فِرْدَوْس firdaws – Arabic, Persian, or Greek?

Why are we so confident that it couldn’t have come from Persian (in the secular sense)?
I'm saying it has less Bayesian probability. Quran uses it as jannat al-firdaws, which suggests the possibility that Muhammad or people around him weren't using the word in its secular meaning but as a proper noun. This doesn't strongly suggest it was borrowed in Arabic in this sense, but reduces the probability of the initial secular borrowing (which Persian only had).
Also why do we assume only clergy would know Greek? There are Greco-Arabic and bilingual Greek-Arabic inscriptions and documents.
Again, it is the probability. If their common scripture was written in Aramaic, even if people knew Greek and used it for administrative or inscriptive purposes, it would have still been likelier for a person to borrow a religious term from Aramaic (because there was more intracommunal usage of this language on that topic).
 
  • I'm saying it has less Bayesian probability. Quran uses it as jannat al-firdaws, which suggests the possibility that Muhammad or people around him weren't using the word in its secular meaning but as a proper noun. This doesn't strongly suggest it was borrowed in Arabic in this sense, but reduces the probability of the initial secular borrowing (which Persian only had).

    But then how do we explain the testimony of Ibn Manzur and others that it was used in a secular sense? Here is Al-Mubarrad (died 285H / 898 CE) reporting that he heard it in the speech of عرب (presumably the bedouin tribes):

    وقال: الفردوس فيما سمعت من كلام العرب: الشجر المُلْتَف، والأغلب عليه العنب

    I also mentioned the Damascene gate known as باب الفراديس, apparently because it faced an area of orchards and gardens, not anything to do with the paradise of the afterlife. Arab relations with the Persians were at least as extensive as their relations with speakers of other languages. Whether the people of Mecca used the word فراديس or فردوس is something we can question, and the use of فردوس in the Qur'an is certainly a deliberate link with the paradise preached by Jesus, but that doesn't mean the word was introduced into Arabic with that sense.

    Again, it is the probability. If their common scripture was written in Aramaic, even if people knew Greek and used it for administrative or inscriptive purposes, it would have still been likelier for a person to borrow a religious term from Aramaic (because there was more intracommunal usage of this language on that topic).

    Do we have evidence to justify this? Maybe I'm just not well-read enough on this subject, but I wonder if we are telescoping several centuries of pre-Islamic history and assuming the spread and influence of Aramaic in the 7th century CE was the same as in the 2nd century, when it could very well be the case that the relationship with Greek became stronger (hence the emergence of Greco-Arabic and Greek-Arabic bilingualism).
     
    He is irrelevant. In the present discussion he mattered for his commentary on this "source", i.e. the story of Muhammad and Bahira encounter. But this story is probably made up or vamped up (by either Christians to discredit Muhammad, or Muslims to prove his prophecy, depending how we look at it).
    Well, I think St John of Damascus is rather more relevant than you, as he clearly spoke to his Arab sources at a time when the oral tradition was still alive – just a couple of generations after Mohammad.

    Besides, the claim that Mohammad was being taught by others is mentioned in the Quran itself:

    “Those who disbelieve say: ‘This (Quran) is but a fabrication which he has devised with the help of other people’ … They also say: ‘Fables of the ancients … They are being read to him in early mornings and evenings …’” (al-Furqan 25:4-5).

    The Quranic text clearly uses the verb عَلَّمَهُ ۥ yeallamahu, “taught” < عَلَّمَ yaellama, “to teach”:

    “He has been taught (this Quran) …” (al-Najm 53:5).

    It follows that the claim wasn’t “made up or vamped up" after Mohammad. St John doesn’t say “Bahira”, he says “Arian monk” and monks are mentioned in the Quran as being closest to Muslims:

    “You will find the most hostile of all people towards the faithful to be the Jews and the polytheists, and the nearest of them those who say ‘We are Christians.’ That is because there are priests and monks among them” (al-Maidah 5:82).

    Indeed, Christian monks were highly regarded by Arabs from pre-Islamic times:

    “A nature is theirs, God gives the like to no other men – a wisdom that never sleeps, a bounty that never fails. Their home is in God’s own land, His chosen of old; their faith is steadfast; their hope is set on nought but the world to come …”

    – al-Nabigha (535 – 604 AD) in C. J. Lyall, Translations of Ancient Arabic Poetry, p. 96

    These pre-Islamic poems about Christian monks were recorded and preserved by Muslims, which shows an enduring appreciation and admiration.

    Even if Mohammad wasn’t taught by anyone in particular, the more general point I was making was that the Quran shows evidence of biblical influence, which is generally accepted.

    Moreover, the Quran certainly has Greek-origin words like إنجيل Injil < εὐαγγέλιον euangélion, “Gospel”. Whether they were introduced via an intermediate language and which language that was, remains to be established.
    It's worth noting that the oldest (and probably first) Arabic translation of Bible (9th c.) uses firdaws though this doesn't prove anything because that could have been specifically made to appeal to Muslims.
    Exactly. It doesn’t prove anything, so it isn’t “worth noting” at all, especially as I had noted it already.
     
    Last edited:
    Why are we so confident that it couldn’t have come from Persian (in the secular sense)? Also why do we assume only clergy would know Greek? There are Greco-Arabic and bilingual Greek-Arabic inscriptions and documents.
    There is no doubt that the main political and cultural powers in the early centuries AD were Persia and Rome.

    As heir to the Eastern Roman Empire, Greece gained in importance and influence, Byzantium becoming the “New Rome”. To the Arabs, the Byzantine Emperor was the “King of the Romans” (ملك الروم Malik al-Rum) while Constantinople came to be known as the “Great City of the Romans” (رُومِيَّات الكبرى Rūmiyyat al-Kubra).

    The large Hellenised populations in the region meant that the spread of the Greek language was accompanied by the spread of Greek thought. In addition to the NT, Classical Greek texts were translated into Syriac and Persian, and later into Arabic.

    Greek remained an important medium of science and philosophy although Persian was also influential. In fact, even in the Islamic period, most scholars were non-Arabs. Firdaws – at least in a more technical sense – could have been coined under both ecclesiastical and scholarly influence.

    Inscriptions in the Greek language or Greek script definitely suggest Greek-Arabic contact. So, this seems to be a legitimate line of inquiry.
     
    Well, I think St John of Damascus is rather more relevant than you as He clearly spoke to his Arab sources at a time when the oral tradition was still alive
    He's not. He was just parroting what he had heard without any investigation. Those Arab sources were irrelevant, that's why he is irrelevant too. The "oral tradition" shows us what orators thought about something, it doesn't show the truth about that something. So, there were people who believed 100 years earlier something had happened to then-child Muhammad, and they also believed Muhammad halved the moon 50 years later. Why should we believe there is a shred of truth in either?
    “Those who disbelieve say: ‘This (Quran) is but a fabrication which he has devised with the help of other people’ … They also say: ‘Fables of the ancients … They are being read to him in early mornings and evenings …’” (al-Furqan 25:4-5).
    How is this relevant? We already know that there were hundreds of thousands of Hanifs, Christians, Jew, etc. Arabs around who were reciting those fables in Arabic. Obviously, Muhammad was familiar with them, as they were narrated in his own city Mecca in Arabic. What this has anything to do with monks, Greek, Syria, etc.?
    “You will find the most hostile of all people towards the faithful to be the Jews and the polytheists, and the nearest of them those who say ‘We are Christians.’ That is because there are priests and monks among them” (al-Maidah 5:82).
    How is this relevant? It's from a Medinan sura. Please stop mindlessly copy-pasting.
    It follows that the claim wasn’t “made up or vamped up" after Mohammad. St John doesn’t say “Bahira”, he says “Arian monk”
    Another irrelevant issue. Muslim narrators were not even sure this person was Christian (we have an account mentioning he was Jewish without naming him). It shows all traces of a typical myth evolution, created out of necessity, confusion, or transposed from an older myth but curated and expanded later.
    Indeed, Christian monks were highly regarded by Arabs from pre-Islamic times:
    – al-Nabigha (535 – 604 AD) in C. J. Lyall, Translations of Ancient Arabic Poetry, p. 96
    These pre-Islamic poems about Christian monks
    😁😁😁😁 Please stop copy-pasting. Nabigha was a court poet of Arab Christian rulers. What did you expect from him, to venerate shamans, rabbis and magi? Besides, so what if Christian monks were highly regarded? Majority of Christian clergy around and in Arabia were native Syriac/Arabic/Ge'ez speakers with scriptures written in Syriac or Ge'ez.
    Even if Mohammad wasn’t taught by anyone in particular, the more general point I was making was that the Quran shows evidence of biblical influence, which is generally accepted.
    Yes. And this is irrelevant to the borrowing origin of firdaws.
     
