Etymology of the word " evil "

[Isaacsname]

" Evil "

It's such an oft-used word in the modern world....but where does it come from ?

And what does it really mean ?

We take this word to represent the " opposite of good ", for all practical purposes

Let's examine what's in Wikipedia:

" The modern English word evil (Old English yfel) and its cognates such as the German Übel and Dutch euvel are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel, Old Frisian evel (adjective and noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils.

The root meaning of the word is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern German Das Übel (although evil is normally translated as Das Böse) with the basic idea of transgressing "

-----------------

But is it really " the opposite of Good " ?

 

[Bob Crowley]

There's a Catholic based discussion on "If God, why Evil" at this website -

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/faith/if-god-why-evil/

Naturally it doesn't do full justice to the question of evil, but at least it deals with two forms of evil - moral and physical.

The etymology of the word is academic, and may be of use to people who study language, but from a theological point of view, it is quite obvious evil exists.

However evil is not created, but is a void or negation of the good. Blindness is a negation of sight - a natural evil. Greed is a negation of ambition or the desire to achieve.

 

[timewerx]

read "evil" backwards = "live"

Matthew 10:39
Whoever finds their *life* will lose it, and whoever loses their *life* for my sake will find it.

 

[Isaacsname]

I see, thanks for the responses

Did you know that " evil " is a Hebrew word that means " fool / foolish " ?

It may or may not be related to the Hebrew word " evul " { inequity }

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I like void or negation of good

..

better than relative absence of good.

 

[DamianWarS]

But is it really " the opposite of Good " ?

Regardless what the etymology for "evil" or for that matter "good" is there exists God's Will and that which counters God's Will. Words and their roots may not fully represent these things because they tend to absorb cultural definitions and when mainstream culture rejects God "goodness" inherently takes on new meaning then along with that "evil".

"Good" and "evil" are abstracts and that's the problem when trying to find specific definitions. Hebrew is an extremely concrete language so it's no surprise that the Hebrew/Aramaic influenced parts of the bible have concrete concepts of good and evil. For example "goodness" is light and salt and when abstracts are used they shape a concrete like "good soil", "good seed" or "good fruit" which are very simple concepts to understand. It's easy to know what a good fruit looks like but "goodness" alone is much harder to grasp.

In a like way the concept of "evil" in scripture contrasts these concretes which are also simple to see. Light/dark saltiness/unsaltiness, good soil/bad soil, rock/sand, good seed/bad seed, etc, etc.

Scripture uses a wide array of concretes to grasp good and evil. It shows us these concepts are not meant to be isolated to the definitions of special words which can lead to legalism but rather it revels that evil contrasts the plan of salvation and redemption.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Regardless what the etymology for "evil" or for that matter "good" is there exists God's Will and that which counters God's Will. Words and their roots may not fully represent these things because they tend to absorb cultural definitions and when mainstream culture rejects God "goodness" inherently takes on new meaning then along with that "evil".

"Good" and "evil" are abstracts and that's the problem when trying to find specific definitions. Hebrew is an extremely concrete language so it's no surprise that the Hebrew/Aramaic influenced parts of the bible have concrete concepts of good and evil. For example "goodness" is light and salt and when abstracts are used they shape a concrete like "good soil", "good seed" or "good fruit" which are very simple concepts to understand. It's easy to know what a good fruit looks like but "goodness" alone is much harder to grasp.

In a like way the concept of "evil" in scripture contrasts these concretes which are also simple to see. Light/dark saltiness/unsaltiness, good soil/bad soil, rock/sand, good seed/bad seed, etc, etc.

Scripture uses a wide array of concretes to grasp good and evil. It shows us these concepts are not meant to be isolated to the definitions of special words which can lead to legalism but rather it revels that evil contrasts the plan of salvation and redemption.

Not sure if I followed. Modern society has done its best to convince people that Good is not real, merely subject and/or just abstract thoughts. dependent of culture/society...etc..
We can know Good is real because the thought "what is good/right" transcends our existence, meaning for example that something Plato would describe as "good" is still "good" today - the thought did not die with Plato IOW. Since the thought "this is good" occurs only in our mind and such thinking ceases as far as this life is concerned upon our death, then the "goodness" of something must be external to our individual existence - meaning Good is very real. Which is good and in keeping with the thought that God wrote His Law (what is good) on our hearts so every one us can be righteously held accountable for our lives.

