No Aramaic Word for Cousin

[jcrichton]

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!..you understand my point! …so it is not surprising, at least to me, that people from the same lineage or even those within neighboring households would be called “brothers” or “sisters,” while the term “cousin” not be used since it was not necessary and would suggest a relation not as close as lolo or kuya!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

I think that the OP is seeking a non-Catholic source; is there such a study that would help put an end to this issue?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

If, as you say, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, this could just as easily be a limitation in Koine Greek, which as far as I know has no attested word for cousin. Also, I’m not sure there is anything in the tradition about the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic–Hebrew, yes. And there are many “Hebraizing” features of the Gospel that either match or mimic Classical Biblical Hebrew: parataxis followed by verbs in the perfect (basically, verses that begin with “and”), commands in the future tense (imperfect in Biblical Hebrew), etc.–so I can see why someone might come to the conclusion that the Gospel was written in Hebrew. But I don’t see any features of the text that seem like Aramaic to me.

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

Again (see OP), I’m trying to focus on the CA assertion: “There is no word in Aramaic for cousin” rather than on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

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.

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

I’m not sure what you mean here.

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.

I may be way slow but my Google search does not support your argument:

James, along with the others named “brethren” of Jesus, could also have been Jesus’ cousins. This claim is justified by the fact that cousins were also called “brothers” and “sisters” in Jesus’ postulated native language, Aramaic; it and Hebrew do not contain a word for “cousin”. Furthermore, the Greek words adelphos and adelphe were not restricted to their literal meaning of a full brother or sister in the Bible; nor were their plurals.[31][32] This use is still common in Greece and other Balkan cultures. This assumes, naturally that the Middle Eastern authors’ usage of Greek reflects their way of speaking. The tradition of considering cousins as brothers or sisters is still evident in most Eastern cultures; in some languages the term “cousin” does not even exist.

Here’s the link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just#Cousin

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…you understand my point! …so it is not surprising, at least to me, that people from the same lineage or even those within neighboring households would be called “brothers” or “sisters,” while the term “cousin” not be used since it was not necessary and would suggest a relation not as close as lolo or kuya!

Maran atha!

Angel

These are interesting analogies and certainly we can readily imagine the possibility of a language not having a word for cousin, that part’s not the problem–the problem is that the analogies don’t really tell us anything about Aramaic per se. Some languages have a special word for cousin, some don’t–that’s fine. What I’m trying to get at is what is the evidence or support that Aramaic doesn’t have a special word for cousin? Shouldn’t CA be able to support their assertion with some evidence?

Conversely, one can readily argue that late Biblical Hebrew does have special terms for male and female cousins: e.g., see Jer 32:8, 9 and 12; Esther 2:7. So why couldn’t/shouldn’t Aramaic have a special word for cousin? Also, (again) see the entries in Sokoloff’s dictionary–which (again) one can easily access via Google books.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I may be way slow but my Google search does not support your argument:

James, along with the others named “brethren” of Jesus, could also have been Jesus’ cousins. This claim is justified by the fact that cousins were also called “brothers” and “sisters” in Jesus’ postulated native language, Aramaic; it and Hebrew do not contain a word for “cousin”. Furthermore, the Greek words adelphos and adelphe were not restricted to their literal meaning of a full brother or sister in the Bible; nor were their plurals.[31][32] This use is still common in Greece and other Balkan cultures. This assumes, naturally that the Middle Eastern authors’ usage of Greek reflects their way of speaking. The tradition of considering cousins as brothers or sisters is still evident in most Eastern cultures; in some languages the term “cousin” does not even exist.

Here’s the link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just#Cousin

Maran atha!

Angel

Again, the claim of "…Aramaic; it and Hebrew do not contain a word for “cousin” is: a) unsupported, as near as I can tell and b) refuted by evidence to the contrary. What’s the evidence to support the claim made in the Wikipedia article? What is the source of this claim? How do Catholics that make this claim deal with the counter evidence?

