefore most likely to have used νήπιοι

instead of conveying an unusual form for him to express gentleness. One can then suggest

that τροφὸς in verse seven would best follow νήπιοι, for one complements the other.

Although it is pointed that this would mean a dramatic shift in his metaphor usage, it is

indispensable to note that Paul’s writings do contain metaphorical jumps, as it the case in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
his children.” See also J. E. Rotelle ed.; Edmund Hill, O.P., trans. The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation
for the Twenty-first Century (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991) 1:288.
7
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13:29; See also editor’s notes in Peter Gorday, ed., Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v. “2:7 We Were Gentle
Among You.” 9:66.
8
Chrysostom, Homily 2; see also The Ante-Nicene Father: Translations of the Father Down to Ad
325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1885), 13:330; Anthony C.
Thiselton, 1 and 2 Thessalonians through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2011), 54.
9
1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:3; 6:1; Eph 4:2; 1 Tim 3:3; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2.
  

Galatians 4:19. Though violent deviations at times, Paul utilized these metaphor changes to

emphasize his points.10

A second argumentation for νήπιοι is based on Paul’s desire for brotherly equality.

In verse six and beginning of verse seven he writes, “οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν

οὔτε ἀφʼ ὑµῶν οὔτε ἀπʼ ἄλλων, δυνάµενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλ” The

fact that Paul looks to remind his readers that although they (Paul and the other apostles)

could have demanded to be praised and esteemed as was in fact their right as apostles, they

loved them and became their equals, something not uncommon in the writings of Paul.11

Thirdly, while it is not likely that Paul would have used νήπιοι (“babes”) to describe

neither himself nor his fellow apostles, he does utilize ἀπορφανισθέντες (literally “we were

orphaned from you”) just ten verses later in 2:17. If later he speaks of themselves as

children being made orphans, then he could very well have spoken about themselves as

children in verse seven.12

                                                                                                               
10
See Norbert Baumert and Maria-Irma Seewann, In der Gegenwart Des Herrn: übersetzung Und
Auslegung Des Ersten Und Zweiten Briefes an Die Thessalonicher, Paulus Neu Gelesen (München: Echter
Verlag, 2014), 22-27.
 
11
For a further study of this proposed argument see James E. Frame, Thessalonians. ICC (Edinburgh,
EN: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2002), 100-01. In it the author suggests that since Paul sought to emphasize
brotherly equality and pastoral love and care in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, he would have most likely used a
metaphor that conveyed humility to the lowest point. When looking at the immediate context, it appears that
Paul was striving to demonstrate that he did not wish to be held in high esteem, since his desire was to serve
and love the people of the church. Thus, it seems plausible that he would have used the metaphor of a “babe”,
attributing himself the lowest and most dependable form of life possible. See also Ernest Best, The First and
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1972), 101.
12
See Jennifer H. McNeel, Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother: Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity in 1
Thessalonians 2, Early Christianity and its Literature 12 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014); Nicholas Moore,
“Review of Jennifer Houston McNeel. Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother: Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity
in 1 Thessalonians 2,” The Journal of Theological Studies 66, no. 2 (2015). It is worth noting that McNeel
also alludes to the fact that, since Paul has a family in mind when speaking throughout the entirety of chapter
two, and since he refers to himself with the attributes of a mother (verse 8) and a father (verse 11), then he
could also have used the attribute of a child without contradicting the overall flow of metaphors.
  

Finally, grammatically there seems to be a much stronger connection of νήπιοι to

the previous clause and separating the sentence between ὑμῶν  and  ὡς, rather than

beginning a new the sentence with ἀλλʼ. When seeing “ἀλλα” in verse seven, it seems best

to grammatically connect it to the previous text than to the following clause, thus separating

verse seven with a period instead of a semi-colon or colon; as reflected in the readings of

UBSGNT and Nestle-Aland13

Internal evidence that reflects ἤπιοι:

First, ἐν βάρει εἶναι in verse six would be most naturally followed by ἤπιοι, since

βάρει seems to depict a heavy burden. 14 If βάρει describes the burden that the apostles

could have been (perhaps financially as alluded to in verse nine), then ἤπιοι would have

remonstrated the opposite of βάρει.15 Secondly, Paul nowhere else uses the word νήπιοι to

describe himself or his fellow apostles. In fact, the places where Paul uses νήπιοι (Rom

