serendipity said:
1 Cor 9:5 directly mention of Peter’s wife, something to the efect that “every Christian has the right to be accompanied by a wife, like Cephas,” (Peter). I think if she were dead then, it would make no sense to say Peter has the right to be accompanied by her…even though she is dead now. Besides, Paul was a big advocate of widowers not remarrying, believing that it is better to try to serve God from a celibate life style.
The story of Peter’s wife’s matrydom is written in The History of The Church by Eusebius, who was a bishop somewhere in the Holy Land during the 300s. In it, he uses a source written by Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Book VII) .
I am not sure if Clement constitutes a “Church Father.” He lived during AD 150-215 and describes the scene of her martyrdom as:
We are told that when blessed Peter saw his wife led away, to her death, he wa glad that her call had come and that she was returning home, and spoke to her in the msot encouraging and comforting way, addressing her by name:" My dear, remember the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their consummate feeling towards their dearest.
We cannot deduce from 1 Cor 9:5 that the apostles or Peter were married at this point.
Simple Reason the Gk = a sister as wife
that is the literal translation the footnote in the NRSV says this
the RSV gives the other possible translation other than wife = woman, sister
The Amplified Bible translates this literally as such.
Have we not the right also to take along with us a Christian sister as wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas
The Douay Rheims
Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Remember who is speaking here it is Paul he has no wife to take this as instructiion to take a wife would be misleading.
As the notes in the Douay Rheims says
" A woman, a sister. Some erroneous translators have coruppted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife; Whereas it is certain that St Paul has no wife 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.
Tanslation people took sister in the early church to help them wifely duties so they could spend them time with the duties of the church.
The newer translation have an agenda and translate that agenda into their text to the Aplified Bibles’s credit it gives the literal translation. As does the Douay. At the very least we have different ways of translating the Greek text. So we are back to where we began we don’t know if Peter’s wife was alive at this point. He coould have had his sister or woman help him with things his wife would have helped him with.
Look I know Peter was married all I am saying is that we don’t know for sure what ever became of her. She is never mentioned by name if Paul was using Peter’s wife as an example he would have dropped her name and not just a greek word that when literally translated means a sister as wife.
I already pointed out Clement of Alexandria is the sole witness for what became of Peter’s wife. Ther is a multitude of evidence of what became of Peter - his crucufixion. With his wife we have one reference by a person who knew not Peter nor did he know a person that knew of Peter. Clement of Alexandria was not a saint. His school of Alexandria was ripe with the heresey or Origenism. Origen was his student who taught such trivial things as the devil and his demons being saved.
We really have to question the tradition that came out this school.
How is he viewed?
“Clement is not an important theolgian not a profound thinker”
E Bevan Christianity p76
IF this is your sole evidence your left wanting.
What we know of Peter’s wife is in the Golden Legends’ the same place where we get tales and fables that mix fact with fiction.
Amusing books that read like Christian Fairy tails.
Bottom line we don’t anything about Peter’s wife for certain.
We do know he was married at one time. That’s it.
Where some christian bishops, priests married in the early church? Yes
Where some celibates?
Yes?
And was the celibate life more celibrated?
Yes.
Look I have nothing against a married clergy but I am against reading into the Bible or history as if we knew for sure the whereabout of Peter’s wife so to dissprove the concept of a celibate clergy. We don’t know anything for sure about Peter’s wife.
There is strong tradition for the preference for celibacy and a strong tradition that married clergy was permitted in the east for lay priest but not for bishops universally nor priest in the west.
This was discussed in the early 3rd century at the Council of Elvira.
This whole thing is custom and not dogma so its subject to change but I wouldn’t want to discount what has been done in the past.
