THE CATHEDRAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

534-556 AMSTERDAM AVENUE
NEW YORK





A a CL 2-337 j

WAS ST. PETER
MARRIED?

By Rev. Joseph F. Sheahan.

THE CATHEDRAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
534-536 AMSTERDAM AVENUE,

NEW YORK.

>w



ABBREVIATIONS.

Gen.= Genesis.

Ex.=Exodus.

Lev.= Leviticus.

Dt. or Deut.=Deuteronomy.

Judg.=Judges.

Sam.=Samuel.

K.=Kings.

Tob.=Tobias (Tobit)

Mich.=Micheas (Micah)

Mt.=Matthew, Gospel of

Mk.=Mark, Gospel of

Lk.=Luke, Gospel of

Jn.=John, Gospel of

Ac.=Acts of the Apostles

Cor.= Corinthians, Epistle to

Tim.=Timothy, Epistle to

Phil.=Philippians, Epistle to

Apoc.=Apocalypse (Revelations)

L. & S.=Liddell & Scott’s Greek Lex.

C. I.=Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Bockhii)

The large figures in the Scripture references are the chap-

ters, the small figures are the verses; e. Mk. I 30 means: St.

Mark’s Gospel, 1st. chapter, 30th. verse.

r>eatfdHM



St. Peter’s Penthera.

(We shall use the Greek word penthera until we discover its meaning.)

TITER ANDREW- JOHN-. JAMES

“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, He saw his

penthera lying and sick of a fever
;
and He touched her hand,

and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered unto

them.”—Mt. 8 14-15

‘‘And Jesus rising up out of the synagogue went into Simon’s

house. And Simon’s penthera was taken with a great fever,

and they besought Him for her. And standing over her He

commanded the fever and it left her. And immediately rising

she ministered to them.”—Lk. 4 s8-39

3



Because the house in which this sick woman

lay is called Simon Peter’s it does not follow

that he was its sole owner. Business houses

e. g. are frequently called after one when

there are several partners. From St. Mark

l
29

,
we know that the house belonged to both Simon and

Andrew.

“They came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James

and John, and Simon’s penthera lay in a fit of fever.”—Mk. I 29

Jesus walking one day along the Sea of Galilee saw Simon

and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea. He called

them, and immediately leaving “the nets”

they followed Him. Mt. 4 2 0
;
Mk. 1 1

8

. Trans-

lators had no doubt that the nets belonged

to both brothers, and so usually called them

“ their” nets. (Their is not in the Gk. text.)

Probably both brothers had an equal interest in the ship, and

in all the fishing apparatus, nevertheless the ship is called

Simon’s ship. Lk. 5 3

The mere fact that the sick woman was called Simon’s

penthera does not settle the question as to whether she was the

penthera of both Simon and Andrew, or of Simon alone. *

Absolute certainty as to her relationship to Simon cannot be

*We say, <?. g-., John White is Mr. Jones' son-in-law. We do not say, John White is
Mr. and Mrs. Jones’ son-in-law.

We say, Mrs. Brown is Peter Smith’s aunt. It is not customary to say, Mrs. Brown
is Peter’s, and Andrew’s, and Susan’s aunt. The mention of one member of the family

is enough. The relationship of the other members is implied and sufficiently understood.

Economy of expression is not peculiar to the Scriptures, nor to English speaking

people; it is universal. One devoid of economy of expression, who gives all the details

of every event, is an intolerable bore.

Sometimes, however, when the meaning of a sentence is not clear to us, we would

have wished that the writer had not been so sparing of his words.

“ Peter’s aunt” gives us as much information as “ Peter’s and Andrew’s aunt,” but

Peter’s relative, Peter’s kinsman, Peter’s kinswoman, or Peter’s house, does not. Peter

alone might have owned a house. Only that St. Mark told us, we would be still in doubt

whether the house belonged to one or to both brothers.

4



had, but whatever can be known of it, we learn from a careful

study of the word jpenihera. It has been

assumed that jpenihera means mother-in-

law
;
if Peter had a mother-in-law he must

have been married, for a woman would

not be called his mother-in-law unless he

had married her daughter. If it is certain

that yenihera has no other meaning than mother-in-law, then it

is certain that Peter had a wife
;
but if jpenihera has a wider

meaning, and includes others besides mothers-in-law, then it

will be doubtful whether Peter ever had a wife. The word

jpenihera is the sole Scriptural foundation on which rests the

presumption that Peter was married. Before examining the

Greek word, I shall ask the reader to look for a moment at our

English term mother-in-law.

MOTHER-IN-LAW

ITS WIDE AND NARROW MEANING.

Who is a man’s mother-in-law ? His wife’s mother. True, but

has this word any other meaning? If we look in Webster’s

and in Worcester’s unabridged Dictionaries, we will find no

other. But no dictionary is perfect
;
they all have some errors

and omissions.

A mother-in-law is not a mother in blood
;
she is not a

real mother
;
she did not give us birth

;
but in the Canon law

she holds the place of a real mother in regard to marriage

impediments. A man should have some of the reverence for

her that is due to a mother, and marriage with her is absolutely

forbidden.

If my mother dies and my father marries again, his second

wife is not my real mother, but -in-law she has some of the

5



rights, privileges and duties of a mother
;
and not only in the

Canon but in the Mosaic law, marriage with her is forbidden.

Step-mother is now the name given to this legal mother.

Mother-in-law was the name given to her formerly.

When a man marries, he and his wife become one, her

relatives become his, and his relatives become hers. Her

mother becomes his mother, not his real mother, but his

mother-in-law. So both the new mother that a father may

impose on his orphan children, and the new mother that a man

gets when he marries, are both mothers in (the eyes of the) -law
,

and this name formerly included both.