Whereas evil, very similar to darkness with light, represents merely the relative absence of good.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not sure if I followed. Modern society has done its best to convince people that Good is not real, merely subject and/or just abstract thoughts. dependent of culture/society...etc..
We can know Good is real because the thought "what is good/right" transcends our existence, meaning for example that something Plato would describe as "good" is still "good" today - the thought did not die with Plato IOW. Since the thought "this is good" occurs only in our mind and such thinking ceases as far as this life is concerned upon our death, then the "goodness" of something must be external to our individual existence - meaning Good is very real. Which is good and in keeping with the thought that God wrote His Law (what is good) on our hearts so every one us can be righteously held accountable for our lives.

Whereas evil, very similar to darkness with light, represents merely the relative absence of good.

My point is directed at the OP questioning what "evil" really is and is it indeed the opposite of "good". The main point I was trying to establish was redirecting the OP's "Wikipedia" approach to good/evil concepts to how the bible revels them to be.

My suggestion is that the bible shows us contrasting concretes to show us the difference between the abstracts good/evil where evil always contrasts good, there is no mixture, good triumphs over evil and goodness is God's side. We can see examples like this right from the beginning where the the first thing God calls good is light and it is the first response to a formless void and dark earth. These simple concrete concepts are how the bible reveals to us what good is and evil always contrasts it and I would suggest light/darkness are the most dominate concepts of good/evil in the bible.

IMO focusing on a word study of the english "evil" misses the point and regardless what etymological study reveals that study does not dictate what "evil" is and what it is not. There is always a contrast to goodness and calling that contrast "evil" I don't think is irresponsible and still is a good fit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My point is directed at the OP questioning what "evil" really is and is it indeed the opposite of "good". The main point I was trying to establish was redirecting the OP's "Wikipedia" approach to good/evil concepts to how the bible revels them to be.

My suggestion is that the bible shows us contrasting concretes to show us the difference between the abstracts good/evil where evil always contrasts good, there is no mixture, good triumphs over evil and goodness is God's side. We can see examples like this right from the beginning where the the first thing God calls good is light and it is the first response to a formless void and dark earth. These simple concrete concepts are how the bible reveals to us what good is and evil always contrasts it and I would suggest light/darkness are the most dominate concepts of good/evil in the bible.

IMO focusing on a word study of the english "evil" misses the point and regardless what etymological study reveals that study does not dictate what "evil" is and what it is not. There is always a contrast to goodness and calling that contrast "evil" I don't think is irresponsible and still is a good fit.

I think we agree, at least up until saying evil is "real" and an opposite of good. Take light/dark. Only one of those concepts represents something concrete, a thing we can measure, an energy. The other is just an abstract concept, a label we use to describe the absence of light. In fact to talk about how "dark" a particular area is we can only measure light levels because we cannot measure darkness/something that is not real. This understanding of evil also avoids the difficulties of explaining the "creation" of evil.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think we agree, at least up until saying evil is "real" and an opposite of good. Take light/dark. Only one of those concepts represents something concrete, a thing we can measure, an energy. The other is just an abstract concept, a label we use to describe the absence of light. In fact to talk about how "dark" a particular area is we can only measure light levels because we cannot measure darkness/something that is not real. This understanding of evil also avoids the difficulties of explaining the "creation" of evil.

Although darkness ultimately is an abstract it does pose itself easily as a concrete or at least among concretes. Concretes of course are things we can perceive with our senses and ultimately if there is true darkness it would be the void of perception we would use to identify it which would make it an abstract. Scripture however still uses darkness for evil which is why I point to it because scripture points to it. Scripture also contrasts sight/blindness as well and perhaps this shows us that darkness is based on a condition of blindness we cannot escape by ourselves.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Although darkness ultimately is an abstract it does pose itself easily as a concrete or at least among concretes. Concretes of course are things we can perceive with our senses and ultimately if there is true darkness it would be the void of perception we would use to identify it which would make it an abstract. Scripture however still uses darkness for evil which is why I point to it because scripture points to it. Scripture also contrasts sight/blindness as well and perhaps this shows us that darkness is based on a condition of blindness we cannot escape by ourselves.

I guess. Am still thinking that what would be "void of perception" is the light that is absent. So it seems to me we are still back to talking about something which represents not the opposite of something real, but the relative absence of that real thing. Scripture does contrast light/dark and uses it as metaphor for good/evil - but I do not see those references as requiring that evil be a "real" thing or concrete as you put it. Agree we cannot escape evil by ourselves.

