No Aramaic Word for Cousin

[AdesteFideles]

Moreover even if brother and cousin are from the same Semitic root, this is not equivalent to: “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic,” which is the assertion that I’m trying to test.

This is not the assertion that is usually made, however.

What is said is that there is no direct word for cousin in Aramaic; that is, there is no word whose sole purpose linguistically was to denote the familial relationship which in English we call cousin. This is not the same as saying there is no single word for cousin in Aramaic.

This assertion can, of course, be softened by stating the probability or plausibility of this alleged fact based on the evidence of usage which is extant. We could state that the above is *most likely * to be true, because: (1) our assertion is falsifiable, but yet there is no observation which we can make which would demonstrate it as untrue; and (2) the evidence which exists is best explained and makes the most sense if we assume the assertion as a working hypothesis.

In order to demonstrate the assertion as false, you would have to provide examples of the usage of such a word which the assertion claims does not exist: namely, a single word whose only use was to describe the cousin relationship, and which was used in no other way.

If you believe that this is the case, you would not be arguing in the way you are here; for really, you argue against those who would make this assertion with a degree of certitude you feel is unfair.

I would concur with that view; and I feel that those who are not experts should always make claims in ways which are the most reflective of the degree of evidence which they have for them. However, asserting something a bit stronger than is called for is not particularly a valid item to criticise insofar as the validity of an overall argument is concerned, for it is easy to soften assertions to a greater conformity to fairness.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m no expert on this, but my understanding is that “brother” was used for a broad range of familial relations. Whether this was due to an absence of other terms or not, I can’t say. But I know that Abraham calls Lot his brother in Genesis 13, when Lot is his nephew. Laban does the same to Jacob in Genesis 29:15.

The clearest example is in 1 Chronicles 23:22, in which we hear that Eleazar had only daughters, and that these daughters married their “brothers.” Since Eleazar had only daughters, there’s no way those are actually their brothers.

…that’s why I tend to agree that the term “cousin” may not have been part of the vernacular since tribal relations deal with all members of the tribe not as extended family members (US: cousin, 2nd, 3rd cousin…) but rather as part of the tribe/clan… we can see this with the various interest of the Hebrew clans where they would come to each others aide when one of them would face harrassment/assault from their neighboring Gentile nations/tribes.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

From the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon:

Looking for “cousin” in the CAL database of entries

ʾḥwnh, ʾḥwntʾ n.f. hunt_ : cousin

1 hunt_ : cousin Man.

ʾnpsyws (ˀanepsīāws) n.m. cousin:

1 cousin Syr.

(I’m not sure of the notation, this might be Syriac Aramaic rather than Palestinian)

---

Looking for “brother” in the CAL database of entries

ʾḥ, ʾḥʾ (ˀaḥ, ˀaḥā [pl. ˀaḥḥīn]) n.m. brother

1 brother Com. --(a) pl.: siblings Syr.
2 kinsman OfA, , Qum, Jud. --(a) a royal functionary Palm.
3 one another PTA.

---

ʾḥh vb. to be made a brother

Dt
1 to be made a brother Syr.

---

ʾḥw, ʾḥwtʾ (ˀaḥū, ˀaḥūṯā) n.f. brotherhood

1 brotherhood Syr.
2 brethren Syr, JBA.
3 ܐܲܚܘܼܬܼܵܟ\ : you, my brother (a collegial ecclesiastical term of respect) Syr.

---

ʾḥwn, ʾḥwnʾ (ˀaḥōnā, ˀaḥōnā) n.m. little brother

1 little brother Syr.

---

ʾḥwnwn, ʾḥwnwnʾ (ˀaḥōnōn, ˀaḥōnōnā) n.m. little brother

1 little brother Syr.

---

ʾḥws, ʾḥwsʾ (ˀaḥōs, ˀaḥōsā) n.m. little brother

1 little brother Syr.

