Material to reflect on the use of the term “brothers” in Aramaic.

Recently Catholic Answers has been receiving several questions about whether there is an Aramaic word for cousin. These questions were generated as a result of media discussions of a limestone ossuary (bone box) discovered in Israel that supposedly contains the bones of James the Just, whom the Scriptures call “the brother of the Lord.” The ossuary dates back to the first century and has the words “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” written in Aramaic. This ossuary initially captured public attention in 2002, but this attention intensified with the publication of a book by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III called The Brother of Jesus. Shanks is the editor of the journal Biblical Archaeology Review, while Witherington is a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary. To promote their book, Witherington and Shanks published a related article in USA Today’s weekend magazine (“In the Name of the Brother,” USA Weekend, April 13, 2003); This article was the one that unleashed the storm of questions. The reason for this is that Witherington (the lead author of the article), stated: It is possible that the inscription on the ossuary—“James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”—offers us a challenge regarding certain basic Christian assumptions about James. Catholic tradition is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were actually his cousins; Orthodox Christians believe they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. In fact, the inscription conflicts with both of the Christian traditions, as there was certainly an Aramaic word for “cousin” that could have been used in this inscription but was not. If Jesus was only the son of Mary and James was only the son of Joseph, then Jesus and James would not have been literally brothers, as this inscription says. Witherington’s presentation of Catholic teaching is not without problems, but his argument about Aramaic in the ossuary is fraught with difficulties, beginning with his claim that there is an unidentified Aramaic word for cousin. Witherington repeats this argument in a different way in the section he wrote for The Brother of Jesus: If Jesus’ brothers had been cousins, then they would simply have been called cousins ​​using the corresponding Aramaic and Greek terms [183]. You will notice that I am focusing on Witherington as the person who claims that there is an Aramaic word for cousin. The reason for this is that in the section of The Brother of Jesus written by Shanks, he not only refrained from making this claim, but he wrote things—which as we will see—undermine Witherington’s claim. But first, let’s start with some background material.

The Source of the Controversy

The New Testament is very clear on the fact that Mary was a virgin at the time of conceiving Jesus through the intercession of the Holy Spirit. Christian tradition—later affirmed infallibly by the Church—also recognizes that she remained a virgin throughout her life. This fact is recognized by the vast majority of Christians, with the exception of the Protestant community.

However, certain questions must be answered, such as who are the “brothers” of Christ mentioned in the Scriptures.

In English (and Spanish), when we use the word “brother” we do so to refer to a full brother—that is, a male relative who shares both biological parents. But this word has a broader range of meanings than this one. It can also include half-siblings (a male relative who shares a biological father), stepbrother (a male relative who shares a father by marriage), and an adoptive brother (a male relative adopted into the family). It can also be given a figurative meaning, such as “companion,” as when a group of soldiers are described as a “band of brothers.”

In the Scriptures, which of these meanings applies to the brothers of Christ?

It is not likely that the word “brother” is used figuratively or even in a mystical sense, since all Christians are brothers of Christ in this sense and it does not make sense to specially designate certain individuals for this description. It is impossible for the full brother relationship to apply, because Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son. Regardless of how brothers were related to Christ, they cannot be full brothers, a point even Protestants recognize. The half-brother relationship is eliminated by the fact that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Jesus was his only son. It is possible that they were adopted siblings—children whom Mary and Joseph took up for adoption at one point—but there seems to be no evidence of this in biblical or patristic writings. It is more likely that they were stepbrothers. That is, they were children of Joseph who became brothers of Jesus through marriage. There is some evidence to this effect in the writings of the early Christians. In fact, in the documents we have, the first time this issue is discussed is in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. 120 AD), where it mentions that Joseph was an elderly widower and that he already had a family, so he was willing to become guardian of a consecrated virgin. Although this document is not inspired, it was written when people who remembered the Virgin Mary were still alive and when the family of Christ was still well known, as confirmed by other sources (such as the case of Hegesippus, the second century historian). Therefore, it may contain correct information about the family organization. The half-brother hypothesis was the most common until the time of Saint Jerome (early 5th century), who popularized another theory. He suggested that Christ’s brothers were in fact his cousins. This is not something one would guess as a result of a casual reading of the New Testament, but many have attempted to substantiate this hypothesis as a deduction from various statements in the New Testament. Part of the dilemma revolves around the meaning of the word “brother” in the New Testament. Until this moment we have been talking about the word brother in Spanish so as not to complicate the discussion. The equivalent word in first-century Greek (adelphos) has basically the same range of meanings. However, first-century Greek also has a word for “cousin” (anepsios). This seems to have been the word commonly used when referring to cousins, so anyone proposing the cousin hypothesis would have to explain why it was not used for Christ’s cousins, if that is what they were. The standard explanation is that while the New Testament we have is written in Greek, it is not normal Greek. Some have suggested that many parts of the New Testament may be translations from another language: Aramaic, which was the common language of Palestine in the first century and therefore the language of Jesus and his first disciples. It is not known if any part or how much of the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, but even if nothing, it is a fact that Aramaic had a strong influence on the language of the New Testament. It is likely that with the exception of Luke, all New Testament authors spoke Aramaic as their first language, and much of the dialogue recounted in the Gospels and Acts originally occurred in Aramaic. In any case, the Greek of the New Testament is not ordinary Greek. It has been considerably influenced by Jewish Aramaic word selection, syntax, and style. This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) is broader than the corresponding meaning in Greek. Not only does it include the meaning already stated, but it also includes other close relationships, including cousins. In fact, in the Aramaic of first century Palestine there does not appear to have been a word for “cousin” and the word for “brother” was the word normally used for cousins. For this reason, the first Christians in Palestine would have called the cousins ​​that Jesus had brothers and when translating his writings or preachings into Greek, it is very likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been literally represented with the Greek word adelphos: brother. As Witherington attacks this explanation, let’s look at the merits of his argument.

