Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic or hebrew words?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
In another place it has been suggested that Aramaic words in the NT are not Aramaic at all but hebrew or of Hebrew origin. Any comments from anyone who understands Aramaic?


1. "Corban" is a technical term of Hebrew origin.
2. "Wai", an exclamation, is a really meaningful word to leave in Aramaic if translated from Aramaic, wouldn't you say??
3. "Libanos" is simply not an Aramaic term. "Lebonthah" is from the same source, but you might like to wonder why Euripides is using the term in his Bacchae, if you think the nt borrowed it from Aramaic.
4. "Rabbi" is Hebrew
5. "Kuminon" is another word which has been in the Greek world for centuries before the gospels were written. Like Libanos it was a traded commodity.
6. "Raca" again from a Hebrew word (See 1K22:16 where RQ means "nothing".)
7. "Koros" again from a Hebrew word (1K4:22 etc.)
8. "Zizanion" is a weed originally from Sumerian. It made it into Aramaic as well, eh?
9. "Boanerges"? The claim that this is from Aramaic forgets the fact that the Aramaic word for son is "bar", not the Hebrew "ben" as implied here.
Shlama Akhi Michael,

judge Wrote:In another place it has been suggested that Aramaic words in the NT are not Aramaic at all but hebrew or of Hebrew origin. Any comments from anyone who understands Aramaic?

It's helpful to keep in mind here the relationship between Akkadian, Aramaic and Hebrew:

Akkadian -> Aramaic -> Hebrew & Arabic

Abraham was an Akkadian~Aramaic speaking Mesopotamian. His son's and grandson's wives were all brought back from Mesopotamia.

judge Wrote:1. "Corban" is a technical term of Hebrew origin.

Actually, the word is even older than both Aramaic and Hebrew. Long before Abraham was born, the Akkadians (Babylonians and Assyrians) offered "qurbanu" on their pagan altars. ("State Archives of Assyria, Volume III: Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea", by Alasdair Livingstone, Helsinki University Press.)

It comes from the ancient Akkadian root "qrb", which means "to approach" referring to the priest being entitled to approach the altar and give an offering. (other variations of the term are found here http://www.angelfire.com/tx/tintirbabylo...cewen.html)

Akkadian "Qurbanu" -> Aramaic "Qurban" -> Hebrew "Qurban" -> Arabic "Qurban"

judge Wrote:2. "Wai", an exclamation, is a really meaningful word to leave in Aramaic if translated from Aramaic, wouldn't you say??

I don't understand this argument. The Aramaic "Wai!" is used even today by old women beating themselves at funerals. The Jews use the same word - perhaps you've heard the Jewish expression "oy vey!" (They pronounce the Waw as Vav.)

judge Wrote:3. "Libanos" is simply not an Aramaic term. "Lebonthah" is from the same source, but you might like to wonder why Euripides is using the term in his Bacchae, if you think the nt borrowed it from Aramaic.

Actually, the Greek word is based on the Aramaic root for "white": the purest frankincense is white in color. (See William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, tr. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), p. 429.)

Also see http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.p...&c=18&v=13 (The Greek "Libanos" is of Semitic origin)

judge Wrote:4. "Rabbi" is Hebrew

Actually:

Akkadian "Rabu" -> Aramaic -> "Rabba" - > Hebrew "Ha-Rabb"

As you can see, the word is present in all Semitic languages...including languages far older than Hebrew.

You can find the Akkadian cuneiform sign for it here (under #149) http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bxpoma/akkadeng/list7.htm

Babylonian and Assyrian teachers were called "rabbi" a thousand years before Jews even existed, let alone the Hebrew language.

Incidentally, in the speech by Lord Stephen Pound's speech at the British Parliament I posted on the CoE forum, you can see the word used in the title of the flight lieutenant in the Assyrian commander of the British Levies in Iraq.

judge Wrote:5. "Kuminon" is another word which has been in the Greek world for centuries before the gospels were written. Like Libanos it was a traded commodity.

Again, it was an Aramaic word before it was a Greek word. If the person is claiming that the Aramaic loan-word was present before the Gospels were written, of course that is true. But again, the reverse is also true...where Greek loan-words were present in Aramaic before the Gospels were written.

