No Aramaic Word for Cousin

[inkaneer]

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

But, who has proved his claim wrong? Seems to me that if someone says something does not exist the way to prove it wrong is to produce that which is alleged to be nonexistant. Now has anyone done that? And leave the Aramaic out of it. Matthew may have written his gospel in Aramaic. We do not know he did. All we know is that he wrote it in “the language of the Jews” which could have been Hebrew or Aramaic. So until we can prove it was Aramaic by producing the original Aramaic copy then all we have is the Greek copy to go by and the Greek word used is adelphos. There is plenty of evidence that all the gospel writers as well as St. Paul used the Greek word “adelphos” as a generic word to describe relationships that were not sibling brothers. In fact the word was used to describe people who had no family relationships at all. Now if all these scripture writers were guided by the Holy Spirit to use the Greek word adelphos in a generic context who are we to insist otherwise?

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;8523348:

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.

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,

There is an entire library in the Monestary on mount Sinai.

along with any evidence of the “enormous efforts” of scholars that .

You stated that you exerted such an effort yourself. Here’s your quote:

I’ve actually done quite a bit of university study in Aramaic (Imperial and Rabbinic) and Syriac.

And yet have been unable produce any evidence of a word for cousin in first century Hebrew and Aramaic.

Your statement indicates that you are a scholar on the subject and you don’t know these things?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

I’m still talking about the OP and of course noted that you didn’t address my questions. Nothing has (as of yet) been provided in terms of support for the assertion we’re trying to test.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave Noonan;8526685:

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

But, who has proved his claim wrong? Seems to me that if someone says something does not exist the way to prove it wrong is to produce that which is alleged to be nonexistant. Now has anyone done that?

I summarize the bit of evidence I provided in post #97. You can agree or disagree with the evidence, but you should at least address it.

And leave the Aramaic out of it. Matthew may have written his gospel in Aramaic. We do not know he did. All we know is that he wrote it in “the language of the Jews” which could have been Hebrew or Aramaic. So until we can prove it was Aramaic by producing the original Aramaic copy then all we have is the Greek copy to go by and the Greek word used is adelphos

. There is plenty of evidence that all the gospel writers as well as St. Paul used the Greek word “adelphos” as a generic word to describe relationships that were not sibling brothers. In fact the word was used to describe people who had no family relationships at all. Now if all these scripture writers were guided by the Holy Spirit to use the Greek word adelphos in a generic context who are we to insist otherwise?

Take it up with Fr. Vincent Serra–he’s the one making the assertion about Aramaic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

There is an entire library in the Monestary on mount Sinai.

And these are first century texts in Aramaic? Again, I’d be interested in seeing your list.

You stated that you exerted such an effort yourself. Here’s your quote:

You’re really misinterpreting what I said. All I said was that I’ve studied a lot of Aramaic. I’m certainly not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, to have done a thorough study on the use of the word “cousin” in Aramaic. All I did was took the time to simply look up the word “cousin” in the Aramaic dictionary–and there it was. It’s very simple–takes two minutes.

And yet have been unable produce any evidence of a word for cousin in first century Hebrew and Aramaic.

Why would you not consider the information in post #97 evidence?

Your statement indicates that you are a scholar on the subject and you don’t know these things?

Wow, getting a little sarcastic there.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…yeah it’s circular argument: prove to me that there is no word and I’ll prove to you that there had to be a word…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[inkaneer]

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?

The problem with the dictionary is that Prof Sokoloff uses sources from the time period after the first century. Specifically the source you refer to as the ‘Midrashic sources’ can date anywhere from the second to the 16th century or beyond and the oldest Peschitta text is from the fifth century. None of Sokoloff sources are 1st century. So Sokoloff proves nothing.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The problem with the dictionary is that Prof Sokoloff uses sources from the time period after the first century. Specifically the source you refer to as the ‘Midrashic sources’ can date anywhere from the second to the 16th century or beyond and the oldest Peschitta text is from the fifth century. None of Sokoloff sources are 1st century. So Sokoloff proves nothing.

So why wouldn’t a later source provide evidence about the language from an earlier period? Why would Aramaic have undergone such a substantial change? The midrashic sources are c. fifth century as I recall–and of course are compilations of earlier sources; the Peshitta is generally dated to the 2nd century.

This would be akin to saying that a contemporary English document would tell you nothing about the English language in, say, 1880, or even 1600.

 

[inkaneer]

So why wouldn’t a later source provide evidence about the language from an earlier period? Why would Aramaic have undergone such a substantial change? The midrashic sources are c. fifth century as I recall–and of course are compilations of earlier sources; the Peshitta is generally dated to the 2nd century.