 

[jcrichton]

These are interesting analogies and certainly we can readily imagine the possibility of a language not having a word for cousin, that part’s not the problem–the problem is that the analogies don’t really tell us anything about Aramaic per se. Some languages have a special word for cousin, some don’t–that’s fine. What I’m trying to get at is what is the evidence or support that Aramaic doesn’t have a special word for cousin? Shouldn’t CA be able to support their assertion with some evidence?

Conversely, one can readily argue that late Biblical Hebrew does have special terms for male and female cousins: e.g., see Jer 32:8, 9 and 12; Esther 2:7. So why couldn’t/shouldn’t Aramaic have a special word for cousin? Also, (again) see the entries in Sokoloff’s dictionary–which (again) one can easily access via Google books.

I have no idea; but I will take the time to search through the whole article (I hope you do the same) and if none is offered I will contact them directly (so should you) to ask about their sources… have you done the same with the person you are citing?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fisherman_carl]

If, as you say, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, this could just as easily be a limitation in Koine Greek, which as far as I know has no attested word for cousin. Also, I’m not sure there is anything in the tradition about the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic–Hebrew, yes. And there are many “Hebraizing” features of the Gospel that either match or mimic Classical Biblical Hebrew: parataxis followed by verbs in the perfect (basically, verses that begin with “and”), commands in the future tense (imperfect in Biblical Hebrew), etc.–so I can see why someone might come to the conclusion that the Gospel was written in Hebrew. But I don’t see any features of the text that seem like Aramaic to me.

Again (see OP), I’m trying to focus on the CA assertion: “There is no word in Aramaic for cousin” rather than on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The fact that ‘brother’ is used for ‘cousin’ in Matthew’s gospel does address your question at least indirectly, if Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic as is the early Christian tradition. If there is no evidence of an Aramaic word for cousin then why would you assume that there is one? If brother is being used to describe cousin in the bible then for all practical purposes there is no word for cousin. Why would you need to know anything else?

We know that parts of Matthew is written originally in Aramaic just by examining how it was translated into Greek. For example in Mt 16:18 it is translated awkwardly into Greek as Petros (masculine) and Petra (feminine) from Aramaic. In Aramaic this is not an issue as there is only one word for rock, kepha.

The best person to answer your question that I know of is Fr. Mitch Pacwa as he seems to know his languages quite well. He is on ‘Open Line’ on EWTN radio on Wednesdays or you can email him. If you really want to know that’s who I would ask.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

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.

Correct.

If, as you say, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, this could just as easily be a limitation in Koine Greek, which as far as I know has no attested word for cousin. Also, I’m not sure there is anything in the tradition about the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic–Hebrew, yes. And there are many “Hebraizing” features of the Gospel that either match or mimic Classical Biblical Hebrew: parataxis followed by verbs in the perfect (basically, verses that begin with “and”), commands in the future tense (imperfect in Biblical Hebrew), etc.–so I can see why someone might come to the conclusion that the Gospel was written in Hebrew. But I don’t see any features of the text that seem like Aramaic to me.

Again (see OP), I’m trying to focus on the CA assertion: “There is no word in Aramaic for cousin” rather than on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Thankfully the meaning of the Scripture is not a function these “limitations” of language. #SolaScripturaFail

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, since I think people are misunderstanding my question (which I’ll take responsibility for) I’ll try to summarize and restate.

On the radio, Fr. Vincent Serpa made the statement “there is no word for cousin in Aramaic.” Since it was part of a Catholic Answers Minute, I’m going to assume that it was a prepared remark, not something he simply said off the cuff. I grant that I may have misheard the remark, but given that many people have pointed out where else this statement appears in Catholic Answers printed or video material, I now think that’s pretty doubtful.

To mind mind, this is a false statement, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, since one can easily find the entry for “cousin” in dictionaries of Aramaic, such as Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Here’s the link:

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

(Then just type “cousin” in the search field).