---

ʾḥwswn, ʾḥwswnʾ (ˀaḥōsōn, ˀaḥōsōnā) n.m. little brother

1 little brother Syr.

---

tlym, tlymʾ n.m. (twin) brother

1 (twin) brother PTA, Sam, JBAmag.

It’s a dynamic lexicon, but it looks like the same word was commonly used for both “brother” and “cousin” in the on-line lexicon you recommended, jcrichton. There may be an occasional or idiomatic word for cousin, but if the same word or root was used for both “brother” and “cousin” for this source, it would appear to support the Catholic apologists’ case…

Thanks, Mike!

I remember that, as a child, I would greet/visit extended members of the family and they would be introduced as “primo-hermanos” or “hermanos” or “tío/tía” (the equivalente of cousins that grew up in the same household; brethren; uncle/aunt)–curiously enough, most of these relations were not direct blood relations but families that shared the land (my grandfather’s farm) and the labor and spent most of their lives in that extended family relation. The term “cousin” seem to denote a greater geographical distance than was felt among them–their closeness demanded a term closer to home!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[beehumble]

OK–this seems like a different assertion than the one Fr. Serpa made–maybe even the inverse. So, are you saying that you know this to be the case? (That there is no strict equivalent for our idea for brother?) Or simply that this is how the argument works?

I thought there were a few places left where either Aramaic or a close derivative thereof (Chaldeans in Syria or Iraq?) is still spoken? That might be a good source for an answer to your question.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I thought there were a few places left where either Aramaic or a close derivative thereof (Chaldeans in Syria or Iraq?) is still spoken? That might be a good source for an answer to your question.

Don’t the Maronite Catholics conduct the Mass in Aramaic? (Or am I mistaken?) I would imagine their clergy would have some expertise in the language and be able to answer this question with some authority.

 

[InternetWoman]

OK–this seems like a different assertion than the one Fr. Serpa made–maybe even the inverse. So, are you saying that you know this to be the case? (That there is no strict equivalent for our idea for brother?) Or simply that this is how the argument works?

What I know is that this is the standard explanation of the passages in the Gospels that refer to Jesus “brothers” and “sisters”. They say that in 1st Century Aramaic there is no word that specifically limits the relationship to “children of the same parents.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Don’t the Maronite Catholics conduct the Mass in Aramaic? (Or am I mistaken?) I would imagine their clergy would have some expertise in the language and be able to answer this question with some authority.

I expect that the differences between modern liturgical Syriac and 1st century Galilean Aramaic are big enough that knowledge of one wouldn’t make you an expert on the other.

 

[patrick457]

I expect that the differences between modern liturgical Syriac and 1st century Galilean Aramaic are big enough that knowledge of one wouldn’t make you an expert on the other.

Simply put, Syriac belongs to the Eastern Aramaic family widespread in and around Mesopotamia, while the colloquial Aramaic dialects spoken in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus (of which Galilean Aramaic is one) are of the Western Aramaic type.

For the record, most of the Western Aramaic languages have become extinct following the rise of Islam and with it the spread of Arabic: in fact the sole surviving Western Aramaic dialect, Western Neo-Aramaic, is now only spoken in three remote mountain villages in western Syria. All the other Aramaic dialects spoken and used today are actually Eastern Aramaic.

And BTW: we actually don’t know much about Galilean Aramaic save for some clues and a few surviving specimens from contemporary and later sources. The Aramaic used in Mel Gibson’s film is, in fact, just a reconstruction (a conlang or ‘constructed language’) by Fr. William Fulco based mainly from Hebrew, Syriac, and the Aramaic of the book of Daniel.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks, Mike!

I remember that, as a child, I would greet/visit extended members of the family and they would be introduced as “primo-hermanos” or “hermanos” or “t口o/t口a” (the equivalente of cousins that grew up in the same household; brethren; uncle/aunt)–curiously enough, most of these relations were not direct blood relations but families that shared the land (my grandfather’s farm) and the labor and spent most of their lives in that extended family relation. The term “cousin” seem to denote a greater geographical distance than was felt among them–their closeness demanded a term closer to home!

