Zindiiq

What you have here is a Muslim commentator, Ibn Ishaq, claiming that the Syriac word, 'munahhemana' (ܡܢܚܡܢܐ in Syriac script) is Muhammad, with no further explanation.

It seems to me that Ibn Ishaq, presumably a devout Muslim, is merely trying to harmonize the biblical idea of the Paraclete with the founder of his religion, Muhammad, in order to give Islam more legitimacy.

He is certainly not basing his claim on the linguistic meaning of the terms (or if he is, then he does not understand the meaning of the word 'muHammad' (doubtful) or is deliberately being misleading by claiming a linguistic connection where none not exist).

Firstly, as I noted, 'muhammad' comes from the Semitic root 'H-m-d', whereas the Syriac munahhemana (better transliterated as 'menahemana' comes from the Semitic root 'n-H-m' -- two unrelated roots, with unrelated ideas. The former has to do with praise, whereas the latter has to do with breathing and breath (whence we get the idea of 'lifegiver' or breathing new life into someone).

Secondly, as I noted above, coming from the root 'H-m-d', the word 'muhammad' means "the highly praised [one]" or "one deserving of praise," being a noun with an intensive meaning.

I rechecked the word 'muhammad' in some ancient dictionaries just to be sure, and the meaning of 'consoler' or 'comforter' was not there.

You can see the word here (PDF) in Edward William Lane's "Arabic-English Lexicon," The word appears 4 entries up from the bottom of the first column as مُحَمَّدٌ (with vowel diacritics). It says, "a man praised much, or repeatedly, or time after time; endowed with many praiseworthy qualities." Lane's sources for this entry were the "Lisan-Al-Arab," the "Kamoos," and the "Sahah fi Al-Lugha," three ancient Arab dictionaries written over 800 years ago.

Further, if muhammad were indeed the linguistic equivalent of menahemana or the Hebrew menachem one would expect to find this in Semitic dictionaries (Syriac and Hebrew in this case) which gloss cognate roots and words from Arabic or other languages. This is not the case for the dictionaries I checked.

For example, the entry for the Syriac ܡܢܚܡܢܐ ('menahemana'), in Robert Smith Payne's "Thesaurus Syriacus" does not contain such a gloss next to it. (the word is found on page 2338 here towards the bottom of the page; the Latin word consolator (The Consoler), along with the Bible verses in John in which the word appears next to it.) The root of this word, as I noted, is n-H-m (In Syriac ܢ-ܚ-ܡ) and appears on page 2337 of the text (in connected form ܢܚܡ ), with the cognate Arabic root نَحَمَ (n-H-m).

It also does not appear next to the entry for מנחם (Menachem) in Friedrich Gesenius' "Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon -- found here on page 487 -- third entry down, "("comforter), [Menahem]" appears after the headword). To get there, click מ (l13th letter down from top), under contents on the left of the page. Then click מנחם (Menachem) (l44th entry down) under the the 'page contents' column. You should be on page 487.

I also checked the Brown Driver-Briggs "Hebrew and English Lexicon" entry for מנחם (Menachem)(here, page 637; "(comforter) king of Northern Israel" occurs after it). Again, the Arabic Muhammad was not there. Under the root heading, on the previous page it does list the cognate Arabic root نَحَمَ (n-H-m), as did the aforementioned "Thesaurus Syriacus."


Yes, Ibn Ishaq may have had access to a Syriac lectionary. No argument from me. His use of the Syriac menahemana, instead of a transliteration of the Greek paráklētos would certainly seem to indicate that. In fact, when I said the first commentaries about Muhammad being the Paraclete were not until about 150 years after his death I was alluding Ibn Ishaq, who seems to have been the first to make that claim. What I was saying is that it is unclear if Muhammad, himself, thought of himself as the biblical Paraclete.

Zindiiq

Yes, I am aware of that forum, I post there regularly.


That could be, however it would have been a very long time ago, long before the advent of Islam. So it's irrelevant as to the idea that the Arabic versions of biblical names come from the Syriac rather than the Hebrew.

I'm not sure what you want me to think about. The parts in red? If so, then yes, I am aware that certain Hebrew and Aramaic/Syriac letters are cognate with two (or even three in one case) Arabic letters, thus indicating that Hebrew (and Aramaic/Syriac) may have had more letters at one point that merged into other letters. One such letter is the Hebrew ח which is cognate to Syriac ܚ (both 'ch' as in 'loch', transliterated as 'x' for our purposes), which are cognate to both the Arabic ح (H, an aspirated 'h', translitered as 'H') and خ ('ch' as in 'loch', transliterated as 'x').

If you are somehow wanting me to relate this to the discussion about the Muhammad and Menachem, then yes the Hebrew root נ-ח-ם and Syriac ܢ-ܚ-ܡ (both n-H-m) could be cognate to both the Arabic ن-خ-م (n-x-m) and ن-ح-م (n-H-m). However neither of these are relavent as they are not the root ح-م-د (H-m-d), whence Muhammad comes.