No Aramaic Word for Cousin

[Dave_Noonan]

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

Yes, this is an almost exactly a word-for-word rehash of Jimmy’s argument in the article cited in post #54. (Btw I don’t know of anyone who would assume Ben Witherington knows much of anything about Aramaic–he’s kind a publicity hound.)

The defense is (basically): “When we say “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” we MEAN “there’s no ONE word for cousin in Aramaic–you have to use two (or more) words in Aramiac to refer to a cousin.” As I said above, that seems pretty hyper-literal statement. And whether it’s one or two words, this doesn’t have much bearing on any broader arguments claiming that the scriptural writers had to resort to “brother” because there was just no way to say cousin (”…no word…") in Aramaic.

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…but isn’t this catch 22… you ask for a source that supports the claim of Catholics and when offered you shoot it down with “what’s their source?” It seems that your source was there when it took place, hence speaks/writes with unequivocal authority! …if that’s not the case, since you are the one to bring up the argument, show the proof!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…or you may be missing the whole point of the usage/term “brethren” which includes both direct blood relations (siblins and cousins) as well as those related by clan/family…

…you seem to be focused on proving that Catholics err but your proof relies on a dictionary composed by someone who, as you have attested, cannot have imperical proof that the word “cousin” did exist since he is compiling information and filling in the blanks without having any actual historical textual accounts from which to draw his conclusions… so if we are keeping scores: your source, that cannot prove his findings beyond doubt wins against all other sources that, under the same/similar fact-finding-exercise, have concluded that there is no word for cousin.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…to prove that the Church is in error, hence unreliable and “run from her because she is the “x” of Babi…?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

You continue to miss the point: if there’s no word for cousin and Scriptures use the term brother as an inclusive word for cousin, brother, and family/clan/tribesman then it is correct to state that there did not exist a word for cousin and that the term brother was inclusive all both blood relations as well as tribal/clan’s man relation.

Perhaps you could start a “roots/origins of words” thread to truly dwell into such grammatical accidents (ie: why does Scriptural text repeat importan things three times, why does Yahweh God speaks about Himself in the third person, etc.); here… I think you are only spinning…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, this is an almost exactly a word-for-word rehash of Jimmy’s argument in the article cited in post #54. (Btw I don’t know of anyone who would assume Ben Witherington knows much of anything about Aramaic–he’s kind a publicity hound.)

The defense is (basically): “When we say “there’s no word for cousin in Aramaic” we MEAN “there’s no ONE word for cousin in Aramaic–you have to use two (or more) words in Aramiac to refer to a cousin.” As I said above, that seems pretty hyper-literal statement. And whether it’s one or two words, this doesn’t have much bearing on any broader arguments claiming that the scriptural writers had to resort to “brother” because there was just no way to say cousin (”…no word…") in Aramaic.

Does the context in Scriptures show your two+ words for cousin or does it use “brother” when speaking about cousins?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…but isn’t this catch 22… you ask for a source that supports the claim of Catholics and when offered you shoot it down with “what’s their source?” It seems that your source was there when it took place, hence speaks/writes with unequivocal authority! …if that’s not the case, since you are the one to bring up the argument, show the proof!

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m not sure exactly what you mean here, but yet, Michael Sokoloff is probably the world’s preeminent authorities on Palestinian Aramaic, and cites his sources in the dictionary, the link for which was provided. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for here.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Does the context in Scriptures show your two+ words for cousin or does it use “brother” when speaking about cousins?

Maran atha!

Angel

In the citations I cited the Bible uses the two-word combination: “son of my uncle” or “daughter of my uncle”–but only two short words in Hebrew. This is also the normal way of referring to cousins in Modern Hebrew, which I mentioned earlier.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You continue to miss the point: if there’s no word for cousin and Scriptures use the term brother as an inclusive word for cousin, brother, and family/clan/tribesman then it is correct to state that there did not exist a word for cousin and that the term brother was inclusive all both blood relations as well as tribal/clan’s man relation.

