[Tantumergo]

"That is, if the LXX translators chose the best Greek word to fit the Hebrew *intent*, and not necessary the literal word, why would the Gospel writers not have done the same and used the Greek word for "cousin" instead of "brother"."

Good question, but it could be equally asked of the LXX using the word for "brother" to describe Abraham and Lot. Why would they do it unless they intended carrying over the semiticism into the Greek?

Bearing in mind that the authors of the LXX and the NT were all semites, and thought like semites - with a "non-nuclear" view of family relationships - we are probably demanding a bit much of them to have anticipated the objections of English speaking moderns some 2000 years later.

All I can suggest for further re-inforcement of the Tradition is to speak with an Arab and ask him how many brothers he has. I am not being flippant here - I know an Israeli Arab and I also am familiar with a congregation of Melkite Arabs. Once you get them started, it all makes perfect sense! (Getting them to stop can be another thing entirely!)

[bornacatholic]

excellent post and your explanations have been helpful. God Bless

[Claud]

it could be equally asked of the LXX using the word for "brother" to describe Abraham and Lot. Why would they do it unless they intended carrying over the semiticism into the Greek?

Point well taken. I have heard Fr. Pacwa say the same thing about Semitic cultures, and it may be that by the time of the NT writers, a sufficiently "Semiticized" form of Greek was in vogue by which brothers was just translated "adelphos" for convenience.

Thanks!