In-law. Formerly, in-law was also used to designate those

relationships which are now expressed by step, e. g., son-in-law

=step-son; father-in-law=step-father; this, though still locally

or vulgarly current, is now generally considered a misuse.

—

(Murray—New Eng. Diet.)

In the following sentences mother-in-law means step-mother

:

“ To violate so gentle a request of her predecessor was an ill

foregoing of a mother-in-law's harsh nature.”—(Middleton

—

Anything for a Quiet Life. Century Diet.)

“The name of a mother-in-law sounded dreadful in my ears.”

(Fielding—Amelia, B. 7, Ch. 2. Encyclopedic Diet.)

‘ 4

In her conversation with her
4

mother-in-law ’ (or as we now

say her step-mother). . . . Lady Werner was first led to enter-

tain doubts,” “ the night before she was to set out for London,

Lady Hanmer, her mother-in-law, came thither.”— (From
Hearth to Cloister, pp. 2, 17, by Frances Jackson. Burns &

Oates, 1902.)

A man’s wife’s mother, and his step-mother, are so much

alike in relation to him, and in the general estimation in which

they are held, that a common name for them seems most

natural and appropriate. The common name which included

6



both was mother-in-law, but at the present time it is used

almost exclusively of a wife’s or husband’s mother.*

AN UNAVOIDABLE ERROR?

An oriental youth was learning English.

His teacher often taught him words by

pictures. He showed him pictures with

the words, e. g., plant, animal, etc.,

written under the illustrations. One of

the pictures read : “This is an animal.” It

was the first time that he had seen the

word animal, but as soon as he looked at

the picture, he recognized the quadruped,

and that picture and the word animal were impressed upon

and linked together in his mind. Whenever he saw the word

animal, he thought of this horse. He did not know that the

word animal was applied to sheep, cows, lions, elephants and

other beasts. How could he know ? He saw the word animal

applied to a horse
;
he often heard drivers say : “ That’s a

spirited animal
;

” “ That’s a fine animal.” What reason had

*In Wiclif’s translation, A. D. 13S0, father-, mother- and daughter-in-law are not

found. If these words were in use then, he preferred not to use them.

All the versions since Wiclif’s time translate pentheros in the one place in the N. T.

in which it is found, Jno. 18 13 , father-in-law.

Tyndale A. D. 1534, Cranmer 1539, and the Geneva 1557 always render penthera

mother-in-law.

The Rheims 1582 and the Authorized Prot. vers. 1611, make a distinction : They

translate penthera in Mt. 10 36 and Lk. 12 63 “mother-in-law”
;
but in Mt. 8 14

,
Mk. I 30

,

and Lk. 4 38
,
where there is mention of Peter’s penthera they translate it, as did Wiclif,

‘•wife’s mother.” (Cf. Eng. Hexapla.)

Why they made this distinction is not clear. Was it because at that time mother-

in-law had its wide meaning, and its use here might leave it doubtful whether Peter’s

mother-in-law was a step-mother or a wife's mother?

The Revised Prot. vers, of 1880 retains this twofold translation.



THIS IS AN ANIMAL.

he for thinking that the word animal might extend to any-

thing else? He had none. He

met the word in several sen-

tences in his reading book :

“ Animals can see.”

“ Animals can hear.”

“ Animals can feel.”

“ God made the animals.”

“ Children should be kind

to animals.”

“James is an animal.”

To his mind this sentence meant: James is a horse. This state-

ment did not astonish him, for the names of beasts are given to

certain men in all languages, on account of some resemblance

between the men and the beasts. A brave man is called a lion,

a gentle man a lamb, a stupid man a donkey, stock speculators

are bulls and bears, a political candidate is a dark horse, etc.

When our student later on met the word horse and learnt

its meaning, he thought that horse and animal were two words

which meant the same thing, like donkey and ass, seaman and

sailor, and a multitude of other synonymous words.

Whether his teacher ever found out that his pupil made

animal synonymous with horse, I do not know, but if this

young man studied English thoroughly he must have discovered

his mistake. In English and in every living language the exact

meaning of words can be known, for they are found thousands

of times in the numerous books written. But in Greek a word

may be found only a dozen times or less, in all of the Greek

literature now in existence, so there are many Greek words

whose extension and comprehension it will never be possible

for any scholar, or for all Greek scholars put together, to ever

accurately determine.

8



PENTHERA.

If you see a picture of Noemi and under it the words : This is

Ruth’s penthera
,
will you immediately conclude that penthera

means mother-in-law and has no wider meaning ? If you do

so, you will act like the youth who made : This is an animal,

mean : This is a horse
;
because he had never seen the word

applied to any other thing.

RUTH AND NOEMI HER PENTHERA.

How can I tell whether penthera in the sentence just given

should be translated

:

This is Ruth’s kinswoman f

or

This is Ruth’s mother-in-law f

The only individual in the Old Testament called a penthera is

Noemi, the penthera of Ruth. Ruth 1
14

;
2
u

*
18, 19

;
3 h

6 * 16, 17
. B ut

we h&Ye pentheros, the masculine form of the word :

Juda is called thepentheros of Thamar. Gen. 38 13,25 .

Heli is called thepentheros of Phinees’ wife. I K. (Sam.)

4
19

,
21

.

The parents of Tobias are called his wife’s pentheroi.

Tob. 10
12

;
and her parents his pentheroi. Tob. 14 14 .

