Jesus" siblings

[dsully]

The last time Joseph is mentioned in Scripture is in the account of finding Jesus at the Temple. Joseph had died by the time of the Crucifixion, which is why the whole “Behold, your mother. Behold, your son” dialog took place at all (i.e. Joseph was no longer around to care for Mary after Jesus’ death).

Doesn’t the O.T. Law say that a widow should marry the brother of her deceased husband? If Joseph died while Mary was still young and if Mary hadn’t made a vow of perpetual virginity, wouldn’t she have married one of Joseph’s brothers?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Huh?
Ouch, your bold is hurting my eyes!

I’m not saying I think for sure that people assumed at the time that Mary would have had other children.
I’m saying that if they didn’t know about the whole angel-visit-son-of-God-child thing, there’d be no reason for people she met to automatically think otherwise…or if they did know she only had one child, they might just think she wasn’t very fertile and couldn’t get pregnant again.

I assume Mary and Joseph didn’t go around telling their neighbors that their baby was the son of God and that they didn’t have sex and that she intended to remain a virgin for the rest of her life? Seems way to personal.

You point out the key words “you think”…but they do apply to you, too. You are thinking how you think, too.

As for the other part of your post…I think I need a good night’s sleep before untangling it and explaining.
I’ll try to write down info for you tomorrow!

Sorry if the bold was too bold. . .

But honestly, you’re getting more and more tangled in speculation and assumption. . .while at the same time you’re ignoring facts.

Now it seems that instead of speaking about early Christians, you are talking about friends and neighbors of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And what they may have discussed --or not–during the lifetime of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph has no real bearing on the truth of the gospel, does it?

We are not talking about whether Baruch the next door neighbor knew about the ‘son of God’ Jesus when Jesus was a teenager, or how much Mary and Joseph ‘shared’ about the state of their marriage – that has nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity.

We are talking about the FOLLOWERS of Jesus. . .what they believed.

And while we don’t have the Bible canon, we do have the disciples teaching. . .orally. . the gospels. Those gospels were written only after they had been spread orally, and they were written before the last apostle died. . .so there were bound to be people living who KNEW Mary, Jesus, and Joseph.

These people would have KNOWN if there were more children of Mary and Joseph. And they would have passed that knowledge down. But. . .they didn’t. . .because you can’t prove a negative, and the fact is, there ARE no ‘children of Mary and Joseph’ other than Jesus. If there had been, the fact would have been known. There is simply no way that an entire body of teaching could have grown up with Jesus being portrayed as being born of a Virgin who remained a virgin IF she had been known by hundreds and even thousands of people to have gone on to have other children, who , those brothers and sisters being ALIVE and presumably involved either in carrying on their brother’s ministry or in opposing it.

And yet although the gospels were amassed over a period of probably 50-60 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, there was NO MENTION of those brothers and sisters? You’ll say that Mary wasn’t mentioned either (though one could make a case that St John refers to her in Revelation) but if Mary was the ONLY KIN of Jesus, then not mentioning her would be a way to ensure her SAFETY, because certainly the Jews and Romans would have loved to have her to torture and try to make her ‘recant’.

But if there were PLENTY of “Jesus’ kin”, then the sudden failure to mention ANY of them is puzzling. If they were all ‘against Jesus’, that would be a reason not to mention Mary (who was ‘for’ Jesus), as they would probably hand her over. . .but if they were all against Jesus, there are plenty of Biblical verses from the OT that could have been shown to be a ‘fulfilled prophecy’.

If they were all ‘for’ Jesus, then they should indeed have been mentioned as they would have been ‘jewels in the crown’ --not just among the first early Christians, but ‘blood relations’ to the Lord. Even if they were being ‘protected’, the stories should have come down (as the stories about Mary came down in Sacred Tradition).

But they didn’t. Because there were no stories. There were no other children. The Christian teachings from the get go (remember, things were written down after they had already been taught ‘by mouth’, often for decades or even centuries) spoke of the perpetual Virginity.

Even the EARLIEST PROTESTANTS, reading the whole, “brothers and sisters” and ‘knew her not until’, believed in her perpetual virginity.

