The greek word you are looking for is pentheran which means ‘mother in law’.
The whole verse:
“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his
mother-in-law laying down, and sick of a fever.”
I’m not contesting he was married. But there’s no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.
“I’m not contesting he was married. But there’s no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.”
There was when Paul wrote letter to the Corinthians.
And if you don’t believe that where in the Bible does it say otherwise?
That’s not an assumption you can support. Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen. If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable because they don’t all contain the same exact facts (some omit certain things, some include things the others don’t) would have their ‘proof’ they are unreliable.
Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom, rabbis of Jesus’ age would be getting married around his age, and why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding? Yet there is no factual evidence in the story AT ALL about it being his wedding, you have to assume a bunch of things based on the LACK of evidence.
Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels. Are we to assume due to lack of evidence she is now dead, or not important anymore? Nobody left prays to Mary, nobody asks Mary to intercede for them in any of the following letters/books of the New Testament. Nobody is saying “Hail Mary’s”.
It doesn’t fly. You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead. Further if we are going to play fast and loose with evidence, who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus? Peter was an “apostle” - one who was a follower of, and taught face to face by Jesus - as soon as he dropped his fishing net and followed Jesus. Who’s to say the wedding at Cana wasn’t Peter’s wedding? The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.
And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married, there was no prohibition on marriage, so whether he got married before or after he was a follower of Jesus makes no difference. He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.