Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseproject
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hope said:
God inspired them in harmony with the their nature in the natural activity of their faculties.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it seems a bit “parochial”, narrow, as if they were writing only to Hebrews, forgetting that the world, that they were trying to minister to, was laden with Greek and Roman culture and faculties. I would also think that though the writers were Hebrew and had such accustomed “faculties” as you say, that they were not ignorant of the Greek language and nuances, and certainly the Holy Spirit was not ignorant either.

As Paul states that he strives to become all things to all people, so that some might be saved. I would think the gospel writers would also use the best Greek possible to write the best Hebrew story ever.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think they didn’t? You still seem to believe that it would be dictation. In the larger scheme of things brother has a wider conception than would cousin. It would not have had the same impact if Jesus would have said who are my cousins? Those who do my will is my cousins. I would ask you if you believe that all instances in scripture use the word brother to mean a sibling? If not, than you should understand why the Gospel writers were inspired to use brothers when it didn’t mean siblings.
 
Yes, I know that the terms “brother” and “sister” could cover a seemingly wide rage of relatives.

See the following:

Sorting out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters – TaborBlog

An interesting take. I’m not so sure I agree with all of it - I don’t think Joseph was deceased, though it’s certainly a possibility. I don’t think he was all that much older than Mary.

One has to remember that the “Jesus story”, if you will, was written for an audience that, if not already Greek, was very Hellenized. The Gospel of Mark was written using the template of the Greek ‘mythic hero archetype’. In this template, in order for the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) to come into his own, any other male paternal or paternal-like figure must be written out of the narrative. Typically, he meets some sort of untimely death, but oftentimes is simply dropped from the narrative entirely; he just sort of disappears never to be heard from again. This allows the ‘hero’ to emerge as the central character and focus in the story.

I believe that’s what’s happening here – Joseph figures somewhat prominently in the infancy and youth of Jesus, but as soon as Jesus becomes officially an adult (in this case, the temple scene when Mary and Joseph ‘loose’ Jesus and find him in the temple later – if memory serves me, he was about the age of what would have been his bar-mitzvah), Joseph is no longer mentioned in the narrative; he simply disappears and is dropped from the narrative never to he heard from again. The focus is now on the ‘hero’, Jesus.

I do agree with the author that if Joseph did die, Mary would likely have been married to one of his brothers via a Levirite marriage as was the custom (and Jewish law, I think) of the day.
 
Whether or not he had genuine siblings really doesn’t matter to me. The church’s teaching on it is clear and makes sense, however, and centuries of debate have resulted in the current understanding. Neither you or I are likely to have much influence on that. 🙂
 
If Joseph had been alive, Jesus would not have given her care to John. Jewish law was only if the woman was childless was the brother expected to marry her. The story of Jesus was not written for a Greek audience that is flat revisionism.
 
hope said:
Jewish law was only if the woman was childless was the brother expected to marry her
Click to expand...
Good point, but it also highlights a other Hebrew aspect of the blessedness of heritage thru children, even to have her quiver full. The more childre the more blessed. It is not apparent from the gospels that Mary was an anomaly in this, in only having one child, or having a vow to be chaste. This would have been rare and her kinsmen/neighbors make no mention of this when discussing Jesus’s “family”.
 
Last edited:
Medawlinno said:
I do agree with the author that if Joseph did die, Mary would likely have been married to one of his brothers via a Levirite marriage as was the custom (and Jewish law, I think) of the day.
Click to expand...
That would only apply, I think, if her first husband had died childless. The husband’s brother would then have the duty to produce posthumous offspring for him.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) the word ἀνεψιὸς (cousin) appears just three times, once in Numbers and twice in Tobit. In Numbers 36:11 it translates the Hebrew ben dod, “uncle’s son”.
Click to expand...
This was my thought. The question is not just one of translation, but of usage. This should be easy to understand as we do the same thing today. The Septuagint is the best go to source, as it would have been what the apostles used. They quoted from it in the epistles, for example.