Criticism of the Arguments 

In his article in USA Weekend, Witherington criticizes the step-sibling and cousin hypotheses. As for the first, it says: “If Jesus was only the son of Mary and James was only the son of Joseph, then Jesus and James literally would not have been brothers, as this inscription states.” It is very difficult to take this argument seriously. First of all, the inscription does not say that Jesus and James were “literally” brothers; It simply says that they were brothers. It does not say “James, son of Joseph, literal brother of Jesus.” Also, what does Witherington mean by “literally”? For most who hear it, the most literal meaning of brother is full brother and all other meanings are somewhat accommodated to this primary meaning. But we already know that James cannot be Jesus’ full brother because Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father (a point that Witherington, who appears to be an Evangelical and who has written a book critical of liberal reinterpretations of Jesus, supposedly admits). Therefore we would be arguing about the difference between a half brother and a step brother. Does Witherington really expect us to consider half-siblings to be “literally” siblings, while step-siblings are not? As incredible as this suggestion seems, it is a fact that Witherington is trying to conclude too much from the word “brother” in the inscription. Its range of meanings is simply too wide to eliminate the meaning of stepbrother. Even in the English language, which has a gigantic vocabulary (much larger than most languages), including a specific word for the step-sibling relationship, we tend to simply use the term “brother.” If a person introduces their stepbrother, they are more likely to say “this is my brother so-and-so” rather than “this is my stepbrother so-and-so” (unless the family relationship is strained). Thus, Witherington’s arguments against the half-brother hypothesis appear to be remarkably weak. As for the cousin hypothesis, he dismisses it simply by writing: “certainly there was an Aramaic word for ‘cousin’ that could have been used in this inscription but was not.” It seems to me that for this argument to have weight, several conditions must be true: 1. The ossuary is truly that of James the Just. 2. The person who wrote “brother of Jesus” knew what he was saying. 3. In Aramaic there is a word for “cousin.” 4. This word was used in first century Palestinian Aramaic. 5. At the time, this was the preferred term for cousins. The first of these is very possible, perhaps even probable. Based on the evidence we have to this day, there is plenty of evidence to claim that the ossuary was that of James the Just (see Hershel Shanks’ part in The Brother of Jesus, where he presents his arguments). The second is also quite possible, but not as probable. Several scholars have suggested that the part of the inscription that reads “brother of Jesus” may have been added some time later than the first part—although still in antiquity, since it has been as eroded by the elements as the first part of the inscription. If this was added later (and it has not been proven that it was), it is assumed that the author of this did so to clarify which “James son of Joseph” he was referring to—that is, the one who is related to Jesus. However, as the hypothetical second scribe was more distanced from the events than the first and therefore might not have a good grasp of the exact relationship between the two, he may have chosen the wrong word to describe it. Therefore, for Witherington’s argument to apply, we have to assume that the second scribe (if he existed) knew what he was saying. Although this is a reasonable assumption, it cannot be asserted and the uncertainty increases as the difference in time in which the hypothetical scribe lived increases (that is, if it was in the third or fourth century, it is likely that exact knowledge of Jesus’ family relationships would have disappeared by then). The third assumption—that there is an Aramaic word for “cousin” is where the real problems begin. Unfortunately, Witherington does not say what this word is in his article in USA Weekend (which is understandable) nor does he do so in his part of The Brother of Jesus (which seems inexcusable because his case revolves around this word, plus he is very liberal in introducing other foreign language words). When I first learned of Witherington’s claim—and before I realized I would have to write this article—I sent him a very cordial note to ask him what the word he had in mind was and whether there was evidence that it had been used in Palestine during the first century. But to date, I have not received a response from him. This prevents me from directly evaluating his claim by simply looking up the proposed word in an Aramaic dictionary. However, on its own weight, the claim appears to be highly improbable. As far as I know I am the only full-time Catholic apologist who has studied Aramaic. I have paid special attention to the brother/cousin issue because of its apologetic implications and as far as I can determine, there simply is no word for “cousin.” I am aware of circumlocutions that can be used to describe cousins, such as “your uncle’s son” (brona d-`ammeh) and more general terms for family ties, such as “relative” (ahayana), but I have not been able to find a word for “cousin.” But since I do not consider myself an expert, I consulted several people whose knowledge of Aramaic is far superior to mine. Mitchel Pacwa, S.J. He was the first person I was able to communicate with and he quickly confirmed that he was not aware that there was any Aramaic term (in any dialect) that means “cousin.” Then I drove to the other side of town to visit my Aramaic teacher, Father Michael Bazzi. Father Bazzi is a Chaldean Catholic priest from Mosul, Iraq and—to be more precise—he speaks Chaldean as his first language (this being the ethnic language of the Chaldeans). He is also the author of several textbooks on modern and classical Aramaic. It confirmed to me that there is certainly no specific term for “cousin” and when a person wants to emphasize the cousin relationship, they use one of several possible circumlocutions. In the dictionaries that Father Bazzi and I consulted, no term for “cousin” appeared either. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Dr. Witherington has in mind a term that truly means cousin. Most likely, you are thinking of one of the broader terms for kinship, such as ahayana (“relative”), qariwa (“close relationship”), or nasha (“relative”). This is even assuming Witherington can speak Aramaic, which remains to be confirmed. In Protestant seminaries, New Testament teachers are generally very well trained in Greek and have some command of Hebrew, but almost no command of Aramaic. If they have received any training in Aramaic, it is usually in the form of a short session within their Hebrew courses. Witherington’s lack of familiarity with Aramaic seems to be confirmed by the fact that in the part he wrote of The Brother of Jesus, he explains with great skill the meaning of Greek words for various things, but tends to remain silent when it comes to explaining the meaning of Aramaic terms. Based on what I know of this matter so far, he may not have any specific Aramaic words in mind but he may be basing his argument on what he has heard others say. Those others—if they exist—do not appear to include his co-author Hershel Shanks. In Shanks’ section of the book The Brother of Jesus, he writes things that counter Witherington’s argument. As an example, Shanks cites paleographer Emile Peuch, O.P. who said “the specific relationship between James and Jesus in our ossuary simply cannot be determined…. [In the first century], the term “brother” actually applied jointly to blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion” (51). (Shanks later—supposedly unintentionally—counters Witherington’s argument regarding the Greek [183] by quoting Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. stating “the Greek word adelphos, translated ‘brother’ when Paul calls James ‘the brother of the Lord’ [Galatians 1:19], can also mean ‘relative’ or ‘beloved’. Therefore, James could simply have been a relative of Jesus, and not a brother.” [64].)

