5. Do we not have a right to bring along a Christian wife?

Or “a woman who is a be
liever?” (adelphēn gynaika, lit. “a sister (as) a wife/woman”). Adelphē, “sister,” means no
female sibling, but a female fellow Christian (see Note on 1:1; cf. 7:15; Rom 1
6:1; Phlm 2). The infin. periagein refers to having a woman as a companion on hi
s missionary journeys (e.g., to care for one’s material needs). If gynaika is to b
e understood as “wife,” then Paul is asserting a right of which he is actually not m
aking use (recall 7:7a, 8, where he speaks of himself in the 1st pers. sing. as
unmarried). The 1st pers. plur. now could be editorial, meaning himself, or it c
ould refer to Barnabas and himself, as in v. 6. Examples of such husband-wife pa
irs would be Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7 [se
e Romans, 737–38]; cf. Klauck, Hausgemeinde, 30, 59). mss F, G and a, b of the VL
omit adelphēn and read instead only the plur. gynaikas, “wives,” which Bauer (“Uxores”) cl
aims is the original reading; moreover he maintains that gynaika periagein means
simply “to have a wife,” and not “to take a wife about with one,” but Diogenes Laertius
(Vitae 6.97) uses a cog. verb (symperiēei, “went about with”) in his account about th
e Cynic philosopher Crates who took his like-minded wife on his philosophical ex
cursions (BDAG, 798). So the usual translation, “bring/take along,” is to be preferr
ed.
Clement of Alexandria had a different understanding of the words adelphēn gynaika:
“They [the Apostles], in conformity with their ministry, concentrated without dis
traction on preaching, and took their women as sisters, not as wives, to be thei
r fellow-ministers for house-wives, through whom the teaching about the Lord pen
etrated into the women’s quarters without scandal” (Stromateis 3.6.53.3;GCS 15.220 [c
f. FC 85.289]). Similarly, Augustine, De opere monachorum 4; CSEL 41.538–39; FC 16
.338. That is a possible meaning, but it seems to read more into the matter than
the Greek text expresses.
More is almost certainly implied in Paul’s question than that apostles had the rig
ht to marry, which would have been taken for granted then. From vv. 6–8, where apo
stles and missionaries have the right to maintenance from the church or communit
y evangelized, it seems to be implied in the question that Paul now asks whether
the Christian wife who accompanies an apostle would be entitled to the same sup
port? So Lietzmann (1 Cor, 40) argued, basing his argument not only on the conj.
ē, “or,” (which introduces v. 6, and Paul’s emphasis given to the subject, “only I and Ba
rnabas”), but also on the interpretation of John Chrysostom and Theodoret: “at the e
xpense of the community.” Similarly Conzelmann, Robertson-Plummer, Kremer, Lindema
nn.
as do the rest of the apostles. Who the hoi loipoi apostoloi are in this case is
not easy to say. They are distinguished clearly from “the Lord’s brothers” (see the n
ext phrase). Since Cephas is to be mentioned, the adj. “other” may mean apostles dif
ferent from Paul, Barnabas, and Cephas (the first two mentioned are called apost
oloi in Acts 14:4, 14 [a problematic text; see Acts, 526]). Certainly the phrase
does not mean missionaries in general, because the “apostles” were a definite group
in the primitive church, which initially shaped its structure, but which eventu
ally gave way to others (see Acts, 220–21). Although Luke restricted the meaning o
f apostoloi to the Twelve (see Luke 6:13, “he chose twelve of them, whom he named
apostles”; also his account of the reconstitution of the Twelve, Acts 1:15–26), ther
e is no evidence that Paul shared that view. In 1 Cor 15:5–7, he distinguishes “the
Twelve” from “all the apostles” (who are, hence, a larger group). Together with the Tw
elve, he and Barnabas would number fourteen, which might even grow to sixteen, i
f Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7) are considered “apostles,” as some commentators ha
ve maintained since patristic times (another problematic text; see Romans, 737–38)
. See also 2 Cor 8:23, where unnamed apostoloi are mentioned. Who, then, is mean
t by hoi loipoi apostoloi? No one can say for sure.