No one here at least has tried to challenge the validity of Sokoloff’s work. I’m trying to keep the question as narrow as possible, so I’m sticking to this singular source for now–but we could talk about the nature of the references, what else is available, etc. Except no one wants to acknowledge this.

Post #2 suggests examining the historical records, which are very slim (part of the general problem with Fr. Sera’s assertion). This is what Sokoloff does to compile his dictionary–as does any dictionary of ancient languages.

Several posts simply point to where Fr. Serpa’s assertion is either repeated on the web or repeated under the poster’s own authority (#4, #5, #16, #44). But they don’t provide any supporting evidence. One says that this is not what Catholic apologists usually say, but everyone else’s posts seem to belie that notion.

Several posts deflect to analogies from other quite unrelated languages, or try to simply shift the burden of proof back to me, which is a really a violation of the rules of debate. Fr. Serpa and Catholic Answers should be able to support their own assertions in some way. However, in response I believe I’ve show readily available evidence that at a minimum challenges, if not negates, Fr. Serpa’s assertion.

Posts 32 and 36 “up the ante”–so to speak–by claiming that there is ALSO no specific word for cousin in Biblical Hebrew. This is fairly easily challenged by anyone who has access to a concordance (see post 45 for example references). These references were not challenged either. So, there is really no question in my mind that there exists a special word for cousin in Aramaic–that’s not the point of the post. However if someone wants to show me why these sources do not constitute evidence, I’d be happy to work through them. But no one as yet has done this.

Now, getting back to the OP, my real questions relate more to the nature of Catholic apologetics as practiced at Catholic Answers. Why would apologists make such a sweeping claim, considering that the faults of the assertion are so easily shown? Why don’t they acknowledge the obvious challenges and argue their case with those in consideration? Where are they getting their information–what’s the evidence? Does someone just make these things up out of thin air to support their points? And why do people so easily buy into what they have to say without asking for evidence?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Jimmy Akins’ treatment on the subject may be helpful (my apologies if it has already been posted and I missed it–I am posting this a bit “on the fly” )

CLICK HERE

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hmmm…this source is pretty much a hedge of the whole idea, actually—the full quote being: “…if it is true, as is generally alleged, that there is no Aramaic word for cousin…” with no evidence provided one way or the other. Your quote seems a little selective, unless I’m missing something.

This is Syriac, but OK I guess for purposes of discussion, as it is one dialect of Aramaic, although probably not the one is question. Frankly, this argument seems a little hyperliteral to me to me if I understand it, but maybe we are getting to the bottom of things here which is good.

So, isn’t the son of one’s uncle one’s male cousin? (BTW, this is the standard way of referring to cousins, more or less, in Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic.) So are you saying that this doesn’t qualify to count as “a word for cousin” because it’s actually two words? So when Fr. Serpa says “there is no word in Aramaic for cousin” he makes this statement because it actually takes two words to refer to a cousin in Aramaic? (Although he doesn’t say that part?)

Also, doesn’t your Syriac link potentially undermine the whole premise of the broader argument? Doesn’t (part of) the argument go that the writers of the Gospels use “brothers” to refer to Jesus’ cousins because there’s no other way available to refer to them in Aramaic? Your link would provide evidence that there is another way…

And just as an observation, this expression is somewhat analogous to the way בני ישראל carries the translation value “Israelites” (all of Israel’s offspring) even though it literally means “sons of Israel” but obviously can refer to women as well.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jimmy Akins’ treatment on the subject may be helpful (my apologies if it has already been posted and I missed it–I am posting this a bit “on the fly” )

CLICK HERE

So yes, this is somewhat more helpful. Jimmy Akin says: “Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for “cousin.” 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).” He continues:

“This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used…”

I’m not sure how he knows it’s “too much trouble” since Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Aramaic don’t have a problem with referring to cousins using a two-word expression. And Sokoloff’s Palestinian forms are much shorter than what Jimmy shows has so it seems that in Jesus’ time they wouldn’t have had quite as “much trouble.”

