Giuseppe wrote: Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
(1 Cor 9:5)
26. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 22:
This man who stood first in the band of the disciples, taught as he had been by God to despise death, but escaping when seized by Herod, became a cause of punishment to those who guarded him. For after he had escaped during the night, when day came there was a stir among the soldiers as to how Peter had got out. And Herod, when he had sought for him and failed to find him, examined the guards, and ordered them to be "led away," that is to say, put to death. So it is astonishing how Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter, if he were a man such as this; and how to one who was disturbed with such agitation and overcome by such experiences did He say "Feed my lambs"? For I suppose the sheep are the faithful who have advanced to the mystery of perfection, while the lambs stand for the throng of those who are still catechumens, fed so far on the gentle milk of teaching. Nevertheless, Peter is recorded to have been crucified after feeding the lambs not even for a few months, although Jesus had said that the gates of Hades should not prevail against him. Again, Paul condemned Peter when he said, "For before certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but when they came he separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision; and many Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy" (Gal. ii. 12). In this likewise there is abundant and important condemnation, that a man who had become interpreter of the divine mouth should live in hypocrisy, and behave himself with a view to pleasing men. Moreover, the same is true of his taking about a wife, for this is what Paul says : " Have we not power to take about a sister, a wife, as also the rest of the apostles, and Peter?" (1 Cor. ix. 5). And then he adds (2 Cor. xi. 13), "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers." If then Peter is related to have been involved in so many base things, is it not enough to make one shudder to imagine that he holds the keys of heaven, and looses and binds, although he is fast bound, so to speak, in countless inconsistencies.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porph ... gments.htm
Why didn't Porphyry quote the
''Lord's brothers'', while quoting 1 Cor 9:5 ?
Can be this considered evidence of interpolation of
''Lord's brothers'' in 1 Cor 9:5 ?
Okay, Giuseppe, this is interesting.
I suppose it ought not surprise us to find that the Church Fathers of the fifth century know the full verse: Theodoretus, for example, in his
Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (Migne PG 82, column 293):
- theodoretuscommpaul.jpg (140.94 KiB) Viewed 7251 times
Jerome, too, in
(Against Helvidius) On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 13:
And again in another place, Have we no right to eat and drink? Have we no right to lead about wives even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Going back further, we find the full verse in Origen,
Fragments From Catenae on 1 Corinthians (Claude Jenkins, Origen on 1 Corinthians, Journal of Theological Studies 9, 1908, page 501):
- origencatena1cor.jpg (219.1 KiB) Viewed 7251 times
But before Origen? We find Tertullian alluding to the verse in
On Exhortation to Chastity 8.3:
3 "Licence," for the most part, is a trial of discipline; since it is through trial that discipline is proved, and through "licence" that trial operates. Thus it comes to pass that "all things are lawful, but not all are expedient," so long as (it remains true that) whoever has a "permission" granted is (thereby) tried, and is (consequently) judged during the process of trial in (the case of the particular) "permission." Apostles, withal, had a "licence" to marry, and lead wives about (with them). [Licebat et apostolis nubere et uxores circumducere.] They had a "licence," too, to "live by the Gospel." But he who, when occasion required, "did not use this right," provokes us to imitate his own example; teaching us that our probation consists in that wherein "licence" has laid the groundwork for the experimental proof of abstinence.
So that is not complete enough to confirm or disconfirm anything. But we
also find him writing in
On Monogamy 7.5-7:
5 The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name----however, there is a name proper to wives----shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? 6 For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" [Non enim habemus potestatem uxores circumducendi sicut ceteri apostoli et Cephas?] 7 But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking? "he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.
This is more complete, and he skips right over "the brothers of the Lord", just like Porphyry! (Interesting that Porphyry seems to have "Peter" and not "Cephas".)
Clement of Alexandria also alludes to our verse in
The Instructor 2.1:
"Have we not power to eat and to drink," says the apostle, "and to lead about wives?"
Not complete enough to tell.
He has a second go at it in
Miscellanies 3.6:
53 Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused.
Perhaps not complete enough, once again, but it is interesting that, with at least two chances each to include the brothers of the Lord, neither Clement nor Tertullian seem to manage to do it in the texts that I can track down, and one of Tertullian's quotations omits exactly what Porphyry omits.
