In 2006, No word for "Cousin" in Spanish!

[auhsoj88]

Proof, that to this day some languages still don’t have a word for “Cousin”…

In Spanish, to distinquish a cousin we say *“Primo Hermano”, *which translated in English is “First Brother”. To shorten it, we just say *“Primo” *which means just “First”. In Spanish cousins call each other “Primo’s”.

In Aramaic there was no word for “Cousin”, although modern bibles do use the word “cousin” in those passages where the translater(s) clearly made that distinction from scripture.

One you can add to your apologetics tool kitt.

In Christ!

 

[Fidelis]

Good point. My wife (who is Filipina) says the lack of distinction is much the same in Tagalog. Usually, a circumlocution is made to clarify the relationship.

 

[jbuck919]

The new testament was not written in Aramaic. And I assume Greek has separate words for “cousin” and “brother.” (I am not trying to overturn Church tradition, just point out that sometimes there are no shortcuts.)

 

[jemfinch]

The new testament was not written in Aramaic.

No, but the passages in argument were originally written in Aramaic.

Jeremy

 

[mosher]

No, but the passages in argument were originally written in Aramaic.

Jeremy

Not necessarily written but rather spoken in that language and then written in another such as Greek or Hebrew. And while Koine Greek does have a word for cousin the Greek words used followed the spoken dialect so the word brother was used because spoken brother was used in the conversation.

 

[John_Henry]

No, but the passages in argument were originally written in Aramaic.

While that is likely the case for Matthew’s Gospel, do we know that for the passages in the other Gospels? And that is certainly not the case for St. Paul’s usage of “brothers”.

However, I think one can get around the fact that many of them were, in fact, written in greek by looking at the Septuagint. When translated from Hebrew, which also lacks the word for cousin, the hebrew term for “brother” was translated as “brother” in greek, even when the translator knew that the real relationship was that of “cousin”. Consequently, it is likely that greek-speaking and greek-writing Jews used the greek word for “brother” instead of the greek word for “cousin” when speaking of their cousins.

 

[mosher]

While that is likely the case for Matthew’s Gospel, do we know that for the passages in the other Gospels? And that is certainly not the case for St. Paul’s usage of “brothers”.

However, I think one can get around the fact that many of them were, in fact, written in greek by looking at the Septuagint. When translated from Hebrew, which also lacks the word for cousin, the hebrew term for “brother” was translated as “brother” in greek, even when the translator knew that the real relationship was that of “cousin”. Consequently, it is likely that greek-speaking and greek-writing Jews used the greek word for “brother” instead of the greek word for “cousin” when speaking of their cousins.

That is exactly the case according to all the information that we have about the biblical and extra-biblical translation of that word in that time period.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

Any of the NT letters being written in Aramaic is surely news to me. Last time I checked, the only sure way to know is to have a copy and all the copies we have of antiquity are in Greek.

 

[Fidelis]

Any of the NT letters being written in Aramaic is surely news to me. Last time I checked, the only sure way to know is to have a copy and all the copies we have of antiquity are in Greek.

Many scholars point to internal evidence in Matthew that the gospel was possibly written originally in Greek. In addition, one of the early Church Fathers testifies that Matthew’s gospel was originally “in the Hebrew language.” Finally, even if it were originally set down in Greek, the original language of those speaking in the gospel was Aramaic, and would have used words available in that language, not Greek. Even though we don’t have the original copies, we do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we have to consider what words were available in that language, and recognize the Greek was a translation from a simpler language to a more complex one.

 

[jbuck919]

Not necessarily written but rather spoken in that language and then written in another such as Greek or Hebrew. And while Koine Greek does have a word for cousin the Greek words used followed the spoken dialect so the word brother was used because spoken brother was used in the conversation.

We don’t know that. That is an assumption.

 

[Ghosty]

The new testament was not written in Aramaic. And I assume Greek has separate words for “cousin” and “brother.” (I am not trying to overturn Church tradition, just point out that sometimes there are no shortcuts.)

