Luke 1:36

[ND88]

Along the lines of the thread below, I have read thr tracts on the “brothers” of Jesus and understand. But if there was no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for “cousin,” how did Elizabeth get translated as the “kinswoman” of Mary instead of Mary’s sister?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Probably because she was a kinswoman. . .in other words, that Elizabeth was a more distant relation that a full cousin, (a full cousin that would entail Mary’s and Elizabeth’s mothers, or fathers, or one of eac, being siblings). IOW, a brother or sister would be a 1st cousin, possibly a second cousin if the ages were similar–but a third cousin once removed etc. would be a ‘kinsman’ or ‘kinswoman’–the relationship could be traced but was ‘farther off’. Consider that Elizabeth was ‘advanced in age’ and Mary a ‘young girl’–and this makes a great deal of sense.

 

[papaspicy]

I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic, but I once had it explained to me like this. The vocabulary used to describe the “brothers” of the Lord when translated to encapsulate fully its meaning would be, “masculine family relation of the same generation.” Likewise, Elizabeth should be understood as a “feminine family relation of Mary’s parents’ generation.” This helped me understand the language situation, but I don’t know if it is actually correct.

 

[RyanL]

Along the lines of the thread below, I have read thr tracts on the “brothers” of Jesus and understand. But if there was no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for “cousin,” how did Elizabeth get translated as the “kinswoman” of Mary instead of Mary’s sister?

Because the NT was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

In Greek, the word for cousin/kinsman is suggenes or suggeneia.

The word for brother(s) is adelphos.

Elizabeth is called Mary’s suggenes. The “brothers” of Jesus are called “adelphoi”. The translations are correct.

HOWEVER…it is also correct to say that the ancient Semitic languages didn’t have a word for ‘cousin’. The closest you could get would be a cumbersome circumlocution “my mother’s brother’s son”. Rather than this, they customarily relied on “brother”.

The OT, written in an ancient Semitic language bears this out by referencing a number of people as ‘brothers’ who clearly are not: Gen 11:26-27, 14:14, 29:10, 29:15; Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.

Further, you can see the NT use of adelphos varies, partly due to a direct translation from the Aramaic and partly due to the nature of the relationship described:

From An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Adelphos (the Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:

1. 
   *]male children of the same parents
   *]male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
   *]people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
   *]any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
   *]persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
   *]persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
   *]mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
   *]the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
   *]believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)

1. 
   So the Greek word for ‘cousin’ is fairly concrete, while the Greek word for ‘brother’ is somewhat amorphous. All of this (not surprisingly) supports the Catholic claims.
   
   Also, there’s good Biblical reason to believe that the NT teaches that Jesus did not have uterine siblings. I just wrote about it here.
   
   Does that help?
   
   God Bless,
   RyanL

 

[ND88]

Yes , thank you very much.