What happens to Peter’s wife

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Petergee said:
“wife” is a mistranslation. The Greek words literally mean “a woman believer”. St Paul is defending his right to have a women accompanying him to attend to his material needs whilst he was travelling and evangelising. Just as the other Apostles did and just as Jesus did. Please don’t anyone try to claim that Jesus had a wife!!
Click to expand...
Says you. The vast majority of translations, including the Church’s approved translations, use the word “wife.”
 
Maximian said:
It has always been understood that in the context, “sister” means “sister in faith” and doesnt have to mean a family connection. Neither does the word gynaika.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. When I click on the word “adelphen” and “gynaika”, it says:
Adelphen: A sister, a woman (fellow-) member of a church, a Christian woman
Gynaika: A woman, wife, my lady. Probably from the base of ginomai; a woman; specially a wife.
 
Knox uses the word sister.
The RSV-CE in its footnote makes it clear it could be translated as “woman” or “sister” or wife.
The vulgate uses the word “sororem” which I believe is translated as sister.

I did a quick translation with google on the Vatican’s Spanish bible and it translates to “a believing woman”. As does the Vatican’s online Italian bible.

I don’t think I would hang my hat on the translation to the word “wife”.
Also, taking St Paul’s question in context, as he is defending his own right to do such things, but we know he was not married, so it seems likely a proper translation was sister. Why would he say he had the right to travel with a wife, when he was not married and so likely was not challenged on that point?

Also, we can certainly use the story of Peter’s mother-in-law, where both Mark and Luke refer to his mother-in-law serving them, but not his wife. Admittedly, his wife was not part of the story, so that is not definitive either.

.
 
I just don’t understand that gymnastics to avoid the more plain meaning. We know Peter was married. To credit your view (even if I don’t accept it), we know he travelled with a “believing woman”, who in context could have been (and probably was) his wife. Why try so hard to conclude that Peter was not married, when it seems obvious to me that he was, and that probably most of the other apostles were also.
 
It is not mental gymnastics. The translation does not necessarily point to the word wife. The fact that Peter’s wife was not mentioned as being at her mother’s bedside when her mother was sick is somewhat telling also (other times of Jesus’s healing those around the person are mentioned).

We do not know that he was married at the time of Jesus’s ministry. In fact, the only biblical source that he was is in first Corinthians. We have 4 Gospels detailing Jesus’s ministry over a three year period, plus the Acts of the Apostles. For 12 apostles we have no references to wives. This is not mental gymnastics.

Does it make sense that Jesus would select single men since he knew they would become apostles and end up all over the world? Kind of. Especially when He says that points out that a husband and wife are to be one.

So while we do not know either way, I think it highly likely that Peter was a widower.
 
TMC said:
Gymnastics to avoid the more plain meaning. We know Peter was married.
Click to expand...
We know Peter had been married at some point. The reference to his mother-in-law without a reference to his wife strongly implies that his wife was already dead.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
The vast majority of translations, including the Church’s approved translations, use the word “wife.”
Click to expand...
The majority of modern translations that is. Translations closer in time to the original do not.
 
All synoptic gospels have the passage where Peter asks about their reward for leaving everything:
Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” (Matt 19:27)
How do you interpret this passage? What exactly did Peter leave? At least he left the profession of a fisherman and his tools for fishing, but it is possible that this also refers to giving up ordinary married life and choosing continence if he still had his wife alive.
Jesus’ answer in Luke mentions leaving wife for the sake of the kingdom of God.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t Peter also have a daughter St Petronilla. She’s named after Peter which would have meant he named her after his ministry with Jesus.
 
tafan2 said:
Does it make sense that Jesus would select single men since he knew they would become apostles and end up all over the world? Kind of.
Click to expand...
I thought that most of the apostles were married, not single.
 
Let me be clear, I have no doubt that Peter was married, and likely had a daughter. I just think the evidence suggests he was a widower (part of that evidence is St Petronilla being the only child recorded in tradition.

As to the other apostles, yes some were likely married, but the certainty if it us almost always overstated in my mind.
 
tafan2 said:
What evidence supports this?
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 9:5: Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Acts 21: 9.
 
My understanding is that just a few years ago, they found both St Peter and his wife, buried under the altar at St Peters in Rome.
 
Well, we don’t know. What we do know is that Peter is one of the first recorded cases of wanting to be away from his mother in law. “Lord, we have given up everything to follow you” - might have been said with a wink.

To be fair, we also know what his MIL had to put up with!
 
Nice article, I am somewhat familiar with the story. I just don’t remember ever reading the claim that the bones were found with his wife. That’s what I was asking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top