Peter's wife still alive?

[Dan_Defender]

‘Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.’ - Luke 8:1-3

This implies there was a community of women following the Apostles and Jesus. There is no reason why this arrangement would not have continued in some form after the Ascension.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

‘Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.’ - Luke 8:1-3

And who’s to say the Apostles wives weren’t part of this ministry of service.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Yes I agree.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Peter’s wife was according to tradition, was with him in Rome during the persecution and was martyred before him according to Clement of Alexandria.

They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, “Remember thou the Lord.” Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

 

[BartholomewB]

Be careful… 'cause, next thing you know, someone will bring up some really uncomfortable questions for you about Mary Magdalene…

The tradition of the Church has from early times identified Mary of Magdala with the woman living an immoral life whose sins are forgiven her in Luke 7:36-50. Rightly or wrongly, Mary has become for all Christians the type of the passionate penitent. I don’t think the editors of the Douay Rheims, or of any other Bible, would be tempted to select her as an exemplar of “the custom of the Jewish nation.”

Hang on a second, though. In addition to the objection that “a sister, a woman” might not mean “a wife”, there’s another issue with proof-texting that verse. Paul is only asserting authority , and therefore, the citation of Peter and the other apostles isn’t that they’re doing it, per se, but that they have the authority to do it.

Are you reading Paul’s verse as if he is saying, “Like Cephas and all the other apostles, I, too, have the right to travel with a wife or other female companion, even though none of us — no, not a single one of us, not even Cephas himself — actually exercises that right”? That strikes me as a funny kind of contrast. The whole thrust of v. 5, as I read it, is that Paul is describing something that sets him apart from the others, not something he has in common with them. He is telling us that he alone, unlike all the others, has voluntarily chosen to travel around without a female companion. The only doubt is whether, in the case of Cephas and the others, the Greek noun guné is best translated as “woman” or “wife.” I don’t now have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible on my shelf, and I haven’t found one online that includes the footnotes,* but if I’m not mistaken that’s one strictly Catholic Bible that has opted for “wives” in this verse.

*If you know of one, please give me a link!

 

[Dovekin]

And do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife who is a sister, like the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
RNJB 1 Cor 9:5

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @Dovekin! “Sister” meaning “fellow Christian,” as some other Bibles explain in a footnote.

 

[Montrose]

D-R Bible:

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

Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 5. It appears certain, from the testimony of the fathers, that St. Paul was not in the state of wedlock. St. Jerome informs us that the apostle is here speaking of such holy women who, according to the Jewish custom, supplied their teachers with the necessaries of life, as we see was done to Christ himself. It is evident from ancient records that this was a very prevalent custom in Judea, and therefore a cause of no scandal; but to the Gentiles this custom was unknown, and therefore lest it might prove a cause of scandal to any, St. Paul did not allow any woman to follow him as a companion. Tertullian denies, with St. Augustine and St. Jerome, that St. Paul is here speaking of his wife. (Estius; Calmet) — A woman, a sister. [2] Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, a sister, a wife; whereas it is certain, St. Paul had no wife, (chap. vii. 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. (Challoner) — And to what end could he talk of burthening the Corinthians with providing for his wife, when he himself clearly affirmeth that he was single? (Chap. vii. v. 7. and 8.) This all the Greek fathers affirm, with St. Augustine, do op. Monach. chap. iv.; St. Jerome, adv. Jovin. chap. xiv. &c. &c.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It seems the Early Church Fathers themselves were divided on this issue. St. John Chrysostom interprets Paul as saying that Peter’s wife traveled with him. Also, the Collegeville Bible Commentary makes the excellent point that Paul is most likely referring to Peter’s wife because it would fit with his discourse on marriage earlier in 1 Corinthians.

I think the interpretation of “woman-sister” also ignores the larger biblical context. The author of the Song of Songs refers to his wife as “My sister, my bride.” From that context it would seem that “sister” doesn’t always necessarily mean “fellow Christian.”

What I think we have to admit here is that the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for multiple interpretations. Did Peter’s wife travel with him, or was it simply a group of devout women? Who knows? Perhaps Peter’s wife was among the devout women that were following him. We do know that there were married bishops in the early Church. Would it really be that scandalous to our modern Catholic sensitivities if Peter’s wife was still alive and traveled with him?

 

[BartholomewB]

What I think we have to admit here is that the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for multiple interpretations.

Yes, this is yet another of those very frequent instances where there is no such thing as certain knowledge, one way or the other. All we can do is weigh the balance of probabilities.

Would it really be that scandalous to our modern Catholic sensitivities if Peter’s wife was still alive and traveled with him?

I see no scandal at all. Neither did Ronald Knox, who wrote in a footnote to this verse, back in the 1940s:

[3] ‘Woman’ may also be translated ‘wife’; and that may be the sense intended. We know that St Peter was married, and his wife, if she was still alive, may have travelled with him on his missionary journeys. But it is not impossible that he, or other apostles, may have been cared for by pious women, as our Lord himself was (Lk. 8.3). ‘Sister’ does not imply any relationship, physical or spiritual; it only means that the woman was a Christian. St Paul is not claiming credit here for avoiding the society of women; he only claims credit for living at his own expense, when other apostles supported not only themselves, but the women who waited on their needs, out of offerings made by the faithful. ‘The Lord’s brethren’; see p. 13, note 2.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you reading Paul’s verse as if he is saying, “Like Cephas and all the other apostles, I, too, have the right to travel with a wife or other female companion, even though none of us — no, not a single one of us, not even Cephas himself — actually exercises that right”?

