Elena

Mt 8:14

αι ελθων ο ιησους εις την οικιαν πετρου ειδεν την πενθεραν αυτου βεβλημενην και πυρεσσουσαν

What is correct translation of this?

To who refer αυτου?

Can there be doubt about this?

apatura_iris

(proviso: I only took one year of ancient Greek and it was a very long time ago...)

literally:

and came him to the house (of) peter (he) saw mother-in-law his laid out sick with fever

I would translate:

And he came to Peter's house and saw his mother-in-law bedridden with a fever.

"His" is singular masculine and a stronger case could be built for it referring to Peter because the name is closer in the sentence construction to the pronoun, but there is an ambiguity just as there can be in English when you have a sentence involving two men and a "his."

Ben C Smith

I concur with this assessment.

I would add only that the fact that the house belongs to Peter would seem to support the mother-in-law being his.

Ben.

ETA: I have this pericope up in synoptic format on my website, and my translations for my synopses are usually pretty literalistic.

Solitary Man

Just a correction, it's και at the beginning, not αι. Otherwise both Ben and apatura are spot-on, imo.

hjalti

I would translate ο ιησους as "Jesus", rather than as "him"

Diogenes the Cynic

Concur. I think the fact it's Peter's house cinches it.

apatura_iris

Unless she was so sick, that she couldn't take care of herself and was brought there? Or, they knew Jesus was going there, so she was brought there to be healed? The gospels describe many incidents of sick people who traveled and were transported to Jesus. All a bit far fetched though.

Elena

Thank you all for answers.

So one conclusion, or Jesus or Peter is married.

I expect in house of Peter, to be mother of Peter.

I read (sorry forget where, gospel of Mary?) Peter saying to Mary : sister.

If Jesus married to Mary and Mary sister of Peter, the mother in law is Jesus mother in law.

So conclusion two, correct translation dont exclude that possibility.

Pataphysician

The fact that Jesus is the main character in the gospel stories, yet the authors don't not mention he is married, let alone to Peter's sister, would seem to completely exclude the possibility. It seems quite likely per your scenario, that the author would at least describe the person as also Peter's mother, and it would seem strange for them to leave that out. Otherwise since they haven't ever mentioned anything before, you would wonder how Jesus's mother-in-law ended up in Peter's house, which is indeed a strange thing, unlike your hopefully mock chagrin at finding someone's mother-in-law at thier own house.

Another equally valid argument would be that maybe Jesus is married to Peter, and is either gay or secretly a woman. Certainly Jesus changing Simon's name to "The Rock" certainly makes more sense in this context. I mean the text doesn't exclude this interpretation under your definition.

Another possibility not excluded from the text is that the person is both the mother and mother-in-law of Peter. That is Peter married a sister or half-sister or stepsister.

Of course one could imagine that the authors are being generous in calling this Peter's house. It seems clear to me that someone who has abandoned their livelihood and is running around the country side with a madman, it's quite likely their wife is in complete possession and control of the household and also it's guests.

Another possibility not excluded from the text is that the person is Peter's maternal grandmother and he is married to his own mother after his father died.

Also the person could be both Peter's wife and Jesus's mother-in-law because he married Peter's prepubescent child, which had to be kept all hush hush.

All in all though, I don't find someone's mother-in-law being at someone's house a very strange occurrence whatsoever, that I would need to make up complex stories to explain away the most likely interpretation and pretty unambigous meaning of the text in context.