 

[Isaacsname]

So,...you did or didn't know that there is an alternate etymology than what is offered in Wiki ?

I get the feeling that Hebrew is not a well-studied subject here

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My point is directed at the OP questioning what "evil" really is and is it indeed the opposite of "good". The main point I was trying to establish was redirecting the OP's "Wikipedia" approach to good/evil concepts to how the bible revels them to be.

My suggestion is that the bible shows us contrasting concretes to show us the difference between the abstracts good/evil where evil always contrasts good, there is no mixture, good triumphs over evil and goodness is God's side. We can see examples like this right from the beginning where the the first thing God calls good is light and it is the first response to a formless void and dark earth. These simple concrete concepts are how the bible reveals to us what good is and evil always contrasts it and I would suggest light/darkness are the most dominate concepts of good/evil in the bible.

IMO focusing on a word study of the english "evil" misses the point and regardless what etymological study reveals that study does not dictate what "evil" is and what it is not. There is always a contrast to goodness and calling that contrast "evil" I don't think is irresponsible and still is a good fit.

Intriguing...

 

[jimakoskx]

"But is it really " the opposite of Good " ?"

...My first thoght was
EVIL<- EV+IL<- ΕΥ+ΗΛ
So EY is in hellenic the word that if some word start with showing something 'good'
like EY+A (Eve woman of adam)
Even the word EV+EN can be (may) EY+EN that EN is the ONE(like)
(Remember..Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega)
Also EL+EV+ATOR!...i think you all know EL+LAS=~GREECE
)
Any way ...and HL is the first 2 letters of the SUN
SUN=HL+IOS=ΗΛ+ΙΟΣ
(Notice the S+UN (spiral+uno(EN)?))
Now i am started to wonder about EYE that may comes from EY+E
that in opposite direction we go again to EVE
(Eye....sun....light...something happening here!)

One thing to notice about the lan-gauge labyrinth is the question that one friend made to me
along ago...
-Why in hellenic langauge YES=NAI
but in a lot of other languages letter N is used for negative ..like NO,NEIN etc!

Also ,once upon a time, when i was thinking about 'matrix'
i was used to say
OS...for operating system software (male)
A...for database software (female!)
hehehhe

ALso...!..about the word Hebrew
HEBREW=H+EB+REW ..ok thats nothing special
In hellenic
hebrew=EY+RAI+OS
The same word EYRAIOS is used to point something that is
EXPANDED...
Also you can remember from hellenic mythology when DEUS
made children with EUR+OPE=EY+R+(hole)

I like etymology...Thank you men for this trip!

Ah!!..ok one more (hehehe)
Did you knew that
NEW=JADID in arabic?
Can you see??!!!!!
JA+DID!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing!
JA...
The Gladiators - Jah Works

I think you know JA!
JA-petus....
But i was always wondered why the planet
JU+PITER is called like this but pointing (referencing) to DEUS

Remember that DEUS punished PROM+ITHEUS....
Promitheus have father(pitter?) JA+PETUS!

Also from post beside this about ghosts..
GHOST=G+HOST ?(sorry for this last!)(go host! hahahah We will be get crazy here!)

Remember .... if we have life still ......please learn to your children HELLENIC LAN+GAUGE............

Also because before i mentioned EYE...
RA on Egypt might comes from O+RA
that ORA means SEE in hellenic langauge..
Thats how the eye of 'illuminaty' comes from.
Because some time (before NOE catastrophy)
the CHRIST was not crussified but was GOVERN-ING the world..
thus was RA and not someone that has nails to his hands!!!!

Also EGYPT is again hellenic meaning below AEGEAN see...

 

[DamianWarS]

I guess. Am still thinking that what would be "void of perception" is the light that is absent. So it seems to me we are still back to talking about something which represents not the opposite of something real, but the relative absence of that real thing. Scripture does contrast light/dark and uses it as metaphor for good/evil - but I do not see those references as requiring that evil be a "real" thing or concrete as you put it. Agree we cannot escape evil by ourselves.

Darkness is an abstract to an abstract thinker but I believe it is seen as a concrete to a concrete thinker. The biblical presentation of light/dark I see used as concretes. I don't think good/evil inherently requires a concrete definition but the bible does use a lot of concretes to define it. This probably is largely based on Hebrew (and Aramaic too) being extremely concrete itself so it's no surprise we see Jesus using concretes to define abstract concepts like good/evil.