But indeed he does seem to make the argument that “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” because he knows it actually takes two words plus a particle in his example.

So, bottom line, if a Catholic apologist says “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” we should understand this to only mean that there is no single word for cousin? But there might exist other ways to refer to cousins besides “brother/brothers”?

Also interesting is one of the comments below the blog entry:

“i need the reference that can prove THE IS NO WORD COUSIN for aramaic, what book and what page? or any references dictionary of aramaic…Jimmy i need ur support”

No response from Jimmy.

 

[thistle]

So yes, this is somewhat more helpful. Jimmy Akin says: “Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for “cousin.” 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).” He continues:

“This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used…”

I’m not sure how he knows it’s “too much trouble” since Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Aramaic don’t have a problem with referring to cousins using a two-word expression. And Sokoloff’s Palestinian forms are much shorter than what Jimmy shows has so it seems that in Jesus’ time they wouldn’t have had quite as “much trouble.”

But indeed he does seem to make the argument that “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” because he knows it actually takes two words plus a particle in his example.

So, bottom line, if a Catholic apologist says “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” we should understand this to only mean that there is no single word for cousin? But there might exist other ways to refer to cousins besides “brother/brothers”?

Also interesting is one of the comments below the blog entry:

“i need the reference that can prove THE IS NO WORD COUSIN for aramaic, what book and what page? or any references dictionary of aramaic…Jimmy i need ur support”

No response from Jimmy.

I’m curious about WHY you want to know so badly if there was an Aramaic word for cousin. Your OP says it is not to question Mary’s perpetual viginity but what other reason could it be?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m curious about WHY you want to know so badly if there was an Aramaic word for cousin. Your OP says it is not to question Mary’s perpetual viginity but what other reason could it be?

No, that’s not the point. I’m already pretty satisfied that there is one.

See OP. I’m curious as to why Catholic apologists would make statements, without any apparent evidence backing them up, to a national radio audience. It’s simply part of responsible discourse to cite sources and be able to explain where one’s information is coming from. If there’s nothing to back up what they are saying and someone is just making all this up, then I would like to know that as well. And I would conclude that this activity of apologetics is less about finding out about objective truth than scoring debate points at any cost.

Some (not all) of the response so far seem to basically back up apologetic assertions with: “Because I (or he) said so.” They just repeat the same claims over and over and think that this should somehow be convincing if the statement is repeated enough times by enough people or if there’s an Internet link showing someone else said the same thing. I guess I don’t get why people think of this as convincing evidence.

But all this has nothing to do really with Mary’s perpetual viginity [sic] per se. As I’m sure you are aware, Mary’s perpetual virginity doesn’t hinge on whether Jesus’ brothers (as they are called in the Gospels) were actually cousins. They could have just as easily been half-brothers.

And we could just as easily be discussing other problematic statements–I cited the infamous nonexistent “Council of Jamnia” as a different example that pops up often here at CAF.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, that’s not the point. I’m already pretty satisfied that there is one.

See OP. I’m curious as to why Catholic apologists would make statements, without any apparent evidence backing them up, to a national radio audience. It’s simply part of responsible discourse to cite sources and be able to explain where one’s information is coming from. If there’s nothing to back up what they are saying and someone is just making all this up, then I would like to know that as well. And I would conclude that this activity of apologetics is less about finding out about objective truth than scoring debate points at any cost…

So basically, then you are just fault finding. It seems to me we answered your question. As far as the bible is concerned there is no word for cousin. That is all the apologists are concerned with because that is what people are usually asking about. You want to go off on some wild tangent to basically find fault on something that is irrelevant to the bible. To say that there is no word for cousin in the bible is accurate enough.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So basically, then you are just fault finding. It seems to me we answered your question. As far as the bible is concerned there is no word for cousin. That is all the apologists are concerned with because that is what people are usually asking about. You want to go off on some wild tangent to basically find fault on something that is irrelevant to the bible. To say that there is no word for cousin in the bible is accurate enough.