Maran atha!

Angel

Hey, we Filipinos are quite the same, applying titles like lolo (grandpa), lola (grandma), tito/tiyo/tiyuhin (uncle) and tita/tiya/tiyahin (aunt) not just to blood relatives, but also to those not related by blood. An older man or woman might be addressed as kuya (‘big brother’) or ate (‘big sister’) even if he or she was not your sibling, or even a total stranger!

 

[patrick457]

The Council of Jamnia wasn’t so much a “council” in the Christian sense as a center of Judaism in Jamnia for a while. It’s certainly a misleading term in modern English and has resulted in some inaccurate statements about a supposed synod of rabbis that met and decided to take some books out of the Bible or something like that.

Indeed. In fact the Mishnah only records that the status of just two books (Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes) were questioned when Eleazar ben-Azariah became the head of the Yavneh academy in the late 1st-early 2nd century. Despite the decision which the academy supposedly have reached (that these two books were holy), Rabbi Meir later in the same century still disputed the status of Ecclesiastes!

 

[Ignatius]

This is not the assertion that is usually made, however.

What is said is that there is no direct word for cousin in Aramaic; that is, there is no word whose sole purpose linguistically was to denote the familial relationship which in English we call cousin. This is not the same as saying there is no single word for cousin in Aramaic.

This assertion can, of course, be softened by stating the probability or plausibility of this alleged fact based on the evidence of usage which is extant. We could state that the above is *most likely *to be true, because: (1) our assertion is falsifiable, but yet there is no observation which we can make which would demonstrate it as untrue; and (2) the evidence which exists is best explained and makes the most sense if we assume the assertion as a working hypothesis.

In order to demonstrate the assertion as false, you would have to provide examples of the usage of such a word which the assertion claims does not exist: namely, a single word whose only use was to describe the cousin relationship, and which was used in no other way.

If you believe that this is the case, you would not be arguing in the way you are here; for really, you argue against those who would make this assertion with a degree of certitude you feel is unfair.

I would concur with that view; and I feel that those who are not experts should always make claims in ways which are the most reflective of the degree of evidence which they have for them. However, asserting something a bit stronger than is called for is not particularly a valid item to criticise insofar as the validity of an overall argument is concerned, for it is easy to soften assertions to a greater conformity to fairness.

Thank you. Yes, I would like to OP to present evidence of the use of such a word in 1st century Judea.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Gen 14:12 KJV): “And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.”

Gen 14:14 (KJV) : "And when Abram heard that his BROTHER was taken captive, he armed his trained [servants], born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued [them] unto Dan. "

Lot is called Abraham’s brother even though he is his nephew because the Hebrew word is the same word used for cousin, relative, brother.

Neither Hebrew or Aramaic had a special word for cousin.

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H251&t=KJV
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is not the assertion that is usually made, however.

I really haven’t surveyed the statistical frequency of the claims–I was mainly wanting to address the statement made on the radio. (See OP.) But if you do a thread search of “Aramaic” and “cousin” you’ll see that the claim is at least made frequently. You can also see the quotes from various CA material above which makes similar claims.

What is said is that there is no direct word for cousin in Aramaic; that is, there is no word whose sole purpose linguistically was to denote the familial relationship which in English we call cousin. This is not the same as saying there is no single word for cousin in Aramaic.

So, my questions are still a) How would anyone ever know that? and b) What are Catholic apologists doing with sources such as Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic which show entries for “cousin” where there is no apparent other meaning for the word? (These would be readily available in sources like Google Books, so it’s not like they can’t be looked up.) So rather than refute Sokoloff or at least explain their rationale, it’s simply not discussed.

