1 Cor 9,5: The Women of the Apostles 353 apostles. Paul’s discussion of missionary partners in his letters, the semantics of several key terms in the verse, some parallels in antiquity, and a reassessment of ancient households will complete the investi- gation. I. Cephas Paul’s defense of his apostleship to the Corinthians includes a rare but intriguing glimpse into the personal lives of the apostles. They have authority to take a “sister woman/wife” (ajdelfh;n gunai'ka) with them on their missionary journeys as do the brothers of the Lord and Cephas. Cephas’ identity is important for the argument of the essay, because it is clear that Peter was married before his call to discipleship. Bart Ehrman has objected to the identification of Cephas and Peter based on Paul’s shift of names between Gal 2,7-8 and the rest of its context and an ancient tradition that Cephas and Peter were different people (5). Clement of Alexandria believes Cephas is one of the seventy and a homonym of Peter the apostle (6). EpAp 2 (both men were of the eleven) is also an old witness (II C.E.). However, the semantic equivalence (rock) alone makes the identity probable. Gal 2,7.8.9.11 and 14 seem to use both names interchangeably. The Johannine tradition (John 1,42) assumes the equivalence, and Matt 16,18 assumes the pun (7). Other sources in primitive Christian tradition (Mark 1,30 par) hold that Peter was married, and Paul viewed him as a traveling apostle (Gal 2,7-8). (5) B. EHRMAN, “Cephas and Peter”, JBL 109 (1990) 463-474. Besides “Peter” in Gal 2,7-8, Paul uses “Cephas” (1 Cor 1,12; 3,22; 9,5; 15,5; Gal 1,1.2.9.11.14). See E.G. KRAELING, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven 1953) 8:10 (227) for an apk rb bq[. J.A. FITZMYER, The Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s Name in the New Testament, Ibid., To Advance the Gospel. New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U.K. 21988) 112-124, esp. 115-118, argues that apk is a proper name. (6) Hypot. 5.4 (GCS Clemens Al. III; 196,9-13 STÄHLIN – FRÜCHTEL – TREU = Eus., Hist. eccl. 1.12.2). (7) John 1,42 inclines or rather forces EHRMAN to believe that there were two people named “Cephas” in ancient Christian tradition (“Cephas”, 473, n. 33, 474). Other scholars who reject the identity may be found in H.-D. BETZ, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1979) 96-97 (BETZ does not accept the hypothesis that the two are different) and FITZMYER, Aramaic, 114, 120 n. 15 (he rejects the hypothesis).