# عذّب etymology (עזב?)



## Ihsiin

Can anyone tell me the etymology of the verb عذّب and if there are any relations with the Aramaic verb עזב, as famously spoken by Christ in the New Testament?
Thanks.

EDIT: It seems my knowledge of the New Testament isn't up to scratch, the verb seems in fact to be שבק. I'm still interested in the possible relationship between عذّب and עזב, however.


----------



## Ustaath

can you give the NT reference please?


----------



## Ihsiin

Mathew 27:46 and Mark 15:24 both use the word "sabachthani" in my King James' version, which seems to be transliterating the original Greek "σαβαχθανί", it in itself a transliteration of, so wikipedia tells me, the Aramaic "שבקתני" (shabaqtani). Wikipedia also refers to the verb "עזב", from where my curiosity over a possible relationship with "عذّب" arose.


----------



## Ustaath

give me time to do some browsing


----------



## Josh_

The Hebrew/Aramaic ז is cognate with both the Arabic ذ and ز so עזב could, in theory, be cognate with either عذب or عزب. In this case it is actually cognate with the latter, not the former, as I will show below.

According to Genesius' Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary the common signification of עזב is 'forsaking' but the primary signification is "(1) to loosen bands; to let go (e.g. a beast from its bond); (2) to leave (e.g. a person or place); and (3) to leave off, to cease from (a thing). From these meanings we can see the connection with 'forsaking' as to forsake a person or a thing is to leave or abandon him/her/it.

Now, the meaning of the Arabic عزب (paraphrasing the entry in Lane's dictionary) is 'to be or become distance, remote, or absent' and used with the preposition عن 'to be or become distant/remote/absent from (a person or thing).' The connection to the Hebrew verb should be obvious -- when you leave or forsake someone you are distant or absent from them.


The primary signification of عذب, on the other hand, is 'to be or become sweet (said of water, wine, or other beverages).'

As for the signification of the verb عذّب, to punish, I see no obvious lexical relationship with the idea of forsaking. Yes, a connection could be drawn in that forsaking could be thought of as a kind of punishment, however as for the lexical concepts themselves, they are unrelated.


----------



## origumi

Ihsiin said:


> EDIT: It seems my knowledge of the New Testament isn't up to scratch, the verb seems in fact to be שבק. I'm still interested in the possible relationship between عذّب and עזב, however.


The verb is originally Hebrew עזב, as appears in Psalms 22:2 which Jesus quoted. שבק is the Aramaic equivalent as appears in the Peshitta for Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.


----------



## Ustaath

origumi said:


> The verb is originally Hebrew עזב, as appears in Psalms 22:2 which Jesus quoted. שבק is the Aramaic equivalent as appears in the Peshitta for Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.


Thank you !


----------



## Youhanan

origumi said:


> The verb is originally Hebrew עזב, as appears in Psalms 22:2 which Jesus quoted. שבק is the Aramaic equivalent as appears in the Peshitta for Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.


 
Hi,

Also, the verb *ܫܒܩ** Shwaq** – Shbaq*, means to reserve something for a certain purpose. And *ܠ + ܡܢܐ* *Lmana*, also means “wherefore, for this reason or purpose”. Therefore, the translation of the phrase “Eli, Eli, lmana shwaqthani” is: my God, my God for this you spared me.

Thank you,


----------



## Ihsiin

Thanks chaps, for your knowledgeable replies.


----------



## origumi

Youhanan said:


> Also, the verb *ܫܒܩ** Shwaq** – Shbaq*, means to reserve something for a certain purpose.
> And *ܠ + ܡܢܐ* *Lmana*, also means “wherefore, for this reason or purpose”. Therefore, the translation of the phrase “Eli, Eli, lmana shwaqthani” is: my God, my God for this you spared me.


I take what you're saying about a possible Aramaic meaning. But since the sentence is translated from the Hebrew Bible, the original meaning should be _lama_ (Aramaic _lmana_) = why, and _3zb_ (Aramaic _shbq_) = forsake. In Bible (OT) translations to Aramaic, _shbq_ is common for Hebrew roots like _3zb_, _ntsh _that mean forsake. I guess that Christian theology (which is outside the forum scope) could influence the translation.