    I’m not saying it’s impossible. But it still doesn’t answer the question of what the immediate source for the Arabic term was.

    It is impossible to tell with the current evidence - the most likely candidates are Persian, Greek and Aramaic, all of which have the word and each of which had substantial language contact with Arabic.

    If Ibn Manzur (writing in the late 13th century) had sources going back to the eighth century, then it seems likely that St John of Damascus (writing in the late 7th to early 8th century) had sources going back to the time of Mohammad.

    St John was not a lexicographer and had no sources relevant to this discussion. When I say ابن منظور had sources going back to the 8th Century, I mean he quotes the 8th Century grammarian الليث بن المظفر as saying كرم مفردس أي معرش (though not strictly referring to the word فردوس itself, it's clearly a derivation). St John did not say anything about the meaning or the derivation of the word, he is not relevant to this discussion.

    You seem to be tying yourself in notes to suggest that the word was introduced into Arabic by a Christian contemporary of Prophet Muhammed. As things are, the evidence seems to suggest that the word hard already been in use in Arabic in a secular sense.
     
    Do we have actual evidence of this, or is it just an assumption based on a stereotype?
    For the Nestorian and Ethiopian churches, obviously. They had moved away from Greek as their main internal language much earlier. For the Syriac Orthodox church, they had been using the Syriac Pshitta by then, but considering the Byzantine political influence on Levant and Syria, Greek should have been still influential internally.
     
    For the Nestorian and Ethiopian churches, obviously. They had moved away from Greek as their main internal language much earlier. For the Syriac Orthodox church, they had been using the Syriac Pshitta by then, but considering the Byzantine political influence on Levant and Syria, Greek should have been still influential internally.

    Ok, because it looked like you were referring to their native language, not the language of their church.
     
    Obviously, Muhammad was familiar with them, as they were narrated in his own city Mecca in Arabic.
    That's exactly what I said. The issue is exactly that, familiarity due to influence which points to a possible source.

    By the way, why don’t you lead by example and stop copy-pasting yourself? 😄
     
    St John was not a lexicographer and had no sources relevant to this discussion. When I say ابن منظور had sources going back to the 8th Century, I mean he quotes the 8th Century grammarian الليث بن المظفر as saying كرم مفردس أي معرش (though not strictly referring to the word فردوس itself, it's clearly a derivation).

    As already stated, 8th century sources are not evidence for previous centuries.

    Besides, I never said that firdaws “must have been introduced into Arabic by a Christian contemporary of Prophet Muhammed”, did I?

    What I’m saying is that it likely acquired a religious sense at a later stage and this could have been at any time between (a) its introduction in a secular sense and (b) the time it occurs in the Quran, which happens to be the earliest record we have of it.

    Unless you have other suggestions (Zoroastrianism? Buddhism?), this probably happened under Christian influence. IMO any sources pointing to Christian influence at any time between point (a) and point (b) are relevant for this reason.
     
    That's exactly what I said. The issue is exactly that, familiarity due to influence which points to a possible source.
    We are talking about etymology not theology. Of course, from a secular point of view, Muhammad didn't receive revelation and so, he had sources for all his Biblical references. But this is irrelevant to this thread.
     
    We are talking about etymology not theology. Of course, from a secular point of view, Muhammad didn't receive revelation and so, he had sources for all his Biblical references. But this is irrelevant to this thread.
    We are talking about the etymology of a religious word attested in a religious work and likely borrowed under religious influence.

    If Mohammad "had sources for Biblical references" as you say, he could have had references for the word firdaws. Not "irrelevant" at all.

    And please stop copy-pasting.
     
    If Mohammad "had sources for Biblical references" as you say, he could have had references for the word firdaws. Not "irrelevant" at all.
    We have two types of sources:
    a) the source(s) from which the word entered Arabic, that is the topic of this thread.
    b) the source(s) from which Muhammad learned the word, that is irrelevant to this thread.
    And please stop copy-pasting.
    Here is the definition of copy-paste in case you're not familiar with.
     
    We have two types of sources:
    a) the source(s) from which the word entered Arabic, that is the topic of this thread.
    b) the source(s) from which Muhammad learned the word, that is irrelevant to this thread.
    If the second type is connected to the first, then it can't be irrelevant.

    So far, you've produced ZERO evidence for your theories. Are you here to take the mickey, or just being "platytudinous"?
    Here is the definition of copy-paste in case you're not familiar with.
    Well, seeing that you know what it means, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to stop doing it. Unless it's become compulsive ... 😀
     
    If the second type is connected to the first
    To build an argument on this if is so irrational that you need to provide an evidence for us to take it seriously. And you haven't yet. All you have done so far is to repeat a myth about Muhammad's childhood, the irrelevant notion that the words was not attested in pre-Islamic Arabic and a bunch out-of-context quotes, verse, or claims which you had copy-pasted.
    So far, you've produced ZERO evidence for your theories.
    There is no need to post evidence for common knowledge, e.g., that Arabia was surrounded and inhabited by Judeo-Christian communities for centuries and that they followed branches which were predominantly not Greek, or pointing out the irrelevance of your "evidence" because you don't have the critical skill of checking the background and context of your sources (e.g. citing a Medinan era item for something happened in the Meccan era or even earlier, or citing the court-poet of a Christian king as evidence for admiration of Christianity).

    By the way, if I hadn't provided any evidence, it means I haven't copy pasted anything (otherwise, my pasted stuff would have been evidence), or you don't know what copy-paste is :rolleyes: .
     
    Last edited:
    🤣🤣🤣 Well, you seem to have some serious comprehension issues. You may not be aware of this but it's common practice to start from the earliest evidence for a word and then trace its history as far back as the data available permits.

    Nobody asked you to provide evidence for things that are “common knowledge”, only for your irrelevant statements. You’re saying firdaws was borrowed from Aramaic or Ge’ez. Aside from the fact that this has already been said here and it doesn’t need repeating by you, you have provided zero evidence. So, what exactly is your point?

    You keep saying stuff like “It's worth noting that the oldest (and probably first) Arabic translation of Bible (9th c.) uses firdaws though this doesn't prove anything because that could have been specifically made to appeal to Muslims.”

    Obviously, a statement that (a) has already been made and (b) by your own admission “doesn’t prove anything” isn’t “worth noting” – except perhaps to insert your usual weasel words and conspiracy theories.

