¹ There is a similar textual problem in 2 Tim 2. 24 where ἤπιοι is the preferred reading and νήπιοι is the variant. In this case, however, only D*, F & G witness to the variant. (The 3rd edition of the UBS text does not even list it as a relevant variant). Since neither the manuscript evidence nor the context argue for νήπιοι, I do not think the argument I will use here is applicable to 2 Tim 2. 24.Google Scholar

² See Bertram, G., ‘νήπιος’ in TDNT 4:912 ff.;Google ScholarBest, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A & C Black, 1972);Google ScholarBruce, F. F., 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word, 1982);Google ScholarHolz, T., Der erster Brief an die Thessalonicher (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1986);Google ScholarLaub, F., 1. und 2. Thessalonicherbriefe (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985);Google ScholarMalherbe, A. J., ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. ii’ NovT 12 (1970) 203–18.Google ScholarMarshall, I. H., 1 & 2 Thessalonians (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983);Google ScholarMarxsen, W., Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979);Google ScholarMorris, L., The Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1959);Google ScholarNeil, W., The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950);Google ScholarRigaux, B., Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956).Google ScholarJewett, R., The Thessalonian Correspondence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 152, reads ‘gentle’ without any comment on its textual status.Google ScholarAmong the more recent scholars to argue for the priority of νήπιοι are Crawford, C., ‘The “Tiny” Problem of 1 Thess. 2,7: The Case of the Curious Vocative’ Bib 54 (1973) 69–72. As the title suggests, Crawford argues that νήπιοι was the original reading and should be read as a vocative. This suggestion has been widely rejected because it threatens to make the rest of the verse unintelligible.Google ScholarFindlay, G., in his Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: CUP, 1904) concedes that νήπιοι is probably the original reading. He argues, however, that it was corrected to ἤπιοι at an early date in order to make sense of the text.Google ScholarOthers reading νήπιοι include Janse van Rensburg, J. J., ‘An Argument for Reading νήπιοι in 1 Thessalonians 2:7’ in A South African Perspective on the New Testament, ed. by Petzer, J. H. and Hartin, P. (Leiden: Brill, 1986) 253–9.Google ScholarWhile there are points of agreement between my own position and van Rensburg's work, ours are essentially different arguments. I make the positive points that van Rensburg does without relying on an overly complex structural argument. In addition, I try to take account of the problems raisedby reading νήπιοι where van Rensburg does not seem to see any problems. This last comment is also true of Frame, J. E., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), who reads νήπιοι but gives no account of how one might deal with the difficulties such a reading raises.Google Scholar

³ Versions reading ‘gentle’ include: AV, NASB, NEB, NIV, RV, RSV. The JB reads ‘una suming’ which would seem to be based on ἤπιοι.Google Scholar

⁴ See, for example, Rigaux, 418; Marshall, 70; Morris, 77.Google Scholar

⁵ See Malherbe, 212 f.Google Scholar

⁶ See for example, Best, 101; Bruce, 31; Findlay, 42; Morris, 77; Neil, 40.Google Scholar

⁷ See Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971) 603.Google ScholarMetzger is writing on behalf of himself and Allen Wikgren in an opinion which dissented from the majority of the committee which preferred νήπιοι. The committee gave their certainty on this the grade [C].Google Scholar

⁸ It must be noted, in contrast to Malherbe's title, that, no matter which variant we read, Paul never says that he was as gentle as a nurse. The most one could claim is that Paul claimed he was gentle and that he then went on to talk about how his love for the Thessalonians was similar to a nurse's love for her own child. To read this part of 1 Thess 2. 7–8 as claiming that Paul claimed he was as gentle as a nurse is to separate the ὡς/οűτως clause needlessly.Google Scholar

⁹ Whether or not Acts 17 gives us an accurate picture of Paul's preaching in Philippi is a separate question.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This is against Marshall, 68 who thinks that the demands are of a more general nature, concerning the apostle's rights to honour and respect. I think that Marshal's point cannot be sustained in the light of 2. 9 and 2 Thess 3. 7–9. Even if he were correct, however, it would not affect my argument for the priority of νήπιοι.Google Scholar

¹¹ This is a very basic statement of Max Black's ‘interaction theory’ of metaphor, which, while somewhat dated, and open to some revision, I take to be relatively sound and sufficient for my purposes.Google ScholarSee Black, M., Models and Metaphors (Ithaca; Cornell U.P., 1962).Google ScholarBlack revised his initial position in an essay entitled ‘More on Metaphor’ in Metaphor and Thought, ed. Ortony, A. (Cambridge: CUP, 1979).Google ScholarSoskice, Janet has recently offered some criticisms of Black's position in her book, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: OUP, 1985).Google Scholar

¹² Van Rensburg, 255 makes this same point. Van Rensburg fails, however, to take account of the problems raised by contrasting infants with apostles in v. 7. In fact, his overly complex structuring of 2. 1–12 virtually ignores the first clause of v. 7.Google Scholar

¹³ As I noted above, the image of the nurse is separate from that of infants and belongs with the οϋτως clause which begins v. 8.Google Scholar