1 and 2 Thessalonians

Nijay K. Gupta, Michael F. Bird

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780310518723
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The study of Paul's Thessalonian letters is enjoying fresh interest today. These texts are considered by many to be amongst the earliest extant Christian documents. They are included in conversations about early Jewish and Christian apocalypticism. New insights are coming from examination of the religious, socio-cultural, and political contexts of Roman Thessalonica. And, looking back, these letters have played an important role in the development of Christian eschatology. This volumes serves as an up-to-date guide to these academic discussions and debates and much more.

This volume on 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the Zondervan Critical Introductions to the New Testament series offers a volume-length engagement with subjects that normally only receive short treatments in biblical commentaries or in New Testament Introductions. This volume addresses:

• Authorship
• Date
• Audience
• Socio-Historical Context
• Genre
• Purpose
• Integrity
• Textual History
• Greek Style
• Structure
• Argument
• Other Critical Issues
• Main Interpretive Issues
• Reception into the Canon
• Selected History of Interpretation
• Bibliography

1 THESSALONIANS

CHAPTER 1
TEXT OF 1 THESSALONIANS

The first port of call in this study is to identify the origins of 1 Thessalonians with a focus on the integrity of the text, authorship, and date, followed by an extended discussion of genre, style, and structure. Thereafter, I will discuss some of the possible sources behind 1 Thessalonians.

TEXTUAL WITNESSES AND SIGNIFICANT TEXT-CRITICAL CONCERNS

Textual Witnesses to 1 Thessalonians

For 1 Thessalonians, the consistently cited witnesses of the NA²⁸ text are as follows:¹

PAPYRI

³⁰: 4:12–13, 16–17; 5:3, 8–10, 12–18, 25–28

⁴⁶: 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5–9, 23–28

⁶¹: 1:2–3

⁶⁵: 1:3–2:1, 6–13

MAJUSCULES

א (01): Pauline corpus

A (02): Pauline corpus

B (03): Pauline corpus

C (04): lacking 1:1, 2:9–5:28 (end)

D (06): Pauline corpus

F (010): Pauline corpus

G (012): Pauline corpus

H (015): contains only 2:9–13; 4:5–11

I (016): contains only 1:1–2, 9–10; 2:7–9, 14–16; 3:2–5, 11–13;

4:7–10; 4:16–5:1, 9–12, 23–27

K (018): Pauline corpus

L (020): Pauline corpus

P (025): lacking 3:5–4:17

Ψ (044): Pauline corpus

048: contains only 1:1, 5–6

0183: contains only 3:6–9; 4:1–5

0208: 2:4–7, 12–17

0226: 4:16–5:5

0278: all of 1 Thess

MINUSCULES

33: Pauline corpus

81: Pauline corpus

104: Pauline corpus

365: Pauline corpus

630: Pauline corpus

1175: lacking 1:10–3:2

1241: Pauline corpus

1505: Pauline corpus

1739: Pauline corpus

1881: Pauline corpus

2464: Pauline corpus

LECTIONAR IES

l 249: Pauline corpus

l 846: Pauline corpus

Major Textual Variants in 1 Thessalonians

There are fourteen verses in 1 Thessalonians with textual variant discussions worth consideration.²

1:1 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη

The NA²⁸/UBS⁵ text of 1 Thessalonians 1:1 ends with χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη. Some manuscripts contain a longer salutation such as ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (e.g., D 0150 256 263 1319 1573 2127 l 593).³ Similarly, we also find ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (e.g., א A I 6 33 81 104). The best and earliest manuscripts support the short reading. Furthermore, the longer readings can be explained as assimilation to Pauline style (see 1 Cor 1:3).

1:5 εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν

While the reading “our gospel” is widely attested, apparently some copyists found the language of “our” inappropriate, thus omitting it. The witnesses א^c and C read εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (no ἡμῶν); similarly א* has εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

2:7 νήπιοι

This is one of the most controversial text-critical issues in the whole Pauline corpus. We will devote more attention to historical and theological issues related to this text on pages 106–14. Here we will reserve ourselves primarily to comment only on the manuscript witnesses and potential unintentional scribal behavior. The two main options for textual readings are νήπιοι, which means “infants,” and ἤπιοι, “gentle.”