9



So far we are little better off than the oriental youth who

read under his picture, “ This is an animal,” and who concluded

that animal and horse meant the same thing. What have we to

make us suspect that penthera ever meant anything else than

mother-in-law
;
or its masculine form anything else than father-

in-law ?

We have further information about these words. The

Greek Dictionaries tell us that pentheros means any connection

by marriage.

“Generally, a connection by marriage
,

e. g., brother-in-law,

Eur. El. 1286, Valck. Phoen. 431 : also — gambros, a son-in-law
,

Soph. Fr. 293 (pentheros-ra are compared by Pott and Curt, to

Skt. bandh-u connexio, cognatio, cognatus), from Root bandli
,

badhn-dmi (to bind).” (L. & S. Gk. Lex.)

Penther-ideus means a son of & pentheros (ideus means the son

or offspring of
;
e. y., hierak-ideus, from hieraks hawk, means a

young hawk
;
aet ideus

,
from aetos eagle, means a young eagle

;

so also penther-ideus means a son of a pentheros).

A Greek inscription on a tombstone at Angora in Asia

Minor asks the kindness of remembrance for a certain penther-

ideus (C. I. 4070 Bockhii). Here it means not the son of a

father-in-law, but the son of a step-father (L. & S.), which in-

dicates the use of pentheros for step-father, and its feminine

form penthera for step-mother.

Neither in the etymology nor in the use of pentheros can

we find any reason for thinking that the word included some

marriage relations but excluded others
;
on the contrary, pen-

theros seems to have been coextensive with the Latin word

ajjinis
,
and to have included in its periphery all those rela-

tionships indicated in English by the prefix step- and the

suffix -in-law .

10



We have no words in English that exactly coincide with

pentheros and penthera
;
the nearest are kinsman,* kinswoman,

and relative.

In English we sometimes speak of a person as a relation

of ours, but it is more common to use a specific word and say

just what the relationship is. So when we know, for instance,

that the person called a pentheros is a brother-in-law, instead

of translating the word by relative or kinsman, it is preferable

to translate it brother-in-law
;
in that case the translation is

more definite than the original, but that is sometimes a good

fault.

We know that Roemi’s son married Ruth.—Ruth l 4 . So
instead of

:

“All hath been told me, that thou hast done to thy kins-

woman after the death of thy husband. She returned, into

the city and showed it to her kinswoman. And her kins-

woman said to her,” etc. Ruth 2 nA8, i».

we can put mother-in-law.

We know that Thamar married Juda’s son, Gen. 38 6
,
and

that Phinees was Heli’s son, IK. 4 19
,
so we can translate

pentherosfather-in-law in both of these chapters. This, of course,

is not a perfect translation, it is representing a large circle by

a small one
;
but a perfect translation is often impossible, and

very literal translations are not literature.

There is one text in the Old Testament, Mich. 7 6
,
quoted

by Our Saviour, Mt. 10 35
;
Lk. 12

M
,
in which penthera refers to

a class rather than to an individual.

“For the son dishonoreth the father, and the daughter riseth

up against the mother, the nymphe against her pentiieran

:

and

a man’s enemies are they of his own household.”

* Our kin, or kinsmen, are blood relations
;
our affin, those related by marriage

;

however, kinsman has been made to do duty for these also, since our writers have not
anglicised affinie.

11



In quoting this text Christ prefaces it with these words

:

“ For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided,

three against two, and two against three.” Lk. 12 62 .

Six names are mentioned, father and son
;
mother and daughter;

nymphe and penthera; but there are only five persons. By sup-

posing that the mother* is also a mother in-law we will have

father and mother on one side, and son, daughter and daughter-

in-law on the other. Nymphe
,
although never so used in the

classics, is in the Scriptures applied to a daughter-in-law.

In all these texts we have a means of determining the

relationship of the pentheros or penthera
, but there are two

texts remaining in which we have nothing to help us. Annas

was the pentheros of Caiaphas, Jn. 18 13
,
and Christ cured Peter’s

penthera. Since we know

nothing of the respective

ages of Annas and Caiaphas,

or anything else concerning

their relationship,we have no

means of knowing whether

Annas was the brother-in-

law or the father-in-law of

Caiaphas. Of the relation-

ship of Peter’s penthera^ to him we know nothing. Was she his

step-mother, his mother-in-law, his step-sister? What was

* If the woman were the man’s second wife she would be the mother of her own

children and the step-mother of her husband’s older children; and in that case also we

shall have two against three and three against two. If we suppose that penthera here

has as wide an application as mother-in-law formerly had in English, both of these

meanings will be here included in penthera.

Wycliffe’s rendering is peculiar : "A nd the son's -wife against the wife's or hus-

band's mother" (?)—(Marvin Vincent, Word Studies. Mt. 10 3S .)

tPentheros,-ra are compared by Pott and Curt, to Skt. handh-u (connexio, cognatio,

cognatus) L. & S.
However, we find nothing to suggest their extension to any connections by blood,

so their meaning must be restricted to connections by marriage.

CAIAPHAS AND ANNAS HIS PENTHEROS.

12



she? We have no means of knowing with certainty; but

it seems most probable that she was either his step-mother or

his mother-in-law

.

STEP-MOTHER, IN THE SCRIPTURES.

The phrase “father’s wife” is found in Lev. 18 8
;
20

11

;
Deut.

22
30

;
27

20

;
I Cor. 5

1

. In these places the context shows that

it is not the father’s first wife (our mother) but his second

wife (our step-mother) that is meant. Gyne-patros is the

phrase in Greek. This is an indirect mention of a step-mother,

just as “father’s brother” is an indirect way of saying “uncle.”

