A Textual Problem in 1 Thessalonians 1:10: ᾿Εκ τῆς ᾿Οργῆς vs. ᾿Απὸ τῆς ᾿Οργῆς Daniel B. Wallace Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary First Thessalonians 1:10 in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, third edition, hereafter referred to as UBSGNT3,1 reads, καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, =Λησοῦν τὸν ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης (“and to wait for His son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, the Deliverer of us from the coming wrath”). The textual problem ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς versus ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is not listed in UBSGNT3, though it is found in the apparatus of Nestle-Aland26. This is not surprising, since UBSGNT3 is intended for translators rather than exegetes or scholars per se.2 This writer’s contention is that ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς is an early corruption of ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς and that, though there is little difference in translation, there might be some difference theologically. The BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 471 external and internal evidence for each reading will be examined first, and then a possible inference will be made from the ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς reading. External Evidence Witnesses for each reading For ἐκ: א A B P 33 81 1739 1881 2464 pc.3 For ἀπό: C D E F G K L Ψ 104 365 630 1241 2495 Byzantine minuscules Chrysostom Theodoret John-Damascus pc. In addition to these witnesses is the testimony from the Old Latin and Vulgate. There is some discrepancy as to what the Latin reads here. Nestle25 lists the Latin witnesses on the side of ἀπό, while Nestle-Aland26 lists the same witnesses on the side of ἐκ. Kurt Aland states the reason for such a change as this: All the information in the apparatus about the readings in each of the variants…has all been checked and rechecked for relevance and accuracy, so that even the non-specialist can use it with confidence in forming a judgment. If any versional evidence is found cited elsewhere [i.e., in other editions of the Greek New Testament] which is not adduced for a reading in this edition, it may be assumed that its omission here is not only justifiable, but necessary.4 Nestle-Aland26 is to be commended for its sober and judicious citing of Latin witnesses. Too often other editions of the Greek New Testament have uncritically printed the alleged reading of the Latin manuscripts.5 But perhaps the editors were too hasty in their BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 472 reversal here. In fact it may be necessary to abandon altogether an attempt to determine the Greek text behind the Latin witnesses in this passage. According to Bonifatius Fischer, a textual critic who specializes in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, “Especially great is the uncertainty [as to what the underlying Greek text was] with prepositions like ἐκ and ἀπό.”6 In 1 Thessalonians 1:10, however, if a choice must be made, it seems best to place the Latin witnesses on the side of ἀπό. The reason for this is twofold. First, the Latin has ex mortuis for ἐκ νεκρῶν but ab ira for ἐκ/ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. If the preposition with ὀργῆς had been ἐκ in the underlying Greek text, one would have expected to see ex (or de) as the translation. Since the Latin has ab, it is more likely that the Greek text behind it read ἀπό.7 Second, the Latin translation of the larger expression, ῥύομαι ἐκ, elsewhere in the New Testament never uses ab for the preposition, but always ex or de, while ῥύομαι ἀπό always has ab for the preposition.8 So in this passage, ab is most likely a translation of ἀπό, not of ἐκ.9 To sum up: Nestle-Aland26 goes against Nestle25 in citing the Latin witnesses on the side of ἐκ. From an examination of the Latin, the editors’ decision in Nestle-Aland26 seems unwarranted. Nevertheless, in light of the notorious difficulty of determining which Greek preposition stands behind the Latin, it may be best to disregard the Latin testimony entirely in this textual problem. Date and Character of the Witnesses On the side of ἐκ, the earliest evidence is Alexandrian (א A B—fourth and fifth centuries), plus a few later cursives (33 and 1739 among them) and one later uncial (P). It is most likely that ἐκ goes BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 473 back to the second century within the Alexandrian transmissional stream,10 though it is not altogether insignificant that this is not a unanimous testimony (C Ψ dissenting).11 On the side of ἀπό, the Byzantine and “Western” witnesses present a united front. The Byzantine reading probably dates back to the fourth century (confirmed by Chrysostom and Theodoret). The Western is possibly a second-century reading, though without allowing the Latin witnesses a voice in the matter, it is difficult to tell how early the Western reading really is (the earliest Western manuscript, D [Claromontanus], was produced in the sixth century).12 Even without a papyrus reading on this text, most would admit that ἐκ is found in the better witnesses and has a demonstrably earlier date. Geographical Distribution On the one hand geographical distribution will not help the ἐκ reading (as it is found only in the Alexandrian texttype in any witnesses before the ninth century). On the other hand the general consensus among textual critics today is that the Byzantine text depended on the Alexandrian and Western texttypes.13 So the BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 474 agreement between the Byzantine and Western texts is of little value as far as geographical distribution is concerned. However, since internal reasons for a change from ἐκ to ἀπό do not conform to the alleged character of the Byzantine text (smoother, fuller text, etc.), the fact of a Byzantine-Western alignment might tend to confirm that ἀπό really is an early (second century? third century?) Western reading. In summary, though geographical distribution does nothing for ἐκ, it is considered to be a second century reading within the Alexandrian text. In this instance geographical distribution merely tends to confirm that the Western reading of ἀπό is earlier than the fourth century (when the Byzantine text in all probability began).14 Genealogical Solidarity The important witnesses of each major texttype are solidly behind their respective readings, a fact that confirms the dates already posited for the readings. Conclusion of External Evidence From the scanty external evidence available for this verse (no papyri, discounted versions, minimal fathers), it is reasonable to conclude that ἐκ is the preferred reading. This is because it is found in the earliest witnesses15 and in the better witnesses. Nevertheless external evidence is not the final arbiter in textual matters. And the fact that there are no witnesses before the fourth century, and only two manuscripts and one father from that century (who reads ἀπό), should caution one from leaning too heavily on external considerations. This writer would give ἐκ a C+ or B- rating on the basis of external factors.16 In such instances, where neither variant is found in only a single source or only a late minuscule, it is quite conceivable that either reading could be the original. In such instances the dictum that “the reading that best explains the rise of the other(s)” BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 475 must have the final say. In other words internal considerations, if compelling enough, could easily overturn the tentative decision made on the basis of external considerations. Internal Evidence Transcriptional Evidence Variants in uncial form.17 a. ἐκ or b. ἀπό BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 476 Unintentional change. What is the likelihood that an unintentional change may have been made by a scribe? From ἐκ to ἀπό. The only real possibility of an unintentional change to ἀπό is a case of an unusual haplography/dittography combination. That is, a scribe would have to both omit the ἐκ and add the ἀπό by accidentally looking two lines above and seeing a form which looked like ἀπό (namely, αὐτοῦ). The likelihood of this seems rather remote. From ἀπό to ἐκ. There is a double possibility here of dittography, for ἐκ is indisputably (no variants) used twice earlier in the verse. The previous instances are 26 and 47 letters earlier. A scribe could have seen either occurrence of ἐκ directly above where he was supposed to write ἀπό. Intentional change. Might a scribe have intentionally changed the preposition ἐκ to ἀπό, or ἀπό to ἐκ? From ἐκ to ἀπό. Such an alteration is rather doubtful. ᾿Ρύομαι ἀπό is not a fixed formula in the New Testament (occurring only here with ὀργή)18 and it would, of course, be ludicrous to suppose that the early scribes were aware of the 20th-century debates in American evangelical circles over the time of the rapture. (In other words there can be no doctrinal reason for the change.) Possibly the only reason for an intentional change here would be a scribe’s desire to vary the style. From ἀπό to ἐκ. There is a great possibility of alteration to ἐκ for intentional reasons. The most compelling reason, of course, is that there is a threefold statement about the Lord Jesus and the first two elements have ἐκ. Thus for literary purposes, or stylistic consistency, a scribe might have altered the text to read: ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν…ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν…ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς. Summary of transcriptional evidence. The evidence is strong in favor of ἀπό, having a decided edge on both the intentional and unintentional levels. Intrinsic Evidence For ἐκ. Probably the strongest argument for the originality of ἐκ, intrinsically speaking, is the obvious literary value it would give to the whole construction. However, even in this epistle, Paul abandoned such a literary style when there was no need (exegetically speaking) to do so.19 For ἀπό. On the one hand Paul seems to have swapped his BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 477 prepositions for no apparent reason (cf. 1 Thess 2:6). For him, as well as most New Testament writers, many phrases could have the same force whether they employed ἐκ or ἀπό. Thus for Paul to use ἐκ οὐρανῶν to speak of the Lord coming from heaven hardly differs from his using ἀπό.20 No doctrinal issues are involved in such a change. On the other hand the apostle had already made a careful distinction in his use of prepositions. When he spoke of the Lord being raised from the dead, he always used ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν to describe Christ’s resurrection, never ἀπὸ (τῶν) νεκρῶν. If one could press the preposition into its basal significance (and this seems warranted in light of Paul’s practice with this expression), then it could be said that the expression ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν communicates something different from what ἀπὸ (τῶν) νεκρῶν conveys; it is a clear reference to the resurrection (affirming that the