2:20; 1 Cor 3:1; 13:11; Gal 4:1, 3; Eph 4:14; Heb 5:13), he uses it in a negative way,
                                                                                                               
13
“δυνάµενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλʼ ἐγενήθηµεν νήπιοι ἐν µέσῳ ὑµῶν. ὡς ἐὰν
τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα,”
14
Lexical dictionaries seem to demonstrate much more support for a translation that emphasizes
something as oppressive or exhausting. However, BDAG does add a special clause just for 1 Thessalonians
2:7 and states that βάρει in this context ought to be rendered as, “influence that someone enjoys or claims,
claim of importance.” See W. Arndt, F. W. Danker, and W. Bauer, A Greek-English lexicon of the New
Testament and other early Christian literature, 3 ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 167.
 
15
This hypothesis has had little support. Textually it seems best to see he language of verse nine,
“ἐργαζόµενοι πρὸς τὸ µὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑµῶν ἐκηρύξαµεν εἰς ὑµᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ” as not
ideologically connected with verse six, but as a different argument by Paul not built upon his previous words
in verses six to eight. On this matter Dr. Wanamaker comments, “A contrast between being able to wield
authority and acting as a nurse appears to make more sense than a contrast between being able to demand
financial support and acting as a nurse. Furthermore, the issue of how Paul financed himself comes up in v. 9,
apparently as a new idea in the discussion rather than as a continuation of an earlier statement. On the whole
then it seems better to understand v. 7a as directed to the right of Paul to exercise or wield his apostolic
authority (cf. Best, 100), which might include the right to be financially supported, though this idea is not in
the foreground here. Paul at least consciously chose not to exercise all his apostolic rights in order not to put a
stumbling block in the way of his converts (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12)” in Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the
Thessalonians: a commentary on the Greek text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 90.
  

usually to denote spiritual immaturity, making it quite unlikely that he would call himself a

“babe.” B. Rigaux proposes that, since scribes would have been aware of Paul’s usage of

νήπιοι, they could have added a ν, making it a dittography problem. Likewise, Rigaux

suggests that since 2 Timothy 2:24 speaks of gentleness as a characteristic of “the Lord’s

servant”, then one ought to consider ἤπιοι over νήπιοι.16

Third, if punctuation is said to be a forte for νήπιοι according to the readings of

UBSGNT and Nestle-Aland, then one must not forget that according to the Byzantine text

form, there is no punctuation mark between ὑμῶν  and ὡς, thus allowing for a smoother

reading and one that forces ἤπιοι to be linked with the proceeding text rather than the

previous one.17 Before descanting Robinson and Pierpont’s work, one must remember that

‫א‬, B, P65, and D2 were all written with uncials, and therefore no punctuation is visible that

would elevate the use of comma or full stop in the UBSGNT over the Byzantine text.

Fourth and finally, virtually every commentator alludes to the possibility that these

words by Paul could have had a strong Cynic philosophy behind it, philosophy which

underscored the importance of being gentile when speaking persuasively. If this were true,

given the fact that it was a common philosophy practiced during the first century, then this

would favor the reading ἤπιοι. Howbeit, one must discern how much weight should be

placed upon extra canonical philosophical argumentation.18

                                                                                                               
16
“Les scribes étaient tentés d'écrire νήπιος, mot bien connu qui revient 10 fois dans le N.T., dont 5
fois dans Paul, tandis que ἤπιος, uniquement II Tim., II, 24. Mais la confusion est courante: νήπιος pour
ἤπιος, II Tim., II, 24; ἤπιος pour νήπιος, Ephes., IV, 14 dans A et Heb., V, 13 dans 33. La raison qui fait
prévaloir ἤπιος est que jamais Paul ne se traite de petit enfant mais considère souvent comme tels ses
convertis” in B. Rigaux, Saint Paul Les épitres Aux Thessaloniciens, 418.
17
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek:
Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005).
18
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Volume 45, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and
Glenn W. Barker (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), 45:31-32; Gordon D. Fee, The First and
Second Letters to the Thessalonian, The New International Commentary On the New Testament (Grand
  

CONCLUSION

Neither external nor internal evidence elevates one reading far above the other. The

fact that both sides contain important manuscripts is enough to evaluate both possibilities

fairly. On one hand, although νήπιοι is supported by stronger manuscripts, it is no small

thing that contains support from both Alexandrian and Western type texts. And the fact that

most early Church Fathers seem to have preferred ἤπιοι over νήπιοι does not determine the

reading, but it does shed light to the discussion, in particular Clement of Alexandria. On the

other hand, internal evidence also seems to be well divided into the two camps.