If Peter’s penthera was not his step-mother, then a step-

mother is nowhere directly mentioned in the Scriptures.

PROFESSOR PLUMMER'S ARGUMENT.

Prof. Plummer briefly, vigorously and learnedly gives the rea-

sons for thinking that Peter’s penthera was his mother-in-law

(in its narrow sense) in the following words

:

“It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship

expressed by penthera is either ‘ wife’s mother ’

or ‘husband’s mother’ (12 53
;
Mt. 8 14

;
10 35

;
Mk.

130; Ruth 114; 211,18.19,23; Mic. 7 6
;
Dem. Plut.

Lucian). So also pentheros is either ‘wife’s

father’ or ‘husband’s father.’ (Jn. 18 13
;
Gen.

38 25 , 38
;
Judg. I 16

;
I Sam. 4 19* 21). But for wife’s

father the more indefinite gamhros (‘a relation

by marriage’) is freq. in LXX (Exod. 31; 4 18
;
Num. 10 29

;

Judg. 4 11
;

19 4* 7’ 9). In Greek there is a distinct term for

‘ step-mother,’ viz. : the very common word metruia (Horn. Hes.

Hdt. iEsch. Plat. Plut ); and if Luke had intended to desig-

nate the second wife of Peter’s father he would have used this

term. That he should have ignored a word in common use

which would express his meaning, and employ another word

papa’s boy.

13



which has quite a different meaning is incredible. That Peter

was married is clear from I Cor. 9 5 . Clement of Alexandria

says that Peter’s wife helped him in ministering to women,—an

apostolic anticipation of Zenana missions (Strom, iii. 6, p. 536,

ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip had children,

and that Philip gave his daughters in mar-

riage (Ibid. p. 535, ed. Potter, quoted Eus.

H. E. iii. 30, 1) ; but he gives no names. It is

remarkable tpat nothing is known of any

children of any one Apostle. This is the first

mention of Peter by Luke, who treats him

as a person too well known to need introduc-

tion.” (Inter. Crit. Com. St. Luke by Plum-

mer, p. 136.)

We shall examine this argument, taking a few words at a time

:

Plummer:—“It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship
expressed by penthera is either * wife’s mother’ or ‘husband’s

mother.’”

Where are the proofs?

Plummer:—“So also pentheros is either ‘wife’s father’ or
husband’s father.’

”

Yes, but it also means: brother-in-law, son-in-law, and in

general any connection by marriage. A pari, therefore, pen-

thera means : sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any connection

by marriage.

Plummer:—“In Greek there is a distinct term for step-mother,

viz., the very common word metruia.”

St. Paul speaks of a step-mother in I Cor. 5
1
but does not use

the word metruia. Why should the Evangelists, even if they

were familiar with it ? but they may have never heard of it.

There is a distinct term for wife in Greek, but the sacred

writers never use it, they use the word gyne (woman) instead.

We have the distinct terms son and daughter in English,

yet a man often speaks of his children as his boys and girls.

14



Metruia is a distinct term, and the odious term for step-

mother. Its derivative to metrui-odes (a step-mother’s treat-

ment) is a Greek word for

unkindness. A dangerous

coast is called the metruia

(step-mother) of the ships.

A lucky day is called a

mother’s day and an un-

lucky day a metruia day.

A bad step-mother would

be called a metruia
,
but a

good step-mother a penthera

or some other name. Met-

ruia was probably used in-

differently at first of good and bad step-mothers, but after-

wards it came to be used in a restricted and odious sense.

Plummer:—“If Luke had intended to designate the second
wife of Peter’s father he would have used this term.”

It by no means follows, unless he had a grudge against her

and wanted to give her a harsh name.

Plummer:
—“That he would have ignored a word in common

use, which would express his meaning, and would have em-

ployed a word which has quite a different meaning is incre-

dible.”

Let us apply this style of reasoning to another word

:

That a father would have ignored a word in common use

(the word son) which would express his meaning, and would

have employed a word which has quite a different meaning

(the word boy) is incredible ! Is it ?

It is not at all incredible. Every day we find fathers

ignoring the common word son, and saying “my boy”; and

ignoring the common word daughter and saying “my girl,’’

METKUIA OF THE SHIPS.

15



even though these words have different meanings. Son and

daughter express relationship, boy and girl youth, prescinding

from all relationships.

If the use of boy and girl for son and daughter be not

incredible, neither is Luke’s use of penthera if he wishes to

speak of the second wife of Peter’s father. It would be more

incredible that he should put aside jpenthera and use the harsh

word metruia
,
since she was a good woman as appears from

Christ’s readiness to cure her.

In Greek there is also a distinct term for mother-in-law (a

wife’s or husband’s mother) the word hekura.

Metruios and metruia are the distinct terms for step-father

and step-mother.

Rekuros and hekura are the distinct terms for father-in-law

and mother-in-law.

The dictionaries mention pentheros and hckuros as though

they were synonyms, but incorrectly, for Jiekuros-a is a specific

term meaning father- and mother-in-law and nothing else.

Pentheros-a is a wide generic term.

Homer uses pentheros (II. 6
,
170; Od. 8, 582) and hekuros

(II. 3, 172; 24, 770) for father-in-law with the same freedom

as an English speaking parent uses boy and son, sometimes

saying ‘my boy,’ at other times ‘my son.’ For mother-in-law,

however, Homer never uses penthera
,
but always hekura (II.

22, 451 ; 24, 770).

Hekura may have been a poetic word in Homer’s time,

but it became a prose word in Apostolic times. It is found in

Plutarch 2, 143 A. He lived about A. D. 46-120.