So what proof can you offer when all Christendom heard and taught this teaching about Mary? Assumptions? Speculation? It just doesn’t add up.

I just can’t understand how any Christian could try to interpret the words of the Bible outside of the Holy Spirit. . . and that is exactly what this ‘teaching of men’ is doing.

It’s all about ‘Mary and Joseph HAVE to be ‘normal’ and any other interpretation is just STUPID’. . .

and NOTHING about the words of the Angel, or God’s role, or what the whole idea of “God made man” entailed in the context of God’s revealed truth to men.

That’s how we know it is a ‘different’ gospel’. It’s a gospel made in the image of ‘man’, meant to glorify man and put God in his proper ‘place’.

As for the whole ‘you think too’. . .sure I think. . .but I reason as well.

If you and I are debating about the law of gravity, and YOU think it doesn’t apply, and I DO think so, you might taunt me as you walk off the side of the Grand Canyon with “And what you say is ONLY WHAT YOU THINK, SAME AS ME”. . .but you would be the one falling down several thousand feet, while I remained safe above.

If something is true, it’s true.

Either it is true that Mary had other children, or it is true that she had NO other children.

ONE of those is true, the other false.

So what I SAY (not just think) is much more than just one of many ‘relative’ thoughts.

You must think your concept is true or you wouldn’t try so hard to defend it, but where are your proofs? I can bring in the whole Catholic Church (and you know what Scripture says about the idea of witnesses). Where is the consistent teaching from the earliest time that backs you up? You don’t have it. I do.

 

[adrift]

Oh, did Joseph die within those three years spanning the gospels?
Where is that? Verse, chapter…do you know?

What three years? Erich said that last mention of Joseph being present was when Jesus was 12. The crowd says that Jesus was the son of Joseph but nowhere does it say that he was still alive. It is assumed that he had died before Jesus started is public ministry. I have never heard anyone say otherwise. The Bible is silent but if he were still alive where was he. He is not mentioned at all. Strange if he were still alive. Of course, if you say he was still alive where is the verse, chapter?

 

[adrift]

I guess we just read those quotes differently, is all.
When I read the part with Mary chatting with the angel about being pregnant, they don’t seem to refer to being virgin for the rest of her life in any way at all…but relate to her surprise at being pregnant at that moment without ever having sex.

I would hardly say that Mary was surprised. It wasn’t that one day she woke up pregnant. She was asked to be Jesus’ mother. She said yes to the angel. So when she became pregnant how could she be surprised? So the question is unanswered why did she ask the angel “how can this be?” She was not yet pregnant so your answer doesn’t wash.

I only asked if you thought Mary told everyone because you had said "If the people would have assumed anything, it would have been that she did not have other children because she made a vow to God to remain a virgin"…but I can’t see why they would assume that unless she, or someone, told everyone around her she had made a vow to God to remain a virgin.
I don’t mean just the few close around her and her son and husband, Jesus group of followers…I mean, like, the townsfolk where she lived her whole life or the people she came into contact with in her travels for the rest of their life.

I don’t see a quote by her or anyone else doing this (but if there is, please to point it out to me–thanks.)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. This was your statement.

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl
I think to most people, when they read those words, it doesn’t translate to them at all that she stayed a virgin. I imagine most of those people in the early years just assume she had other children.

You were answering Tantum ergo who said

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo
Yes.

They would have been questioning the Scripture WAY BACK THEN (the way that all the other heretics did on other points) if they thought there was Scripture to ‘back them up.’

But NOBODY even THOUGHT to bring up the Scripture and argue that surely Mary MUST have had other children. Not for 1600 years. Not even by the first reformers.

I will ask again, WHY NOT?

If the words are so self-evident, why were they not brought up and questioned from the start???

The most people that you are referring to must be those that Tantum ergo refers to. These would be those who were Christians after the resurrection of Jesus. My answer to you is that those early Christian would have assumed she had no other children because by then it was known about her vow and about her being ever virgin.

There is no reading the quotes differently. Either they say that she was ever virgin or they don’t. Let’s see

Origen
might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her.