    And you still haven't told us why you call yourself "Platitude" ... 😀
     
    it's common practice to start from the earliest evidence for a word and then trace its history as far back as the data available permits.
    No, it's not common practice to start there. One necessary earlier step is to understand the context, and this is where you're failing spectacularly. firdaws is not an isolated word. There are multiple other Biblical or liturgical terms that are not attested in pre-Islamic Arabic but are in Quran or later Islamic texts, including some very basic terms or ideas in Judaism and Christianity. It is irrational, if not racist, to start from that the Quranic instance was the precursor, because it would imply Arab Christians or Jews had no idea what some basic terms in their religion were.

    You're failing because you have some kind of Greek originality zeal, you tend to believe it as factual, for which you try to grow a cherry-picked context. This is the opposite of common practice, where we'd have a linguo-historical context and try to extract facts from it.
     
    Well, you’re doing no more than expose your true agenda, because I never said that firdaws “must be Greek”. So, basically, you’re telling a lie. I even considered the possibility of an Aramaic or Ge’ez derivation and I’m not going to repeat myself just because you prefer trolling to reading people’s posts.

    What’s really funny though is you seem to believe that everything that goes against your Aramaic agenda (or fixation) somehow is “irrational”.

    In reality, what’s irrational is to make a claim and then refuse to provide evidence to back it up on the grounds that you “don’t need to provide evidence for things that are common knowledge”! 🤣🤣🤣

    FYI, the derivation of Arabic firdaws from Ge’ez is NOT common knowledge at all. It isn’t even “knowledge”, it’s just a hypothesis and in the absence of evidence – you can’t even tell us what the Ge’ez word for “Paradise” is – it’s little more than speculation.

    We can see how Arabic إنجيل Injil, “Gospel” could be from Greek εὐαγγέλιον euangélion, via Ge’ez ወንጌል wangel – though even that isn’t certain. But, in your esteemed opinion, what Ge’ez word could have become firdaws when Ge’ez has ኤዶም edom and ገነት gannat for “Eden/Garden of Paradise” and ዐጸድ ‘aṣad for “enclosure, garden”?

    Let me guess … it’s “common knowledge”. So, no point asking, right? 😆
     
    Well, you’re doing no more than expose your true agenda, because I never said that firdaws “must be Greek”. So, basically, you’re telling a lie
    Really? How many threads have I created about Aramaic? Zero. How many threads have you created or taken hostage to incessantly talk about the (direct) Greek origin of (religious) terms? On 1. Hebrew or on 2. Sanskrit, or on certain words in Semitic languages: 3. paradise, 4. firdaws, 5. deborah, and 6. eglah. I as well suspect you are going to concoct some Greek origin for Allah-u Akbar soon, let's see.
    What’s really funny though is you seem to believe that everything that goes against your Aramaic agenda (or fixation) somehow is “irrational”.
    Is this why you think "irrational" referred to? Good gracious firdaws! It had nothing to do with Aramaic or Greek. I try to clarify it with a simpler example. Many words (like isrā'īl)are not found before Quran in Arabic. But one needs to seriously lack reason to start from that time as a candidate of its introduction to Arabic.
     
    🤣🤣🤣 Do carry on, if you wish. As I said, you’re merely exposing your own issues that are becoming more and more obvious. Why do you find it so incredibly upsetting that people suggest a Greek origin for certain words???

    If you think I said “firdaws must be Greek”, then please provide the evidence or retract your statement!

    I don’t know why you refuse to tell us why you call yourself “Platitude” (is it a secret? do you have something to hide?), but you aren’t telling us anything else, either - zero, zilch, nada. You even refuse to back up your own spurious theories.

    Whether you like it or not, on strict logic, firdaws could have been borrowed at any time between the early centuries AD and the emergence of Islam.

    Yes, it is logically possible that Arabic had the word firdaws before the Quran was written. But it’s common procedure to start with the evidence available, and that happens to be the Quran.

    Of course the context is important and that was precisely what I was getting at. It’s generally accepted that the Quran shows evidence of biblical influence and the evidence, Quranic and extra-Quranic, indicates (a) that Christianity was influential in Arab society and (b) that early Islam was very close to Christianity.

    As pointed out earlier, there were many Christian Arabs claiming prophethood at the time – Umayya, Abu Amir, Tulayha, Aswad, Sajah, Maslama, etc. On the evidence of Hadith, Mohammad was taken to his cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal who was a Christian and had knowledge of the Gospel. Hadith also says that Mohammad had poems composed by Umayya, a Christian monk, recited to him.

    Lyall has a large collection of pre-Islamic poetry, it isn’t just al-Nabigha. Moreover, if Arabs in general had no appreciation and admiration for Christian monks and their teachings, why did so many of them adopt Christianity?

    The fact is that early Islam was very close to Christianity, exactly as stated by Mohammad in the Quran and as confirmed by the friendly relations between Muslims and Christians even after the Arab conquests, when Muslim rulers visited Christian monasteries, funded the restoration of Christian churches and Muslims and Christians celebrated the Feast of the Nativity together.

    If the main Christian influence in Arabia was Nestorianism and Nestorians used Aramaic/Syriac, then firdaws in the religious sense could be a borrowing from Syriac. But this must have occurred relatively late, in the 500s AD. And given that the Nestorian Church was mainly based in Iraq and Persia, Persian influence cannot be ruled out and nor can Greek, for the reasons stated earlier.

    It follows that there are a number of logical possibilities, but we have no conclusive evidence for any of them, least of all for Ge’ez. Even eminent scholars like your good self are unable to demonstrate how a supposed Ge’ez word somehow became Arabic firdaws.

    Anyway, as I said, if you’re here to take the mickey, you can talk to yourself. I’ve no time for trolls.
     
    Yes, it is logically possible that Arabic had the word firdaws before the Quran was written. But it’s common procedure to start with the evidence available, and that happens to be the Quran.
    I try again: 1) Replace firdaws with any other basic religious word or concept that is in Quran but not in earlier Arabic (some potential examples: Israel, Elijah, Joshua, Michael, John, Apostles, Cherubs, Seven Sleepers, etc.) 2) Ask yourself, is it wise to start with thinking that devout Arab Christians or Jews didn't talk about them in their own language?

    If your answer is "no", then why do you think it is wise to do so for Paradise? If your answer is "yes", then wow!
    If you think I said “firdaws must be Greek”, then please provide the evidence or retract your statement!
    Where did I say that? Show me the evidence.
    You even refuse to back up your own spurious theories.
    My theories? Where? I haven't proposed any specific theory. The Aramaic origin is not my theory. I'm all pointing the holes into your supposed evidence. I've been saying two specific pieces of commonsense from the start. And it was a a criticisms of your theory (below) not a theory of mine. Almost everything I have said here was that there was no reason to push for a) a late borrowing b) a higher probability of a direct Greek origin (a) because of the long history of Christianity among Arabs and (b) the wider spread and popularity of Syriac churches around Arabia. You haven't provided a single counter-argument about these two critiques.
    There had been Arabic and Aramaic speaking Christians in Levant long before Muhammad, including an entire kingdom of Christian Arabs. There is no reason to assume the use of firdaws as paradise had something to do with Muhammad or his acquaintances' contact with Greek language.

