I think based on necessity and the nature of the minsitry, those who were priests at that time were MOSTLY unmarried. However, to marry or not marry was NOT a rule that was established during the first 3 centuries after Christ. It came many centuries later.
For instance, St. Patrick himself ( Born 385 AD ) was the grandson of a priest and the son of a deacon. St. Hillary was elected bishop of Poitiers (Born 310 ) in what is now France by the laity and clergy. He was already married with one daughter named Apra. And we all know that St. Peter himself was a married man.
We can agree that the rule priestly celibacy came much later but it did not cause much resistance because most of those who took the vocation of priesthood were like St. Paul, unmarried.
No, not in Scripture. There is not even one NT pastor who is even called a priest, apart from the general priesthood of all believers (hieráteuma) in the NT church, who are all called to sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and grant forgiveness, (2Co. 2:6-10) while it is evident that the normative state of pastors was that of being married.
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:5-6)
And while being irrelevant to what is Scriptural (Catholic tradition typically testifies to declension from Scripture), Catholic history testifies that mandated clerical celibacy did indeed see dissent (see post 32 ).
In addition to being unScriptural the RC argument that mandated clerical celibacy (in which, except for rare exceptions for certain married priest converts, all priests must be married) is apostolic tradition is even opposed by Eastern Orthodoxy in which there are married and unmarried deacons and priests. "Most presbyters and deacons are married, while all bishops are celibate, save a few who are widowers." (Demetrios Constantelos, "Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy in the Orthodox Church") 'Most parish priests are married, but it is not unusual for celibate clergy and monastics to serve local churches." (https://www.goarch.org/-/the-sacramental-life-of-the-orthodox-church)
Orthodox priests must decide to marry (only once) before they are ordained, while it is from the unmarried priests that bishops are chosen (the NT church made no distinction btwn bishop and elder) and usually means they are monastics, “Hieromonks"). And, if a priest’s wife dies (or if a divorce is allowed), he can never remarry and remain a priest.
It is said that "Prior to Trent, the Catholic Church took the same approach to the question of priestly marriage as the Orthodox Church did (and does today)." https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/of-marriage-and-orthodox-priests
Faced with the clear Biblical testimony that the normative state of apostles and NT pastors was that of being married, some (such as Cardinal Stickler) resort to arguing that from the moment that married men were ordained they and their wives immediately became continent and lived as brother and sister.
Which is error begetting worse error, for Paul distinctly teaches that abstention from marital relations for holy purposes is to be temporary, and enjoins normal resumptions of such and that celibacy is a gift. (1 Co. 7:2,7) And Scripture nowhere testifies to celibate marriage, except in the case of the seriously infirm aged David and Abishag. (1Kg. 1:1-4) Requiring and expecting that married persons will maintain continence is both unScriptural and absurd presumption.
Also, Catholics attempt to justify their requirement of clerical celibacy by arguing that the Hebrew Scriptures (Leviticus 22:3-6) mandated that their Jewish priests refrain from intercourse before serving at the altar.. However, these priests not only served the altar in rotating shifts, after which conjugal relations could be resumed (as in Zacharias: Lk. 1:5ff), but while the text forbids any priest ministering in the holy things "having his uncleanness upon him," yet being married did not render one to be in a state of continual uncleanness; only that one was unclean regarding such until the evening, after marital relations or any discharge of semen, and then washing. (Lv. 15:16-18)
And contrary to Catholicism, the New Testament states that "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled : but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4) .