νήπιοι:

⁶⁵ א* B C* D* F G I Ψ* 0150 104* 263 459 1962 l 147 l 592 l 593 l 603^c it^{ar, b, d, f, g, mon, o} vg^{cl, ww} cop^{sams, bo} eth Origen^{(gr1/3), lat}; Ambrosiaster Jerome Pelagius Augustine

ἤπιοι: א^c A C² D² Ψc 075 6 33 81 104^c 256 365 424 436 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1881 1912 2127 2200 2464 Byz [K L P] Lect vg^st (syr^{p, h}) cop^{samss, fay} arm (geo) slav Clement Origen^2/3 Basil Chrysostom Theodore^lat

Metzger notes that νήπιοι could have occured by dittography (accidental repeating of a letter), or ἤπιοι by haplography (accidental omission of a letter).⁴ Nevertheless, Metzger’s committee preferred νήπιοι on account of “what is admittedly the stronger external attestation.”⁵

2:12 καλοῦντος

The weight of extant manuscript evidence favors καλοῦντος (present tense), but there are some manuscripts that have the aorist καλέσαντος (e.g., א A 104 459 1912 2464). The aorist variant could be explained as assimilation to Paul’s use of the aorist form in 1 Corinthians 1:9, Galatians 1:6, and 1 Thessalonians 4:7.⁶

2:15 προφήτας

Again, external evidence overwhelmingly supports the short reading, but some witnesses (including most minuscules, as well as the Textus Receptus) have the reading ἰδίους προφήτας, understood as “their own prophets” (i.e., Jewish prophets versus Christian prophets). Metzger wonders whether those witnesses that include the longer reading may have been influenced by Marcion’s text.⁷

2:16 ὀργή

Some later Western-type manuscripts add τοῦ θεοῦ to ὀργή to clarify the reference to God’s wrath. In the context, though, this addition is unnecessary and thus superfluous.

3:2 καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ

Some manuscripts have διάκονον instead of συνεργόν. Another matter is τοῦ θεοῦ—it is occasionally omitted. Metzger argues that on external evidence alone, the reading καὶ διάκονον τοῦ θεοῦ is very strong, but the UBS choice {B} seems best able to explain how the other readings came into existence. He reasons that some copyists may have been uncomfortable with the idea of being “coworkers of God,” thus removing τοῦ θεοῦ to avoid confusion (is God a “coworker”?). Others preferred διάκονον to soften the language. Some manuscripts have both διάκονον and συνεργόν (F G it^f, g).⁸

3:13 αὐτοῦ, [ἀμήν].

One cannot decide on the originality of ἀμήν based on external evidence alone, since both readings are strongly attested. Not much hangs on its inclusion, though one wonders why a copyist would exclude it.

4:1 καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε

Though the inclusion of this clause is strongly attested, it is lacking in many minuscules. The most likely reason why it was dropped is because it could appear redundant.

4:11 [ἰδίαις]

There is fairly even manuscript support for the inclusion of ἰδίαις: ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν. The UBS committee was undecided {C}. It may have been dropped because it could appear unnecessary.

Includes: א* A D¹ 33 81 424* 436 1241 1852 1962 2200 Byz [K L] Omits: א² B D* F G Ψ 075 0150 6 104 256 263 365 424^c

4:13 κοιμωμένων

The Western and Byzantine witnesses tend to read here κεκοιμημένων, while the Alexandrian witnesses favor κοιμωμένων. The latter is preferred, supported by more ancient texts; moreover, κοιμωμένων (present tense) is the more difficult reading.

5:25 [καί]

Does the text read “pray for us” or “pray also for us”? Encouragement for apostolic prayer is found in Colossians 4:3: προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν. External evidence does not support one reading as stronger. Most translations do not add “also.”

5:27 ἀδελφοῖς

A number of minuscules (and evidence from non-Greek ancient translations) include ἅγιος (τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς). The external evidence supports the shorter reading, and perhaps the addition of ἅγιος can be explained by its use in 5:26.

5:28 ὑμῶν

In the Alexandrian-type texts, 1 Thessalonians ends with ὑμῶν (“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you”). A large number of manuscripts (including א A Dc K L P Ψ 614 1739^c), though, include a final ἀμήν, though this might be explained based on liturgical use.

TEXTUAL INTEGRITY

In the last few decades, Thessalonian scholarship has lost much interest in theories that question the integrity of the text of 1 Thessalonians as we have it in the manuscript traditions (besides the possible interpolation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13/14–16, discussed below). In a previous generation, it was more common to see division theories;⁹ among contemporary academic commentaries, only that of Earl Richard entertains (and in his case adopts) a division theory. Richard notes that the two thanksgiving sections of the letter have raised concern for some (2:1–10; 2:13). However, Richard finds more problematic the way 2:13–4:2 sits within the text. He postulates that 2:13–4:2 could be read as a “short earlier missive” with a later text being comprised of 1:1–2:12 + 4:3–5:28.¹⁰

It must be underscored again, though, that Richard is unique among recent commentators; nearly all other commentaries defend integrity, and some ignore the topic altogether.¹¹ Part of this involves the theory of integrity. Richard is quite transparent on this: “It should be stressed that the presumption of integrity is an assumption unless it explains satisfactorily serious structural and temporal anomalies.”¹² In my estimation, many scholars begin from the opposite assumption: a theory seeking to question literary integrity must make an especially convincing case.¹³

The only serious matter related to integrity still debated currently is the text of 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16. From a te...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• 1. Thessalonians
• 2. Thessalonians
• Bibliography
• Scripture Index
• Other Ancient Literature Index
• Subject Index
• Greek Word Index
• Author Index