If Peter’s penthera was not his step-mother because she

was not called his metruia
,
neither was she his mother-in-law

because she was not called his hekura .

16



(Neither hekura nor metruia are found in the Scriptures).

Plummer:
—“That Peter was married is clear from I Cor, 9 5 .”

From the Protestant translations of this text, yes. From the

Catholic translations, no. So this is an argument for Protestants,

but not for Catholics.

In the Protestant versions we find the word “ wife.” Catholics

call it a mistranslation. In Greek the word is “ sister woman.”

When a Protestant finds a wife for Peter in his translation of

I Cor. 9 5
,
what must he conclude about the penthera who is men-

tioned in the Gospels ? Does the wife he finds in his version of I Cor.

9 5 settle her relationship ? No. It creates a presumption, but does

not give certainty.

If a man is married that fact throws no light on his step-mother

at all
;
it does not tell us whether he had one or not.

If we see a sick old woman in a man’s house, and know that she

is not his mother, and if we are in doubt as to whether she is his

step-mother or his mother-in-law, if we were asked to guess which,

what would be the most reasonable conjecture ?

I would say, she is his step-mother. For if this man had a wife

and this were her mother, she would be here to take care of her sick

mother. Where there is no trace of a wife, it would be a wild guess

to suppose a wife’s mother.

In the Gospels there is no trace of any wife of Peter’s. His pen-

thera appears alone, in his and Andrew’s house. She is alone while

she has the fever. She is alone when she waits on Christ and His

apostles after her cure.

Since there is no trace of a wife for Peter in the Gospels,* espec-

ially on that occasion when she should have been present (if the sick

penthera was her mother), the wife given to him by Clement of

Alexandria, and by Protestant translations, in Paul’s Epistle, written

a quarter of a century later, is a reason why Protestants should think

We might account for the presence of a mother-in-law, and the absence of a
wife, by supposing that the man was a widower. How old were the apostles when Christ
called them? We do not know. One of those whom Christ called to leave all things
and follow Him was a youth, Mt. 1920 . 22

,
ncaniekos

,
a youth just emerged from boyhood,

Cf. L. & S. This is the only information concerning the ages of the followers of Christ
that we have in the Scriptures. If Peter was of the same age as our Saviour, the like-

lihood of his being a widower would be greater than if he were younger.



that he was married after the cure of his penthera
,
and that this

expressed Gospel penthera was his step-mother
;
the other Corinthian

penthera implied in the word wife, of course would be his mother-in-law.

So the Protestant translations furnish Peter with two possible

pentheras. If the one mentioned in the Gospels is his step-

mother, the other implied in I Cor. 9
5

is his wife’s mother.

The examination of Clement of Alexandria’s statements

and of I Cor. 9
5
will receive attention at another time.

Plummer:—“It is remarkable that nothing is known of the

children of any one apostle.”

It is, if they had any.

WIDE SCRIPTURAL MEANING OF WIFE.

In the Scriptures a woman does not have to wait until she is

married to be called and considered a wife
;
as soon as she is

engaged she is called a wife; so wife included both the fiancee

and the bride.
“ If a man has betrothed a

damsel that is a virgin,

and some one find her in

the city and lie with her,

thou shalt bring them both

out to the gate of the city,

and they shall be 6toned:

the damsel, because she cried

not out, being in the city:

the man because he hath

humbled his neighbor’s

wife.” Deut. 2223.

“The girl, after betrothal,

being regarded as pledged

to her future husband, as

fully as if she were formally

married to him; she is des-

cribed accordingly (5 24) as

his ‘wife,’ and the penalty

18



(except in the case, 5 25 , where the girl can be reasonably ac-

quitted of blame) is the same as for adultery, viz., death for

both parties.” Driver.—Deut. 22 23 .

“ The interval between betrothal and marriage was commonly

a year, during which the bride lived with her friends. But

her property was vested in her future husband, and unfaith-

fulness on her part was punished, like adultery, with death

(Deut. 22 23). The case of the woman taken in adultery was

probably of this kind.” Plummer.—Lk. I 27 .

“From the moment of betrothal both parties were regarded

and treated in law (as to inheritance, adultery, need of formal

divorce), as if they had been actually married, except as re-

garded their living together.” Edersheim, I, p. 354.

If it were certain that Peter’s penthera was his mother-in-law,

in the narrow sense of the word, it would follow that he had a

wife
;
but even in that case, since wife in the Scriptures included

both the betrothed virgin and the bride, it would be impossible

to say whether Peter was ever married in our modern sense of

the word, for a Jew could have a wife and a mother-in-law,

even if his wife died several months before their actual mar-

riage. If that were so, and Peter’s father and mother were

both dead, it would be a kindness on his part to take his

mother-in-law, if she were homeless, as housekeeper for himself

and Andrew. From the most careful scrutiny of the meaning

of penthera it will never be possible to know whether or not

Peter is one of those who follow the Lamb whithersoever He

goeth, and who sing a song that none else can sing, because

they are virgins. Apoc. 14
3

’
4

.

ORIGIN OF PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW.