    (a) that Christianity was influential in Arab society and (b) that early Islam was very close to Christianity.
    a) Yes, b) irrelevant because of (a). As Christianity was influential among Arabs, they didn't need Islam for using the word firdaws that was a Christian concept to begin with long before Islam. You are supporting my argument, without noticing, that because of the influence of Christianity on the Arab culture (and so language), we don't need to tie Christian terms to Islam.
    The fact is that early Islam was very close to Christianity
    It's (a) again as above. Christianity had cultural influence on Arabs long before Islam, and Islam was born within that sphere of influence and inherited from it. This is again support for my point, that we don't need contemporary contact to explain linguistic borrowings from Christian terminology to Islamic Arabic.
    As pointed out earlier, there were many Christian Arabs claiming prophethood at the time – Umayya, Abu Amir, Tulayha, Aswad, Sajah, Maslama, etc.
    Have you checked when they claimed prophethood? This information would be a bit relevant, wouldn't it? If they claimed after Muhammad, or in his later years, they wouldn't be relevant. I know the answer, but I'm not going to do your job. By the way, where did you see Umayya was Christian?
    Moreover, if Arabs in general had no appreciation and admiration for Christian monks and their teachings, why did so many of them adopt Christianity?
    What kind of question is that? Are monks the only way people convert to a religion? If they were, how could Muhammad make almost all Arabs believe him, being an illiterate extrovert polygamous warrior, the opposite of an average Christian monk?
    And given that the Nestorian Church was mainly based in Iraq
    So, it is easy for you to accept that 9yo Muhammad went to Syria and learned a word there in one encounter, but you can't imagine a borrowing via a south Arabian tribe that was so mobile to extend to north in Iraq, and with 300 years history of influence by Christianity and constant trade, war, cultural exchange with the rest of Arabia, in addition to that tribe claiming the whole of Arabia for themselves?
     
    Last edited:
    When I say ابن منظور had sources going back to the 8th Century, I mean he quotes the 8th Century grammarian الليث بن المظفر as saying كرم مفردس أي معرش (though not strictly referring to the word فردوس itself, it's clearly a derivation).
    The way I see it, the correct procedure is to start from the known facts. The undisputed fact is that there was cultural and linguistic influence on Arabic from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era.

    If we represent this influence by a line extending from a point A in the pre-Islamic era (e.g., the beginning of the Common/Christian Era) to a point B in the Islamic era (e.g., the time of Mohammad),

    A __________________ B

    we get a continuum of influence where point C (the introduction of firdaws) can logically be located anywhere between A and B.

    It may seem likely that firdaws was borrowed at a point closer to A than to B and, as I said, Ibn Manzur’s Lisan al-Arab definitely sounds interesting and worthy of further investigation. However, statements like “The people of the Levant call gardens and vineyards ‘paradises’” (أهل الشام يقولون للبستان والكروم الفراديس) do not of themselves constitute proof of pre-Islamic occurrence if no secure dates are available.

    Moreover, the Lisan gives various opinions:

    Firdaws: Paradise: garden; … Ibn Sidah said: al-Firdaws, the fertile valley of the Arabs, is like a garden, and in the language of the Romans (Greeks) it is a garden.”

    فردس : الفردوس : البستان ; قال ابن سيده : الفردوس الوادي الخصيب عند العرب كالبستان ، وهو بلسان) الروم البستان.

    Firdaws: al-firdaws: al-bustan; qal abn sayidih: al-firdaws al-wadi al-khasib eind al-earab kalbustan, wahu bilisan al-ruwm al-bustani).

    And

    Al-firdaws is of Roman (Greek)-Arab origin, and is a garden” (الفردوس أصله رومي عرب ، وهو البستان al-firdaws 'asluh rumiun earab , wahu al-bustan)

    لسان العرب Lisan al-Arab 11:50

    In fact, some sources seem to suggest that firdaws “was not mentioned in the language of the Arabs before the Quran” (ولم يرد ذكره في كلام العرب قبل القرآن walam yarid dhikruh fi kalam al-earab qabl al-quran).

    القرآن الكريم - التحرير والتنوير لابن عاشور - تفسير سورة الكهف - الآية 107 (quran-tafsir.net)

    By the way, just out of curiosity, what pre-Islamic century did you have in mind?
     
    How is any of this helpful? These are two types of sources, one which were written hundreds of years after Muhammad, and were obviously oblivious to the fact that the word was originally Iranian. In other words, the authors had little knwoledge of its etymology to be of use here, as they fail to get the basics right. Their main usefulness, as @Ihsiin elaborated is to provide a contemporary context from which we can guess an earlier usage. The next type is Ibn Ashoor who is from the 20th century which states the obvious (that we don't have a pre-Islamic instance of the word in Arabic, I mean if we had, we wouldn't have been here talking about it). It is improper to emphatically ("in fact") place him beside the others as "some sources", as if he was some ancient Arabic linguist. You are again citing a bunch of stuff without analysing how they fit in the context.
    The way I see it, the correct procedure is to start from the known facts.
    Then start from the oldest known fact (in the first paragraph of my last post) instead of a later fact (usage in Quran).
     
    Last edited:
    I find it interesting how unanimous the Arabic lexicographers and linguists were about it being Greek. I would take this seriously given how much contact they had with both Greek and Persian speakers (many of the scholars being of Persian, or less frequently, Greek descent themselves).

    On the question of Greek-Arabic contact before Islam, I just stumbled on this article, which I think is relevant:

    https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/16591/7419/21605
     
    I find it interesting how unanimous the Arabic lexicographers and linguists were about it being Greek.
    At that time, the Persian word was pronounced pālīz which is on surface irreconcilable with firdaws. So, it was natural for them to consider a Greek origin considering its obvious similarity with paradeisos and its -s ending.
     
    I find it interesting how unanimous the Arabic lexicographers and linguists were about it being Greek. I would take this seriously given how much contact they had with both Greek and Persian speakers (many of the scholars being of Persian, or less frequently, Greek descent themselves).

    On the question of Greek-Arabic contact before Islam, I just stumbled on this article, which I think is relevant:

    https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/16591/7419/21605

    Exactly. If we quote sources like the Lisan selectively, we may arrive at conclusions that are unsupported by, or even contrary to, the historical data. Therefore, statements identifying فِرْدَوْس firdaws as Greek (or, as Arabs at the time would say, “Roman”) should not be excluded from consideration.

    But it is interesting to see that some choose to construe the obvious similarity of Arabic firdaws with Greek paradeisos as “evidence” that it isn’t of Greek derivation … 😂
     
    The way I see it, the correct procedure is to start from the known facts. The undisputed fact is that there was cultural and linguistic influence on Arabic from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era.

    If we represent this influence by a line extending from a point A in the pre-Islamic era (e.g., the beginning of the Common/Christian Era) to a point B in the Islamic era (e.g., the time of Mohammad),

    A __________________ B

    we get a continuum of influence where point C (the introduction of firdaws) can logically be located anywhere between A and B.

    It may seem likely that firdaws was borrowed at a point closer to A than to B and, as I said, Ibn Manzur’s Lisan al-Arab definitely sounds interesting and worthy of further investigation. However, statements like “The people of the Levant call gardens and vineyards ‘paradises’” (أهل الشام يقولون للبستان والكروم الفراديس) do not of themselves constitute proof of pre-Islamic occurrence if no secure dates are available.

    Moreover, the Lisan gives various opinions:

    Firdaws: Paradise: garden; … Ibn Sidah said: al-Firdaws, the fertile valley of the Arabs, is like a garden, and in the language of the Romans (Greeks) it is a garden.”

    فردس : الفردوس : البستان ; قال ابن سيده : الفردوس الوادي الخصيب عند العرب كالبستان ، وهو بلسان) الروم البستان.

    Firdaws: al-firdaws: al-bustan; qal abn sayidih: al-firdaws al-wadi al-khasib eind al-earab kalbustan, wahu bilisan al-ruwm al-bustani).

    And

    Al-firdaws is of Roman (Greek)-Arab origin, and is a garden” (الفردوس أصله رومي عرب ، وهو البستان al-firdaws 'asluh rumiun earab , wahu al-bustan)

    لسان العرب Lisan al-Arab 11:50

    In fact, some sources seem to suggest that firdaws “was not mentioned in the language of the Arabs before the Quran” (ولم يرد ذكره في كلام العرب قبل القرآن walam yarid dhikruh fi kalam al-earab qabl al-quran).