Both languages borrowed from each other (and other languages.) The point of my post was in response to people claiming that the presence of Greek loan-words in the Aramaic NT proved it was translated from Greek. That can just as easily be argued the other way, that the presence of Aramaic loan-words in the Greek NT (which far outnumber the reverse) could be evidence that the Greek NT was translated from Aramaic.

My point was that this type of "evidence" is not proof at all, either way. How many people have we had come on this forum and say "Well, how about Mark 1:1? Why does the Aramaic contain the Greek word "Evangelion?" Doesn't that prove that the Aramaic was translated from the Greek??

Uhhhh....no!

judge Wrote:6. "Raca" again from a Hebrew word (See 1K22:16 where RQ means "nothing".)

"Nothing" is not an insult. And the word isn't RQ. It's Raqa, containing the Emphatic form used in Aramaic, but not in Hebew where it would be "Haraq."

This person obviously has no clue about the finer points of Semitic grammatical forms that can be used to identify common words from two languages as closely related as Aramaic and Hebrew are.

judge Wrote:7. "Koros" again from a Hebrew word (1K4:22 etc.)

See above.

judge Wrote:8. "Zizanion" is a weed originally from Sumerian. It made it into Aramaic as well, eh?

Yes, but Sumer is in southern Iraq (Babylonia.) That it made it into Aramaic and Hebrew is understandable...since Sumerian and Akkadian were their ancestors. How did it make it into Greek? That's the question that's being sidestepped by this person.

judge Wrote:9. "Boanerges"? The claim that this is from Aramaic forgets the fact that the Aramaic word for son is "bar", not the Hebrew "ben" as implied here.[/b]

Again, this person doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew from Chinese and Japanese. In Aramaic, the singular is "bar" while the plural is "bnai" - the form shared in common with Hebrew. The name is compounded from the two Aramaic words "bnai regesh", meaning "sons of thunder."

Take care, our internet forum warrior! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Paul Younan Wrote:Again, this person doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew from Chinese and Japanese. In Aramaic, the singular is "bar" while the plural is "bnai" - the form shared in common with Hebrew. The name is compounded from the two Aramaic words "bnai regesh", meaning "sons of thunder."

Take care, our internet forum warrior! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thanks Paul I alwys appreciate your knowledge on these things, particularly when someone is bluffing. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Any comment on these comments from the same "bluffer"?

Mammon? which appears to be derived from a god's name. Satana? What, not from Hebrew?? Ahh, Beelzebub, no wait, not even that, it's from Hebrew as well (2K1:2). With the exception of "wai", not a single one of your examples yields a necessarily Aramaic source.

Oh he insists Amen is hebrew as well
judge Wrote:Thanks Paul I alwys appreciate your knowledge on these things, particularly when someone is bluffing. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Hehehe. This guy's funny.

judge Wrote:Any comment on these comments from the same "bluffer"?

Mammon? which appears to be derived from a god's name.

To this day, the Aramaic word for "money" is Mammon, it's not in Hebrew. I have no idea what planet this guy's from.

judge Wrote:Satana? What, not from Hebrew??

No, it's not from Hebrew when it's in the Emphatic form Satana. Hebrew's Emphatic form would be HaSatan.

More examples:

Semitic root
--------------
bayt - "house"

Aramaic Emphatic
---------------------
Bayta - "THE/A house"

Hebrew Emphatic
--------------------
HaBayt - "THE/A house"

Semitic root
--------------
anash - "man"

Aramaic Emphatic
---------------------
anasha - "THE/A man"

Hebrew Emphatic
--------------------
Haanash - "THE/A man"

Semitic root
--------------
kalb - "dog"

Aramaic Emphatic
---------------------
kalba - "THE/A dog"

Hebrew Emphatic
--------------------
Hakalb - "THE/A dog"

judge Wrote:Ahh, Beelzebub, no wait, not even that, it's from Hebrew as well (2K1:2).

But then again so is "Yeshua", so what's the point? The root in Aramaic is "Baal" for "lord" as found in the geneaology of Yeshua in Mattai. The "Zebub" part is found in Hebrew, but also in Akkadian, Aramaic and even Amorite...three of it's ancestors.

judge Wrote:With the exception of "wai", not a single one of your examples yields a necessarily Aramaic source.