If in reading an old English book there is mention made of a

man’s mother-in-law, without any hesitation ive picture her as

19



his wife’s mother, because that is the meaning the word

has now. When the first translations of the New Testament

were made into Latin and other languages, if penthera was

more commonly used in the sense of wife’s mother, it would be

natural to translate it by that word. If a translator or writer

gives definite information on any subject of which nothing is

known, he is likely to be followed, and the older the origin of

the conjecture, the longer it will last. Even information

known to be false sometimes takes a long time to die. The

man Synzygus * Clement of Alexandria mistook for a woman,

and took him for Paul’s wife (Strom, iii. 6). He confounded the

apostle Philip and the deacon Philip, Acts 21 8 * 9
,
and gave the

apostle the deacon’s daughters
;
this wife of Paul’s lived in

controversial literature until quite recently, and the daughters

that Clement transferred to the apostle receive honorable

mention as apostolic daughters in some learned works up to

this day.f

* From the time of Clement of Alexandria and even before it, until the close of the

nineteenth century, Synzygus was robbed of his name. He was reduced to a common

noun, his name was printed with a small-s- in every Greek Testament, and was translated

in all the versions. In the English versions, he appears as : “german felowe-f&ythful

yolkfelo'ive-sinceiVQ companion- true yolkfelowe'' instead of: “ faithful Synzygus." West-

cott & Hort restored his name, and he is called by scholars to-day, as he was in St. Paul’s
day, Synzygus. (Westcott & Hort, N. T. in Greek, Phil. 4 3 margin.—Internat. Crit. Com.
Phillippians . c,)

t Peter’s family has received a larger literary development than either Paul’s or

Philip’s. Clement of Alexandria gives Peter’s missionary journeys with his wife as

Scripture (?) quoting I Cor. 9
s

. He gives a farewell speech of Peter to his wife as hear-

say (Strom, vii. 11). Some onejiot up on etymology even found a daughter for him named

Petronilla.

“She is first called Peter’s daughter in the Apochryphal Acts of SS. Nereus

and Achilles
,
which give a legendary account of her life and death. In the Christian

cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was buried an Aurelia Petronilla filia dulcissima, and

Petronilla being taken as a diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been a

daughter of Peter. It is probable that this was the origin of the popular tradition.

Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Petrus, and it is probable that this woman

was one of the Aurelian gens and a relative of Flavia Domitilla.” (Eusebius, Am. trans.

p. 163, note 3.)

Later on, Peter’s wife was furnished with a name, some gave her the Latin name

Perpetua, others the Latin name Concordia, others still called her Mary. (Cf. a Lapide

Mt. 8»*).

20



A definite translation started in more modern times will some-

times have a long life. The angel told Mary that her syggenis

(relative) Elizabeth had conceived a son in her old age. Lk. 1
S6

.

How Mary and Elizabeth were related we do not know. Eliza-

MARY AND HER SYGGENIS ELIZABETH.

beth may have been her aunt. Wiclif in A. D. 1380 started the

word cousin, and Elizabeth has been called Mary’s cousin in

every translation made during five centuries. The Rev. Prot.

version of 1880 put kinswoman* instead. Cousin is a specific

term representing one class of blood relations, syggenis is a

generic term including them all. Syggenis is any one related

21



to us by blood, a parallel to pentheros
,
one related to us by

marriage . *

There was a special reason why the Catholics of the first

centuries should have wished that Peter or some of the

Apostles had been married
;
such a fact would be a strong

argument against the fanatical Encratites who made celibacy

necessary for all Christians, and called marriage sinful, filthy,

and degrading.

Some texts of both the Old Testament and the New cer-

tainly afforded them a plausible foundation for their aversion

to marriage.

In the Old Testament marriage rendered people unclean,

Lev. 15
18

;
every woman after childbirth was unclean for forty

or eighty days, Lev. 12. Moses ordered the Israelites to keep

from their wives for three days as a preparation for God’s

coming on Mt. Sinai, Ex. 19 15
;

that was necessary also for

those who ate the holy bread. I Sam. (IK.) 2

1

4
' 5

.

A special glory is reserved in heaven for virgins, which

those who marry will not have, Apoc. 14 3* 4. St. Paul exhorts

all to be virgins, I Cor. 7 7 *
26

. He speaks of marriage as a

concession to fleshly lust : “for fear of fornication let every man

have his own wife,” 1 Cor. 7 2 . Marriage, he says, is not sinful

;

he could hardly say less. He is answering questions that the

Corinthians had sent to him, I Cor. 7 1 ; so his statements in

this chapter are replies. He says

:

* In both Catholic and Protestant commentaries attention is called to the fact that

the relationship existing between Mary and Elizabeth is indefinitely stated.

“ Qualis fuerit cognatio non constat.” Knabenbauer. Lk. 1. c.

“The exact relationship between our Lady and St. Elizabeth is not known.” Mgr.

Ward’s Com. on Luke (C. T. S.)

“ Elizabeth thy kinswoman.” A new trans. of Four Gospels by Father Spencer.
But since Mary and Elizabeth may have been cousins and probably were ; and since

the Protestant Book of Common Prayer and our Catholic Prayer Books continue to call

them cousins, and since it makes no difference to anyone whether they were cousins, or

niece and aunt, it is likely that the name will continue to be used.

Mary’s syggenis
,
and Peter’s penthera are parallel cases.

22



“ If thou marry, thou hast not sinned.”

“If a virgin marry she hath not sinned.” I Cor. 7 28 .*

If these are answers their questions must have been : Is it a sin

for a Christian man or maiden to marry ?

That such a question should be asked, shows that it must

have been a disputed question, or one about which the Corin-

thians had some doubts. Whether the Corinthians had put such

questions to him, or whether of his own accord he thought it

necessary to instruct them on this point,—in either case,—the
information given is an evidence of the existence in the Church

at that early date of persons who doubted or denied that it

was lawful for Christians to marry. St. Paul’s statement that

later on heretics will arise who will forbid marriage, I Tim. 4 1,8
,

must not be construed to mean that none existed then.

