No Word for "cousin" in Hebrew and Aramaic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mtanuan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mtanuan

Guest
While talking to Protestants, I’ve used the argument that there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew and Aramaic that is why “brother” is used to describe some of Jesus’ cousins. But if this is so, how is it that the word “cousin” was used to describe Elizabeth’s relationship with our Lady? How can I as a Catholic answer this?

I’ve got some theories related to the Roman Law of recognizing “paterfamilias” as brothers and cousins belonging to the same “family”, but I need confirmation. Thank so much and God bless.
 
40.png
mtanuan:
While talking to Protestants, I’ve used the argument that there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew and Aramaic that is why “brother” is used to describe some of Jesus’ cousins. But if this is so, how is it that the word “cousin” was used to describe Elizabeth’s relationship with our Lady? How can I as a Catholic answer this?

I’ve got some theories related to the Roman Law of recognizing “paterfamilias” as brothers and cousins belonging to the same “family”, but I need confirmation. Thank so much and God bless.
Click to expand...
The Greek word in Luke 1:36 is “suggenis” – kinswoman. The word for cousin would be “anepsios.”
 
I can’t speak to the Hebrew/Aramaic question, but sister language Arabic has no specific word for cousin. They use a phrase that translates to “son/daughter of my uncle.”

DaveBj
 
40.png
DaveBj:
I can’t speak to the Hebrew/Aramaic question, but sister language Arabic has no specific word for cousin. They use a phrase that translates to “son/daughter of my uncle.”

DaveBj
Click to expand...
Arabic is close to Aramaic, but not close enough, but I believe the actual translation is “daughter of my father’s brother” isn’t it?
 
40.png
mtanuan:
While talking to Protestants, I’ve used the argument that there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew and Aramaic that is why “brother” is used to describe some of Jesus’ cousins. But if this is so, how is it that the word “cousin” was used to describe Elizabeth’s relationship with our Lady? How can I as a Catholic answer this?

I’ve got some theories related to the Roman Law of recognizing “paterfamilias” as brothers and cousins belonging to the same “family”, but I need confirmation. Thank so much and God bless.
Click to expand...
I heard this the other day by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers. The word in Greek for cousin [as in Elizabeths cousin] literally means kinsman which means a relative. In the OT Hebrew and Aramaic they didn’t have a word for cousin and had to use circumlocutions, e.g. he’s the son of my uncle, hence my cousin.
 
40.png
Bishopite:
I heard this the other day by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers. The word in Greek for cousin [as in Elizabeths cousin] literally means kinsman which means a relative. In the OT Hebrew and Aramaic they didn’t have a word for cousin and had to use circumlocutions, e.g. he’s the son of my uncle, hence my cousin.
Click to expand...
But this doesn’t account for (and neither does the article quoted above) for the fact that Mark, (which was written to Romans, and explains Jewish traditions etc because these Romans wouldn’t have understood these traditions or the calling of cousins, brothers like the Jewish did)

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t all his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:2b,3 NIV)
 
Semper Fi:
Arabic is close to Aramaic, but not close enough, but I believe the actual translation is “daughter of my father’s brother” isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. “Son/daughter of the brother of my father” would be “ibn/bint akhi abi,” but Arabic has two specific words for “uncle,” one meaning paternal uncle (“father’s brother” = `amm), and the other meaning maternal uncle (“mother’s brother” = khaal). They are usually just translated “uncle,” unless there is some reason to specify the relationship further. However, like I said, there is no single word for “cousin.”

You are right about the languages being close, however. After I had learned Arabic, suddenly the Aramaic quotations in the New Testament actually meant something to me. Also, where those quotations are transliterated in the Arabic New Testament, the pronunciation is much more accurate. In the English New Testament they are filtered through Greek (and sometimes Latin), which didn’t have the same sounds.

DaveBj
 
40.png
mtanuan:
While talking to Protestants, I’ve used the argument that there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew and Aramaic that is why “brother” is used to describe some of Jesus’ cousins. But if this is so, how is it that the word “cousin” was used to describe Elizabeth’s relationship with our Lady? How can I as a Catholic answer this?

I’ve got some theories related to the Roman Law of recognizing “paterfamilias” as brothers and cousins belonging to the same “family”, but I need confirmation. Thank so much and God bless.
Click to expand...
I think it is a matter of translation. When I was growing up and learning the Catechism and the Holy Scripture, Elizabeth was refered to as ‘kinswoman’ by the nuns teaching us at good ol’ Christ the King School in Pleasant Hill, Ca. I never heard her refered to as a ‘cousin’ until recently…and by Protestants.
 
anepsios is used in Col 4:10 so its translation is easy to check, just open your bible 😉
 
What is needed is to examine every single usage in Sacred Scripture of the terms “brother” and “sister”, in the original languges.