Nonetheless, when adding both external and internal evidence, it seems reasonable, though

not strongly, to conclude that νήπιοι could have been the original writing.

It is worth noting that Bruce Metzger admittedly states that, despite the fact that the

Committee preferred the νήπιοι reading, he still had reservations, since, according to him,

the context seems to favor ἤπιοι.19 Likewise A. Wikgren rejected the majority decision and

was never in favor of the reading νήπιοι in the UBS and Nestle-Aland.20

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2009), 54-55; Karl Paul Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 163-65; Luke T. Johnson, Contested Issues in Christian Origins
and the New Testamen, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 146 (Boston: Brill, 2013), 622; Abraham J.
Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background of 1 Thessalonians 2,” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970):
203-17; Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy,
Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010) 2.2.1; Earl J.
Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier,
1995), 87-111.
19
While the Committee saw it as a B level variant, Metzger in his textual commentary labels it as a C
level. He writes: “Despite the weight of external evidence, only ἤπιοι seems to suit the context, where the
apostle’s gentleness makes an appropriate sequence with the arrogance disclaimed in ver. 6. The choice of
reading has a bearing on the punctuation; if ἤπιοι is adopted, a full stop should follow ἀπόστολοι, a comma
should follow ὑµῶν, and a colon should follow τέκνα” in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 3rd ed.
(New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 630.
20
Craig L. Blomberg and Jennifer Foutz Markley, A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 28.
  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., and Bauer, W. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament
and other early Christian literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
200.

Baumert, Norbert, and Maria-Irma Seewann. In der Gegenwart Des Herrn: übersetzung
Und Auslegung Des Ersten Und Zweiten Briefes an Die Thessalonicher. Paulus Neu
Gelesen. München: Echter Verlag, 2014.

Blomberg, Craig L. and Foutz, Jennifer. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard,

and Glenn W. Barker. Vol. 45. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.

Donfried, Karl Paul. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 2002.

Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Black’s New Testament
Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1972.

Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

Frame, James E. Thessalonians, ICC. Edinburgh, EN: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2002.

J. E. Rotelle, ed. The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the Twenty-first Century.
Vol. 1-11. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991.

Malherbe, Abraham J. “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background of 1 Thessalonians 2.”

Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 203-17.

McNeel, Jennifer H. Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother: Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity
in 1 Thessalonians 2. Early Christianity and its Literature 12. Atlanta, GA: SBL
Press, 2014.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion

Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. New York:
United Bible Societies, 1971.

Moore, Nicholas. “Review of Jennifer Houston Mcneel. Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother:
Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity in 1 Thessalonians 2.” The Journal of Theological
Studies 66, no. 2 (2015).
  

R. J. Deferrari, ed. Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D. C.: Catholic
University of America Press, 1947.

Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington.

Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1995.

Rigaux, B. Saint Paul Les épitres Aux Thessaloniciens. Edited by J. Duculot. Études
Bibliques. Paris: Gmbloux, 1956.

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James. The Ante-Nicene Father: Translations of the
Father Down to Ad 325. Vol. 13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1885.

Robinson, Maurice A., and William G. Pierpont. The New Testament in the Original
Greek: Byzantine Textform. Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005.

Sailors, T. B. “Wedding Textual and Rhetorical Criticism to Understand the Text of 1

Thessalonians 2.7.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 80, (2001)

Thiselton, Anthony C. 1 and 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible

Commentaries. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011.

Wanamaker, C. A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

NIGTC. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Weima, J. A. D. “But We Became Infants Among You: The Case for NHPIOI in 1 Thess
2.7.” New Testament Studies, 12 (1970).