Lord actually died), while ἀπὸ (τῶν) νεκρῶν could be construed to suggest that the Lord was raised (= “brought back to full health”) before He would have died (i.e., “raised away from the dead” as opposed to “raised out of the dead”).21 Analogously, if the apostle wrote ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, it is perhaps possible that his choice was doctrinally motivated, though admittedly such a subtle nuance in Paul’s eschatology would have been lost on the scribes. Summary of intrinsic evidence. As with transcriptional evidence, the data suggest that ἀπό is what Paul wrote. The two lines of evidence used to demonstrate this are these: (1) the apostle did not always care for literary symmetry, even in this epistle (2:6), and (2) in this same verse he demonstrated that when a doctrinal consideration is on the line, he chose the preposition that is least capable of abuse by those who would pervert his teaching. Though it may be considered doubtful whether Paul in A.D. 50 had developed sufficient eschatological refinement to prefer one preposition over the other with reference to the believers’ relationship to the coming wrath, such an assumption must be demonstrated in the rest of the Pauline eschatological literature. Further, though this writer is inclined to see theological development in Paul throughout the span of his epistles, that consideration is immaterial in this case if ἀπό can be established as most probably original on other than theologically motivated grounds. One must not conclude that such a subtle theological nuance is of primary importance in the determination of this variant reading. The stylistic variation argument seems more valid. BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 478 In short, while the intrinsic arguments are as strong in favor of ἀπό as the transcriptional arguments are, the arguments against ἀπό are virtually nonexistent. Conclusion of Internal Evidence On all fronts the internal evidence is decidedly in favor of ἀπό. There are many good reasons why a scribe would change ἀπό to ἐκ, and virtually nothing to argue in the other direction. To answer the question, “Which reading best explains the rise of the others(s)?”, ἀπό must be judged as the obvious originator of ἐκ. This writer would give ἀπό an A- rating on internal probability.22 Conclusion of the Textual Problem First, though the external evidence favors ἐκ (better, earlier witnesses), it is scanty (no papyri, discounted versions, late and few fathers). Second, unless one is prepared to follow Hort blindly and always accept an א-B reading without further reflection, the possibility must be entertained that a Western-Byzantine reading can be more primitive than an Alexandrian reading. This is especially so when the reading in question does not particularly fit the normal contours of Western or Byzantine scribal patterns. Third, the internal evidence seems so strong in favor of ἀπό that it must override the more tentative external preference. That the editors of UBSGNT3 and Nestle-Aland26 did not regard ἀπό as original seems to result from one of three causes: (1) the translational difference between the two prepositions is so minimal that a decision was made on external bases only; (2) the misplacing of the Latin witnesses on the side of ἐκ may have swayed some of the committee members, perhaps preventing them from further considering any internal arguments; (3) Hort’s spirit pervades the modern critical texts more than the editors have been willing to acknowledge: hence, as compelling as the internal evidence seems to be, to relegate very many א-B readings to the apparatus in favor of Byzantine or Western readings might just crack open the Hortian dam too much. This writer’s conclusion therefore is that ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς is original (B/B- rating). An addendum regarding eschatology: if ἀπό is original, and if one were to press its basal significance (assuming other interpretive options in the passage), there might be some support here for a pretribulational rapture. A textual variant in one verse that involves BSac 147:588 (Oct 90) p. 479 the interchange of prepositions is, of course, an inadequate foundation on which to build a doctrine. A better basis could be found in the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 with the assumption that the basic eschatological truths contained there had already been taught to the Thessalonians, for 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 is the apostolic kerygma, which Paul had imparted to the new believers when he was in Thessalonica. In this understanding, ἀναμένειν…τὸν ῥυόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς functions as a summary of the eschatological teaching Paul had given, which finds its expansion and further explanation in 4:13–5:11. Hence, all that can be argued from the variant reading in question is that if Paul affirmed a pretribulation rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11, ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς in 1:10 fits quite naturally with such a doctrinal stance. On the other hand, if ἐκ were original, it would not necessarily affirm deliverance “out of” (posttribulational or midtribulational?) the coming wrath, for Paul elsewhere uses ῥύομαι ἐκ where the sense seems to be “deliver away from” (e.g., in 2 Corinthians 1:10 the apostle stated that the Lord “delivered us from [ἐκ…ἐρρύσατο] such a death”). (1990). Bibliotheca Sacra, 147(588), 469–479.
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:30:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015