I did this some years ago, and it proves quite clearly that the traditional Catholic understanding of “Jesus’ brothers and sisters” is correct.
 
40.png
tjmiller:
What is needed is to examine every single usage in Sacred Scripture of the terms “brother” and “sister”, in the original languges.

I did this some years ago, and it proves quite clearly that the traditional Catholic understanding of “Jesus’ brothers and sisters” is correct.
Click to expand...
Hi TJ, fact is a word gets its meaning from the immediate context, not from how it is used elsewhere. The scriptures were written over thousands of years so, one would expect a word to have different meanings in different eras.

For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses try to get out of “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30 by appealing to how the word one is used in John 17. In John 10, Jesus is saying that he and the father are of one essence, one nature. In John 17, Jesus is speaking about one in agreement or of the same mind – thus to prove if brothers, and sisters means blood brother, step brother or cousin one must examine the context of use.

Frankly, I call my half siblings, step siblings and blood or ful siblings brother and sister reguardless of their physical relationship. The best we can say is the text does not have enough information to be sure if these are full blood, half blood, step, or cousins.

Simply ask, your protestant friends what they know about Joseph, is he older than Mary? same age? first or second marriage? did he die or simply run off in the later parts of the gospels? Why is he not present in Jesus life? and so on.

The best we can say is we do not know if those are full blood siblings.
 
While John 10:30 certainly suggests the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father, it does not prove it; we have to look elsewhere for that.

While not denying linguistic developments over time, the fact remains that we must interpret Scripture by means of the Scriptures (inter alia). (RE: brother & sisters Gen 34:13f., for example). But of course we can know the truth, not by means of personal linguistic exegesis, anyhow:

We know that the kinsfolk of Jesus referred to in the Gospels are not the “blood brothers and sisters” of the Lord, nor “half-brethren”, because the Apostolic Authority of the One True Church, personally and directly established by Christ at the price of His blood, Mother and Teacher of all churches, endowed by Him with the fulness both of revealed Truth and of the means of holiness and slvation, SAYS SO.

Roma locuta, causa finita est…
 
30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Hi TJ, scripture interprets scripture, yes and no, the proper scripture to interpret a given scripture is the imdediate context. The Jews clearly understood Jesus to be saying he is God. If Jesus were in fact saying he and the father are in agreement. Then they would have responed so are we.

The greek grammar is not a matter of personal opinion.

John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 5:18 is a good example of yes, scripture interpts scripture. John 17 is a word study fallacy on the word one.
 
I’ve used Jn 10: 30 to *support * Jesus’ divinity, of course - the Greek certainly suggests His consubstantiality, but does not definitively prove it. Above all, Jesus was not speaking Greek when He said to his Jewish listeners, “I and the Father are one”.
 
To my knowledge we do not have a reliable Aramaic manuscript of John 10:30 so we can only guess what words he used in Aramaic. But, as Fitzmyer points out elsewhere, whatever reconstruction of a given passage we come up with, it must account for the construction used in greek. ( He basically said this in BAR. ).

But, for the sake of argument lets say the following is true.

Aramaic ( not Hebrew? ) was the language spoken in the temple.
That those listening to Jesus had Aramaic or Hebrew or both as their primary language. That John 10:30 was spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew the native language of those whom he is addressing.

Well if all that were true, then the case for Jesus being one in nature with the father becomes stronger because those who were listening to Jesus still understood Jesus as saying he is God by nature.

And, John 5:18 would still say the same thing.
 
40.png
Protestante:
But this doesn’t account for (and neither does the article quoted above) for the fact that Mark, (which was written to Romans, and explains Jewish traditions etc because these Romans wouldn’t have understood these traditions or the calling of cousins, brothers like the Jewish did)

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t all his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:2b,3 NIV)
Click to expand...
Those “brothers” of the Lord are sons of Mary, but not the same Mary the Mother of Jesus: check Mt. 27, 55-56.

They are in fact two different individuals with the same name: one Mary is Jesus’ Mother (the Virgin) and the other is Her sister (Jn. 19,25).

Bottomline: they are His cousins.
 
very interresting the olde another mary did it ploy, 🙂 ( just between us I have no idea what I am talking about I just want to see how this plays out. )

So DA says,
Does Scripture address this? Yes, it does. Matthew 27:56 clearly says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also the mother of James and Joses. Mark 15:40 confirms this, as does Mark 16:1.
Click to expand...
raptureready.com/rr-catholic.html

Your more complete response, please Latin Catholic? thanks.
 
BTW: I would never trust Mr. Fitzmeyer as far as I could kick him…

I hope that he someday will acquire the decency, honesty and honor to admit that he is no true Catholic! :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top