Further down in the article he writesThis plurality of interpretations [i.e., "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus mentioned in the NT as being either blood siblings or close relations, such as cousins] has been made possible because of the ambiguity of the word "brother" (and "sister") in ancient Hebrew. This language, like Aramaic, does not distinguish between blood brother and cousin. In fact--and this point might not have been taken into sufficient consideration--the Hebrew word ah, in its literal meaning, applies to any close male relative of the same generation. Once someone belongs to this circle--whether as sibling, half-brother, step-brother or cousin--he is an ah. Within this circle defined by true family brotherhood, no further word distinction is made. For ancient Hebrew, one belongs either to the family in-group or not.
The full article can be accessed at http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/Rossier.htmlAncient Greek considers how the family members of a same generation may be related, and distinguishes between an adelphos, "brother," and an anepsios, "cousin." Since the New Testament was written in ancient Greek, the sponsors of the Helvidian interpretation argue that wherever the word "brother" is used it refers to a true sibling. They concede that if we can suppose an original Hebrew or Aramaic that preceded the Greek text, we may accept that the New Testament authors felt bound to translate the original Hebrew or Aramaic expression word-by-word into Greek. But when such an original text or fixed expression cannot be supposed, they continue, we need to acknowledge that the authors of the New Testament made the distinction between "brother" and "cousin," since they were writing in Greek.
The psychological and anthropological reality of speaking and writing in a language of another culture is, however, more complex. I was able to witness it when I was living in Abidjan, the major city of the Ivory Coast, in West Africa. It is today a big city of about four million inhabitants that grew up in a zone originally scarcely populated. The sparse original population was not able to absorb the waves of immigrants coming from all over the former French colonies in West Africa. The only language all these people had in common was French, and French became thus the native language of Abidjan. In most native languages of West Africa, no distinction is made between a "brother" and a "cousin," whereas such a distinction exists in French. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Abidjan, whose mother tongue is French, who have been raised and educated in French, continue to use the French word for "brother" when they speak of a "cousin." Using the French word for "cousin" would betray the way they envision social and family relationships. When the people of Abidjan want to specify that "brother" means a true blood sibling, they need to add "same father, same mother" (même père, même mère). Full siblings are a particular kind of brothers; they do not constitute the benchmark of brotherhood. The socio-cultural milieu of the authors of the New Testament is Judaism. So, we can accept the idea that, even if their text does not suppose a Hebrew or Aramaic substrate, in their use of Greek words they would naturally convey the way their own Judaic society and culture envision social and family relationships.
I think that while it is true that no further word distinction is made as between a blood brother and a close relation such as a cousin in Hebrew (and Aramaic), it doesn't mean that the ancient Hebrews and the Jews of the first century had no way of indicating such distinctions in speech and writing when using אָח.
Sometimes אָח is more specifically defined with other words, as in Judges 9:5, where we are told that Abimelech killed "his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men" [אֶת־אֶחָ֧יו בְּנֵֽי־יְרֻבַּ֛עַל שִׁבְעִ֥ים] on one stone." The words "sons of Jerubbaal" and "seventy men" serve to distinguish his blood brothers from the "mother's brothers [אֶל־אֲחֵ֖י אִמֹּ֑ו ]," i.e., her relatives, mentioned in vv. 1-2, who are also Ahimelech "brothers" in the sense of "relatives." Sometimes the preceding context helps to determine the precise relationship denoted by אָח. For example, in Genesis 14:14, 16 Lot is called Abraham's אָח, but from Gen. 11:27 the reader already knows that the relationship is uncle-nephew. In 1 Samuel 16:13, "Then Samuel took the horn of oil and annointed him [David] in the midst of his brothers [אֶחָיו֒]," the writer meant and expected the reader to understand the other sons of Jesse he had mentioned in the preceding verses. In Joshua 2:13, 18 and 6:23, the mention of "brothers" and "sisters" of Rahab in close association with her "father" and "mother" is an indication that they are her own blood brothers and sisters. (I should think that this last example has implications for our understanding of such passages as Matthew 12:46-49; 13:54-57; Luke 8:19-21; Acts 1:14.)
What do others think?
Leonard Jayawardena
