No Aramaic Word for Cousin

[jcrichton]

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

I cuncur; my statement is in reference to most arguments that are presented with the sole purpose of finding the “proof” that the Church Teaches error… while superficially these arguments seem benign, it’s been my experience, from both personal and virtual exchanges, that there’s an ulterior motive (as with the arguments against Dec 25th) fuiling the feigned “truth seeking” quests.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

…and the spinning continues: you’ve stated that there’s no proof since there’s no documentation to prove/disprove the argument; then you offered empirical authority that claims to have proof to the contrary… google… not accepted… see the spin?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

I’ve tried to explain this but the spin continues; let’s hope Carl’s contribution will end the spinning!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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”.

…which then, in my very limited pedestrian logic, leads to usage… was the term “uncle’s/aunt’s son/daughter” predominantly used or was the term “brother/sister/bretheren” the predominant term iused by Jesus’ contemporaries (which includes Scriptures)? …if the latter, would this not demonstrate that, while weak, the explanation for Jesus’ relatives being called his “brothers and sisters” instead of “cousins” is due to the lack of the term “cousin” existing in the language?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Julia_Mae]

archive.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

When I first learned of Witherington’s claim–before I realized I would need to write this–I sent a very cordial note asking what word he was thinking of. Receiving no reply, I gave him a call, and we had a very cordial chat. He seems like a genuinely nice guy.

Unfortunately, after the conversation I was still unclear on what term he had in mind. One term we discussed was ahyana (“kinsman”). But this word may be unique to modern Aramaic, and in any event Witherington acknowledged that it has a broader meaning than “cousin.”

It is not clear to me that Witherington even speaks Aramaic. New Testament professors in Protestant seminaries are well trained in Greek and have some background in Hebrew but almost none in Aramaic. In our conversation, Witherington referred me to one of his colleagues, who he described as “the real expert” and who had “assured” him that there was a word for cousin.

Witherington’s lack of ease with Aramaic seems confirmed by the fact that, in his part of The Brother of Jesus, he freely explains Greek words for things, but tends to fall silent when it comes to Aramaic. From what I know at present, he may just be basing his argument on what he has heard from others.

Those others would not seem to include his co-author, Shanks. In his part of The Brother of Jesus Shanks writes things that undercut Witherington’s claim. For example, he quotes the paleographer Emile Peuch, O.P., as saying “the specific relationship of James and Jesus in our ossuary is quite simply indeterminable. . . . The term ‘brother’ actually concurrently [in the first century] meant blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion” (51).

and

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.

This thread being one of the round of “needless arguments,” OP being one of the misled.

The inscription on the ossuary? Fake.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;8422285:

AdesteFidelis:

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.

See dictionary.

We are talking about First Century, my friend. Again, there is no evidence of the use of such a word in 1st century Judea. If there is some, please present it and enlighten us.

 

[inkaneer]

…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

The answer is no, the Greek word translated as brother or brethern is adelphos and it is not used exclusively to mean a sibling brother or even cousins. For instance in Galatians 1:19 Paul writes that while he was in Jerusalem visiting with Peter:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” [Ga 1:19]

The word translated as brother is the Greek adelphos but there is something else there. The verse states the James that Paul saw was an Apostle. Now there were only two apostles named James. Were either of them the son of Joseph and Mary? Let’s see shall we? In Mt 10:2-3 Matthew tells us about the Apostles. What does he say of the two James? In Mt 10 :2 we learn about one of them:

“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;” [Mt 10:2]

Obviously this is not the sibling of Jesus because his father is Zebedee. In fact this is one of the two brothers that Jesus called the “sons of thunder”. So it must be the other Apostle James who is Jesus’ sibling brother, right? Let’s see. Mt 10:3 tells us:

"3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. " [Mt 10:3] OOPS!!! This James is the son of some guy named Alphaeus. Who was Mary married to, Alphaeus or Joseph??? Obviously Paul is using the word adelphos to denote a relationship other than a sibling son of the same parent.

In Matthew’s gospel we see another use of the word adelphos. In Matthew 23:8 Jesus says to the Apostles:

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.”

There the word brethren is the Greek adelphos but obviously all the Apostles did not come from the same family so how could they be sibling brothers? They can’t. Again in Mt 28:10 Jesus calls all of the Apostles his brothers:

"Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” [Mt 28:10]

Again the word brethern is the translation of the Greek adelphos but were all the Apostles Jesus’ siblings? Of course not. We see the same use of the Greek adelphos in Luke 22:32 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. So obviously adelphos was not restricted to mean a sibling brother and to do so is terrible exogesis.