Perhaps you could start a “roots/origins of words” thread to truly dwell into such grammatical accidents (ie: why does Scriptural text repeat importan things three times, why does Yahweh God speaks about Himself in the third person, etc.); here… I think you are only spinning…

Maran atha!

Angel

No, I think you are missing the point. Sure the scriptures can use brother to mean cousin, just like I can use the word “relative” to include all different kinds of familial relationships. But in turn, that doesn’t mean I don’t have a word that means “aunt” or “great uncle.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…to prove that the Church is in error, hence unreliable and “run from her because she is the “x” of Babi…?”

Maran atha!

Angel

I don’t think Jimmy Akin or Fr. Vincent Serpa speak officially or unofficially for “the Church.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…but isn’t this catch 22… you ask for a source that supports the claim of Catholics and when offered you shoot it down with “what’s their source?” It seems that your source was there when it took place, hence speaks/writes with unequivocal authority! …if that’s not the case, since you are the one to bring up the argument, show the proof!

Maran atha!

Angel

See post #50–I’m not sure what else you want. Your turn.

 

[fisherman_carl]

"To my knowledge, I’m the only full-time Catholic apologist who makes a study of Aramaic. I’ve paid particular attention to the cousin issue because of its apologetic implications. Still, I am not an expert, so I consulted several people who know more than I.

The first that I was able to reach was Mitchel Pacwa, S.J., and he swiftly confirmed that he also was unaware of any Aramaic term (in any dialect) that means “cousin.”

Next, I drove across town to pay a visit to my Aramaic teacher, Fr. Michael Bazzi, who is a Chaldean Catholic priest from Mosul, Iraq. He is a native-speaker of Aramaic (the ethnic language of Chaldeans) and the author of several textbooks on both modern and classical Aramaic. Fr. Bazzi confirmed that there is no term for “cousin,” and whenever one wishes to pick out the cousin relationship one uses one of the various possible circumlocutions. Neither did the dictionaries that I and Fr. Bazzi checked produce terms for “cousin.”

Finally, I corresponded with Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. Though scholarly reserve would prevent him from saying so, he is regarded as an 800-pound gorilla among American scholars of Aramaic. In The Brother of Jesus, Shanks notes: “no one wants to get into the ring with Joe Fitzmyer when it comes to Aramaic” (47).

Fitzmyer was quite helpful. Regarding the idea that there was a word for cousin, he was direct: “In first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin,’ but one used the circumlocution, ‘son of the uncle.’” Further, he adds, “I do not know of any word for ‘cousin’ (apart from the circumlocution) in any other Aramaic dialects.”

Concerning the word “brother,” Fitzmyer notes: “The word did not simply mean ‘blood brother,’ and you will find in the Book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: ‘compatriot,’ ‘kinsman, relative,’ and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the Angel Raphael (in disguise), ‘Brother Azariah’ (6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean ‘blood brother.’”

What to Conclude?

The conclusion thus seems inescapable: Witherington is wrong. There is no Aramaic word for cousin, and there certainly is no evidence that there was one in first-century Aramaic. If Witherington wishes to dispute this, he needs to produce the word in question (satisfying premise 3), along with the evidence backing up its existence in first-century Aramaic (premise 4) and evidence it was the preferred term for “cousin” at that time (premise 5).

If he cannot then—however nice a guy he may be—Witherington behaved irresponsibly by asserting in popular print that there is such a word. In so doing he misled people of multiple religious persuasions, disturbed the faith of some, confused others, and sparked a round of needless arguments."

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

 

[patrick457]

Is it just me or are we going in circles here?

 

[thistle]

Is it just me or are we going in circles here?

I’m also getting dizzy.
It seems pretty clear to me that there is no Aramaic word for cousin despite the OP’s desperate attempt to show otherwise.

