Did Peter have a Wife & Children?

[Tony_B]

I have heard discussion about this now on several occassions, although I do not recall anything in the New Testamant about Peter having a wife and children.

Am I safe to assume that the Bible does not reference Peter as having a wife and children?

Is it safe to assume that he was a Jewish Fisherman and probably did have a wife and children? If he did, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Is there any good reading material on this subject? Any good documents in the Catholic library on www?

Thanks.

 

[Reepicheep]

At one point Christ healed peter’s mother-in-law of a fever.

The existance of a mother-in-law implies the existance of a spouse.
Scripture doesn’t (as far as I know) say anything about Peter having children (which doesn’t prove he didn’t).

 

[Tony_B]

Where about’s in scripture would we find Jesus healing Peter’s Mother-in-law? Can you provide the refernce?

I’m sorry I just do not recall reading that.

Thanks.

 

[FCEGM]

Tony B.:

Where about’s in scripture would we find Jesus healing Peter’s Mother-in-law? Can you provide the refernce?

I’m sorry I just do not recall reading that.

Thanks.

Tony, this article gives an overview of St. Peter’s life and references the scriptures you are looking for:

newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

It’s interesting to note that tradition (smell ‘t’ variety) has his wife being martyred with him.

 

[Della]

Since Peter definitely had a mother in law he had to have had a wife. The NT is silent about any other family he may have had, though.

It may be that Peter was a widower at the time Jesus called him. This may be deduced by the fact that after his mother in law was healed she served Peter and the those with him, including Our Lord. If Peter had had a wife, she would have already been serving them.

This is just speculation, but it is reasonable to think that Jesus did not call men with families because they would soon have to abandon all other obligations to follow him for 3 years and then take on the apostolic work he had planned for them. But, once again, this is just speculation–we really don’t know more than the Bible tells us.

 

[Liberian]

Tony,

I’m not sure if this is still of interest, but Paul in I Corinthians 9:5 talks about Peter having his wife with him.

• Liberian

 

[exoflare]

Tony,

I’m not sure if this is still of interest, but Paul in I Corinthians 9:5 talks about Peter having his wife with him.

• Liberian

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Good point. Although this may have only indicated that he was married at one point (being a widower). He may very well have had a wife in those times. I don’t believe the church had instituted the disciplinary measure of priestly celibacy until much later on… does anybody know exactly when this was begun?

 

[mo3]

Tony,

I’m not sure if this is still of interest, but Paul in I Corinthians 9:5 talks about Peter having his wife with him.

• Liberian

Non Catholics use 1 Corinthians 9:5 to assume Peter had a wife. No version of the bible actually states he had a wife during the time he was with Jesus.

The Douay-Rheims bible version has this to say:

1 Corinthians 9:5 - "Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

5 “A woman, a sister”… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries."

1 Corinthians 7-8, “7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”

 

[Marilena]

I have heard discussion about this now on several occassions, although I do not recall anything in the New Testamant about Peter having a wife and children.

Am I safe to assume that the Bible does not reference Peter as having a wife and children?

Is it safe to assume that he was a Jewish Fisherman and probably did have a wife and children? If he did, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Is there any good reading material on this subject? Any good documents in the Catholic library on www?

Thanks.

I believe he was married. Alright, from reading the posts, maybe he was not married?

 

[Mystophilus]

Non Catholics use 1 Corinthians 9:5 to assume Peter had a wife. No version of the bible actually states he had a wife during the time he was with Jesus.

The Douay-Rheims bible version has this to say:

1 Corinthians 9:5 - "Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

5 “A woman, a sister”… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries."

The reference to ‘erroneous translators corrupting the text’ is interesting, and no more professional than polite. Translations and translators are neither ‘erroneous’ nor ‘corrupt’ merely because they are more free than another translator prefers.

The Greek is αδελφην γυναικα (‘adelphe^n gunaika’). The first term is, in its simplest reading, ‘sister’, in much the same way that Jesus’ mother and ‘brothers’ came to visit him in Matthew 12:46-7. Were they literally Jesus’ brothers? Is the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity false? If it is not, then one must read αδελφοι there in as free a manner as most translators read γυναικα in 1 Co 9:5, including those of the NAB.

