Forgot my password earlier. Perhaps this will be helpful:
TOB: La Bible TOB : notes intégrales, traduction oecuménique P. Durand-Peyroles Cerf , Bibli'O , (novembre 2010) L'avis de La Procure (It is an event that this new 2010 edition of the translation ecumenical Bible ! whereas the previous edition (2004) had revised the introductions and annotation, it also takes over the translation, both punctually and systematically. Also note the ac tualisation of all the cards, a critical apparatus more functional and typography for more readable. other new : the addition of six new books deuterocanoniques additional, in use in the orthodox churches. This new TOB is this connected under the etui for the version with the notes integrales, and under different models with its essential marks.) Unlike the Jerusalem Bible (old & new) which has English Translation or Version, TOB as yet is only in French. The Note: (machine translated)
1. "According to the commentators, the apostle intended the misconduct (but this wasn't it self-evident that it is necessary to refrain from?), or it forbids remarriage after widowhood, or he would to divorce his wife to marry another one (see Mc 10,1-11 para.). But you can also hear the expressions, the husband of one wife or wife of one husband (see 1 Tm 5,9), expressions that we encounter in jewish inscriptions and pagan, in the sense of a conjugal love especially fervant." (Mehrgan app)
2. "According to the commentators, the apostle would target misconduct (but would it not be self-evident that it should be avoided?), or he would prohibit remarriage after widowhood, or he would attack the fact of repudiating his wife to marry another (cf. Mk 10:1-11 par.). But we can also hear the expressions husband of a single wife or wife of a single husband (cf. 1 Tim 5:9), expressions that can be found in Jewish and pagan inscriptions, in the sense of a particularly fervent conjugal love".(wiwww.DeepL.com/Translator)
3. "According to the commentators, the apostle would target misconduct (but was it not self-evident that he should refrain?), Or he would forbid remarriage after widowhood, or he would would take it to repudiate his wife to marry another (see Mc 10,1-11 par.). But one can also hear the expressions husband of a single woman or woman of a single husband (cf 1 Tm 5,9), expressions that we meet in Jewish and pagan inscriptions, in the sense of a love particularly fervent marriage." (Google Books translation)
4. "According to the commentators, the apostle to the intent of the behavior (but this was not evident that it is necessary to refrain from?), or prohibited remarriage after widowhood, or was going to divorce his wife to marry another (see Mk 10,1-11 para.). But you can also hear the expressions, the husband of one wife or wife of one husband (see 1 Tm 5,9), the expressions that we encounter in jewish inscriptions and pagan, in the sense of a conjugal love, especially fervant." (Spanish to English app).
Here is Meyer, always instructive, & compare against others Alford, etc.
Critical And Exegetical Commentary on the NT, Meyer 1st Timothy 3:2:
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα] This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilised heathen, and even among the Jews (comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.; Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Antiq. vii. 2), it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an argument against such an interpretation in the phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, 1Ti 5:9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which absolutely never occurred.
Most recent expositors (Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt) take the expression as referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heydenreich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this view. The results which these give are the following:
Firstly, Many held marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon.) calls second marriage a εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία; and Tertullian repudiates it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but even opponents of the view regard 115 abstinence from a second marriage as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas (Past. mandat. iv. chap. 4 : dic, Domine, si vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum) and the later Fathers, as Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain.
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries a second time does not commit sin: οὐ γὰρ κεκώλυται πρὸς τοῦ νόμουοὐ πληροῖ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτείας τὴν κατʼ ἐπίτασιν τελειότητα. Thirdly, As to those who held office in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monogamia, chap. 12). Origen's words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.
On the other hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier expositors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Oecumenius) do not share in this view, 116 though the practice prevailing in their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one. Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordinance against second marriages; nay, in Rom 7:2-3, and also in 1Co 7:39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1Co 7:8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this Eph 1Ti 5:14, he says: ΒΟΎΛΟΜΑΙ ΝΕΩΤΈΡΑς (ΧΉΡΑς) ΓΑΜΕῖΝ. It would certainly be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class of church-widows (see on chap. 1Ti 5:9).
Appeal has been made to the facts that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among the heathen (comp. Rein, Das rPrivatrecht, pp. 211, 212, and the Latin word univira); but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was considered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is no ground for Heydenreieh's opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e.g. the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the churches were married a second time, and Paul would have laid down a maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided opposition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the apostle's words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit 1:6, stands in the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, Hofmann 117). Thus interpreted, the apostle's injunction is amply justified, not only in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of living in his day, and it is in full harmony with the other injunctions. The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to successive polygamy, i.e. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its terms are too general to make such a reference certain. 118
ΝΗΦΆΛΙΟΝ] only here and in 1Ti 3:11 (Tit 2:2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to ΜῊ ΟἼΝῼ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΑ, 1Ti 3:8; but it is also used in a kindred sense (like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with σώφρονα, and where the original sense follows in the word ΠΆΡΟΙΝΟς, 1Ti 3:3. Even the root-word ΝΉΦΩ occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1Th 5:6; 1Th 5:8, where it is joined with ΓΡΗΓΟΡΕῖΝ, and stands in opposition to the spiritual ΚΑΘΕΎΔΕΙΝ and ΜΕΘΎΕΙΝ; and in 1Pe 4:7, where it is also connected with ΣΩΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ. ΣΏΦΡΟΝΑ-G0-, ΚΌΣΜΙΟΝ-G0-] see 1Ti 2:9.
Bengel: quod ΣΏΦΡΩΝ est intus, id ΚΌΣΜΙΟς est extra. Theodoret: ΚΌΣΜΙΟςΚΑῚ ΦΘΈΓΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΒΛΈΜΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΒΑΔΊΣΜΑΤΙ ὭΣΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΤῊΝ Τῆς ΨΥΧῆς ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗΝ.
ΦΙΛΌΞΕΝΟΝ] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren; comp. 1Pe 4:9; Heb 13:2; Rom 12:13.
ΔΙΔΑΚΤΙΚΌΝ] "able to teach" (Luther); "good at teaching" (van Oosterzee). Διδακτικός is one who possesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination (Plitt: "inclined to teach") or the "willingness" (Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong in specializing it into "a moral quality." That is justified neither by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed πρακτικός, γραφικός, etc.), nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2Ti 2:24. The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. et Virt. 4, not in classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that of the διδασκαλία and that of the ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑ, 1Co 12-14.) was permitted to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ, still the ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟς in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting heretics (see Tit 1:9); hence Paul, in Eph 4:11, calls the ΠΟΊΜΕΝΕς of the church, ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟΙ.
115 Still there are exceptions, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom of thought in arguing most decidedly against this view; see Theodori ep. Mops, in N. T. commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150152.
116 Chrysostom places the two views together: οὐ νομοθετῶν τοῦτο φησίν, ὡς μὴ εἶναι ἐξὸν ἅνευ τούτου (γυναικός) γένεσθαιἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων, ἐπειδὴ ἐπὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐξῆν, καὶ δευτέροις ὁμιλεῖν γάμοις, καὶ δύο ἔχειν κατὰ ταυτὸν γυναῖκας.
117 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 421) says: "The injunction is, that the husband have no other wives in addition to his own wife, and the widow (chap. 1Ti 5:9) no other husbands in addition to her own husband." So also in his comment, on Tit 1:6.
118 As a matter of course, Paul did not, as Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to command the bishop to marry; but, on the other hand, there is at bottom a presupposition that it is better for a bishop to be married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).—We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, that some Catholic expositors, in the interests of celibacy, have explained the word γυνή of the church.—The strange opinion of Bretschneider, that μιᾶς is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant a bishop should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 146].
Michael J. Miles