    القرآن الكريم - التحرير والتنوير لابن عاشور - تفسير سورة الكهف - الآية 107 (quran-tafsir.net)

    You may also consider the following: The earliest extant record of the word فردوس is in the Qur'an, in which it used twice. In both cases, if we look only at contexts in which the word is used and have no knowledge beyond this, it is impossible to tell the precise meaning of the word. We have some sense the word is related to the جنة promised as a reward to the faithful. However, its meaning is no clearer than that of the word عدن, which occurs frequently in the phrase جنات عدن, but is not generally considered to mean 'garden'.

    We also learn in that in the early centuries after Islam, the word is used to mean 'garden' or 'vineyard' in a temporal sense. Owing to the testament of الليث, this very probably goes back to at least the 1st Century AH, but certainly goes back at the very latest to the 3rd Century AH as evidenced by ابن سيده.

    We are then presented with two options. Option a) The word was coined in Arabic in the Qur'an in a mysterious and religious sense, and then was rapidly repurposed to a bear a temporal and secular meaning; or option b) The word already existed in Arabic and was used to mean 'garden' or 'vineyard', probably considered to be more obscure and 'exotic' as compared with a native word such as جنة, and was understood by the Arabs as it was used in the Qur'an.

    I think of the two, option b is much more convincing - in fact, I find option a to be rather bizarre.

    By the way, just out of curiosity, what pre-Islamic century did you have in mind?

    I don't have any century in mind. There are substantial populations of settled Arabs in the north of the Middle-East (Iraq and the Levantine) from at least the 2nd Century AD (and probably much earlier), who would have had substantial language contact with Persian, Greek and Aramaic, all of which are plausible sources from which Arabic may have borrowed the word. As far as I am aware there is no good evidence to tell us when precisely the word was borrowed, though we can rest assured it would have been borrowed early enough for it to be understood by Quraysh in the 7th Century AD. To speculate as to when precisely it was borrowed without indicative evidence is a fool's game, and not one I'm prepared to play. I only conclude that the word was not coined in the Qur'an but had existed in Arabic previously was understood by the Arabs when used - this is the only point I've made in this thread.
     
    In the absence of hard evidence, everything is “speculation”. However, rational and objective speculation can enable us to think outside the box and explore possibilities that could lead to new insights and even to a radical change of views.

    If firdaws admittedly occurs in the Quran, it is legitimate to ask how it got there, especially as other Christian-origin terms, such as رُّوح الْقُدُس rūḥ al-qudus, which appears to be a translation of Greek Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα Hágion Pneûma, “Holy Spirit”, and إِبْلِيس Iblis, which may be a direct borrowing of Greek διάβολος diabolos “Devil”, are also first attested in the same text.

    Starting with the commonly-held view that (a) Mohammad was somehow involved in the production of the Quran and (b) he was a prophet, it may be noted that by definition, a prophet < Greek προφήτης prophḗtēs (προ- pro-, “before” +‎ φημί phēmí, “I say”) is somebody who speaks on behalf of a divine being, i.e., who repeats what he hears or learns from a source of greater knowledge than himself:

    “He has been taught [this Quran] by one of mighty power”

    عَلَّمَهُۥ شَدِيدُ ٱلْقُوَىٰ yeallamahu’ shadid lquaa (al-Najm 53:5).

    The Quran refers to Mohammad as “apostle” (رَسُول rasūl) which is the same as Greek ἀπόστολος apóstolos, “one sent forth (with a message)”. If we take the view that Mohammad didn’t acquire his knowledge from a supernatural source, it must be admitted that he acquired it from other humans, most likely, Christians.

    According to the Quran, “They [biblical narratives] are being read to him in early mornings and evenings” (al-Furqan 25:4-5). While this may be unsubstantiated rumour, a number of scholars have considered the possibility that Mohammad had several Christian instructors some of whom apparently knew Greek (A. Jeffery, “Had Muhammad a Scripture Teacher?”, L. G. Leary, ed., From the Pyramids to Paul; studies in theology, archaeology and related subjects, pp 95-118). [1]

    Even on the assumption that firdaws was already in use in pre-Islamic times as seems possible, Christians remain a likely source, it being generally accepted that Christianity was a major source of influence on the language and culture of the region. And Greek must be admitted to have played a not insignificant role in this.

    Indeed, Greek language was closely intertwined with the wider Hellenistic culture of the period in which in addition to Christianity classical philosophy, in particular Platonism, was a major influence, including on the early Church Fathers who regarded its teachings as closer to those of Christianity than other schools.

    St Augustine who had studied “some of the books of the Platonists [probably Plotinus’ Enneads] translated from Greek into Latin” (Confessions VII.VIII.13), wrote:

    “Some of those who are united in fellowship with us in the grace of Christ are amazed when they hear or read that Plato had a conception of God which they recognize as agreeing in many respects with the truth of our religion” (St Augustine, City of God VIII.11).

    And (addressing the Platonist philosopher Porphyry):

    “You Platonists have some kind of an intuition of the goal to which we must strive … Thus you see, to some extent, the country in which we must find our home” (X.29).

    Similarly, the Quran acknowledges the validity of various religious traditions (“there is an apostle for every community”) so long as they adhered to monotheism. Platonists, who believed in one supreme deity, creator of heaven and earth, were therefore as close to Islam as they were to Christianity.

    Though not much is known about the pre-Islamic “Hanifs” (< حَنِيف ḥanīf) tradition regards them as the predecessors of the Muslims and they appear to have originally been a class of Hellenised monotheists who followed neither Christianity nor Judaism.

    In any case, Christians preserved and copied the works of classical philosophers for many centuries, monasteries often holding Greek texts in their libraries, thus disseminating not only knowledge of Greek language but also of Greek thought from classical philosophy to Greek-influenced Christianity itself.

    As correctly observed by @WadiH, Juan Cole’s article “Dyed in Virtue: The Qur’ān and Plato’s Republic” in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 61, No 4 (2021): 580–604, is relevant because it shows Greek influence on the Quran itself, including expressions that originated in the Platonic corpus and later became part of Christian terminology.

    Cole’s article is a must-read and can also be accessed at Academia.edu (you only need an email address to register and log in):

    https://www.academia.edu/61737878/Dyed_in_Virtue_The_Qurān_and_Platos_Republic

    Cole believes that the Quran is a “text of late antiquity”. Whatever we may think of this conclusion, the fact is that, as attested by the literary and archaeological data, Late Antiquity coincides with a period of growing Hellenistic influence on both Christianity and Judaism.

    The continuation of Hellenistic influence in Late Antiquity is indicated by the fact that the Platonic Academy at Athens was still functioning as a centre of classical learning into the 6th century AD and similar philosophical schools existed at Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria where Greek was widely spoken.

    The broad syncretism of the common culture of the period is also suggested by Greek paradeisos occurring in Platonic texts such as Proclus in reference to the Hellenistic “Paradise” or “Isles of the Blessed”.

    Christian communities in Syria and elsewhere continued to assimilate Hellenistic thought even after the Arab conquest and though much of this was transmitted via Syriac translations, Greek remained important. Quranic injunctions against following that of which one has no certain knowledge (17:36) and requirements to adduce proofs for one’s beliefs or claims (2:111), etc. may be read as evidence of Hellenistic influence in Arabia. In any case, Greek philosophy and science remained a major influence on the Arab world into the early centuries of the Islamic era – hence the occurrence of Greek loanwords like فَلْسَفَة falsafa < φιλοσοφία philosophía, “philosophy”.

