Did Jesus have a brother???

[KC Catholic]

Originally posted by Terri
KC I really do pray you are right!

Sorry, but I can't help but be concerned when it seems there is so much focus on Mary.

A lot of us have this concern.  It is often taken that we hate Catholics because of it.  Many of us don't hate you, we are truely concerned.

  

I understand the concern, Terri, and I appreciate where you are coming from more than you know. Mary was a huge hang up for me when I first considered converting. I saw how many people placed Mary above Christ and it concerned me deeply. I did a lot of praying and reading on Marian devoutions and came to the conclusion that the Church herself places Mary in the proper context of her role in salvation history.

It is a small group of fanatics that have taken Mary and her role and become obsessed with it, to the point of worship, which is wrong and NOT what the church teaches. Just like we have fanatical Americans, there are fanatical Catholics, but they are a small and non-influential part of the Church.

Hope this helps..I know you don't hate Catholics. It's a matter of fully understanding what is really taking place and the only way to find out is to ask - like you have here.

Peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[Wolseley]

As always, take what the Church says about Mary, not what you see some lay Catholics doing, and consider it the teaching of the Catholic Faith.

KC, they're complaining about the popcorn you keep tossing over the balcony!

 

[KC Catholic]

Originally posted by Wolseley
KC, they're complaining about the popcorn you keep tossing over the balcony!

Oh yeah...well let 'em eat the ju-ju bees that are stick under their seats!

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by VOW
Please understand, the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic. And in ARAMAIC, there are no words for cousin. If you were related to someone, in some remote way, that person was your "brother."

BOTH are VERY popular misconceptions.

First, give my site a peek:

http://www.AramaicNT.org

Second, the word in Aramaic for "brother" is "akho," where the word in Aramaic for "cousin" (which includes cousins and other kinsmen) is "akhyono."

Shlomo d-Moryo la-khoon!
(The Peace of Lord YHWH be with you!)

 

[VOW]

To Thadman:

I appreciate your contribution, but the teaching of the Catholic Church has been that in Jesus's time in Palestine, the Aramaic word for "Brother" was in use to mean "Cousin" or "close male relative."

I'll trust the scholarship of the Church on this.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Terri]

Originally posted by The Thadman
BOTH are VERY popular misconceptions.

First, give my site a peek:

http://www.AramaicNT.org

Second, the word in Aramaic for "brother" is "akho," where the word in Aramaic for "cousin" (which includes cousins and other kinsmen) is "akhyono."

Shlomo d-Moryo la-khoon!
(The Peace of Lord YHWH be with you!)

Thanks for letting us know about the error Thadman! 

  

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by VOW
I'll trust the scholarship of the Church on this.


Peace,
~VOW

Mo rabe b-Haikhlo d-Koolonoy d-omar l-Aromoeet yaumo hono?

Additionally, the RCC teaches that the NT was originally penned (in it's entirety) in Greek. There's more and more evidence surfacing that goes against this.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[kern]

Originally posted by The Thadman

Additionally, the RCC teaches that the NT was originally penned (in it's entirety) in Greek. There's more and more evidence surfacing that goes against this.

As far as I can tell, the Catechism says nothing about what language the NT was written in. Certainly many people in the Catholic Church would teach this, but that's not unusual since the "Aramaic NT" idea is a minority opinion at this point. A great deal of Protestants "teach" that the NT was composed in Greek as well.

-Chris

 

[VOW]

Actually, there is evidence that the book of Matthew was originally written in HEBREW. The language structure of the Greek text is comparable to something translated from Hebrew to Greek.

The Catholic Church has never made any "official statement" as to what the original language was of Scripture. It has acknowleged the Septuagint books of the OT, which were in Greek. A common argument against the Deuterocanonicals by Protestant churches is that the OT canon was found ONLY in Hebrew, thereby allegedly negating the authenticity of the Deuteros.

Recent archaeological finds have uncovered partial Hebrew texts for the Deuteros, which invalidates that argument.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

Mo rabe b-Haikhlo d-Koolonoy d-omar l-Aromoeet yaumo hono?