This assertion can, of course, be softened by stating the probability or plausibility of this alleged fact based on the evidence of usage which is extant. We could state that the above is *most likely * to be true, because: (1) our assertion is falsifiable, but yet there is no observation which we can make which would demonstrate it as untrue; and (2) the evidence which exists is best explained and makes the most sense if we assume the assertion as a working hypothesis.

In order to demonstrate the assertion as false, you would have to provide examples of the usage of such a word which the assertion claims does not exist: namely, a single word whose only use was to describe the cousin relationship, and which was used in no other way.

Again, see dictionary, which at least opens the strong possibility, and to my mind makes the negative assertion leaning toward the outrageous.

If you believe that this is the case, you would not be arguing in the way you are here; for really, you argue against those who would make this assertion with a degree of certitude you feel is unfair.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

I would concur with that view; and I feel that those who are not experts should always make claims in ways which are the most reflective of the degree of evidence which they have for them. However, asserting something a bit stronger than is called for is not particularly a valid item to criticise insofar as the validity of an overall argument is concerned, for it is easy to soften assertions to a greater conformity to fairness.

I think in cases where people may be easily mislead as to evidence that does or does not exist, and the strength of that evidence, it’s important to be as truthful as possible with what is known and what is not known and what probably can’t be known.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thank you. Yes, I would like to OP to present evidence of the use of such a word in 1st century Judea.

See dictionary.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Neither Hebrew or Aramaic had a special word for cousin.

What’s your evidence regarding Aramaic?

 

[fisherman_carl]

What’s your evidence regarding Aramaic?

The bible. I don’t think you are going to find much more evidence other than that. The fact that the bible uses the same word to describe a nephew as ‘brother’ shows there was no other word to describe it. Otherwise they would have used it. The bible is really the most important source of info we have from that age. We don’t have much else from back then. So what other evidence would you be looking for? You could try reading some of the early Church Father’s writings on this issue, like St. Augustine.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The bible. I don’t think you are going to find much more evidence other than that. The fact that the bible uses the same word to describe a nephew as ‘brother’ shows there was no other word to describe it. Otherwise they would have used it. The bible is really the most important source of info we have from that age. We don’t have much else from back then. So what other evidence would you be looking for? You could try reading some of the early Church Father’s writings on this issue, like St. Augustine.

Although Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages (both are Semitic), they are not the same. I disagree with your conclusion that we can necessarily extrapolate a negative conclusion about Aramaic simply from the semantic range of “brother” Hebrew Bible (incidentally, written much earlier) especially when we have attestations of “cousin” in Palestinian Aramaic.

St. Augustine had enough trouble with Greek

 

[patrick457]

Although Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages (both are Semitic), they are not the same. I disagree with your conclusion that we can necessarily extrapolate a negative conclusion about Aramaic simply from the semantic range of “brother” Hebrew Bible (incidentally, written much earlier) especially when we have attestations of “cousin” in Palestinian Aramaic.

Question: by ‘Palestinian Aramaic’ what do you mean?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Question: by ‘Palestinian Aramaic’ what do you mean?

Basically, the sources that Michael Sokoloff uses for his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which as I recall are primarily from Targumim and the Palestinian Talmud. We don’t have much else to go on.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Although Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages (both are Semitic), they are not the same. I disagree with your conclusion that we can necessarily extrapolate a negative conclusion about Aramaic simply from the semantic range of “brother” Hebrew Bible (incidentally, written much earlier) especially when we have attestations of “cousin” in Palestinian Aramaic.

St. Augustine had enough trouble with Greek

More scriptural evidence? If you look in the book of Matthew the word for brother is also used for cousin. James and Joses, sons of Zebedee were called brothers of Jesus (Mt 13:55). Yet these were sons of a different Mary (Mt 27:55).

The widespread tradition is that Matthew was written in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Here is an interesting read from the Coptic Church about this.
stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/articles/basics/jesus_brothers.pdf