Not precisely like that…

The whole thrust of v. 5, as I read it, is that Paul is describing something that sets him apart from the others, not something he has in common with them. He is telling us that he alone, unlike all the others, has voluntarily chosen to travel around without a female companion.

The whole thrust of v. 5, as I read it, is that Paul is describing something that sets him apart from the others, not something he has in common with them.

Well, the apologia that Paul offers here includes a litany of rights of apostles, the thrust of which seems to be the “right to not work”. It’s later followed by a litany of assertions of non-use of rights.

So, I think that this phrase – as intriguing as it is to modern ears! – is merely a small cog in a larger argument. It falls in the scope of the “hey, I’m a legitimate apostle too!” discussion that’s so important to Paul to assert.

So, although I’m not going to attempt to say that this means “all apostles have that right and none use it”, I am willing to assert that Peter is brought up not because he has a wife, but because he’s Peter, and that makes all the difference to Paul.

The only doubt is whether, in the case of Cephas and the others, the Greek noun guné is best translated as “woman” or “wife.” I don’t now have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible on my shelf, and I haven’t found one online that includes the footnotes,* but if I’m not mistaken that’s one strictly Catholic Bible that has opted for “wives” in this verse.

“Wives” is in the NAB and the RSV-CE as well. But, I hear your “strictly Catholic” point.

As you point out, the translation of γυναῖκα here is itself a stickler. Yes, it means ‘woman’, and yes, they often used the word ‘woman’ to mean ‘wife’. So… is Paul saying “a sister, a woman”? Or “a sister wife”? Or does he mean to imply “a Christian wife”? Good questions…

In quoting the Haydock, @Montrose brings up the good point that Paul would be making a very weak case if he strictly meant ‘wife’, since why would he assert that he had the right to bring along a wife that he doesn’t have? If it only meant ‘wife’, then that makes a weak case: “hey, I’m not doing what I can’t do anyway”.

 

[dochawk]

I have to say I find the headline for this topic troubling.

I’d use the word “offensive” . . . I’m surprised to see a civil and reasoned thread ater that start . . .

I’ve changed the title.

 

[Peebo]

Well who really cares who had wives or who didn’t, who traveled with Jesus and the Apostles or who didn’t in the New Testament. It has nothing to do with our salvation so why would any of it had been written down.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

In quoting the Haydock, @Montrose brings up the good point that Paul would be making a very weak case if he strictly meant ‘wife’, since why would he assert that he had the right to bring along a wife that he doesn’t have?

Considering he explains his reasons for being unmarried in the next passage, it makes sense.

 

[paperwight]

paperwight:

I have to say I find the headline for this topic troubling.

I’d use the word “offensive” . . . I’m surprised to see a civil and reasoned thread ater that start . . .

I’ve changed the title.

Thank you, dochawk. I’m surprised that nobody else seems to find it objectionable.

 

[Usagi]

So we know…

1. Peter had a mother-in-law during Jesus’ earthly lifetime. Which means he either had a wife or was widowed at that time;
2. Paul used Peter as an example of apostles traveling with female companions who might or might not be wives. So maybe Peter was still married, or remarried, or just had a gal along as an assistant of some kind;
3. At least one later Christian writer gives Peter a wife who was also a Christian martyr, which would fit with the woman in #2 actually being his (first or second) wife.

But that’s it. (We also know that Jesus and Paul were unusual in being unmarried themselves, and that the practice of only ordaining unmarried men to certain degrees of Holy Orders – bishop in the East, priest or bishop in the West – wasn’t a thing yet, so there’s nothing wrong if Peter was married once or twice. He obviously was once. But whether he still was when introduced in the NT, or whether he married again later, is unclear.)

 

[Glennon_P]

Peter’s wife still alive?

I don’t think so. She’d have to be around 2,000 years old. Not likely.

 

[jack63]

Interesting discussion…great…thanks…

I keep thinking back towards Matthew 19:12…“and there eunuchs who have made eunuchs by others…”. Jesus gave a warning. This part is crystal clear. There are societal and economic reasons that men are pushed to be celibate that have nothing to do with the reasons that sincere and holy men are celibate for the kingdom of heaven.

I read the objections to the obvious interpretation of Corinthians that Peter’s wife joined him in his ministry, and I’m very frustrated. It feels like an obvious part of scripture is being stretched to mean something completely nonsensical.

 

[PickyPicky]

So maybe Peter was still married, or remarried, or just had a gal along as an assistant of some kind

I like the idea that Peter had a PA.

 

[Gorgias]

Paul used Peter as an example of apostles traveling with female companions who might or might not be wives.

Except… he didn’t. He used Peter as an example of someone who had the power / authority to do so.

Peter’s wife still alive?

I don’t think so. She’d have to be around 2,000 years old. Not likely.

That was my first thought, too, when I saw the new title! (Then again, I can’t think of anything better – “Peter a widower?” would bring the response “no, he’s dead.”)

I read the objections to the obvious interpretation of Corinthians that Peter’s wife joined him in his ministry, and I’m very frustrated. It feels like an obvious part of scripture is being stretched to mean something completely nonsensical.

Nah. If you look at the Greek, it’s clear that Paul’s point is about having ‘rights’ or ‘authority’. This is just one small example in that discussion; I think we’re the ones who are “stretching” it beyond what it’s trying to say…