This would be akin to saying that a contemporary English document would tell you nothing about the English language in, say, 1880, or even 1600.

Because language is not static but dynamic. Case in point, Take the word WORSHIP. What does it mean? If you consult the dictionary it means to adore as a diety or the reverence offered a divine being. But just over 200 years ago the word worship had a different connotation. Then it meant to honor someone. In the British tribunal system the correct way to address a judge was to refer to him as “Your Worship” In the USA we call our judges “your Honor” because we honor or judges but we don’t adore them. So words can change as can languages. In addition new words can be introduced into a language to better express a concept. Thus we have the French word ‘rendevous’ to connote a planned get together rather than a chance meeting. Indeed the Greek spoken today is not the Greek of the New Testament.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Because language is not static but dynamic. Case in point, Take the word WORSHIP. What does it mean? If you consult the dictionary it means to adore as a diety or the reverence offered a divine being. But just over 200 years ago the word worship had a different connotation. Then it meant to honor someone. In the British tribunal system the correct way to address a judge was to refer to him as “Your Worship” In the USA we call our judges “your Honor” because we honor or judges but we don’t adore them. So words can change as can languages. In addition new words can be introduced into a language to better express a concept. Thus we have the French word ‘rendevous’ to connote a planned get together rather than a chance meeting. Indeed the Greek spoken today is not the Greek of the New Testament.

on that note I hope you have a gay night

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Because language is not static but dynamic. Case in point, Take the word WORSHIP. What does it mean? If you consult the dictionary it means to adore as a diety or the reverence offered a divine being. But just over 200 years ago the word worship had a different connotation. Then it meant to honor someone. In the British tribunal system the correct way to address a judge was to refer to him as “Your Worship” In the USA we call our judges “your Honor” because we honor or judges but we don’t adore them. So words can change as can languages. In addition new words can be introduced into a language to better express a concept. Thus we have the French word ‘rendevous’ to connote a planned get together rather than a chance meeting. Indeed the Greek spoken today is not the Greek of the New Testament.

Certainly languages can change over time. But a) were talking about the ancient world where language development is much slower and b) not talking about an expanse of 2000 years as your Greek example. In the case of the Peshitta, maybe 50 years? 70 years? Some argue even less. And even a modern language like English hasn’t changed SO much in say 50 years that we can’t recognize familial terms from the 1950s. Also, recall that there are cognate forms in Late Biblical Hebrew that use the exact same construction that had been around for at least a couple of hundred years before Jesus.

 

[inkaneer]

Certainly languages can change over time. But a) were talking about the ancient world where language development is much slower and b) not talking about an expanse of 2000 years as your Greek example. In the case of the Peshitta, maybe 50 years? 70 years? Some argue even less. And even a modern language like English hasn’t changed SO much in say 50 years that we can’t recognize familial terms from the 1950s. Also, recall that there are cognate forms in Late Biblical Hebrew that use the exact same construction that had been around for at least a couple of hundred years before Jesus.

That proves nothing. Show me a first century document that experts will agree has an Aramaic word for cousin. But let us not not forget that the “brethren of the Lord” may not be cousins. They may be, under Jewish law or tradition, considered brothers. That would occur if these “brethren” were sons of Joseph by a prior marriage. Obviously Joseph was considered Jesus’ father. He really wasn’t his biological father but rather his putative father. Mary would have certainly have known that Joseph was not Jesus real father. The angel Gabriel told her that in response to her question of “How can this be for I do not know man”. Yet when Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple she says to Him “Your father and I …” There is an old story contained in the Protoevangelium of James that claims that Joseph was much older than Mary and was a widower having his first wife preceded him in death. If so then these sons of Joseph would be older than Jesus but Jesus would still be Mary’s first born. Credence is given to this idea by the scripture passage where Jesus is berated by his brothers. In Jewish life younger brothers do not berate older members of the family so these ‘brothers’ would have to be older than Jesus but Jesus is still Mary’s first [and last] born. Jesus is never referred to as ‘a son of Mary’ to indicate there may be others. Instead he is called ‘THE son of Mary’. Use of the definitive word, ‘the’ versus the more ambiguous, ‘a’.

 

[qinglang]

I work at a private language school with international students. veste moncler homme We are planning a field trip for wine tasting. Do we need to have students fill out a release of school responsibilities or anything? cheap ghd They are all adults and will be driving there on their own. Does anyone know what the school would be legally liable for?.