Ata medabar Ivrit?

Virtually every resource I have ever seen, both Catholic and Protestant, states that there is no specific Aramaic word for "cousin". I'm curious, therefore, to know the source for your hypothesis concerning "akho" vs. "akhyono".

The Hebrew word for "brother" is ach (yod, aleph, kayth), which the Aramaic would be related to, but ach is used in a variety of functions---blood brothers, cousins, nephews, members of the same tribe, even political allies.

Tobit, Sirach, Judith, and Wisdom (and IIRC, 1 Maccabees) have been discovered in either complete or fragmentary form in either Hebrew or Aramaic, depending on the book.

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by VOW
Actually, there is evidence that the book of Matthew was originally written in HEBREW. The language structure of the Greek text is comparable to something translated from Hebrew to Greek.

Er, the "TONGUE OF THE HEBREWS" (ie Aramaic) not Hebrew. The Greek word in question that the language is described in is "hebraris." Remember how the word "Googlatho" (Golgotha) is described in the Bible in the Greek MSS as in "hebraris"? It's an Aramaic word, not a Hebrew one (look in any Hebrew and/or Aramaic lexicon).

Hebrew was used only in the Temple, Aramaic was the lingua franca of the people. Translations of the OT into Aramaic (the Targums) were VERY common in 1st century Judea.

I highly suggest that you give my website a peek. There's really strong evidence that more than just Matthew was translated from a Semitic tongue.

Originally posted by VOW
Recent archaeological finds have uncovered partial Hebrew texts for the Deuteros, which invalidates that argument.

From what I've seen, the Hebrew text of the Deuteros seem to stem from Greek originals because of their dialect (but more on that as I research I admit that I have read few articles concerning it).

Originally posted by Wolseley
Ata medabar Ivrit?

Hehe. Omer -no l-Aromoyeet, lo Ivrit. Tohey -no een.

Originally posted by Wolseley
Virtually every resource I have ever seen, both Catholic and Protestant, states that there is no specific Aramaic word for "cousin". I'm curious, therefore, to know the source for your hypothesis concerning "akho" vs. "akhyono".

The Hebrew word for "brother" is ach (yod, aleph, kayth), which the Aramaic would be related to, but ach is used in a variety of functions---blood brothers, cousins, nephews, members of the same tribe, even political allies.

Look it up in any Aramaic lexicon. Truly this is a VERY common misconception about the Aramaic language. The Hebrew came from the Aramaic "akho" (Olap-Kheyt-Olap) the only real difference in spelling (compared to the root) is the Aramaic masculine singular ending Olap (Aleph) "o."

Akhyono also comes from the same root, but it has the "yono" ending.

"yono" itself is made up of two individual particles. There are no direct english equivalents, but here's the easiest way to think of them:

"yo" turns a noun into a quality or an instance, sorta like the english "-ish" or "-ian." So:

-"Msheekho" (Christ) becomes "Msheekhyo" (Christian)
-"Soomoqo" (Red) becomes "Soomoqyo" (Reddish, or Red in color)

"no" turns a noun into a discriptor, sorta like the english "-y" or "-ly." So:

-"'Apro" (Dust) becomes "'Aprono" (Dusty)
-"Mayo" (Water) becomes "Mayno" (Watery or Wet)

Putting these two together, we get Akho as both a descriptor and a quality, "Akhyono."

The SEDRA (Syriac Entry Data Retrieval Archive) by Dr. George Kiraz defines it as "cousin," "kinswoman," or "kinsman."

The CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) defines it as "relative."

Hope this helps!

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[isshinwhat]

It's great to have you here, Steve. I know Paul Noonan is of the opinion that Mary was a perpetual virgin, so I am guessing that you probably are, too. Is there anything in the Aramaic that would lend creedence to the constant Tradition of the Faith?

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Wolseley]

It helps, but it still doesn't convince me that the "brothers of Jesus" described in Scripture were the children of Mary.

Abeo; die dulci fruere!

Denuone Latine loquebar???? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur....