Has this person heard of "Talitha Qumi", "Abba" or "Maran Atha?"

judge Wrote:Oh he insists Amen is hebrew as well

Well, it is. It's also Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic at the same time.

Take care. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Paul Younan Wrote:
judge Wrote:9. "Boanerges"? The claim that this is from Aramaic forgets the fact that the Aramaic word for son is "bar", not the Hebrew "ben" as implied here.[/b]

Again, this person doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew from Chinese and Japanese. In Aramaic, the singular is "bar" while the plural is "bnai" - the form shared in common with Hebrew. The name is compounded from the two Aramaic words "bnai regesh", meaning "sons of thunder."

This person is till insisting that boanargeres is not aramaic.
Here is what he says.

The Hebrew plural is BNY, usually transcribed as "beni". "bnai" is used for the Aramaic plural. Note the first syllable of Boanerges has a clear vowel presence, indicating that you don't have a schwa in the underlying original language, ie therefore not bnai, not Aramaic. It's just old scholarship.
judge Wrote:This person is till insisting that boanargeres is not aramaic.
Here is what he says.

The Hebrew plural is BNY, usually transcribed as "beni". "bnai" is used for the Aramaic plural. Note the first syllable of Boanerges has a clear vowel presence, indicating that you don't have a schwa in the underlying original language, ie therefore not bnai, not Aramaic. It's just old scholarship.

Shlama Akhi Michael,

This person is throwing out smoke screens based on the presence or absence of vowels in the Greek transliteration. Since the person is so reliant upon the perceived absence of the schwa as presented by the Greek transliteration, perhaps you should suggest that the Hebrew had a Semkath at the end...seeing that the Greeks also placed an "s" at the end of the name....and we know how accurate their transliteration of Semitic names are to begin with.

In all seriousness, obviously, they weren't called "Boanerges", they were called "Bnai Regesh".

And for the person to call this bunk "old scholarship" is ridiculous, seeing that the Jews do *NOT* prounounce the word "beni" but "bnai" - just like Aramaic speakers do.

See the website of Bnai Brith International here: http://www.bnaibrith.org/

This person is learning Hebrew from a google search. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Paul Younan Wrote:
judge Wrote:6. "Raca" again from a Hebrew word (See 1K22:16 where RQ means "nothing".)

"Nothing" is not an insult. And the word isn't RQ. It's Raqa, containing the Emphatic form used in Aramaic, but not in Hebew where it would be "Haraq."

This person obviously has no clue about the finer points of Semitic grammatical forms that can be used to identify common words from two languages as closely related as Aramaic and Hebrew are.

Hi again Paul , hope you are well. I got the following respomse to your thoughts on raqa.

Quote:Firstly, as a vocative there would be no article in Hebrew. Secondly final schwas in Hebrew weren't necessarily written, but Greek needs a nice clear vowel. The Peshitta Aramaic is written RQ'. Your transliteration is hokey.

Any thoughts?
judge Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:
judge Wrote:6. "Raca" again from a Hebrew word (See 1K22:16 where RQ means "nothing".)

"Nothing" is not an insult. And the word isn't RQ. It's Raqa, containing the Emphatic form used in Aramaic, but not in Hebew where it would be "Haraq."

This person obviously has no clue about the finer points of Semitic grammatical forms that can be used to identify common words from two languages as closely related as Aramaic and Hebrew are.

Hi again Paul , hope you are well. I got the following respomse to your thoughts on raqa.

Quote:Firstly, as a vocative there would be no article in Hebrew. Secondly final schwas in Hebrew weren't necessarily written, but Greek needs a nice clear vowel. The Peshitta Aramaic is written RQ'. Your transliteration is hokey.

Any thoughts?

Shlama Akhi Michael,

I can't believe this person.

The Greek records "Raqa", which is the Aramaic Emphatic. The Hebrew word is "Raq", as record in 1Kings 22:16. Notice it is in the Hebrew form, not the Aramaic Emphatic with the -a suffix.

That's the point, not how you transliterate it into Roman characters....whether RQA or RQ'....is irrelevant.

The Greek records the Aramaic Emphatic RQA, not the Hebrew RQ. Even the translators of the NIV have in the footnote - "An Aramaic word term of contempt."

Notice: Aramaic, not Hebrew. This is Semitics 101, the ability to distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic Emphatic forms.

This person is a fool.