I'm not suggesting we should adopt hebrew concepts to understand what good/evil is as the bible also has greek parts which is an abstract language. I do however see greater value in a study of biblical concepts of good and evil than a study of the English words.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Darkness is an abstract to an abstract thinker but I believe it is seen as a concrete to a concrete thinker. The biblical presentation of light/dark I see used as concretes. I don't think good/evil inherently requires a concrete definition but the bible does use a lot of concretes to define it. This probably is largely based on Hebrew (and Aramaic too) being extremely concrete itself so it's no surprise we see Jesus using concretes to define abstract concepts like good/evil.

I'm not suggesting we should adopt hebrew concepts to understand what good/evil is as the bible also has greek parts which is an abstract language. I do however see greater value in a study of biblical concepts of good and evil than a study of the English words.

God is Good. How is that an abstract concept? I can think of nothing more real in every sense than God.

 

[DamianWarS]

God is Good. How is that an abstract concept? I can think of nothing more real in every sense than God.

Good/evil are abstracts because they are intangibles. But when abstracts are used to describe a concrete it inherits the characteristics from the concrete.

For example green is an abstract but saying grass is green is a concrete concept and green is only relative to grass. Where saying oceans are green or cars are green inherit different concepts each relative to the thing they describe.

Saying God is good is not the same "good" as saying my cat is good. Arguable cats cannot be good or bad but rather well behaved or poorly behaved but the point still holds. Good is an abstract and when you say God is good the goodness is shaped and formed by whatever your concept of God is (which could be by some evil).

Philosophical this can be discussed to death which is why I look to biblical perspectives on how to shape what good/evil is where light/dark seem to be the most dominate but each description shows us a different insight to what good/evil is. It really doesn't matter what is abstract or what is concrete but rather my point is to focus on biblical perspectives.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Good/evil are abstracts because they are intangibles. But when abstracts are used to describe a concrete it inherits the characteristics from the concrete.

For example green is an abstract but saying grass is green is a concrete concept and green is only relative to grass. Where saying oceans are green or cars are green inherit different concepts each relative to the thing they describe.

Saying God is good is not the same "good" as saying my cat is good. Arguable cats cannot be good or bad but rather well behaved or poorly behaved but the point still holds. Good is an abstract and when you say God is good the goodness is shaped and formed by whatever your concept of God is (which could be by some evil).

Philosophical this can be discussed to death which is why I look to biblical perspectives on how to shape what good/evil is where light/dark seem to be the most dominate but each description shows us a different insight to what good/evil is. It really doesn't matter what is abstract or what is concrete but rather my point is to focus on biblical perspectives.

Correct God is Good is different than good kitty because the later describes a trait of a cat. The former is not describing a trait, it is acknowledging Who He is. God "is", which means He the fullest essence of what "being" means. All His attributes are not just things like when we speak of traits of a person. He is Love. He is Good, which also means Good is real, and Good exists - is very real and not an abstract concept. Evil is just our way of describing the absence of Good, which free will creatures create.

 

[jimakoskx]

Isaacsname.... 'make me a favor' when you are thinking of german lan-gauge.

The V pronouncing as F ok?...we all know this.
So the word VOCAL pronouncing as FOCAL
But in hellenic the word VOCAL pronouncing as FON-I-EN so again F...
Is this some sign enought to connect also deus-land lan-gauge with hellenic?
(heheheh)...Or Deuchland not coming from DEUS...the god of the gods?!

 

[DamianWarS]

Correct God is Good is different than good kitty because the later describes a trait of a cat. The former is not describing a trait, it is acknowledging Who He is. God "is", which means He the fullest essence of what "being" means. All His attributes are not just things like when we speak of traits of a person. He is Love. He is Good, which also means Good is real, and Good exists - is very real and not an abstract concept. Evil is just our way of describing the absence of Good, which free will creatures create.

Love is also an abstract. Don't be so defensive with this I'm not the one who makes up the rules of english nor am I challenging who God is. Good is an abstract because it cannot be defined with tangibles or physical referents and that's just how it is. This is not a philosophical argument it is rules of language.

But why are we debating about what terms are abstract and what are not? This has nothing to do with the op. Good/evil are contrasted biblically using simple terms that we can experience and understand such as light/dark. My point (regardless what you think is concrete or abstract) is that instead of looking to the English Language to discover what good/evil are we should look to how the bible defines them and study those concepts.