Biblical Eldership Church Leadership

Notes

Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, trans. T.A. Smail, ed. D.W. and TE Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 358. AB. Harvey, “Elders,” The Journal of Theological Studies 25 (October, 1974): 330,331. E.F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, The Moffatt New Testament Commen tary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936), p. 155. John C. Pollock, Hudson Taylor and Maria (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), p. 33. . Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, trans. W. Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), s.v. “philagathos,” p. 9. William Hendriksen, Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), p. 348. Walter Grundmann, “philagathos,” in Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament, 1 (1964): 18. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), p. 293. Newport J.D. White, “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistles to Titus,” in The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols. (1900-10; repr. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 4: 188. Calvin, The Second Epistle ofPaul to the Corinthians, and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, p. 361. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1988), p. 262. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation ofthe Epistles ofSt. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), p. 217. C.E.B. Cranfield, The First Epistle ofPeter (London: SCM, 1950), p. 1 10. Ibid., p. 110. . The mid-fourth century Greek manuscript, Codex Vaticanus (B) omits the participle, overseeing, as does Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), the eleventh century Codex Colbertinus (33), and Coptic Sahidac (the oldest Egyptian version). But oversight is included in the oldest, and perhaps best, manu script (P72) as well as in the Codex Sinaiticus by a later corrector, Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Leicestrensis (69), Codex Athous Laure (1739), the Latin Vulgate, the Coptic Bohairic, and all later manuscripts. The overall evidence favors the inclusion of the participle for the following reasons: (1) the participle, overseeing, is superfluous. The text makes perfectly good sense without it, so it is difficult to see why a scribe would add it to the text. It is not a characteristic interpolation. (2) The

10.

11.

12.

13.

Chapter 11

1

P?)

316