 

[jcrichton]

The answer is no, the Greek word translated as brother or brethern is adelphos and it is not used exclusively to mean a sibling brother or even cousins. For instance in Galatians 1:19 Paul writes that while he was in Jerusalem visiting with Peter:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” [Ga 1:19]

The word translated as brother is the Greek adelphos but there is something else there. The verse states the James that Paul saw was an Apostle. Now there were only two apostles named James. Were either of them the son of Joseph and Mary? Let’s see shall we? In Mt 10:2-3 Matthew tells us about the Apostles. What does he say of the two James? In Mt 10 :2 we learn about one of them:

“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;” [Mt 10:2]

Obviously this is not the sibling of Jesus because his father is Zebedee. In fact this is one of the two brothers that Jesus called the “sons of thunder”. So it must be the other Apostle James who is Jesus’ sibling brother, right? Let’s see. Mt 10:3 tells us:

"3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. " [Mt 10:3] OOPS!!! This James is the son of some guy named Alphaeus. Who was Mary married to, Alphaeus or Joseph??? Obviously Paul is using the word adelphos to denote a relationship other than a sibling son of the same parent.

In Matthew’s gospel we see another use of the word adelphos. In Matthew 23:8 Jesus says to the Apostles:

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.”

There the word brethren is the Greek adelphos but obviously all the Apostles did not come from the same family so how could they be sibling brothers? They can’t. Again in Mt 28:10 Jesus calls all of the Apostles his brothers:

"Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” [Mt 28:10]

Again the word brethern is the translation of the Greek adelphos but were all the Apostles Jesus’ siblings? Of course not. We see the same use of the Greek adelphos in Luke 22:32 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. So obviously adelphos was not restricted to mean a sibling brother and to do so is terrible exogesis.

…or extreme/calculated reaching!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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”.

Why would you consider “uncle’s son” a circumlocution rather than a simple Semitic bound form? See e.g., Lev. 25:49, Jer 32:8 and Est 2:7. (Here, I’m just referring to references in HALOT, 215, which you probably have access to and can look at yourself.) And note that the Masoretes even hyphenate the term. It seems to me this is the typical way of referring to a genitive relationship in a Semitic language, rather than the sort of extreme oddity it is made out to be by Jimmy Akin.

I agree that although Sokoloff’s sources are late (say 4th - 6th cen.) the composition of the midrashim themselves likely predate their compilation–but of course it’s hard to say. As for the Syriac Sokoloff cites in Payne Smith (p. 585), these are Peshitta translation of the Hebrew verses cited above. These would constitute older examples of what to do with the word “cousin” in an Aramaic dialect when one is trying to translate the term from Hebrew. And of course the assertion I’m trying to test in the OP didn’t specify the type of Aramaic.

I also think you’re right that to throw these citations out entirely would be like saying there that there is no visible relationship between Shakespearean English and English today. While the language has changed (and arguably English much faster now than we might expect Aramaic to have changed then) it’s not unrelated.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

See dictionary.

We are talking about First Century, my friend. Again, there is no evidence of the use of such a word in 1st century Judea. If there is some, please present it and enlighten us.

See post #90. There’s almost nothing period from the first century, so this makes the assertion I’m trying to test equally problematic. There are example from later texts.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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

Scholars vastly more educated and experienced than you or I or anyone here have, over centuries, determined this issue.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve actually done quite a bit of university study in Aramaic (Imperial and Rabbinic) and Syriac. I’d like to see the names of these scholars who are “vastly more educated.”

But no one owes you any sort of “proof” to satisfy some illogical premise.

I’m glad you agree that the CA premise is pretty illogical. There’s quite a bit of difference between words used to describe common human relationships and “trolls.” The terms we are discussing here do not equal “brother.”

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

We are talking about First Century

, my friend. Again, there is no evidence of the use of such a word in 1st century Judea. If there is some, please present it and enlighten us.

There’s almost nothing period from the first century, so this makes the assertion I’m trying to test equally problematic.

The Hebrew scribes copied the texts exactly as originally written from centuries before Christ. There are many copies of texts that were written in the first Century and before and, dispite enormous efforts to do so, no competent scholar has been able to produce evidence of such word at that period of time.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Hebrew scribes copied the texts exactly as originally written from centuries before Christ. There are many copies of texts that were written in the first Century and before and, dispite enormous efforts to do so, no competent scholar has been able to produce evidence of such word at that period of time.

I’d be interested to see your list of first century Judean Aramaic texts for which we have copies, along with any evidence of the “enormous efforts” of scholars that you describe here.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

FYI

The Chaldeans and Assyrians speak neo-aramaic and I asked some of the clergy who are under Mar Sarhad Jammo (my bishop and scholar) if there was a specific word for cousin during Jesus’ time and the answer was negative.