Lactantius
the ever-virgin Mary

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Tractate 8 (John 2:1-4)
“**Heretics **called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Augustine says that to deny Mary as being ever virgin is a heresy. How can you read this as being about Mary being a virgin when Jesus was born when it specifically states that he is referring to after Christ was born?

Leo the Great, Pope [395-461 AD] Sermon 22
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

 

[adrift]

Sure. I was referring to that conversation while looking at the quote Tantum had posted…I couldn’t remember if she was already pregnant or imminently pregnant. She seemed “surprised” in the quote but I guess it could also be described as more…confused…it was definitely “questioning” anyway-- since she asked, “How can I be (or get) pregnant if I’ve never been with a man?” etc. She didn’t understand how it could be and was asking how it could.

This is a circular answer. Do you really think Mary didn’t know how babies are made. That is what makes it a strange question. But if you accept that she made a vow of virginity than the question makes sense. Remember that she was a married woman asking how she could be pregnant.

don’t understand all that you are writing, above…but I’ll try to repeat what I was thinking a little clearer:
Not everyone around Mary became Christian after Jesus died, so for those who did not–and there were many–they probably would not have known of Mary’s vow of virginity for the rest of her life (how or why would they?). So for those people who weren’t in the Christian group and did not know about Mary’s personal life…they most likely assumed, when they saw her, that she was like every other wife they knew–that she was having marital relations with her husband, as expected, and that she had other kids, or if they saw she had only one, thought she couldn’t have other kids.

Non-Christians were not what was being discussed. Christians were.

Moving onward the next few hundred of years, the Christian history books I have studied say that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was not well-established in the catholic church until the 3rd or 4th century. So again, it is reasonable to think that there’d be many Christians, too, during those first several centuries who were not following the belief of perpetual virginity.
As you have it below, Augustine wrote about perpetual virginity in the 4-5th Century, after the doctrine had become established. But until it was actually doctrine, it would not have been considered “heresy” (a belief at variance to an established belief) to think that Mary didn’t remain a virgin.

Origen [185-254 AD] Wrote before Augustine. What you don’t find is an objection to his writings as being a new thought. Well-established means what? That it wasn’t believed before that? It was believed from the beginning unless you have documentation that it wasn’t. Of course it would always have been a heresy. Heresy doesn’t depend on an official declaration of doctrine truth is truth not matter when.

In my other post, I was commenting on the talk between Mary and the angel that happened during the time of her getting pregnant in the year 3-ish…not on these quotes you write, above, that were written three to four hundred years later. These two men, above, were mentioning perpetual virginity soon after it had been officially established as a doctrine, 3-4 hundred years after Jeshua died.

Most Historians put the birth of Jesus between 5-7 BC. Officially established would have to mean that it was taught by the Apostles. It didn’t mean that they woke up one day and said let’s make a new doctrine.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes it is an accurate translation. But the point was that the language they translated from had no word for cousin. They translated it as cousin because we do have a word for the relationship. I would be interested in you providing an Aramaic word for cousin from the first century not English, Hebrew, or Arabic but Aramaic

Go back and look at the original assertion (Post #7). The argument is that Hebrew and Aramaic speakers of the first century had no way of expressing the relationship that we describe in English as “cousin” and thus were forced to use the word “brother” instead. That idea is false. Semitic speakers can and did describe this relationship, only in Semitic languages a more exacting compound term is used. For examples in Aramaic where the writers refer to the the relationship that we call “cousin” but do not use the term “brother”, you can refer the ones I posted previously or look at some examples here:

books.google.com/books?id=rlYSW4-a7JoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=cousin&f=false

 

[ConstantineTG]

The brothers and sisters of our Lord are either cousins or step-siblings through Joseph’s previous marriage.

The problem is most people interpret it with what we know today, that Joseph isn’t Jesus’ real father and therefore he cannot have siblings by Joseph. But according to Jewish Law, Mary is bethrothed to Joseph and Jesus is the son of Joseph the carpenter. So Joseph’s children are brothers and sisters of Jesus as seen by the people of that time.

