Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 02-18-2011, 06:44 PM

1) According to the Catholics, Mary was a perpetual virgin despite the mention of Jesus' siblings. Catholic theologians claim that the use of 'brother' may have included cousins, and so Jesus was an only child.

It seems to me this possibility shouldn't be too difficult to determine. Did first century Palestinian Jews use the same word for brothers as for cousins (what I believe anthropologists call the 'Hawaiian' system of family nomenclature)?

2) To be regarded as being "of the house of ..." in Jewish culture, was it necessary for a man to be the biological son of his father? Could an adopted son be legitimately called, for instance, "of the House of David?"

I'm obviously asking this wrt Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecy of the messiah being "of the House of David" when Christians claim that Joseph was not the biological father.

And of course, please cite sources for any answers you can give me. I'll be googling for answers myself, but I think the members of FRDB can give me a wider range of answers than I'll find on my own.

aa5874 · 02-18-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

1) According to the Catholics, Mary was a perpetual virgin despite the mention of Jesus' siblings. Catholic theologians claim that the use of 'brother' may have included cousins, and so Jesus was an only child.

It seems to me this possibility shouldn't be too difficult to determine. Did first century Palestinian Jews use the same word for brothers as for cousins (what I believe anthropologists call the 'Hawaiian' system of family nomenclature)?

2) To be regarded as being "of the house of ..." in Jewish culture, was it necessary for a man to be the biological son of his father? Could an adopted son be legitimately called, for instance, "of the House of David?"

I'm obviously asking this wrt Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecy of the messiah being "of the House of David" when Christians claim that Joseph was not the biological father.

And of course, please cite sources for any answers you can give me. I'll be googling for answers myself, but I think the members of FRDB can give me a wider range of answers than I'll find on my own.

First of all it cannot be assumed that the Jesus story is true. It cannot be ascertained if there was woman named Mary in the first place.

Bit, if Mary had a male child for the Holy Ghost as stated in the NT and then had a male child for a man the CONCEPTION of Jesus is completely UNAFFECTED.

Toto · 02-18-2011, 07:59 PM

Catholic answers provides a convoluted argument:

Quote:

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word "brother." Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

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.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

aa5874 · 02-18-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholic answers provides a convoluted argument:

Quote:

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word "brother." Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

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.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

The word "cousin" appears in the writings of Josephus which would mean that there must have been a word for "cousin" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century.

See "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4 and 1.33.7

"Wars of the Jews" was translated from the Hebrew language to Greek.

Joan of Bark · 02-18-2011, 11:00 PM

Thanks, Toto. I certainly should have consulted that "encyclopedia" myself.

It is a convoluted and not very convincing argument. Basically, it's not giving any evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity, but merely using a sort of: well, this is possible, so we're going to run with it in order to maintain Church teachings.

And aa, I know which side of the MJ / HJ divide you reside on, but surely you can consider this argument from a modern Catholic's POV.

Toto · 02-19-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholic answers provides a convoluted argument:

The word "cousin" appears in the writings of Josephus which would mean that there must have been a word for "cousin" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century.

See "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4 and 1.33.7

"Wars of the Jews" was translated from the Hebrew language to Greek.

War of the Jews was written in Aramaic, but that text is lost. We don't know what term would have been translated to the Greek word for cousin. It could have been one of the longer phrases as indicated by Catholic answers, or the Greek translator could have inserted the word cousin where it was meant.

aa5874 · 02-19-2011, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Thanks, Toto. I certainly should have consulted that "encyclopedia" myself.

It is a convoluted and not very convincing argument. Basically, it's not giving any evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity, but merely using a sort of: well, this is possible, so we're going to run with it in order to maintain Church teachings.

And aa, I know which side of the MJ / HJ divide you reside on, but surely you can consider this argument from a modern Catholic's POV.

I AM ADDRESSING the OP. Please read my posts and DO not imagine.

I am NOT making arguments for Catholics.

I have simply pointed out that the word "cousin" is found in the writings of Josephus which was FIRST written in the Hebrew language and then translated to Greek.

This is the Preface to "Wars of the Jews"

Quote:

..... I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians....

"Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4

Quote:

.... he had also two wives that had no children, the one his first cousin, and the other his niece....

Any claim that there was no Hebrew word for "cousin" is ERRONEOUS based on the writings of Josephus.