 

[inkaneer]

Wait a minute here. Can anyone here tell me just how does one go about proving that a word does not exist? Seems to me the ball is in the court of those who claim there is such a word. If so then what is it? In the New Testament the Greek word adelphos was used to designate relationships beyond that of sibling brothers. Jesus calls the Apostles Peter’s brothers in Luke 22:32. Again, in Mt 28:10, Jesus calls the Apostles his brothers. We see the same use of the Greek adelphos in Mark 3:34 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. Clearly all of the gospel writers did not use the word adelphos in a strict literal meaning of a sibling brother. Rather it encompassed a wide range of meanings. Therefore to force a strict meaning onto the word is bad exegesis.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Wait a minute here. Can anyone here tell me just how does one go about proving that a word does not exist? Seems to me the ball is in the court of those who claim there is such a word. If so then what is it? In the New Testament the Greek word adelphos was used to designate relationships beyond that of sibling brothers. Jesus calls the Apostles Peter’s brothers in Luke 22:32. Again, in Mt 28:10, Jesus calls the Apostles his brothers. We see the same use of the Greek adelphos in Mark 3:34 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. Clearly all of the gospel writers did not use the word adelphos in a strict literal meaning of a sibling brother. Rather it encompassed a wide range of meanings. Therefore to force a strict meaning onto the word is bad exegesis.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Wait a minute here. Can anyone here tell me just how does one go about proving that a word does not exist?

Yes, this is exactly the point of the OP–that Fr. Serra is making a claim that he probably cannot support.

Seems to me the ball is in the court of those who claim there is such a word.

Actually, no. Under the rules of debate, those making the assertion are required to support them with their own evidence. Also, claiming “there is no word for cousin in Aramaic” would constitute what is often referred as special pleading–in other words the claim goes against what we would logically expect to be the case, and adds an additional burden of proof on the one asserting the claim. But no matter.

If so then what is it?

To review, in A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Michael Sokoloff (probably the world’s most learned expert regarding Aramaic) cites the following bound forms for cousin in Aramaic: בר דוד and בר דדן. He gleans these from Midrashic sources and the Peshitta as has already been noted and discussed in other posts. These forms are basically the Aramaic equivalents of the Late Biblical Hebrew forms of בן–דוד and
בת-דוד, for which the biblical references are also cited in various previous posts. Incidentally (as previously noted), these are also the standard ways of referring to cousins in Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic–showing they are not “too hard to use,” as asserted by Jimmy Akin. Again, one particular strand of the argument about the brothers of Jesus in the Gospels depends on the assumption that there is simply no way available to refer to a cousin in Aramaic and thus “brother” MUST be used instead. Note that this argument is different from the use of “brother” as a choice of words to loosely refer to a male relative versus the assertion that Aramaic forced Aramaic speakers to do so simply because of the paucity of the language itself.

If someone were to honestly put forward the assertion “there is no word for cousin in Aramaic” I would expect that he (or someone else that he could reference) would have done a thorough study of the Aramaic sources and point to examples of texts about familial relationships that would support their claim–or at the barest minimum, they would have reviewed any available sources. I would also expect them to respond to the readily available dictionary data and explain why they don’t agree with it–sort of a no-brainer as this is the most logical place to look up such information. Instead, many of the responses here have been: “I talked to ‘X’ and he repeated the claim, therefore it’s true” or “I found a place on the Internet that repeated the claim, therefore it’s true” but so far, no one has pointed to any actual scholarly study undertaken to see whether Fr. Serpa’s claim is or is not true–or if it can even be proven. I think I’ve provided at least some fair evidence to the contrary, so I’m still waiting for something to support Fr. Vincent’s claim other than hearsay.

In the New Testament the Greek word adelphos was used to designate relationships beyond that of sibling brothers. Jesus calls the Apostles Peter’s brothers in Luke 22:32. Again, in Mt 28:10, Jesus calls the Apostles his brothers. We see the same use of the Greek adelphos in Mark 3:34 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. Clearly all of the gospel writers did not use the word adelphos in a strict literal meaning of a sibling brother. Rather it encompassed a wide range of meanings. Therefore to force a strict meaning onto the word is bad exegesis.

This doesn’t really have anything to do with the OP, that I can see.

 

[thistle]

It seems pretty clear to me that everything presented in this thread shows that there is no Aramaic word for cousin.
I think the onus is on whoever thinks there is a word for them to put up some supporting evidence. I have not seen anything yet which would remotely suggest there is a word.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It seems pretty clear to me that everything presented in this thread shows that there is no Aramaic word for cousin.
I think the onus is on whoever thinks there is a word for them to put up some supporting evidence. I have not seen anything yet which would remotely suggest there is a word.

So what’s your objection with the information presented in the dictionary? Why do you think this doesn’t count as evidence? Why do you think the onus is NOT on the person making the primary assertion?

 

[thistle]

So what’s your objection with the information presented in the dictionary? Why do you think this doesn’t count as evidence? Why do you think the onus is NOT on the person making the primary assertion?

I’m no longer talking about the OP.
I’m talking generally about this topic. Everyone in this thread apart from you is clear that no word for cousin exists in Aramaic. No, you have not provided any evidence that such a word exists. Everything in this thread is overwhelmingly against your view and it is supported by a lot more than you have come up with.
It seems clear to me that you do not want to believe such a word does not exist so it does not matter what is provided to you you will reject it. Pointless discussion now. You have your head in the sand.