 

[Mudgely]

archive.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

 

[patrick457]

A few words now that I’ve finally got my hands on a decent computer:

Michael Sokoloff’s A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period is, as the title notes, a dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic from the period when works such as the Jerusalem Talmud were written: around the 4th-7th century AD. We have virtually no surviving specimen of actual ‘Galilean’ Aramaic dating from the time of Jesus. (Of course, just because the sources are late doesn’t mean that they’re automatically invalid; I’m just pointing that out lest people get confused.)

As for the CAL entry for ‘cousin’:

1.) It gives 'anepsīāws as a term for ‘cousin’ in Syriac. It is not really a native word, however: a glance could easily tell that it is a loanword derived from the Greek anepsios which does mean ‘cousin’.
2.) The Judaean term for ‘cousin’ (really the only relevant entry out of the three) is given as brt dd ‘uncle’s son’ (cf. the Hebrew term ben-dod).
3.) The other entry ('ḥwnh, ‘ḥwnt’ n.f. hunt_) is actually Mandaic. For the record, this Neo-Mandaic dictionary also gives barat 'ammu and ebbar 'ammu (cf. Judaean brt dd/Hebrew ben-dod above) as terms for cousin.

In a sense, the claim that ‘there is no word for cousin in Aramaic’ is both right and wrong: there are words to describe the concept in some Aramaic languages (such as Syriac and Mandaic), but in general, the more preferred term does indeed seem to be the circumlocution “uncle’s son”.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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?.

I’m sorry, did you just say that someone should provide you with evidence for something that doesn’t exist?

Do you have evidence that unicorns and leprechauns don’t exist?

How about vampires?

No, CA “shouldn’t” have to supply you with any support for anything. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it. Scholars vastly more educated and experienced than you or I or anyone here have, over centuries, determined this issue. Here is how this part of linguistics works:

The Inuit have about 17 words for “snow.” We have 3. That means there are 14 identifiable types of snow we have no word for.

But we do: “snow.” There is a word in Aramaic for “cousin.” It’s the same word they use for “brother.” And some other relationships.

You can accept the judgement of scholars or not. But no one owes you any sort of “proof” to satisfy some illogical premise.

I don’t need to comb every inch of the earth to know that there are no vampires. I am able to spot a troll when I see one, however.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean here, but yet, Michael Sokoloff is probably the world’s preeminent authorities on Palestinian Aramaic, and cites his sources in the dictionary, the link for which was provided. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for here.

…part of your original statement was that there does not exist actual records/text that can be used to demonstrate that there is/isn’t a word for “cousin” in Aramaic… hence Catholics are wrong; then you introduced a preeminent authority who can quantify the term “cousin” in a non-exsiting proof (if there is no proof for Catholics then there should be no proof for preeminent authorities since both would cite sources that do not exist by would quantify their findings according to person/group bias); once your offer of “go google” is taken and a source that contradict your preeminent authority is offered you deny (even though they are not of Catholic origin) the findings as “questionable sources/wrong conclusion.”

…there’s that cath 22!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In the citations I cited the Bible uses the two-word combination: “son of my uncle” or “daughter of my uncle”–but only two short words in Hebrew. This is also the normal way of referring to cousins in Modern Hebrew, which I mentioned earlier.

…maybe I was not clear enough, in Scriptures, is the term “brother/brethren” used exclusively for direct brother/sister of the same parent/s and the two+ words term for “cousin” always used when referring to what we term “cousins” in English? (…which would then follow: which term would be normally used, specially by those whose blood relations is not necessarily known–ie.: the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No, I think you are missing the point. Sure the scriptures can use brother to mean cousin, just like I can use the word “relative” to include all different kinds of familial relationships. But in turn, that doesn’t mean I don’t have a word that means “aunt” or “great uncle.”

…but only because those terms are actual terms that exist in the language and usage; my suggestion to you is to open a thread to discuss such terms where you and others can investigate such their roots/origins and their usage in Scriptures and the Bible’s contemporary language usage; there might be people interested in researching such data… from my replies and your counter replies, I do not think that we will go beyond spinning (wheels) since I am not into such research and my offers will never be acceptable to you.

Maran atha!

Angel