 

[brumano]

You said it is well known…but I can’t find it written anywhere officially about the cousins, since he uses the word “brother” when he is quoted and because someone here is saying there was no word for “cousins” in Aramaic 2000 years ago.

St .John The Baptist to name one, and of course Kinsmen would have to include a number of cousins. Have a nice day>

 

[adrift]

Um…I’m not sure why it’s a circular answer when I’m agreeing with you on Mary’s reaction.
But also…I think you better check your facts. Mary wasn’t already married to Joseph when she got pregnant, they were only engaged. About twenty different translations of the gospels describe it as such.

It is because you are using the term betrothed to mean what it means today which is not the case. Betrothal was the first part of the marriage, constituting a man and woman as husband and wife. Subsequent infidelity was considered adultery. The betrothal was followed some months later by the husband’s taking his wife into his home, at which time normal married life began. Remember Joseph sought to divorce her and the angel said for Joseph to take Mary, his wife into his home. The woman would stay about a year with her family preparing to be a wife. The second part of the marriage was accomplished when the groom came for the wife to live in his home. This is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the bridesmaids waiting for the groom.

 

[adrift]

Go back and look at the original assertion (Post #7). The argument is that Hebrew and Aramaic speakers of the first century had no way of expressing the relationship that we describe in English as “cousin” and thus were forced to use the word “brother” instead. That idea is false. Semitic speakers can and did describe this relationship, only in Semitic languages a more exacting compound term is used. For examples in Aramaic where the writers refer to the the relationship that we call “cousin” but do not use the term “brother”, you can refer the ones I posted previously or look at some examples here:

books.google.com/books?id=rlYSW4-a7JoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=cousin&f=false

. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

What I have seen from your references this is the case. Please just give the word that was cousin. Or provide evidence that what you quote is not using the terms from what I quoted above.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So then…it makes perfect sense that Mary would have been a virgin, because she had not gone to live or be with Joseph yet (as one of the gospels confirms).
All wives or wives-to-be at this point in the betrothal would be expected to be virgins, right? It’s not as though she was living with Joseph as husband and wife already and refusing to have marital relations with him…correct?

But again, if Mary was expecting to have intercourse with Joseph, and if (as was the case) her BETROTHAL already ‘permitted’ her to have intercourse with Joseph (although she would have been ‘looked down on’ by not waiting for the FULL marriage ceremony, but she would NOT have been considered guilty of adultery or fornication, because by the legal standards this would have been lawful marital relations). . .

Then WHY did she ask HOW CAN THIS BE?

Mary knew how babies were conceived.

Mary knew (according to you) that she was going to marry Joseph and have sex.

The Angel said to her “You WILL (future tense) conceive and bear a son”.

Be honest here. If the angel had been talking to you, and you were engaged to be married, would you NOT think, “Cool! Me and the fiance are going to have a SON!!”

Surely, if Mary had been planning to have sex with Joseph, that statement would not have been met with “HOW can I be pregnant” --remember, the angel did NOT say that Mary would be pregnant THAT MINUTE!!!

It would have been met with, “Then Joseph and I are going to have a SON?” That in itself would be a surprise since nobody in 1st century Judea, unlike today, knew the sex of the child in utero!

It would NOT have been met with a ‘how can this happen’ but a “WHEN will this happen?” Will it be right away? Should Joseph and I move up our marriage date?

But Mary’s response indicates she never INTENDED to have sexual relations. Notice how she doesn’t even say “Joseph” or ‘my betrothed’ (and the angel KNOWS that she is betrothed, being an angel!). . .she says, “I DO NOT KNOW MAN”. Not "I’m not fully married yet’ or “I haven’t been with Joseph yet”. . . But I do not --I will not–I never PLANNED to- have relations with ANY man.

Thing is, the reasoning of the above (the consistent Christian teaching of the Catholics AND the Orthodox Church–everybody forgets that THEY were there in the beginning as well) – has been around for centuries.

WE are the ones who have the ORIGINAL teaching and the evidence through Scripture and Sacred Tradition to back it up.