The Thai language also doesn’t have a term for “cousin”, and when speaking English all of my Thai friends say “brother” and “sister” for their cousins.

Why? Because that’s the translation of the word they use. They’re not used to even thinking in terms of “cousin”, in the sense of it being a seperate meaning. If they want to get specific they’re used to saying “son of my uncle”, so that’s what they still do in English even though we have a distinct word for such a relation. To use the word cousin would actually require more mental work for them than sticking with brother.

I can easily see it being the same for folks back in the day, and the fact that the Septuagint uses “brother” and “sister” where what is obviously meant is cousin and nephew/niece indicates that this was the case for Jews speaking Greek.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by **mosher **
Not necessarily written but rather spoken in that language and then written in another such as Greek or Hebrew. And while Koine Greek does have a word for cousin the Greek words used followed the spoken dialect so the word brother was used because spoken brother was used in the conversation.

We don’t know that. That is an assumption.

It is a logical deduction based on scholarly analysis of the text and the languages themselves as they are still used (in the case of Aramaic and Hebrew) and contemporary written texts (in the case of Greek).

Assumptions, on the other hand, are unfounded conclusions not based on any systematic inquiry.

 

[mosher]

Many scholars point to internal evidence in Matthew that the gospel was possibly written originally in Greek. In addition, one of the early Church Fathers testifies that Matthew’s gospel was originally “in the Hebrew language.” Finally, even if it were originally set down in Greek, the original language of those speaking in the gospel was Aramaic, and would have used words available in that language, not Greek. Even though we don’t have the original copies, we do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we have to consider what words were available in that language, and recognize the Greek was a translation from a simpler language to a more complex one.

It was reported a few years back that a complete manuscript of Matthew was found in Hebrew and it is dated as the oldest known. I am sure that the BBC report can still be found online somewhere. I remember this well because it gave us another piece of ammo against my Exegesis Professor who knelt at the altar of Q theory

 

[Axion]

It is obvious that Jesus preached and spoke to the Galileans in Aramaic. That was the language of the area. he spoke to common people, not a greek-speaking elite.

In fact textual analysis of the gospel textx has shown that when translated back from greek to Aramaic, Jesus’ words form a poetic structure, as used by Aramaic speakerss.

 

[Fidelis]

Many scholars point to internal evidence in Matthew that the gospel was possibly written originally in Greek. In addition, one of the early Church Fathers testifies that Matthew’s gospel was originally “in the Hebrew language.” Finally, even if it were originally set down in Greek, the original language of those speaking in the gospel was Aramaic, and would have used words available in that language, not Greek. Even though we don’t have the original copies, we do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we have to consider what words were available in that language, and recognize the Greek was a translation from a simpler language to a more complex one.

Ooops! I meant to say in the bolded section that “many scholars point to internal evidence in Matthew that the gospel was possibly written originally in ARAMAIC.”

Sorry for the clumsiness. :whacky:

 

[mosher]

It is obvious that Jesus preached and spoke to the Galileans in Aramaic. That was the language of the area. he spoke to common people, not a greek-speaking elite.

In fact textual analysis of the gospel textx has shown that when translated back from greek to Aramaic, Jesus’ words form a poetic structure, as used by Aramaic speakerss.

Interesting. I had never heard this. Do you know of a resource that I can look to for further study on this issue. I am an ardent advocate of the traditional structure and authorishop of the Bible in opposition to the modern theories that have been posited in the last hundred years. I would like to see how this relates to the issue itself.

I would note however that there were definitely some places where Greek would have been used by Christ. In particular He quotes from the Septuagint when He quotes the Old Testament. Also, in Palestine at that time Greek was the language of business and also the primary language of many Jews who did not reside in Palestine. As the son of a Carpenter He would have needed at least a basic understanding of Greek and possibly in conversation with the Romans Greek would have been the language of choice as Latin was only used by the Roman commoners in that era.