The second term is most simply ‘woman’, but has often been used for ‘wife’, from Homer on down. It also occurs in many locations in the NT, for example in Matthew 1:20 and 24, in which Mary is referred to as την γυναικα of Joseph. While this is, at its simplest rendering, ‘the woman’ of Joseph, most translations, including the Douay-Rheims, use ‘wife’. The DR also uses ‘wife’ in Matthew 5:30-1, in Jesus’ discourse on divorce.

All in all, I believe that editors of the DR are, in this instance, being unfairly prejudicial and quite inconsistent towards a widely-accepted translation of the term in 1 Co 9:5. Like the rest of us, they are not infallible.

 

[De_Maria]

Matthew 8:14
And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Since Peter had a mother in law, he must have had a wife. Don’t get one without the other.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Mystophilus]

I have heard discussion about this now on several occassions, although I do not recall anything in the New Testamant about Peter having a wife and children.

Is there any good reading material on this subject? Any good documents in the Catholic library on www?

While the NT does not contain any direct reference to Peter’s children, and his wife never appears as a character, we do have the references to a wife which have already been mentioned in this thread. In addition, there is an extra-canonical text called “The Acts of Peter”, dating from the late second century, which features Peter’s wife and a daughter. This is the only source which I have found thus far with a reference to children.

 

[porthos11]

Yes, St. Peter had a wife, and perhaps children too.

The question is, so what?

I’m sure this is part of the objection to priestly celibacy practiced in the Latin church, which is a discipline, not a doctrine.

St. Peter was a married bishop, and a married Pope, as was permitted in those days. There is no need for Catholics to speculate as to whether he left his wife or whether he was a widower; Scripture is silent on those matters.

If St. Peter had his wife with him during his ministry, it contradicts in no way the disciplines of the Church today.

 

[mo3]

The reference to ‘erroneous translators corrupting the text’ is interesting, and no more professional than polite. Translations and translators are neither ‘erroneous’ nor ‘corrupt’ merely because they are more free than another translator prefers.

Being “more free” doesn’t mean other translators are not erroneous.

All in all, I believe that editors of the DR are, in this instance, being unfairly prejudicial and quite inconsistent towards a widely-accepted translation of the term in 1 Co 9:5. Like the rest of us, they are not infallible.

 

[exoflare]

Yes, St. Peter had a wife, and perhaps children too.

The question is, so what?

I’m sure this is part of the objection to priestly celibacy practiced in the Latin church, which is a discipline, not a doctrine.

St. Peter was a married bishop, and a married Pope, as was permitted in those days. There is no need for Catholics to speculate as to whether he left his wife or whether he was a widower; Scripture is silent on those matters.

If St. Peter had his wife with him during his ministry, it contradicts in no way the disciplines of the Church today.

This is a good thing to clear up right off the bat. I tend to take these points for granted myself, although I have had the same silly objection thrown at me at least once.

 

[Zooey]

You know, the way this reference (in 1st Corinthians) is worded, it really doesn’t say much about who was with the apostles, just thatt they had someone with them…For some, it could have been a wife, for some another woman in the family–a sister, a grown daughter (perhaps widowed?)
And since Peter’s mother in law is apparently in charge of his home, in Matthew 8, it is possible that she was travelling with him & is the one referenced in Corinthians.
It’s one of those odd little references that are interesting to discuss, but I have to agree with those who have said “So what?”, because it really has nothing to do with the present–except, of course, when somebody with an axe to grind (ie anti-Catholics) tries to make it apply…

 

[Mystophilus]

Being “more free” doesn’t mean other translators are not erroneous.

Nor does it mean that they are incorrect. “free”, in translation terms, means presenting a less literal, more idiomatic representation in the target language of the wording in the source language. In other words, a “free” translation attempts to present the ‘spirit’ of the original, whereas a “strict” translation attempts to present the ‘words’ of the original. In this case, the editors of the DR were objecting in very harsh terms to the use of a free translation of γυναικα in 1 Co 9:5, despite applying the same free translation of the same term in other places in their own edition. Do you see the contradiction there?

By “widely-accepted translation” you mean by non-Catholic Christians.