YOU are the ‘Johnny come latelys’ but you are trying to present YOUR argument as being the ‘original’ and US as the ones who ‘changed it’ at some later date.

That’s really why people are being a little more, um, FORCEFUL and PERSISTENT in addressing you (not just you personally). . . We are trying to make it clear to LURKERS that your position is NOT the original, it’s a definite ‘modern’ invention. We would be poor Christians indeed if we allowed your statements to pass unchallenged.

Which is yet ANOTHER case for our current Catholic teaching being correct. Look at how people are giving you chapter and verse, all kinds of contextual information and proofs dating back to the apostles. .

Do you really think that Publius J NewChristian living in AD60 wouldn’t be just as aware of the correct teaching as most of us who are responding to you are, and wouldn’t have responded to Brutus Q GnosticChristian, attempting to claim a ‘teaching’ as Christian which was not??

If people had been going around saying that Mary was the Mother of Many (not simply Jesus), the apostles, their successors, and the Catholic Church as a whole would have been correcting their wrong assumptions just as they did for any other heresy.

But they weren’t, because people were NOT claiming this. Nobody was going around preaching or teaching that Mary was the mother of anybody but Jesus.

Not until around AD1600 or so when somebody made the whole claim up.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

What I have seen from your references this is the case. Please just give the word that was cousin. Or provide evidence that what you quote is not using the terms from what I quoted above.

First of all, the expression is not a circumlocution at all; people have been using such Semitic forms for familial relationships for millenia, and continue to do so today. And besides that, none of the examples that I provided use the “d-” relative which you refer to (which wouldn’t likely be used for familial expressions anyway).

Also please explain why you think such expressions would be “too much trouble”? Why would it be so much easier for an Aramaic speaker to say “ahyana” (three syllables) than “bar dod” (two) when referring to a cousin?

Finally, I’d be curious for to see any source of anyone using a construction like “brona d-`ammeh” to refer to a cousin. I think it’s unlikely to the extreme but I’m open to being proven wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think Mary went around telling everyone in Nazareth or elsewhere that she vowed to be a virgin for the rest of her life and haven’t seen any reports on that

As you probably know, there are over 400 ancient Christian texts. Of those, only 23 have been discerned to have been theopneustos, or inspired.

So for you to say you “haven’t seen any reports” on Mary vowing to be a virgin would mean, if you’re intellectually astute, that you would have had to read all of those 400 texts.

I don’t think that you’re going to say that you’ve done that.

No disrespect meant, DG. I’m just saying that just because you “haven’t seen any reports” on that, as someone who hasn’t read all of the texts, isn’t very convincing.

And just to be clear, there are indeed ancient texts that do claim that Mary consecrated herself to virginity.

 

[po18guy]

If Jesus had siblings, why did John have to take care of Mary. Wasn’t it Jewish law that one of the children was supposed to take care of his or her mother.

If they followed the Mosaic law, yes. And John’s own mother was there at the crucifixion. Talk about a demotion! Although, I doubt this was payback for her asking our Lord if John and James could sit at Jesus’ right and left in heaven…

 

[po18guy]

This “brothers and sisters” argument demonstrates only ignorance of scripture, ignorance of language, and ignorance of culture. But, if it is anti-Catholic, it flies!

i.e. Abram and Lot (using a protestant bible).

Genesis 11:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
27 Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot.

OK, so Abram and Haran are brothers, while Lot is Haran’s son - Abram’s nephew.

Genesis 11:31
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31 Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan; and they went as far as Haran, and settled there.

Even more clear: Terah’s grandson by Haran, and Abram’s nephew.

Genesis 13:8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.

Biblical “proof” that the bible cannot be trusted, right?

 

[adrift]

First of all, the expression is not a circumlocution at all; people have been using such Semitic forms for familial relationships for millenia, and continue to do so today. And besides that, none of the examples that I provided use the “d-” relative which you refer to (which wouldn’t likely be used for familial expressions anyway).

Also please explain why you think such expressions would be “too much trouble”? Why would it be so much easier for an Aramaic speaker to say “ahyana” (three syllables) than “bar dod” (two) when referring to a cousin?