But more to the point, they were also Hebrews, and neither Greek or Latin was their primary, or only, language. That would have been Aramaic. See how complex this is getting? That is why we see weird phrases show up from time to time. A Greek phrase, for example, may not have been used anywhere outside of Palestine where the Hebrew and Aramaic languages influenced it. I think it presumptuous to think we can know for certain all such nuances 2000 years latter just because we have a concordance on the internet.

The bottom line is they should have just written in plain King James English!
 
Last edited:
For families in that day to have many children does not negate the fact that there were those who did not have many children Elizabeth for example. They do say that Jesus is the son of Mary not a son. Scripture demonstrates that Jesus was an only child. Just go back to some of the other threads I’m not going to rehash it.
 
well thank you but you have rehashed , and to that extent i will reply. In my opinion, contrary to yours , scripture no where indicates Christ as the only child. As to “only child”’, those mentioned in bible were because of old age or women who had trouble conceiving, but none by desire, or some vow, that I recall.
 
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, And an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69:8

This is speaking of Jesus here.
 
mcq72 said:
And is there not some traditions that hold Joseph as ever virgin also?
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of St. Joseph being referred to as such. You may be mistaking that for his title as “Most Chaste Spouse”. Chastity is frequently misunderstood as continence, or, never having had sex. You can be married and still be chaste even with eleven children and one on the way!
 
Everyone in the Church- married couples, priests, consecrated religious- are called to chastity 🙂
 
Does Psalm 69:8 Prove Mary had other children.
Some Points made in the article:
Plenty of things in Psalm 69 foreshadow Christ, but that doesn’t mean every element is true of Him. For example, Psalm 69:5 says, “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.” And Christ is sinless, of course. So the first option is simply that v. 8 isn’t strictly Christological.
Second, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, the “mother” may not be Mary – it may mean Israel .
Third, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other children need not be biological children
Click to expand...
it means that God does not dictate what is written and the person just writes it down.
Click to expand...
lol…never seen
anything so ambiguous
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you think it is open to more than one interpretation or how it is doubtful. I guess you are being ambiguous.

Is it that you don’t know what dictate means? God didn’t tell the scripture writer word for word what was to be written.
well thank you but you have rehashed , and to that extent i will reply. In my opinion, contrary to yours , scripture no where indicates Christ as the only child. As to “only child”’, those mentioned in bible were because of old age or women who had trouble conceiving, but none by desire, or some vow, that I recall.
Click to expand...
What I didn’t want to repeat obviously I must because you do not acknowledge that what you claim is false. Jesus would not have to provide care for His mother If there were any other sons. When these “brothers” talk to Jesus they give Him advice which only would have come from older siblings. The one point that I have never understood why it is dismissed is how a just man like Joseph would dare to approach where God had been. How Could another child occupy the place of God. Are these “brothers” now closer to God because they are half-brothers? If you would get over your anti-Catholicism and see what you propose is not inspired but is abominable. You keep claiming that scripture does not indicate yet your own source dispute that claim.
 
Last edited:
CCC 500 excerpt . . . the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
mcq72 . . .
The article then is at odds with such simplistic encompassing statement. The church has not unanimous consent of fathers on this. No such thing.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean here mcq72.

Are you saying some of the Church Fathers DENIED the Perpetual Viginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Are you DENYING " The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary."

Are you trying to say “not always”?

Do you have an issue with the Catechism section 500?

What do you mean here?
 
hope said:
We are not reading the original but translations. When you see cousin for Elizabeth you are reading what a translator decided to use. The Greek word used here is suggenes which means 1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sen sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. Using the word cousin makes sense but not all translations do. Other translations have kinsman or relative.
Click to expand...
And, in the case of Elizabeth some translators use “kinswoman”. I thought of that, because I’ve heard it in church. : ).

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top