During the first three centuries there were a multitude of

heretics who opposed marriage
;
one extreme rejecting the re-

strictions of marriage and claiming the same liberty as the

brutes
;
the other extreme wanted all Christians to lead a vir-

ginal life, for they looked on marriage as an abomination.

Under such circumstances it was natural that the Christians

should have wished that Christ had chosen at least one married

man to be an apostle, for if He did when He might have chosen

only those who were single, it would be a proof that He did not

hold marriage in such horror as the heretics contended. The

fact that penthera included mother-in-law in its meaning, and

that both the masculine and feminine form are used most fre-

quently of fathers- and mothers-in-law, makes one inclined to

believe that Peter’s penthera was his mother-in-law and that

consequently he had a wife. Such a probability would soon

pass into a certainty.

Another debated question, which St. Paul settled in the negative was : Is it sinful

for a father to give his daughter in marriage, if she is too old to bear children.

Cf. I Cor. 7
36

.

23



Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 153-217) is the first of the

Fathers to say that any of the Apostles were married

.

It is surprising if no one, for more than a century after St.

Peter was dead, ever said that he had been married, when the

word penthera could so easily furnish him with a probable

mother-in-law and a bride, and when the need of every avail-

able argument to repel the opponents of marriage was felt so

keenly.

Eusebius, the father of church history (A. D. 260-340), a

man of immense erudition, who was in possession of sources of

information, now non-existent, however, ascribes the statement

concerning apostolic wives to Clement (A. D. 153-217) alone

:

“Clement indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the

above mentioned facts, gives a statement, on account of those

who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.” (Eus.

Hist. 3, ch. 30.)

Eusebius had an odd way of prefacing Clement of Alexandria’s

statement

:

“ Clement . . . after the . . . facts, gives a statement, on

account of those who rejected marriage. . . ”

Did Eusebius consider Clement’s statement a statement of fact,

or merely a lawyer’s plea ?

Clement’s statements and his mistaken exegesis are not

quite relevant here
;
for, as far as I know, he does not attempt

to prove that Peter had a wife from the word penthera

;

nor

does any early Greek writer.

When we find Clement using such poor arguments to prove

that the Apostles were married, it is astonishing that he should

overlook the word penthera
,

if it was used exclusively of

mothers-in-law in his day
;
for it would settle Peter’s marriage

at once. We find those using translations, accepting his mother-

24



in-law as a Gospel fact
;
and those using the original Greek,

strangely silent about it. Tertullian (A. D. 145-220) says

:

“Peter* alone I find married, through the mention of his

mother-in-law. I presume he was married but once, since the

church built upon him was destined to appoint every grade of

her order from those but once married. The rest, since I do

not find them married, I must of necessity believe that they

were eunuchs or else were continent.”—(On Monogamy, ch. 8.)

Tertullian quotes from a Latin version of the Gospels in which

he read : “ Socrus Petri.” Socrus is a specific term which

means mother-in-law and nothing else. Whoever made this

version thought that Peter’s jpenihera was probably, if not

certainly, his mother-in-law, and so translated it by the word

“ socrus.” This Latin word is Tertullian’s reason for believing

that Peter had a wife.

Was socrus a bad translation of jpenihera f No; on the

contrary we cannot think of any other word that would occur

to a translator. Noemi, who is called a jpenthera, was a mother-

in-law, and the jpeniheroi mentioned in the Old Testament

were fathers-in-law
;
it was most likely then that the jpenthera

of Peter was a mother-in-law. This translation having been

once made, all using Latin translations would accept this rela-

tionship of Peter’s jpenthera as certain.

Even though a translator be a very learned man, it is im-

possible for him to make a translation in which every word of

his translation will perfectly represent the original. Such a

translation never has been and never will be made. If a man

were to make an exhaustive study of every word, his transla-

tion would never be done.f

* Petrum solum invenio maritum, per socrum.

tHobab the Cinite (Kenite) was the gambros of Moses. Judg. 4 11 . In the Author-

ized Prot. vers. 1611, he is called the
“
father-in-law ” of Moses

;
in the Rev. Prot. vers.

25



If the large and learned body of eminent scholars who

have given us Webster’s and Worcester’s dictionaries, with all

the helps of modern scholarship at their disposal, have forgot-

ten, never thought of, or have never known, that in English

classical literature mother-in-law includes step-mothers, we

must not expect too much of a Greek-Latin translator of

eighteen centuries ago.

All we know of the sick woman

cured in Peter’s house is that she is

called his penthera: this is the

ultimate and only foundation, and

source, of all our knowledge con-

cerning her; but sincepenthera had

a wider meaning than our English

word mother-in-law ever had, even

when it included step-mothers, it

must remain forever doubtful

whether this sick woman was Peter’s step-mother, or mother-

in-law, or step-sister, or some other relative.

It does not matter to us what her relationship was, and as

God has not been pleased to gratify our curiosity, all that

we can do in this world is to be patient, and wait until we

meet Peter in the next world and ask him.

1885, the “ brother-in-law ” of Moses
;
in our Douay translation the “ kinsman ” of Moses.

Annas is now called the father-in-law of Caiaphas, in future English versions he

may be called the kinsman of Caiaphas, and Peter’s penthera may be called his kins-

woman.

Ochozias (Ahaziah) in all our versions is called '"the son-in-law” of the house of
Achab (Ahab). 4 (2) K. 827 .

Bath the Hebrew and the Greek word may be translated “a relative” of the house
of Achab.

His mother was the daughter of Achab, Achab’s sons were his uncles, Achab him-
self was his grandfather. He was related by blood to every member of the house of
Achab, the blood of Achab was in his veins

;
he was not related by marriage to the house

of Achab at all.