Finally, I’d be curious for to see any source of anyone using a construction like “brona d-`ammeh” to refer to a cousin. I think it’s unlikely to the extreme but I’m open to being proven wrong.

You might be right but you till haven’t provided a word for cousin. You do realize that I was quoting from an article that was linked?

po18guy has more on this.

 

[adrift]

So then…it makes perfect sense that Mary would have been a virgin, because she had not gone to live or be with Joseph yet (as one of the gospels confirms).
All wives or wives-to-be at this point in the betrothal would be expected to be virgins, right? It’s not as though she was living with Joseph as husband and wife already and refusing to have marital relations with him…correct?

I can’t improve on Tantum ergo’s answer.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You might be right but you till haven’t provided a word for cousin. You do realize that I was quoting from an article that was linked?

po18guy has more on this.

So why do you not think the several examples I already provided from the dictionary don’t qualify as words for “cousin”? I’m honestly try to understand your argument.

Yes, I realized you were quoting from the article, but unfortunately the article has some erroneous and questionable assertions, particularly in that:1) Jimmy Akin doesn’t have a good grasp on what a circumlocution is, or the place and function of Semitic bound forms in the language 2) the “too much trouble” argument is just flat-out wrong since several of the examples I provided from the dictionary are actually shorter than Jimmy Akin’s and 3) the idea that someone would “have” to use (or would ever use) a d- construction in Aramaic to refer to a cousin is, as near as I can tell, completely unfounded.

But again, I’m open to seeing examples or references if you can provide them.

 

[adrift]

So why do you not think the several examples I already provided from the dictionary don’t qualify as words for “cousin”? I’m honestly try to understand your argument.

Yes, I realized you were quoting from the article, but unfortunately the article has some erroneous and questionable assertions, particularly in that:1) Jimmy Akin doesn’t have a good grasp on what a circumlocution is, or the place and function of Semitic bound forms in the language 2) the “too much trouble” argument is just flat-out wrong since several of the examples I provided from the dictionary are actually shorter than Jimmy Akin’s and 3) the idea that someone would “have” to use (or would ever use) a d- construction in Aramaic to refer to a cousin is, as near as I can tell, completely unfounded.

But again, I’m open to seeing examples or references if you can provide them.

I don’t speak the language. You quoted from a dictionary that I am unable to read and verify that the person isn’t just translating. It is written in a script I cannot read. That is why I asked you to provide the word. Why don’t you provide the word? I have the hunch that the dictionary is using one of the words already mentioned.

In looking, it seems that he is not using the same words for cousin. He references Lev 25:49 which is

49 Either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

So I think that I am right that he is translating it to be cousin.

1. Jimmy Akin doesn’t have a good grasp on what a circumlocution is, or the place and function of Semitic bound forms in the language 2) the “too much trouble” argument is just flat-out wrong since several of the examples I provided from the dictionary are actually shorter than Jimmy Akin’s and 3) the idea that someone would “have” to use (or would ever use) a d- construction in Aramaic to refer to a cousin is, as near as I can tell, completely unfounded.

Circumlocution is using many words to describe something simple. Like saying uncles son instead of nephew. Yes he used the word correctly. You have proved nothing. I disagree with you.

Also please explain why you think such expressions would be “too much trouble”? Why would it be so much easier for an Aramaic speaker to say “ahyana” (three syllables) than “bar dod” (two) when referring to a cousin?

The problem was you changed it from brona d-`ammeh to bar dod to prove your point and make it seem shorter.

Until you provide the word cousin, your assertions are unfounded.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I don’t speak the language. You quoted from a dictionary that I am unable to read and verify that the person isn’t just translating. It is written in a script I cannot read. That is why I asked you to provide the word. Why don’t you provide the word? I have the hunch that the dictionary is using one of the words already mentioned.

See my post #71; bar dod is one example. The Hebrew equivalent (ben dod or bat dod) is the word used to refer to cousins even today. This isn’t one of the examples mentioned by Jimmy Akin.

I’m not sure what you mean by “isn’t just translating”.