If this phrase happens to be an addition, it probably takes no great feat of the imagination to guess why it was added. It seems that at least some Jewish Christian groups had a "no girls allowed" policy, in direct contradiction to various more egalitarian passages in the Pauline epistles (since such groups often did not accept Paul at all anyway), including the bit about the apostles' wives in 1 Corinthians 9.5 itself, and a good Catholic response might well be to insist that early Jewish Christian groups (members of the dominical family, no less!) did not share that same policy. As Pseudo-Clement puts it in
Two Epistles on Virginity 2.15:
And, not to extend our discourse to too great length, what shall we say concerning our Lord Jesus Christ? Our Lord Himself was constantly with His twelve disciples when He had come forth to the world. And not only so; but also, when He was sending them out, He sent them out two and two together, men with men; but women were not sent with them, and neither in the highway nor in the house did they associate with women or with maidens: and thus they pleased God in everything. Also, when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was talking with the woman of Samaria by the well alone, His disciples came and found Him talking with her, and wondered that Jesus was standing and talking with a woman. Is He not a rule, such as may not be set aside, an example, and a pattern to all the tribes of men?
Good catch, Giuseppe. Interesting possibility.
Ben.
ETA: Here is the Greek of the fragment from Porphyry:
Οὗτος ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ χοροῦ τῶν μαθητῶν, διδαχθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ θανάτου καταφρονεῖν, συλληφθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου καὶ φυγών, αἴτιος κολάσεως τοῖς τηροῦσιν ἐγένετο. φυγόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ νυκτός, ἡμέρας γενομέ- νης θόρυβος ἦν ἐν τοῖς στρατιώταις, πῶς ἐξῆλθεν ὁ Πέτρος· ἐπιζητήσας δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἡρώδης καὶ μὴ εὑρών, ἀνακρίνας τοὺς φύλακας, ἐκέλευσεν ἀπαχθῆναι, τουτέστιν ἀποτμηθῆναι. θαυμάσαι τοίνυν ἔστι πῶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοιούτῳ ὄντι τῷ Πέτρῳ τὰ κλειδία δέδωκε τῶν οὐρανῶν, πῶς ἐν τοσούτῳ τεταραγμένῳ θορύβῳ καὶ τηλικούτοις πράγμασι καταπεπονημένῳ ἔλεγε· Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, εἴ γε τὰ μὲν πρόβατά εἰσιν οἱ Πιστοὶ <οἱ> εἰς τὸ τῆς τελειώσεως προβάντες μυστήριον, τὰ δ' ἀρνία τῶν ἔτι Κατηχουμένων ὑπάρχει τὸ ἄθροισμα, ἁπαλῷ τέως τρεφόμενον διδασκαλίας γάλακτι. ὅμως ἱστορεῖται μηδ' ὀλίγους μῆνας βοσκήσας τὰ προβάτια ὁ Πέτρος ἐσταυρῶσθαι, εἰρηκότος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὰς ᾅδου πύλας μὴ κατισχύσειν αὐτοῦ. κατέγνω καὶ Παῦλος Πέτρου λέγων· Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου τινὰς μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς· καὶ συνεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ πολλοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι. πολλὴ δὲ κἀν τούτῳ καὶ μεγάλη κατάγνωσις, ἄνδρα τοῦ θείου στόματος ὑποφήτην γενόμενον ἐν ὑποκρίσει ζῆν καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀρέσκειαν πολιτεύεσθαι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκα περιάγεσθαι, Παύλου καὶ τοῦτο λέγοντος· Μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγεσθαι, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ Πέτρος; εἶτα ἐπιλέγει· Οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι. εἰ γοῦν ἐν τοσούτοις ἱστόρηται ἐγκεκυλῖσθαι κακοῖς, πῶς οὐ φρικτέον ὑποτοπῆσαι κλεῖδας οὐρανοῦ κατέχειν καὶ λύειν καὶ δεσμεῖν αὐτὸν μυρίοις ἐσφιγμένον ὥσπερ ἀτοπήμασιν;
To compare:
Porphyry: Μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγεσθαι, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι * καὶ Πέτρος;
Tertullian: Non enim habemus potestatem uxores circumducendi sicut ceteri apostoli * et Cephas?
* = missing phrase about the brothers of the Lord.