The Greek tells us that he was “a gambros” of the house of Achab, a word which,
like pentheros

,
has a very wide meaning.

If all the translations and all the other works of the ancients were absolutely per-
fect, there would be hardly anything left for the moderns to do.

26



The writers of the New Testament, and the translators

and writers of the Old, were not Greeks but Semites, and even

when they wrote or spoke in Greek they naturally thought in

Hebrew or Aramaic.

After finishing this booklet, I wrote to the Eev. Gabriel

Oussani and asked him what were the Semitic words for

father-, mother- and daughter-in-law; and whether these words

had a narrow specific meaning as in English, or a wide

generic meaning. He was kind enough to send me the follow-

ing reply

:

HE various Semitic forms of the word for 4 father-in-

law’ are:—Heb. ham
,
which generally means either

husband’s or wife’s father. Aramaic is hemd
,
which

is coextensive with the Hebrew word. Arabic is

hdmun
,
which generally means the husband’s male relations

(i. e., father, brother, or paternal uncle), and also the wife’s

father. The Ethiopio form is ham, and the Assyrian form is

emu, in which lately discovered language, with the present

available material, we cannot exactly determine its precise

extent and application.

44 What has been said of the masculine form is equally

true of the feminine form mother-in-law, which in Heb. is

hdmdt
,
in Aram. hemdtd, in Arab, hdmdtun, Eth. hamdt, and

Assyr. emetu.

44 The word for daughter-in-law is kalld in Heb., kalta in

Aram., kdnnaturi* in Arabic, and kalldtu* in Assyr., the mean-

ing of which, according to Prof. Delitzsch, is
44
closed bridal

chamber,” thence bride (cfr. harem, i. e., enclosure)

.

44
These three words have a much wider meaning than our

English words or any translation of them into any modern

The exchange of n with l is very common.

27



language. The same thing is to be said of all the other Semitic

words for marriage relationships and kinships, as the words for

father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, etc.

“ As to the word daughter-in-law, it must be remarked

that it usually means the wife of a son or brother; but by

many ancient Arabic poets is used to designate a wife. So too

in Heb. in the Old Testament it means both daughter-in-law

and wife, and in Aram, the same word usually means a bride

;

but also apparently a sister-in-law. (Cf. Thesaurus Syriacus of

P. Smyth sub voce.) How the same word can have three dif-

ferent meanings may be accounted for by supposing that it is

a relic of a time when a man’s wife was also the wife of his

brother and of his son
;
sometimes simultaneously, but gener-

ally in succession, i. e. after the death of her first husband, her

brother-in-law or her step-son had a right to take her for his

wife.

“ The etymological sense is that of covering, so that the

word belongs to the same sphere of metaphor as the symbolic

action of the heir in casting his garment over the widow whom

he desires to inherit, or the common expression that a btfulah

wife is under her husband (a euphemistic expression for sexual

relation).

“The correlative of kanna or kalla, daughter-in-law, is ham
,

father-in-law
;

i. e. one whose duty it is to protect the kanna

from those outside (for the meaning of the root hdmah is to

protect). But the kind of protection meant is protection from

encroachment
;
the husband’s brother, father or other kinsman

is called her ham because they together make up the group who

reserve the woman to themselves. (Of course all these customs

were those in use by the Semites in ancient times
;
and, besides

these grammatical or rather philological arguments, we have

28



the express testimony of Strabo and other Greek writers).

And so the word ham and hamat originally were applied

equally to all those who were kinsmen of a wife and who had

the right to protect her both from a tyrannical husband and

from encroachment; but afterward they became limited to

fathers- and mothers-in-law.

“ The same thing is to be said about other words denoting

kinship and marriage relations, e. g., the word for father is db,

which not only has a wide range of meaning, but in all Semitic

languages it is used in senses even that are quite inconsistent

with the idea of procreator. It means owner, lord, husband with

marital dominion
;
even a husband is called the father of his

wife, i. e.
}
the lord of his wife (Cf. Jerem. 3

4 and Prov. 2 17).

“ The various senses of db
,
father, cannot then have come

from that of progenitor, but they might very well have come

from that of nurturer or provider, which is common enough in

the actual usage of the Semitic languages. So also the word

khdl
,
which is usually translated maternal uncle, really means

any member of the mother’s group.

“ The words, <amm, paternal uncle, and ibn <amm
,
son of a

paternal uncle, are used in an equally wide way. In fact the

word <amm
,
paternal uncle, is identical, etymologically, with the

Heb. word for people, which evidently meant originally noth-

ing else than aggregate or community
;
the ibn <amm therefore

is literally a man of the same stock-group, and all the other

meanings of these words, i. e., the meaning of paternal uncle,

etc., are evidently a comparatively late development. The

same argument is to be applied to the bint <amm
,

i. e., cousin

on the father’s side, which originally meant a tribesman or a

woman of the same tribe

.

“ As to the modern use of these words in the modern East,

it is to be noted that among the city inhabitants they have

29

A



their technical and specific meanings as in English (and this is

due to modern civilization), but among the Bedouin Arabs they

have still their wide meanings, e. g., a husband of the desert

will always call his wife either his sister or his cousin, etc., and

so Abraham did not lie when he told Pharaoh that his wife

Sarah was his sister.

“In all Semitic languages, especially if we go back to

ancient times, all the terms for family ties, all the words, both

for blood and marriage relationships, had a very wide meaning,

but when human society became better organized, then a speci-

fic sense was given to these generic terms, the traces of which

transition we find in many passages of the Old Testament and

especially in the old Arabic literature and poetry.”

30

;



A