Did you even bother to read the Bible references that I posted?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Did you even bother to read the Bible references that I posted?

Do you mean these?

Conversely, one can readily argue that late Biblical Hebrew does have special terms for male and female cousins: e.g., see Jer 32:8, 9 and 12; Esther 2:7."…

I looked at the scriptures and in each case the KJV reads as his ‘uncle’s son’ using the KJV. How does this show there was an Aramaic word for cousin? A similarly phrase occurs in the first scripture I quoted before right before calling him a brother.

“And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, …And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive…”
Gen 14:12-14

Yet, despite calling him his ‘brother’s son’ the text still calls him brother, not cousin.

And, James and Joses, were sons of a different Mary (Mt 27:55). Yet they were still called brothers of Jesus (Mt 13:55).

Let’s say you are right and there is an Aramaic word for cousin. Does it change the meaning of the bible text? Practically, we don’t see this word being used in the bible anywhere do we? Yet we see cousins being described as ‘brother’s son’ for instance. So the concept of cousin is there but the word is not. If anything the scriptures you quote reinforce the idea that there is no word for cousin since if there was one wouldn’t they have used that word instead of saying ‘brother’s son’? And, why would he call him brother instead of the word for cousin?

So from the bible we don’t see any word for cousin other than brother.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think you will want to read this article by James Akin in its entirety especially where he shoots down the idea that there is a word for Aramaic that means cousin.

catholic.com/documents/ossuary-of-james-ii-bad-aramaic-made-easy

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Do you mean these?

I looked at the scriptures and in each case the KJV reads as his ‘uncle’s son’ using the KJV. How does this show there was an Aramaic word for cousin? A similarly phrase occurs in the first scripture I quoted before right before calling him a brother.

“And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, …And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive…”
Gen 14:12-14

Yet, despite calling him his ‘brother’s son’ the text still calls him brother, not cousin.

And, James and Joses, were sons of a different Mary (Mt 27:55). Yet they were still called brothers of Jesus (Mt 13:55).

Let’s say you are right and there is an Aramaic word for cousin. Does it change the meaning of the bible text? Practically, we don’t see this word being used in the bible anywhere do we? Yet we see cousins being described as ‘brother’s son’ for instance. So the concept of cousin is there but the word is not. If anything the scriptures you quote reinforce the idea that there is no word for cousin since if there was one wouldn’t they have used that word instead of saying ‘brother’s son’? And, why would he call him brother instead of the word for cousin?

So from the bible we don’t see any word for cousin other than brother.

So in your view “uncle’s son” (a two-word expression) doesn’t count as “cousin” (as one word to one word expression)?–Just trying to clarify. And take a look at a more recent translation such as the NAB and the RSV and see how they translated the expression. (This is similar to the “sons of Israel” example I discussed above.)

Lot was Abraham’s nephew, not his cousin, so your example is confusing. A cousin is one’s uncle’s son or daughter or I guess a great-uncle’s (etc.) son or daughter.

No, it doesn’t have a direct bearing on Aramaic, although if the expression appears in Late Biblical Hebrew, it increases the chance that one exists in Aramaic because in later texts we can already see the creeping influence of Aramaic on Biblical Hebrew. But I posted these simply to address your claim that there’s no word for “cousin” in Biblical Hebrew. No, it doesn’t change the meaning of the Bible–that’s not what the OP is about.

But, I guess it would affect the arguments that claim that the Scripture writers HAD to use the word “brothers” to talk about people that were actually “cousins” because the language had no way of expressing a relationship of cousin.

In answer to your hypothetical question-no. All it does is reflect on the the credibility of the people making the claim; that’s why all I’m really trying to test here is the assertion “there’s no word for ‘cousin’ in Aramaic” and how people try to defend it. So far it seems that people who do post a defense try to defend it by saying that there is no one word expression, but there are two (or more) word expressions for cousin.