I have SIMPLY corrected the error found in a post in this VERY thread.

aa5874 · 02-19-2011, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The word "cousin" appears in the writings of Josephus which would mean that there must have been a word for "cousin" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century.

See "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4 and 1.33.7

"Wars of the Jews" was translated from the Hebrew language to Greek.

War of the Jews was written in Aramaic, but that text is lost. We don't know what term would have been translated to the Greek word for cousin. It could have been one of the longer phrases as indicated by Catholic answers, or the Greek translator could have inserted the word cousin where it was meant.

Regardless whether it was a term or not the word "cousin" is found in "Wars of the Jews"

And quite remarkably in "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4, 1.33.7, 2.4.1 and 2.5.2 there is mention of a "FIRST COUSIN"

WJ 1.28.4

Quote:

....he had also two wives that had no children, the one his first cousin...

WJ 1.33.7

Quote:

....but Achiabus, his first cousin, came running to him....

WJ 2.4.1

Quote:

....And indeed in Idumea two thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together, and armed and fought against those of the king's party; against whom Achiabus, the king's first cousin, fought,

WJ 2.5.2

Quote:

.... There had before this met him Joseph, the first cousin of Archelaus, and Gratus...

It is CLEAR that there must have been or most likely was a word or term for "COUSIN" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century and there was NO confusion about "cousins" or at least "first cousins".

Toto · 02-19-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

... Regardless whether it was a term or not the word "cousin" is found in "Wars of the Jews"

And quite remarkably in "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4, 1.33.7, 2.4.1 and 2.5.2 there is mention of a "FIRST COUSIN"

WJ 1.28.4

WJ 1.33.7

WJ 2.4.1

WJ 2.5.2

It is CLEAR that there must have been or most likely was a word or term for "COUSIN" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century and there was NO confusion about "cousins" or at least "first cousins".

If you are going to be so dogmatic, please at least produce the Greek.

BJ 1.28.4 uses the term ἀνεψιά

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

aa5874 · 02-19-2011, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

... Regardless whether it was a term or not the word "cousin" is found in "Wars of the Jews"

And quite remarkably in "Wars of the Jews" 1.28.4, 1.33.7, 2.4.1 and 2.5.2 there is mention of a "FIRST COUSIN"

WJ 1.28.4

WJ 1.33.7

WJ 2.4.1

WJ 2.5.2

It is CLEAR that there must have been or most likely was a word or term for "COUSIN" in the Hebrew language since at least the 1st century and there was NO confusion about "cousins" or at least "first cousins".

If you are going to be so dogmatic, please at least produce the Greek.

BJ 1.28.4 uses the term ἀνεψιά

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

Your are COMPOUNDING your problem. You just said earlier that "THE TEXT IS LOST".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...War of the Jews was written in Aramaic, but that text is lost. We don't know what term would have been translated to the Greek word for cousin.......

Please have a look at Wars of the Jews 1.28.4

Quote:

..... he had also two wives that had no children, the one his first cousin, and the other his niece.....

We have a passage which includes the word "cousin" and "niece" so it can be DEDUCED that there were words or terms in Hebrew language for "cousin" and "niece".

02-18-2011, 06:44 PM	#1
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Two questions about Jewish families. 1) According to the Catholics, Mary was a perpetual virgin despite the mention of Jesus' siblings. Catholic theologians claim that the use of 'brother' may have included cousins, and so Jesus was an only child. It seems to me this possibility shouldn't be too difficult to determine. Did first century Palestinian Jews use the same word for brothers as for cousins (what I believe anthropologists call the 'Hawaiian' system of family nomenclature)? 2) To be regarded as being "of the house of ..." in Jewish culture, was it necessary for a man to be the biological son of his father? Could an adopted son be legitimately called, for instance, "of the House of David?" I'm obviously asking this wrt Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecy of the messiah being "of the House of David" when Christians claim that Joseph was not the biological father. And of course, please cite sources for any answers you can give me. I'll be googling for answers myself, but I think the members of FRDB can give me a wider range of answers than I'll find on my own.

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

02-18-2011, 11:00 PM	#5
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Thanks, Toto. I certainly should have consulted that "encyclopedia" myself. It is a convoluted and not very convincing argument. Basically, it's not giving any evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity, but merely using a sort of: well, this is possible, so we're going to run with it in order to maintain Church teachings. And aa, I know which side of the MJ / HJ divide you reside on, but surely you can consider this argument from a modern Catholic's POV.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.