Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jules? · 05-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I suspect nearly everything in this thread is anachronistic. Toto is right about the linguistic origin of "barbarian".

yes, just like camels, Pi-Ramses and the early apperance of money in the Bible

Toto · 05-27-2008, 12:02 PM

etymology of barbarian

Take Our Word:

Quote:

In the archives we were adamant that barbarian is not related to barber and other beard-related words, and we do not sway from that position now. No etymologist will agree with the notion that barbarians were thus named because of their beards or because they had no razors! Barbarian came to us from Greek bárbaros "the sound foreigners make" (funny how now we say "It's Greek to me" to mean something similar!), and the Romans got their form barbaria from the Greeks. A related word is the first word in the place name Barbary Coast, supposedly named because the inhabitants there spoke a foreign tongue, at least to European ears. The Sanskrit cognate is barbaras "stammering".

Barber (13th century) and related words barb (14th century) and barbel (a fish with hair-like protrusions around its mouth, 14th century) come from Latin barba "beard". English beard (Old English) comes from a relative of the Latin form, Germanic bartha. Today German for beard is bart and the Dutch form is baard.

See our section on Ernest Weekley's test for a sound etymology <glossary.html>. While the notion that barbarians were bearded and thus were named for their beards sounds plausible, one must find evidence in the record to support that. The evidence clearly points in an entirely different direction in this case. Moreover, while Greek men did typically wear beards, Greece was the source of Roman culture. No educated Roman would ever call a Greek a barbarian.

Berber vs Amazigh brings this back to the topic of this forum and seems to provide two alternative theories:

Quote:

The term Berber is but a variation of the Latin original word Barbarian, earlier in history applied by Romans specifically to their northern hostile neighbors from Germania (modern Germany). The variation is a French one when spelled Berbere and English when spelled Berber. The term appeared first in the 4th century in the religious conflicts between Saint Augustine, a Numidian-Roman bishop of the Catholic faith, and the Donatist allies of the Barbarians, also known as Vandals. . . .

. . . Because the Berbers were called El-Barbar by the Arabs, it is very probable that the modern European languages and other ones adopted it from the Arabic language. The Arabs did not use the name El-Barbar as a negative name. Because the ancient Arab historians were not aware of the origin of that name, they created some myths or stories about the name. The most notorious myth considers an eponymous Barbar as the ancestor of the Berbers. According to that myth, "the Berbers were the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, the son of Barbar, the son of Tamalla, the son of Mazigh, the son of Canon" (Ibn Khaldun, The History of Ibn Khaldun, Chapter 3).

LoungeHead · 05-27-2008, 02:54 PM

Roger Pearse,

Quote:

I suspect nearly everything in this thread is anachronistic.

Pretty much. We're discussing biblical use of a modern term - "nation" i.e. a modern concept within a historical context.

Then again the entire bible is anachronistic isn't it? So I suspect everything in Biblical Criticism & History forum is anachronistic.

Toto · 05-27-2008, 03:31 PM

Not everything. Parts of the Bible represent things that are appropriate to the time.

Anachronism

Quote:

1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, esp. a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.

An actor in a play set in medieval times who is wearing glasses or a wristwatch would represent an anachronism. A tomb before 70 CE with a round stone is an anachronism.

LoungeHead · 05-27-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not everything. Parts of the Bible represent things that are appropriate to the time.

Which parts?

Generally speaking, the language and meaning of the Bible is set in the era of its translation. Latin, Medieval, Reformation and Modern translations all use words and ideas relevant to their era and cultural context.

Huon · 05-28-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoungeHead

We're discussing biblical use of a modern term - "nation" i.e. a modern concept within a historical context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

Quote:

The English word "nation" is derived from the Latin term natio, meaning:
· The action of being born; birth; or
· The goddess personifying birth; or
· A breed, stock, kind, species, race; or
· A tribe, or (rhetorically, any) set of people (contemptuous); or
· A nation or people.

The combining form nātiōn? is built on the past participle form (g)nāt?us "having been born" of the verb (g)nāscī "to be born". Thus it is also related closely to the Latin derived words "native", "nature" and more remotely to the native English words "kin", "kindred" and "kind". It shares a common derivation from the Proto-Indo-European root *gen- "bear, generate, etc."

As an example of how the word natio was employed in classical Latin, consider the following quote from Cicero's Philippics Against Mark Antony in 44 BC. Cicero contrasts the external, inferior nationes ("races of people") with the Roman civitas ("community").:
"Omnes nationes servitutem ferre possunt: nostra civitas non potest."
"All races are able to bear enslavement, but our community cannot."

Note that the translator used the word "races" instead of "nations", which is the normal equivalent !

Note also that "nostra civitas" (our city, our community) is opposed to "nationes". This gives a political meaning to the word "nationes".

An english-speaking person shall not feel the closeness of "nation" and "birth" (to be born), because there is no relation between these two concepts. To be "born" points to the womb of the future mother. "Natus" or "generatus" is very close to "nation" for a roman language. And here, we find the mediocre translation "race" for the word "natio" !

So, "nation" is not a modern word. But its meaning has evolved.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.