B
BartholomewB
Guest
The Aleteia article you linked to says nothing about a wife. Not even a denial. Nothing at all.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Petergee
Guest
In the context, it’s a mistranslation. St Paul makes perfectly clear in other passages that he is celibate. He is absolutely NOT saying “I want a wife” in this passage.No, it’s not a mistranslation. Greek has a single word, γυνή, for both “woman” and “wife.”
P
Petergee
Guest
No. She was martyred TWO HUNDRED YEARS after St Peter. Centuries after that, a folk story sprang up saying that she was St Peter’s daughter (literally not just spiritually by having him as her patron through her name).Doesn’t Peter also have a daughter St Petronilla.
P
Petergee
Guest
You thought wrong. The Gospel reference to Peter’s mother-in-law is the ONLY evidence ANYWHERE that any of the Apostles had ever been married. And there is a lot of evidence to suggest they were celibate. In the cases of St Paul and St John, absolute proof that they were celibate.I thought that most of the apostles were married, not single.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The question under discussion here is not what Paul is saying in this verse about himself and his wishes, but what he is saying about Peter.
Last edited:
I
IanM
Guest
Many consider that an example of the “Protestantisation” of the Catholic Faith which some others deny.Some editions of the Jerusalem Bible have a footnote here clearly stating that those apostles who were married, including Peter, generally took their wives with them on their missionary travels.
The Vulgate reads " numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi sicut et ceteri Apostoli, et fratres Domini, et Cephas?"
The Douay Rheims reads " 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?"
The Knox reads "nay, have we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as the other apostles do, as the Lord’s brethren do, and Cephas? "
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, there are good grounds for arguing that “wife” is more of a Protestant reading while “woman” is a more strictly Catholic reading. Protestants and Catholics have their diverging ecclesiologies. But neither “wife” nor “woman” is an incorrect translation of Paul’s Greek.Many consider that an example of the “Protestantisation” of the Catholic Faith which some others deny.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Not in context, he is certainly referring to himself. He is saying, why can’t I travel with a sister in faith as Peter does? He is not saying why can’t I travel with a wife as Peter does, because we know he was not married. It makes little sense for him to be defending something he obviously does not practice.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
It’s a question of historical fact. Either Peter sometimes took his wife with him on his missionary journeys, or he never did that. I am inclined to believe, despite that footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, that we do not possess certain knowledge of Peter’s travel arrangements, one way or the other. Paul’s words in this verse don’t help us to decide, because they are equally applicable in either case.
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that most of the apostles were married, not single.
Can you show this?You thought wrong.
I was repeating what Father Kirby had written. Do you say that Father Kirby is also wrong?
Father Jeffrey Kirby is pastor of Our Lady of Grace Church in Lancaster. He holds an M.A. in philosophy from Franciscan University of Steubenville and a doctorate in moral theology from Holy Cross University in Rome. Father Kirby is the author of several books including, “Lord, Teach Us to Pray” (St. Benedict Press, 2014).
Father Kirby writes: “It appears that all of the Apostles, except for the young St. John, were married when the Lord Jesus called them to Himself. For example, we know that Peter was married because Jesus healed his mother-in-law (Mt 8:14). Since celibacy was rare in Judaism, it shouldn’t surprise us that the Lord called married men. Honestly, in His day, the Lord would have been hard pressed to find unmarried grown men.”
It is true that the the married Apostles may have been celibate during their ministry with Jesus.
Also please read:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-married-apostles-and-_b_3474168
“… I do not recall a single depiction of an Apostle’s wife. So it comes as a shock to realize that these men [Apostles] were not single celibates, traversing the Mediterranean in lonely solitude, but married men who for the most part likely traveled in retinues that included their wives.”
Last edited:
I
IanM
Guest
T
tafan2
Guest
I agree we do not possess certain knowledge of Peter’s travel arrangements, nor of his wife. But I do think this passage (not this word) of Paul’s lends insight into the situation and can help us decide what is most likely. And it mental gymnastics as another poster has stated.
We know that Paul is defending his actions. He is declaring himself an Apostle and using the actions of other apostles to justify his own actions. Now, if the correct translation was “wife”, it would make sense that both Paul and Peter were married and traveling with their wife. If the translation is wife, it does not make sense unless Paul is also travelling with his wife.
If the translation is “sister”, then it all makes sense. As they are both doing the same thing.
So it seems to me, that for the translation of “wife” to work, then Paul and Peter have to be married and travelling with wives, not just Peter.
Looking at just one word, the translation of wife or sister is valid. Looking at it in context, the odds start tilting to sister. Significantly IMO. But I am, by no means, am expert in biblical exegesis.
We know that Paul is defending his actions. He is declaring himself an Apostle and using the actions of other apostles to justify his own actions. Now, if the correct translation was “wife”, it would make sense that both Paul and Peter were married and traveling with their wife. If the translation is wife, it does not make sense unless Paul is also travelling with his wife.
If the translation is “sister”, then it all makes sense. As they are both doing the same thing.
So it seems to me, that for the translation of “wife” to work, then Paul and Peter have to be married and travelling with wives, not just Peter.
Looking at just one word, the translation of wife or sister is valid. Looking at it in context, the odds start tilting to sister. Significantly IMO. But I am, by no means, am expert in biblical exegesis.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Like I posted, it was my understanding from what I heard on news reports years ago
P
Petergee
Guest
Do you say that Fr Kirby is infallible?Do you say that Father Kirby is also wrong?
I note he has degrees in philosophy and moral theology, not in church history.
As for you calling Huffington Post to your argument, I don’t think that even merits a response.
M
Maximian
Guest
The default meaning of gynaika is woman. This is why a gynecologist means a doctor who studies the health of women in general not just that of married women. You can translate gynaika “wife” only if you can defend doing so from the context.
Here, the context militates against the other meaning of “wife” because Paul is not demanding the right to a wife; we know this because he regarded his celibacy as important. He is demanding the right to be accompanied by a woman who is a “sister” ie a Christian. Probably he is defending himself against gossip. And to do so he points out that other Apostles including Peter did the same.
Here, the context militates against the other meaning of “wife” because Paul is not demanding the right to a wife; we know this because he regarded his celibacy as important. He is demanding the right to be accompanied by a woman who is a “sister” ie a Christian. Probably he is defending himself against gossip. And to do so he points out that other Apostles including Peter did the same.
Last edited:
P
Petergee
Guest
In the context he appears to be defending himself against some member/s of the faithful complaining about how much money and resources they had to put in to meet St Paul’s travelling and other expenses.Probably he is defending himself against gossip.
M
Maximian
Guest
Which is a form of gossip, no?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.