Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh!

A reader writes:

I’m trying to piece together an apologetics answer involving some Greek and Aramaic and this is getting dangerous.  Could you help?  It centers on the objection to Catholics claiming that the "brothers of Jesus" actually refers to "cousins or kinfolk" following the indefinite term aha (I think) in Aramaic.  Aramaic apparently has no strict term for cousin and the Greek author transliterated adelphos from the Aramaic "brother".  So far so good.   But someone recently retorted that if there is no term for cousin in Aramaic, why is Elizabeth called Mary’s "cousin" (sungenes) in Luke 1, 36?  OK, I’ve learned that "cousin" is only one word used here by English translators- along with kinswoman and relative.  So, Elizabeth’s not strictly meant to be seen as Mary’s literal cousin.  But now I’m trying to learn if there is a corresponding Aramaic term for the Elizabeth-Mary relationship as there is for the Jesus-Brothers relationship.  It seems that, to be consistent, Luke must have transliterated some sort of Aramaic term to arrive at sungenes for the Elizabeth-Mary relation.  Any ideas?

First, let me take a moment to comment on the translation in Luke 1:36 in the New American Bible of sungenis (the feminine form of sungenēs) as "cousin." This is a terrible rendering that has caused confusion for countless faithful Catholics. It is just another one of the seemingly countless flaws with this translation. The meaning of the Greek word sungenēs (pronounced sun-gen-ace) is too general to be translated "cousin." "Relative," "kinsman," or (in the feminine) "kinswoman" would be acceptable translations. "Cousin" is simply wrong, and so clearly wrong that in Luke 1:36 in the current version of the NAB, they’ve stopped rendering it that way and translated it as "relative" instead. If only the translators hadn’t been so irresponsible as to do the misrendering in the first place, countless Catholics would have been spared confusion.

Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for "cousin." 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.”

Luke could have been translating any one of these more general terms (or, rather, their feminine equivalents) as sungenēs, or he could have been translating a different, general term, or he could have been paraphrasing what the angel said rather than translating from the Aramaic. There’s really no way to know which is the case, but there certainly are alternatives.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

9 thoughts on “Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh!”

  1. So if the word sungenes has a broad meaning, and we can’t establish the true relationship of Mary and Elizabeth through this translation, how did we come up with the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth as cousins. Are they really cousins or is their relationship not really established? I’m trying to reconcile the passages Luke 1:36 and Mark 6:3. If Mark 6:3 uses the word brother why wasn’t the word sister used instead of cousin in Luke 1:36?

  2. Am trying to say that john allen of Nat Cath Reporter says that the Mary: doc will be on the Vatican website by end of May

  3. Mary and Elizabeth were called kinswomen because they were of kindred (fellow Israeli) tribes. No levite could be a Judahite’s cousin, on account of inheritance laws. Thus John is never called a relative of JESUS by either Divine Scipture – and John says he had not known JESUS prior to baptising HIM (they obviously spent none of their childhood together as cousins) – nor by Josephus, who mentions both John and JESUS, but does not connect them in any way.

  4. brother,
    good day, i am duane cartujano 25 years old and a catholic faith defender.
    its nice to know about your argument about mary.
    i want to ask you to help, can you send me where did you get the information that there is no word cousing in aramaic?
    tnanks in advance God bless.
    Brother Duane Cartujano
    Philippines

  5. Catholics claiming that the “brothers of Jesus” actually refers to “cousins or kinfolk”
    For what it’s worth, this is only one Catholic interpretation among a few. We are not bound to this one explanation.
    St. Jerome believed that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were cousins or other relatives, pointing out that Aramaic and Hebrew speakers would use the term “brother” for a cousin. (Classic example: Lot is called Abram’s “brother” in at least one passage, but we know by biblical genealogies that Lot was Abram’s nephew.) This view has been favored in the West among both Catholics and Protestants (e.g. Luther and Calvin).
    St. Epiphanius believed that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were probably Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. This view has been especially favored among Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox.
    Anne Rice’s new novelization of Jesus’ childhood draws on both of those traditions: James as Joseph’s son by a previous marriage, other “brothers and sisters” as cousins.
    New Testament commentator John McHugh suggested another way to combine Jerome and Epiphanius’ understandings: McHugh believed it possible that Joseph legally adopted some of Jesus’ cousins, perhaps in response to the death(s) of their own father(s).
    Any of the above are acceptable from a Catholic standpoint.
    I don’t think, by the way, that the existence of a distinct Greek word for “cousin” (I believe anepsios is) necessarily undermines Jerome’s interpretation, even if it was used in the same book of the New Testament. Pretend, jut for the sake of argument, that Luke really had referred to Jesus’ “brothers” and Mary’s “cousin.” It’s still not a problem for Jerome.
    Consider:
    You are Luke. You are writing an account in Greek of something you did not personally witness based on sources whose first language is Hebrew or Aramaic.
    Yaakov, whose first language is Aramaic, tells you something about Y’shua’s “brothers and sisters.” You, wanting to be as accurate to Yaakov’s narrative as possible, write it down just as it was told to you. You don’t change his use of Aramaic idiom.
    Mariam tells you something about a different family relationship. Mariam’s first language is also Aramaic, but either because her Greek is better than Yaakov’s or because she gives you more contextual information about the relationship (or both), you are able to discern that she’s talking about a cousin rather than a sibling. So you write that down just as Mariam told you.
    Both Yaakov and Mariam may have told you stories about cousins and not siblings, but you simply wrote the narratives in the words they gave you, so sometimes you wrote “brothers” and other times you wrote “cousin.”
    Jimmy has pointed out, of course, that sungenēs does not specifically mean “cousin.” But even if it did, I don’t think it would pose a serious problem to Jerome’s interpretation.
    Mary and Elizabeth were called kinswomen because they were of kindred (fellow Israeli) tribes. No levite could be a Judahite’s cousin, on account of inheritance laws.
    There was once a law against inheriting daughters marrying outside their tribes (e.g. Num. 36:5-9), but Jews believe that this law ceased to be effective after the death of the generation that conquered the Holy Land. See, for example, point #2 in this article on Tu B’Av (the 15th of Av) (also: Tu B’Av, Tu B’Av, Tu B’Av, Tu B’Av, etc.).
    Do you have some evidence that neither Mary nor Elizabeth married outside her tribe?

  6. jimmy,
    its me again, i need the reference that can prove THE IS NO WORD COUSIN for aramaic, what book and what page? or any references dictionary of aramaic….Jimmy i need ur support

Comments are closed.