As far as I know root _shbq_ is never _shwq_ (that is: spelled with *ܒ݁* = b = Hebrew *ב*, and not *ܘ* = w = Hebrew *ו*) in neither Jewish-Jerusalemite Aramaic (Jesus's mother language) nor Jewish-Babylonian Aramaic which is very similar, almost identical to Babylonian/Assyrian Aramaic of the time (or whatever name 1st century Mesopotamian Aramaic is called).

Going back to the threat topic: Hebrew root _3zb_ is a cognate of Akkadian _ezebu_ and Arabic 3azaba. This hints that the root is common Semitic: borrowing from Akkadian to Arabic/Hebrew is unlikely because Akkadian lost the initial 3ayn in a very early stage. The opposite direction is even less likely.


----------



## Youhanan

*Thank you very much for your interesting comment.*



origumi said:


> I take what you're saying about a possible Aramaic meaning.


 
*Yes, just a possible Aramaic meaning.*



origumi said:


> As far as I know root shbq is never shwq (that is: spelled with ܒ݁ = b = Hebrew ב, and not ܘ = w = Hebrew ו) in neither Jewish-Jerusalemite Aramaic (Jesus's mother language) nor Jewish-Babylonian Aramaic which is very similar, almost identical to Babylonian/Assyrian Aramaic of the time (or whatever name 1st century Mesopotamian Aramaic is called).


 
*Letter Beith is one of the bghadh-kphath letters and according to the Eastern Syriac Dialect rules, it is soft in this form, therefore the pronunciation would be ܘ = w.*

*It would be interesting though to start discussion on this topic in another forum. Thank you very much again.*


----------



## origumi

Youhanan said:


> *Letter Beith is one of the bghadh-kphath letters and according to the Eastern Syriac Dialect rules, it is soft in this form, therefore the pronunciation would be ܘ = w.*


The same for Hebrew (biblical, modern) and Jewish Aramaic. However, we used to pronouce the soft (aspirated) "b" as "bh" (not sure about the exact sound) in biblical times, and as English "v" (and not "w") in modern times. Is it different with Syriac?


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> The same for Hebrew (biblical, modern) and Jewish Aramaic. However, we used to pronouce the soft (aspirated) "b" as "bh" (not sure about the exact sound) in biblical times, and as English "v" (and not "w") in modern times. Is it different with Syriac?



Traditionally it is b/v as the lenition pair in Aramaic, however in many modern Syriac dialects the "v" soft sound is pronounced [w] to my knowledge, at least in some circumstances (such as following a vowel, etc.). I believe this can be true of 'f' also (as the soft pronunciation for 'p') although there are some dialects that have lost 'p' and only have 'f'. The lenition series, as has happened in Hebrew (which no longer has the complete set), has some variability throughout the speaking region, usually only possessing some of the original set: b/v, g/ɣ, k/x, t/þ, d/ð, p/f. For example, Arabic doesn't have "v" or "p" so for speakers in mostly Arabic-speaking areas, you could imagine an influence there in losing certain sounds in those dialects.

Modern Hebrew has only b/v, k/x, g, d, t, p/f so you can imagine modern Aramaic dialects have had similar collapses and/or changes to the original system.


----------



## Youhanan

origumi said:


> The same for Hebrew (biblical, modern) and Jewish Aramaic. However, we used to pronouce the soft (aspirated) "b" as "bh" (not sure about the exact sound) in biblical times, and as English "v" (and not "w") in modern times. Is it different with Syriac?


 
Hi,
Yes, there are a few differences between the *Eastern Syriac dialect* and Aramaic and Hebrew. Letter Beith when aspirated, it was pronounced as the letter “V” in English, but later, not sure when, the sound changed and was pronounced as the letter “W”. The same with letter “Peh” when aspirated, it was pronounced as the letter “F” in English, but again I don’t know when, the sound changed and was pronounced as the letter “W” also.
Thank you,


----------



## origumi

Thanks Youhanan, clevermizo.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> The verb is originally Hebrew עזב, as appears in Psalms 22:2 which Jesus quoted. שבק is the Aramaic equivalent as appears in the Peshitta for Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.


Interestingly, Luther "corrected" _sabacthani _(שבקני) as you find it e.g. in the Vulgata to _asabtani_ (עזבני) in his translation. Does anyone know his motivation for doing so? Are there maybe other early versions of the Mark and Matthew where Jesus uses the Hebrew rather than the Aramaic word?


----------

