Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-19-2011, 10:30 AM

The was an Aramaic word that was translated as ἀνεψιός - which has a range of possible meanings that include cousin. That's all you can tell.

avi · 02-19-2011, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The was an Aramaic word that was translated as ἀνεψιός - which has a range of possible meanings that include cousin. That's all you can tell.

I know not even one word of Aramaic, therefore, I must ask, in ignorance, does the "range of possible meanings" embrace "brother", as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

BJ 1.33.7. The word there is "ἀνεψιός" which is variously defined as "sister's son, nephew" or "cousin" or "first cousin."

but not "brother"?

avi

Toto · 02-19-2011, 03:30 PM

From the link above

Quote:

In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

Joan of Bark · 02-22-2011, 05:24 PM

Okay, so I got some answers to question number 2, re: could Jesus be of the house of David:

AskMoses.com

Quote:

There is nowhere in Torah the concept of a "legal" children are only biological. This is another case where they take ideas which have no source in Judaism or scripture and introduce it to find a convoluted means to fit their imaginary Messiah. For more on this topic please see www.JewsForJudaism.org

Chabad.org: Ask the Rabbi

Quote:

Hi,

The notion that someone would be considered to be a descendant of David just because he was raised by someone who was supposedly of his family seems to be quite a stretch to me.

Please let me know if this helps.

Yours truly,

Rabbi Menachem Posner

AsktheRabbi.org

Quote:

Dear Stephen Wodz:
Yes, there is no doubt that the Messiah has to be bilologically (sic) descended from King David in an unbroken male line. What the Christians claim does not stand up to scrutiny according to Jewish Law.
Best regards,
Rabbi Reuven Lauffer

I'm tempted to go to the Catholic discussion board on which I sometimes post and throw this out there for discussion. I'm sure they have some lame apologetic to explain this discrepancy.

semiopen · 02-24-2011, 09:56 AM

Joan, the three sources you give are all Chabad.

There is a strong belief in Chabad that the late Rebbe was the Messiah and thus of the house of David. The relationship is based on the relationship of the Rebbes to the Maharal of Prague -

Judah_Loew_ben_Bezalel. Most of these guys will now not openly claim that the Rebbe was the Messiah but they will defend his Davidic lineage to the death.

From what I understand the Lubavicher relationship to Loew is dubious. More dubious is the claim that the Maharal is a descendant from David.

The Maharal of Prague's Descent from King David

This is given in the Wiki as evidence that Loew was a descendant of David.

Are You a Jewish Descendant of King David?

Here is probably an equally idiotic link which however has the virtues of including my family name as Davidic in addition to stating - ,

Quote:

In fact, the well-known line from the Maharal of Prague is now in question.

I think academic consensus is that the Davidic line died out by the time of the early second temple.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2011, 10:30 AM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The was an Aramaic word that was translated as ἀνεψιός - which has a range of possible meanings that include cousin. That's all you can tell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.