This is why the central part of Witherington’s argument is extremely dubious. However, to continue the argument, suppose there was an Aramaic term for “cousin.” What would happen then? We would still require that the fourth assumption we mentioned be met: The term would have to have been used in first century Palestinian Aramaic. The Aramaic language is very old and dates back 4,000 years (as a comparison, English is only 800 years old). Aramaic is also very diverse. Since it served as the lingua franca of the Middle East for centuries, both before and after Christ, it developed many local dialects and sometimes borrowed words from other neighboring languages. Hypothetically, one of these dialects may have acquired a word for “cousin.” However, the simple fact that a dialect had such a word—and that it could supposedly be found in an Aramaic dictionary somewhere (which I have not found)—would not prove that it could have been used in the Santiago ossuary. For this to happen, it would have had to have been part of first century Palestinian Aramaic and as far as I have been able to confirm, no one has evidence that this happened. Even if this word were in common use in the period in which the inscription was recorded, the fifth assumption I mentioned must also be met: it would have to have been the preferred term for “cousin. As an example, if I wanted to talk about someone’s domestic cat, I could talk about their “domestic feline.” This is possible in current English but not the preferred form. In the normal way of speaking, I would be expected to use “domestic cat,” the customary term. Likewise, if there were in use a word for “cousin” in first century Palestine, but it was a rare and uncustomary word at the time, so we would not expect it to be used in the ossuary. It would have to have been customary before the argument had validity. And again, no one that I know of has any evidence that such a word existed, much less that it was the customary term. Therefore, Witherington’s argument seems to be fraught with problems. “cousin” remains unproven, and even if it were true it would not prove what he claims. Even if it did, it would not eliminate the half-brother hypothesis or other possibilities regarding who Christ’s “brothers” were. Contrary to what Witherington and other Protestants describe to us—the James ossuary does not appear to provide archaeological evidence in favor of the idea that Jesus had half-siblings and that Mary did not remain a virgin.

Author: Jimmy Akin
Translator: Manuel Pérez