1 Timothy 5:16:
πιστος η πιστη “male believer or female believer” D K L 0150 𝔐 it-b,d vg-mss syr-p,h TR RP ‖ πιστη “female believer” ℵ A C F G P 048 33 vg-ww,st cop-sa,bo TH NA28 {B} ‖ πιστος “male believer” it-f vg-cl eth ‖ πιστας it-g vg-mss

KJV- If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

ESV- If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.

The majority reading raises a question. Why the need for Paul to say “male or female believer” when just “believer” would have sufficed? The shorter reading is not weakly attested. If it seemed unacceptable to give this responisibility only to women, could that have given rise to the longer reading?

On the other hand, if the majority reading is original, why the need to make it clear that it was both men and women’s responsibility? My hunch is that 1 Timothy 5:8 earlier in the same context, was already being misinterpreted as something speaking to only men and fathers and male heads of household. Or, because the masculine form for just “believer,” πιστος, though gender inclusive, might be misinterpreted as applying to only males. Or, more likely, Paul as a prophet foresaw that it would later be misinterpreted that way.

1 Timothy 5:8, which is shaming people of all genders if they neglect to provide for their widowed mother or grandmother or aunt, has now been stretched to mean that a married Christian man has to provide wealth for his family by modern standards, that is, a house with a bedroom for each child, a car, a college education, etc., when this same epistle says in 6:8 “But having food and clothing, let us be content with that.” And later Paul warns us in 6:9 that the desire to be rich will lead to eternal punishment and damnation.