SBL Greek New Testament

There's a following blog post (and particularly the comments) may help you better understand the reasoning behind methodology. The apparatus is unusual in that it lists the other critical editions rather than the manuscripts. As I understand it, Holmes came to his own conclusions regarding the text, and in doing so used previous critical editions as an aid. That's what all scholars do, isn't it? There's certainly no sense of 'votes' here. Indeed there are 56 occasions where Holmes takes a view contrary to all of the other four editions.

Peter Head makes very similar points to your own, so look out for those, and for Michael Holmes' responses.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/10/sbl-and-logos-bible-software-announce.html

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/11/sbl-gnt-three-questions-and-replies.html

Gary Shogren said:

that case you collate the Byzantine MSS, you don't just take the 1 option that the Byzantine Text (RP)

Gary Shogren said:

Holmes chose ηπιοι ("we were gentle") rather than νηπιοι ("we were infants") because NIV and the RP agreed

Gary Shogren said:

I'm left feeling unsatisfied, and wish he would have worked more from scratch.

I'm really not sure that this is fair. In the second post I referred to above, Holmes explicitly says, "In short, the entire SBL text was decided on in light of the manuscript evidence (not on the basis of the editions)".

The point is that although the apparatus lists only editions, not manuscripts, the text itself was constructed from the manuscripts.

Michael W. Holmes said:

As for the one specific example you mention, 1 Thess 2:7, take a look at the NIV Application Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians, p. 64 note 14, for the reasons why I preferred ηπιοι  rather than νηπιοι; I think, in light of all the considerations, that the former more likely represents what Paul wrote. But given the nature of the evidence, I'm not inclined to be dogmatic in a case such as this.

It would seem that you have probably made a good choice in this particular instance, but I do think that there is a problem for those who do not have access to the mss evidence available from a source such as Tischendorf.  I therefore attach Tischendorf's entry regarding this:

ηπιοι cum אcACbDcEKLP 17. cattxt al longe plu syrutr sah basm arm Clem319 Or3,724 etcat cor 84 Basregg 370 eteth 279 Chr Euthalcod Thdrt Dam ad h. l. (sedparall 511 etparis om hanc vocem) Thphyl. Ita enim Chr505 exponit: τουτέστιν οὐδεν φορτικὸν οὐδὲ ἐπαχθες οὐδὲ βάρυ οὐδὲ κόμπον ἔχον ἀπεδειξαμεθα. Similiter Oec. Item Thdrt: ἔδειξε V 2, p 753 διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος καὶ τὴν ἠπιότητα καὶ τὴν κηδεμονίαν. Thphyl vero: ἤπιοι, τουτέστιν πρᾷοι, ἀβαρεῖς. Addit vero etiam: ἢ καὶ νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, τουτέστιν ἀκέραιοι, ἀφιλόδοξοι τὸ γὰρ νήπιον οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον λογίζεται ……. Ln νηπιοι cum א*BC*D*FG 5. 23. 26. 31* 37. 39** 74. 87. 109** 114. 115. 137. 219* ascr d e f g vg (hi Latini parvuli, nec aliter Aug Hier Ambrst etc) cop aeth Clem109 cdd 2 (quam codicum lectionem confirmat contextus; pergit enim: ἤπιος οὖν ὁ νήπιος) Or3,662 etint 3,116. 878 Cyrthes 289. Scribit autem Or3,662 in h. l. sic: καὶ παῦλος δὲ ὡς ἐπιστάμενος τό τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, δυνάμενος ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς χριστοῦ ἀπόστολος, ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ παραπλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον διὰ τὸ παιδίον. Lcbrug adnotat: "Interpres vertit parvuli, quod alii lenes." :: potior a testibus auctoritas sine dubio est lectioni νηπιος. At illa quidem parum convenit verbis quae sequuntur: ως εαν τροφος θαλπη etc, quamvis non offenderint Origenem. Accedit quod θημενηπιοι scriptura continua facile in θημεννηπιοι depravari poterat.
AC 17. εμμεσω
Not being sure of the capabilities of the forum regarding the use of fonts, I hope this appears in a readable fashion.  One thing that I should additionally note is that in your edition there must be a mistake in the morphological tagging since it brings up the BDAG entry for νήπιος rather than ἤπιος.
One other point I discovered after posting this is that I once again got scrambled text.  I have edited it in the hopes of correcting it.  Let's hope it works.

Michael W. Holmes said:

As for the one specific example you mention, 1 Thess 2:7, take a look at the NIV Application Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians, p. 64 note 14,

In case others don't have access to that, here it is in full:

There is a much-debated textual variant in 2:7. While a small number of manuscripts read “gentle” (epioi), a substantial majority read “infants” (nepioi). The single-letter difference between the two readings, however, is so slight in Greek (which was written in all capitals with no spaces between words: ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ vs. ΗΜΕΝΝΗΠΙΟΙ) that either reading could be explained as a scribal slip for the other one. Thus the manuscript evidence is of little help in this instance, and a decision must be reached on other grounds. The most decisive consideration is the basic structure of 2:5–8, specifically the fundamental contrast between the negative behaviors listed in 2:5–6a and the positive behaviors listed in 2:7–8. The three negatives in 2:5–6a (no flattery, no greed, no looking for praise) have to do with means (“how”) or motive (“why”), as do the last two of the three positives in 2:7–8 (like a nurse, 2:7; because they loved them, 2:8). This strongly suggests that the first item in 2:7–8 will also deal with either means or motive, a consideration that clearly favors “gentle” (NIV, NRSV) over “infants.”