    In sum, the Greek-dominated fusion of various religious and philosophical traditions in Early-to-Late Antiquity seems to increase the possibility or probability of firdaws being not only of Christian, but of Greek origin.

    This, of course, doesn't exclude other possibilities.

    1. Jeffery mentions one Bil’am aka Abu Maisara, a Greek-speaking Syrian who had settled at Mecca and whom Mohammad used to frequent; Jabr, a Christian youth who according to some sources was a Greek by birth and with whom Mohammad frequently sat at the drinking fount as the former read from his book of Scripture; and Addas, a Greek-speaking Christian (Tabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, 30 vols. Cairo, 1330, XIV, 119; Baghawi, Ma’alim at-Tanzil, 7 vols, Cairo, 1331, IV, 94; ar-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghaib, 8 vols, Cairo, 1327, V.353; Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba fi Tamyz as-Sahaba: A biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Muhammad, 4 vols, Calcutta, 1856-71; Ibn Hisham, Das Leben Muhammed’s, ed Wüstenfeld, Göttingen, 1859, p. 260).
     
    Last edited:
    it must be admitted that he acquired it from other humans, most likely, Christians.
    That is not a necessary conclusion. He certainly has contact with many different people of different beliefs. And in the central and southrrn Hejaz region, the influence of Judaism most likely exceeded that of Christianity.
     
    If firdaws admittedly occurs in the Quran, it is legitimate to ask how it got there

    The question is how the word فردوس entered the Arabic language, not how it entered the Qur'an (in fact, the former pretty much answers the latter). This rather renders the rest of your post irrelevant.
     
    That is not a necessary conclusion. He certainly has contact with many different people of different beliefs. And in the central and southrrn Hejaz region, the influence of Judaism most likely exceeded that of Christianity.
    The “necessary conclusion” is that Mohammad “acquired his knowledge from other humans”, and it follows from the preceding assumption that he “didn’t acquire his knowledge from a supernatural source”, should that assumption be made.

    That the humans in question were mostly Christians is merely likely. Out of the thirteen persons whom Jeffery mentions by name, about eleven seem to have been Christians, though one or two, including Waraqah, may have been Christian Jews.

    There is no doubt that Mohammad had contact with Jews but it tends to be difficult to ascertain which Quranic contents are dependent on Jewish sources as many could have been obtained from Christians who were familiar with both Christian and Jewish traditions.
     
    And in the central and southrrn Hejaz region, the influence of Judaism most likely exceeded that of Christianity.
    True. Islam has more a Judaic vibe than Christian in both theology and practice. However, we should be cautious in attributing similarities with any faith to Muhammad's contact with their believers. Some of what Muhammad had said could have been common knowledge or hearsay in his community, that he could have learned them as he was brought up or by conversation with his pagan associates. This can be one way to look at the differences between his accounts or renderings of proper nouns and the Judeo-Christian ones.
    On the question of Greek-Arabic contact before Islam, I just stumbled on this article, which I think is relevant:
    https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/16591/7419/21605
    I went through it at length. Considering that it tries to tie two concepts together (milla and ṣibgha) to establish a Greek cultural influence, the author's analysis of at least one is off the mark. Above that, a lingering issue is its criticism of the traditional atomistic commentary of Quran, without considering that the chapter of Heifer is somewhat atomistic in nature. It takes for granted that the milla and ṣibgha verses were in the same (temporal) context.

    Then, to connect the latter term's usage to Greek, the author makes a few arguments, two major ones are: 1) Aramaic's lack of cognates (so it borrowed it after Arabisation) and 2) the semantic disconnection between "to dye" and "to dip". Both are demonstrably and easily false. For (1) Aramaic has native cognates meaning both "to dip" and "to dye", and by extension "to baptize", all predating Islam (found in 5-6th c. Codex Climaci Rescriptus). For the second claim, a rudimentary understanding of the textile industry would tell us that a common method of dying was (and still is) to dip the threads or fabric into the dye. There is nothing to necessitate a Platonic or Greek reading for connecting the two meanings.
     
    Last edited:
    However, we should be cautious in attributing similarities with any faith to Muhammad's contact with their believers.
    That's not what I was thinking of. Much of the Hejaz region had been under the influence of the Jewish Yemenite kingdom until the 6th century and Yatrib had for centuries been ruled by Jewish Arabic tribes and there were at least three tribes left until Muhammad expelled them. Judaism was still very present in the region during Muhammad's lifetime. There also were Christianised Arabs but further north, the Nabateans were Christianised and Syrian Arabs.
     
    True. Islam has more a Judaic vibe than Christian in both theology and practice. However, we should be cautious in attributing similarities with any faith to Muhammad's contact with their believers. Some of what Muhammad had said could have been common knowledge or hearsay in his community, that he could have learned them as he was brought up or by conversation with his pagan associates. This can be one way to look at the differences between his accounts or renderings of proper nouns and the Judeo-Christian ones.

    I went through it at length. Considering that it tries to tie two concepts together (milla and ṣibgha) to establish a Greek cultural influence, the author's analysis of at least one is off the mark. Above that, a lingering issue is its criticism of the traditional atomistic commentary of Quran, without considering that the chapter of Heifer is somewhat atomistic in nature. It takes for granted that the milla and ṣibgha verses were in the same (temporal) context.

    Then, to connect the latter term's usage to Greek, the author makes a few arguments, two major ones are: 1) Aramaic's lack of cognates (so it borrowed it after Arabisation) and 2) the semantic disconnection between "to dye" and "to dip". Both are demonstrably and easily false. For (1) Aramaic has native cognates meaning both "to dip" and "to dye", and by extension "to baptize", all predating Islam (found in 5-6th c. Codex Climaci Rescriptus). For the second claim, a rudimentary understanding of the textile industry would tell us that a common method of dying was (and still is) to dip the threads or fabric into the dye. There is nothing to necessitate a Platonic or Greek reading for connecting the two meanings.

    Yeah, what I found relevant and interesting wasn't his specific thesis but rather the background information on Greek-Arabic language contact (p. 584-589). I feel that on this forum there is a default position that pre-Islamic Arabic can only 'interface' with the rest of the world through Aramaic (presumably because Arabic is too foreign and exotic to be in direct contact with 'civilized' Greece and Rome or something). But we are talking about a period of over a millennium, which shouldn't be telescoped into a particular period (Nabataean kingdom) when Aramaic was particularly influential. There were other periods with different dynamics.
     
    presumably because Arabic is too foreign and exotic to be in direct contact with 'civilized' Greece and Rome or something
    I don't think so. It is mainly because Arabic script is derived from Nabatean Aramaic scripts and it is therefore thought that Nabatean Arabic-Aramaic diglosdia (before Nabateans were Christianised and switched from writing Aramaic to writing Greek) is was the most important source for loans from the Levant.
     
    Yeah, what I found relevant and interesting wasn't his specific thesis but rather the background information on Greek-Arabic language contact (p. 584-589)
    But this is the sort of exoticism that you are weary of. The gist of those six pages, or at least its first half, is that the Arabian culture was not internally able of coming up with the wisdom rhetoric, they needed Hellenism to revere hikmah (though, it is from a widely attested Semitic root with the same meaning). So, the author didn't bother, for the sake of methodological integrity, to check if there are parallels in languages and cultures with thousands of years of affinity or proximity with Arabs and jumped to the Hellenistic conclusion.
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah, what I found relevant and interesting wasn't his specific thesis but rather the background information on Greek-Arabic language contact (p. 584-589).

    I for one can’t see anything intrinsically wrong with Cole’s thesis. But I think it requires some explanation to fully understand it.