 

[Prodigious Prime]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY VOW:

Please understand, the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic. And in ARAMAIC, there are no words for cousin. If you were related to someone, in some remote way, that person was your "brother."
______________________________________________________

Hi,

I'm new to this exciting world of challenged discussion!  In fact it's so exciting, I often feel overwhelmed!

I feel it very necessary now to clarify what's seemingly become a great big noise of confusion.

1) The Thadman is correct.  The RCC teaches that the New Testament was penned in Greek.

   What he did not mention is that every Reputable Protestant School teaches the same thing!  This is not a point of contention between Catholics and Protestants!

Ask your minister or priest if you don't believe me... Please....

Fact: Jesus spoke Greek (even though his native tongue was most likely Aramaic).

Question: Why would the New Testament be penned in anything other than Greek if it's primary goal was to initiate a Universal Church (remember that Greek was as universal as English is today!)?

Please take everything that you read on the internet with a "grain of salt".  (even when you encounter aficionados of ancient languages)

If you can't get a hold of your priest or minister check my previous posting for a good rebuttal to these views.

Recap:

      New Testament WAS NOT written in Aramaic.

      James' Bone Box WAS written in Aramic (seemingly).

God Bless!

 

[VOW]

Jesus spoke GREEK?

Huh?

Any DIRECT quotes from Him in the New Testament are in Aramaic. And as a Jew who read from Scripture in the Synagogue, He most likely was able to read and speak Hebrew.

The government of Palestine in the lifetime of Jesus was Roman, so the governmental language and the language of commerce was probably Latin.

Please provide references showing that Jesus spoke Greek.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY VOW:
Recap:

      New Testament WAS NOT written in Aramaic.

      James' Bone Box WAS written in Aramic (seemingly).

God Bless!

Er, you fail to give evidence supported by the texts themselves. All of my proofs come from the GREEK MSS that all western churches have been using for 2000 years. Some of them are variances in the GREEK texts that seem to stem from ONE Aramaic word, others are scribal glitches that are purely due to handwritting and glyph-similarity issues, and some even stem from variances in the Greek MSS due to the translator not knowing what vowels to put onto Aramaic consonants

Give my website a look; if you have questions I'll answer them. I document my sources well and include scans of MSS and keep those MSS freely available online for ALL to see. Some of the evidences of my site are going to be featured in Andrew Gabriel Roth's upcomming book.

BTW:

James' Ossuary WAS written in Aramaic The contraction of "akhoohi" and the proclitic "de" (which means "of") tacked onto the beginning of "Yeshu'" prove it (both constructs are not found in any other language written in Assyrian Script ("Hebrew Blockletters") but Aramaic).

You've just told me "I'm right, you're wrong; move along." Come let us reason m'friend.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[dignitized]

Vow: actually, Latin was not yet at its prime as a language at the time of Christ. What more, the Jews had lived under Greek rule for several hundred years. From the time of Alexander the great until the Maccabees revolt, Judea was a Greek province of contention between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Egyptian empires. Even once the Roman Empire took over these Hellenistic lands, he last to fall being Egypt to Augustus Caesar in 30 BC. AT the time of Christ these lands were still largely and deeply Hellenistic in their culture and in their orientation. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean even under the Romans. It is quite possible that Christ spoke Greek but I do not know of any evidence to support that He did or that He did not. There is little doubt however that Paul, Luke, John Mark, and John were all fluent in Greek.

 

[kern]

I have read theories that Jesus spoke mostly Greek, and that when the Gospels quote him in Aramaic they are merely recording the few times he actually did use Aramaic. I don't know how strong the evidence for this is, though, and I really don't know much about the position.

-Chris

 

[The Thadman]

There's more than just what's quoted in Aramaic that was spoken in the Aramaic.

The Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes, for example, are poetry in the Aramaic. The Lord's Prayer even has a rhyme scheme that is totally lost in the Greek.

Also various other teachings rhyme or have meter that did not translate over into the Greek.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[dignitized]

welp, Christ being GOD - I'm sure he spoke and speaks ALL languages