The testimony of Papias, recorded in Eusebius, HE 3.39.9, about the marital stat
us of “Philip the Apostle” (and his daughters) is a classic confusion of “Philip the e
vangelist,” known from Acts 6:5; 8:5–13, 26–40; 21:8–9, with one of the Twelve having th
e same name (Acts 1:13), about whom nothing is known, apart from what is recount
ed in John 12:21–22.
and the Lord’s brothers. This phrase is equally problematic. In Gal 1:19, Paul spe
aks of James of Jerusalem as ton adelphon tou kyriou, “the Lord’s brother.” Possibly h
e is now referring to this James. Was James of Jerusalem an apostle? It depends
on how ei mē in Gal 1:19 is understood: It can be exceptive, meaning, “I saw none of
the other apostles [apart from Cephas] except James.…” (so translated in KJV, NKJV,
RSV, NRSV, ESV, NEB, REB). That would make this James an apostle (contrary to 1
Cor 15:5–7, where he is distinguished from the Twelve and “all the apostles”). Or ei
mē can be adversative, the equivalent of alla, “but” (as it is used in Gal 1:7; 2:16 [
ean mē]; Matt 5:13; 12:4; 17:8; Mark 4:22; 9:8 [see app. crit. alla]; Luke 2:46; 4
:26, 27), and would mean, “I saw none of the other apostles, but only James, the L
ord’s brother” (as it is rendered in NIV, NAB; cf. ZBG §470; Moulton, Grammar, 2:468;
3:330). Then he would not be an apostle. If James of Jerusalem were an apostle,
then he would be part of the preceding group, “the apostles,” and the problem would
be compounded: Who, then, would be “the Lord’s brothers”?
A further question is: How is one to understand adelphoi, “brothers”? Certainly, it
does not mean fellow Christians, as often in this letter (see Note on 1:1), but
rather is to be understood as in Acts 1:14c. In Classical and Hellenistic Greek,
the normal meaning of adelphos is “blood brother,” i.e., a male child born of the s
ame mother. This is the sense that Meier finds here (“Brothers and Sisters”).
In the LXX, however, adelphos translates Hebrew ʾāḥ, even when it is used in the broad
er sense of “kinsman, relative” (e.g., Gen 13:8; 14:16; 24:48; 29:12, 15; 31:23, 32;
Lev 10:4; 1 Chr 9:6; 23:22; Tob 5:13–14; 7:2 [in ms S, whereas mss A, B read anep
siō, “cousin”]; see BDAG, 18). The wider sense is also attested for Aramaic ʾăḥāʾ (see WA,
Grelot, “Noms de parenté”). In Greek papyri from Egypt, adelphos sometimes has this br
oader meaning (see Tscherikower, “Jewish Religious Influence,” 32–33 [and p. 36: said
to occur also in Adler Pap. Gebelen 7.6]); but adelphos is found also in other m
etaphorical senses (for officials, friends, business partners; see Arzt-Grabner,
“€‘Brothers’ and ‘Sisters’€”). In which sense is adelphos to be understood here, “blood br
“relative”? (In any case, adelphos in the broader sense is not to be translated “cous
in,” since Greek has a specific word for that relationship, either adelphidous or
anepsios [the latter appears in Col 4:10]).
The reason why “the Lord’s brothers” is problematic is because of Mark 6:3, “Is not this
the craftsman, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon,
and are not his sisters here with us?” when that Marcan verse is considered along
with Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, where two of the four adelphoi are mentioned again. I
n the latter passages, “Mary, the mother of James the younger and Joses” can scarcel
y be a circumlocution used by the evangelist to designate the mother of the pers
on crucified on Golgotha, before whose cross she is standing. Hence adelphos in
Mark 6:3, where the four are mentioned, must be understood in the broader sense,
“kinsman, relative.” This is why some interpreters hesitate to understand adelphos
as “blood brother” in this passage (see Chapman, “Brethren,” 417). “In any case they were
persons whose close relationship to the Lord gave them distinction in the primit
ive Church: what they did constituted a precedent” (Robertson-Plummer, 1 Cor, 182)
. See Eusebius, HE 2.1.2; 2.23.1; 7.19.1 (on their succession to the bishopric o
f Jerusalem). Cf. Blinzler, Brüder, 18–23, 45, 92, 123; Bienert, “Relatives of Jesus.”
and Cephas? For his marital status, see Mark 1:30, where his mother-in-law (pent
hera Simōnos) is mentioned. Although Cephas would be part of the “apostles” mentioned
earlier in the verse, he is singled out and mentioned last simply because of his
importance in the early church and because his influence was already invoked in
Corinth (1:12 [see Note there]; 3:22). Here Paul is saying that Cephas was acco
mpanied on his ministry by his wife, whose name is unknown (see Klauck, Hausgeme
inde, 30, 59). To see Cephas as the head of the opposition to Paul in Corinth go
es beyond the evidence provided in this letter.
Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduc
tion and Commentary (357). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.