    It should be obvious that Cole isn’t claiming that Arabs didn’t know how to dye textiles or that they didn’t have a word for it. The argument he is making is that the Quranic phrases “the dye of God” and “God as a dye” at ٱلْبَقَرَة al-Bakarah 2:138, which suggest the action or state of the righteous or right-believers’ ”being dyed with the dye of God/God as a dye” is a reflection of Platonic traditions according to which universal Forms/Ideas (Εἴδη Eide) such as the Logos, “dye” or “colour” particular beings. These traditions in which the Logos was equated with God (see John 1:14), had become part of Hellenistic Christianity in the centuries prior to Islam.

    Additionally, Plato’s ideal society was essentially a theocracy, hierocracy, or “Kingdom of God on earth”, i.e., a City-State ruled by philosopher-kings, organised under a council of philosopher-prophets and -priests, and governed according to sacred laws established by the divine Nous (or Logos).

    The guardians of this Ideal City-State were to be inculcated with the divine laws and right belief (ὀρθὴ δόξα orthé dóxa) as with a dye that cannot fade or be washed out under any circumstances:

    “Dyers when they wish to dye wool so as to hold the purple hue begin by selecting from the many colours there be the one naturally white and then give it a careful preparatory treatment so that it will take the hue in the best way, and after the treatment, then and then only, dip it in the dye” (Republic 429c-430a).

    Dyeing (βάπτειν baptein > MG βάφω vafo), whether used in the literal sense (of wool) or metaphorically (of a human), involves a preparatory process. In the literal sense, this consists of washing, scouring and treating with a fixative (mordanting) that ensures colourfastness. In the metaphorical sense this started with a process of purification (κάθαρσις, kátharsis) and progressed to illumination (ἔλλαμψις éllampsis) and complete unity with or immersion in the divine (ἕνωσις hénosis).

    The Platonic “dyeing” metaphor was employed by Christian writers such as Basil of Caesarea and Pseudo Chrysostom (4th and 5th centuries) who were familiar with Platonic texts and it was clearly part of the wider Hellenistic heritage of Late Antiquity from where it was adopted by Islam.

    Among Christians, where the end goal was known as θέωσις théosis, “deification”, the process involved certain practices such as ablutions, fasting, ethical conduct, prayer and contemplation, that were particularly observed by the monks, hermits and ascetics of Syria, such as St Simeon Stylite, who were visited by many pilgrims from Persia, Arabia and Armenia. Pilgrims came not only to receive the saints’ blessings but also for spiritual instruction and the natural medium of communication in addition to Aramaic was Greek.

    Nor is there any good reason to think that Arabic مِلَّة milla, “religion” can’t be a loan from Syriac ܡܠܬܐ‎ mellṯā, “utterance, word” (< Aramaic מִלָּה‎ mellā), and the latter a loanshift from Greek λόγος logos; that the word “Islam” itself can’t be traced to the Greek παράδοσις paradosis, “tradition” through the Aramaic mashlamānūtā; or that the mysterious Luqmān (who according to the Quran is bestowed by God with حِكْمَة hikma, “wisdom, philosophy” = Greek σοφία, φιλοσοφία sophia, philosophia, “wisdom, philosophy”) can’t be the famous 5th-century BC philosopher-scientist Alcmaeon of Croton who is often cited by Christian writers, etc., all of which, if correct, is rather indicative of Greek influence.

    It may be noted in this connection that, in addition to narratives with Jewish and Christian characters and themes, the Quran also seems to contain materials of Greek origin, such as the story of ذُو ٱلْقَرْنَيْن Dhu al-Qarnayn, “He of the Two Horns”, whom scholars have identified with Alexander the Great (who is represented on Greek coins as a horned Zeus-Ammon and whose story was translated from Greek into Syriac in the 4th century and also entered the oral traditions of Persia and elsewhere).

    See also:

    Juan Cole, “Muhammad and Justinian: Roman Legal Traditions and the Qur’an,” JNES 79 (2020) 183–196, and “Paradosis and Monotheism: A Late Antique Approach to the Meaning of islām in the Quran,” BSOAS 82 (2019) 405–425.

    I feel that on this forum there is a default position that pre-Islamic Arabic can only 'interface' with the rest of the world through Aramaic (presumably because Arabic is too foreign and exotic to be in direct contact with 'civilized' Greece and Rome or something) ...
    That is my impression, too. Obviously, there may be many reasons behind an Anti-Greek (and potentially anti-Christian) stance, not excluding political and ideological prejudice.

    This has a long and well-documented history going back to the perceived conflict between Greek philosophy and Judaeo-Christian revelation formulated as “Jerusalem versus Athens” by Christian polemicists like Tertullian (Against Heretics 7.3, 9-11) and has led to attempts to “de-Hellenise” Christianity and history itself.

    Aramaism, especially in its more radical forms, is clearly a manifestation of this trend and in my experience it tends to be prevalent among older generations unfamiliar with (or reluctant to acknowledge) more recent scientific findings. As Cole points out,

    “The studies of the Nabataean and Safaitic inscriptions since Bellamy’s time, the discovery of seventh-century Qur’an MSS. and palaeographical studies, and the newly discovered wealth of early Islamic rock inscriptions around Mecca and Medina have changed the way scholars look at the (Quranic) text” (584).

    The reality is that Christianity took a largely sympathetic view of the achievements of Classical thinkers, as evident from the statements of numerous Church Fathers like St Augustine (see above, #79). On their part, Hellenistic philosophers like Numenius of Apamea (second-century Syria) tended to agree with aspects of Judaeo-Christian teachings, some of which were themselves influenced by Hellenised Jewish thinkers such as Philo:

    “What is Plato other than Moses speaking Attic Greek?”/“Tί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων;” (Numenius quoted in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.22.150.4).

    Essentially, Greek culture, thought and language remained highly influential in the region for many centuries into the Islamic era. As Cole puts it, “The Hejaz was a cultural appendage of the Transjordan, sharing a Greco-Roman-Nabataean heritage (587).

    As Jeffery has shown, there were at least three Greek-speaking Christians among Mohammad’s acquaintances, or four if we include Bahira < bhira, Syriac equivalent of Latin-Greek Sergius/Σέργιος (al-Masudi, Murūj aḏ-Ḏahab wa-Maʿādin al-Jawhar 1, 146 in Jeffery: 106), who as a Syrian monk would have known Greek (Syria being part of the Byzantine Empire).

    As for those who insist on the “Semitic roots” of Arabic terms, they seem to forget that a Semitic root doesn’t mean an Arabic word/phrase can’t be a calque from Greek or used in ways that are influenced by Greek and, at any rate, no such roots are attested in the case of firdaws. :)
     
    Last edited:
    In Coles' paradosis paper:
    1) He hides the fact that the root n-j-w was a common term for "to save" or "deliver to safety" in a material sense in Quran.
    2) He fails to discuss multiple roots in Hebrew (Klein's dictionary) or Akkadian (Verlag's CDA) which derive "salvation" from "escape" or "deliver", pointing to a normal Semitic development. Instead he pretends it was uniquely shared between Arabic and Greek.
    3) He knows the Safaitic word (ngy) but doesn't tell us that, in 1st c. AD, it most likely already meant "to save" (e.g., in LP404 and LP407, in OCIANA) which shows the antiquity of a native Arabic "salvation" < "escape" development.

    In his "Justinian" paper,:
    4) He brazenly claims that punitive amputation "was originally Roman". Punitive amputation was sanctioned in Code of Hammurabi (17th c. BC) and Middle Assyrian Laws (15-13th c. BC), and alluded in the Deuteronomy (7th c. BC), and a South Arabian inscription (the bronze hand to Ta'lab, 2th c. AD), pointing to a widespread continual Semitic tradition (or Middle Eastern in general if we consider Hittite laws and occasional reference in Elamite).
    5) In his context building, it's ironic how spectacularly he fails to discuss that this punishment was mostly added to the Roman law (purportedly by Constantine) after integrating Semitic provinces, after embracing a Semitic rhetoric, and was put into full force by an Arab dynasty (Isaurians).