The problem with stating what another person means is that one requires omniscience in order to be reliably accurate. By “widely-accepted translation”, I mean a translation ‘accepted by a significant proportion of translators of the Greek NT text’, with no consideration of their ideological positions. This is why I mentioned that the New American Bible, which was produced for the North American Council of Catholic Bishops and bears an Imprimatur, uses “wife”, rather than the DR’s “woman”, in 1 Co 9:5. In fact, of the 20+ versions which I have checked, only one other, the less-than-respected Wycliffe (1382), used “woman”.

Peter could have been a widower and this you can’t disprove by quoting chapter & verse.

That is certainly true, but I was questioning the DR’s vituperation, not Peter’s marital status.

 

[TOME]

As I have been reading the various post of this thread and looking up words and terms not only in my greek dictionary but english as well (vituperations) one thought keeps coming to mind. The thought is the ever present danger of taking lines and words out of their context and thus missing the meaning of the passage.

As one who is rather illogical I still like using the term “logical” in certain situations and this is one of them, namely, it is logical or stands to reason a mother in law indicates a wife. So when we read in Mark 1:29 a reference to Simon’s mother in law I think it is safe to presume Simon had a wife to go along with the mother in law (we all know that Peter had a habit of acting and speaking impetuously but I doubt that Peter was impetuous enough to have a mother in law without a wife).

As for Corinthians, and this is where my main concern lies, I think it is important to get the context of what and why Paul is writing and this my clear up the incidental as to whether Peter had a wife or not. Paul at this point in his letter is defending himself and the gospel he is proclaiming as well as he being a true apostle on par with the 12. Here we find in the middle of Paul’s apologia his defense that he is an apostle send by Christ just as the others (the 12 if you would) and has every right to the same rights the others have. And this is the context we find him mentioning Peter and his wife. However, if you read on you will find Paul explanation of why he lives as he has been and that is the important part we shouldn’t miss.

But what about Peter? Well if you look at the Greek it could as easily be translated as “Sister” as “Wife”. In the several translations I have read the translations goes from, “Sister”, to “Wife” onto “Christian Wife or Believing Wife”. I think if we go to the gospels and Jesus’ emphesis on who his true family members are then Christian Wife of Believing Wife" makes for a reasonable translation for the term “Sister” in the context Paul wrote it.

But my main point is let’s not loose the whole context from which our use of 1 Cor. 9:5 is taken.

 

[Will_Pick]

I have heard discussion about this now on several occassions, although I do not recall anything in the New Testamant about Peter having a wife and children.

Am I safe to assume that the Bible does not reference Peter as having a wife and children?

Is it safe to assume that he was a Jewish Fisherman and probably did have a wife and children? If he did, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Is there any good reading material on this subject? Any good documents in the Catholic library on www?

Thanks.

Peter must of had a wife he had a mother in law.

 

[mo3]

Nor does it mean that they are incorrect. “free”, in translation terms, means presenting a less literal, more idiomatic representation in the target language of the wording in the source language. In other words, a “free” translation attempts to present the ‘spirit’ of the original, whereas a “strict” translation attempts to present the ‘words’ of the original. In this case, the editors of the DR were objecting in very harsh terms to the use of a free translation of γυναικα in 1 Co 9:5, despite applying the same free translation of the same term in other places in their own edition. Do you see the contradiction there?

I think the use of “free” and “strict” are subjective terms. The translator decides whether a “free” or “strict” translation is appropriate to convey the “spirit” of the original. Therefore, it is a subjective opinion to say there is a contradiction.
Considering everything that is written in the bible concerning the subject of Peter having a wife, and maybe more importantly, everything that is not written, I think the “spirit” supports the concept that Peter didn’t have a wife during the time he was with Jesus. He was probably a widower. I may be wrong too. But as others have pointed out, it is irrelevant to the teachings of the Catholic church.

The problem with stating what another person means is that one requires omniscience in order to be reliably accurate.

You are correct. I didn’t state this properly. My point is many Non-Catholics use this “widely-accepted translation” to “prove” Peter had a wife during the time he was with Jesus. Whether or not the 20+ versions of the bible use “wife” or “woman” is irrelevant. They don’t prove it one way or another (including the NAB).

By “widely-accepted translation”, I mean a translation ‘accepted by a significant proportion of translators of the Greek NT text’, with no consideration of their ideological positions.

This kind of statement bothers me since it ignores the authority of the Catholic church. Maybe this was not your intention. I think it is biblical to consider their ideological positions.