    How on earth could he get these three papers published? He is either very incompetent, or has some kind of agenda (and he is a UMich prof? Hmm :rolleyes:). His hypothesis is based on false claims and ignoring relevant evidence.
     
    Last edited:
    I can see how Cole can be criticized on many fronts, but the notion that "Romans must have picked up amputation from the Semites" is an even worse take, in my opinion.

    Anyway, as I said, I'm not committed to Cole's theories, and I think there is a lot of what Cole himself calls "appropriation" of the Qur'an and Islam by Christianity, Hellenism, Judaism, etc. The underlying subtext is always that the Qur'an is derivative, unoriginal, plagiarized, etc. It's always described as "borrowing", which you don't usually hear with Christianity for example, rather than as being an organic part of that Late Antique milieu with its own perspective on pre-existing traditions and ideas.

    From a pure linguistic perspective, the only thing I thought useful in Cole's paper was brining out how Arabic and Greek were in contact and so not every loanword from Greek has to come through Aramaic, because that would be anachronistic.
     
    that "Romans must have picked up amputation from the Semites" is an even worse take, in my opinion.
    I didn't suggest that. I meant that when arguing for something, it is ethically imperative to discuss potential contrary evidence which can be contextualised in the same way the pro argument is. He's building much of the argument on that a few hundred years of Greco-Arabic contact made the latter to adopt punitive amputation. OK, but equally, it would be possible to argue 1) the same amount of contact between Rome and Semitic cultures made the former open to this practice*, or 2) that for 2000 years of intra-Semitic contact for adoption, if not inheritance, of the practice locally. Cole barely does this for any of his arguments in the 3 papers linked here. If he does, you can bet he picks the conveniently easiest opponent to beat (e.g., choosing "to (verbally) mention" for ذکر but not "to remember" or "to be mindful" which are the primary Semitic, and perhaps Arabic meanings).

    * Of course, Rome was the stronger, often lending culture, but there are multiple instances of them being open to external practices (Christianity and Mithraism) and having people of eastern ethnicities on the top position, including as emperor.
     
    Last edited:
    I can see how Cole can be criticized on many fronts, but the notion that "Romans must have picked up amputation from the Semites" is an even worse take, in my opinion.
    Exactly. And even if they did, it doesn’t amount to evidence that Byzantine law in general couldn’t have influenced legal practices in Arabia both before and after Mohammad. Given that the Isaurian (Syrian) Dynasty was from 717 to 802 AD, I think it's important to know when you're being taken for a ride.

    The fact is that Byzantine Law was influential throughout the Mediterranean region and compilations of Roman law going back to the early centuries AD were translated into Greek and from Greek into Syriac (Syro-Roman law book). Even the legal systems of the Islamic caliphates were codified after the Byzantine model. It doesn’t look like Arabs were much concerned with the strict adherence to “Semitic law”! 😂

    More specifically, we need to address the question whether hand amputation for theft actually occurs in Semitic sources like the OT. If it doesn’t, then it clearly wasn’t “universal Semitic practice” and we need to see why it became specifically part of Arabian/Quranic tradition.

    W. Heffening, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam ("Sariḳa") seems to suggest a Persian origin. Indeed, the practice could perfectly well have been Persian in the period under consideration and adopted by the Arabs either directly or indirectly through contact with Byzantine law.

    It follows that the idea isn’t quite as far-fetched as some wish to imply.

    In any case, none of this proves that firdaws must be borrowed from Aramaic.

    From what I see, פַרְדֵּס pardes occurs in the Hebrew Bible only three times and exclusively in contexts unconnected with Paradise. In one instance it refers to a woman/bride: "Thy plants are an orchard (pardes) of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits …” (Song of Solomon 4:13).

    The Book of Songs seems to have been composed in the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC) and the other two texts, Nehemiah and Ecclesiastes were at least partly composed or edited in the same period.

    So, basically, we have no evidence for Hebrew פַרְדֵּס pardes occurring before Greek παράδεισος paradeisos and the same goes for Aramaic פַּרְדַּיְסָא pardaysa that is supposed to be the source for the Hebrew.

    It follows that the idea that every Greek word must have been preceded by an Aramaic term with “Semitic roots” going back to Moses or Abraham (if not before) is baseless.

    Wiktionary at any rate suggests a Persian or Greek derivation.
     
    Last edited:
    The Book of Songs seems to have been composed in the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC) and the other two texts
    This dating is made up of thin air as are all other datings of Shir HaShirim.
    So, basically, we have no evidence for Hebrew פַרְדֵּס pardes occurring before Greek παράδεισος paradeisos and the same goes for Aramaic פַּרְדַּיְסָא pardaysa that is supposed to be the source for the Hebrew.

    It follows that the idea that every Greek word must have been preceded by an Aramaic term with “Semitic roots” going back to Moses or Abraham (if not before) is baseless.
    That the word is ultimately Persian and came to the Eastern Mediterranean region via Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian empire, can hardly be doubted. We are debating here how it arrived in Arabic in the form of فردوس. For this, it is completely irrelevant where the word originally came from. Please don't confuse these two entirely unrelated questions.
     
    This dating is made up of thin air as are all other datings of Shir HaShirim.

    "It has parallels with Mesopotamian and Egyptian love poetry from the first half of the 1st millennium, and with the pastoral idylls of Theocritus, a Greek poet who wrote in the first half of the 3rd century BCE; as a result of these conflicting signs, speculation ranges from the 10th to the 2nd centuries BCE, with the language supporting a date around the 3rd century" - Song of Songs - Wikipedia
     
    "It has parallels with Mesopotamian and Egyptian love poetry from the first half of the 1st millennium, and with the pastoral idylls of Theocritus, a Greek poet who wrote in the first half of the 3rd century BCE; as a result of these conflicting signs, speculation ranges from the 10th to the 2nd centuries BCE, with the language supporting a date around the 3rd century" - Song of Songs - Wikipedia
    You are (again) reading too selectively. The essence is that the different cues are not consistent and that speculations wildly differ. Apart from that, the language of Shir HaShirim is very poetic and that makes it difficult to date.
     
    Last edited:
    My understanding is that the most plausible idea is that Arabic got it via Greek but there is no solid evidence.
     
    My understanding is that the most plausible idea is that Arabic got it via Greek but there is no solid evidence.

    What is your (and everyone else's) take on the باب الفراديس (faradiis gate) of early Islamic Damascus?
     
    the language of Shir HaShirim is very poetic and that makes it difficult to date.
    I agree. That was exactly what I had been thinking myself. However, mainstream sources like Wiki state:

    Job, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs could have been written in the 4th or even 5th centuries (BCE), but seem to reflect contact with Greek culture” – Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

    If Moses was from Egypt and wrote the Bible x millennia BC why did he use Persian words like pardes instead of Egyptian ones? Either the word was borrowed in the Persian period or in the Hellenistic period, i.e., third century BC.

    If Song 4:13 has paradeisos in the LXX and pardes in the HB, how can we know for sure that pardes precedes paradeisos when the text is difficult to date?

    If Song “has parallels with the pastoral idylls of Theocritus, a Greek poet who wrote in the first half of the 3rd century BCE” and “seems to reflect contact with Greek culture” (Wikipedia), could it not have been composed or redacted in the Hellenistic period?

    It looks like we might have problems dating the loan into Hebrew/Aramaic to begin with ...
     
    Back
    Top