LESSON I.
The Hebrew letters עʿ ain, בb beth, and דd daleth compose the word by which the Hebrews meant what we mean by the word slave. There is some variation among men of letters, even among the Jews themselves, as to the pronunciation of this word, some following the Asiatic, some the Portuguese, and some the Polish method.
Out of respect and in deference to King James’s translators of the Old Testament, of the learned and critical Dr. Blany, and of that indefatigable biblical scholar, Dr. Bagster, we have adopted their pronunciation of this word, and call it ebed.
This word, as left untranslated by them, will be found in Jer. xxxviii. 7–12; also xxxix. 16, 17, thus:—“Now, when Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, one of the eunuchs which was in the king’s house.” “Ebed-melech went forth out the king’s house.” “When the king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian.” “So Ebed-melech took the men with him.” “And Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah.” “Go, speak to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian.” The words Ebed-melech are here left untranslated, because we have not, in English, words to express the idea conveyed by them, except by paraphrasis, as, for instance, they would have had to have said, his majesty’s private, or principal, and confidential body-servant: and this is the exact meaning implied by the words Ebed-melech, as here used: the word servant, meaning a slave. In Judges ix. 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, the word Ebed is also left untranslated. Also in Ezra viii. 6: “Ebed, the son of Jonathan.” And in some other places.
We trust that our authority for the pronunciation of the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, will be deemed sufficient: yet, we admit that, in Hebrew pronunciation, it will be varied by suffix, affix, and points, as has been found by the learned rabbis long since to best agree with their rules of cantation and the idiomatic construction of the language.
This word ebed is used as a noun, verb, adjective, participle, and adverb; but we make the proposition, that, however used, and in whatever form, it is never used disconnected from the idea of slavery. Philological history will develop to us, at least, one human weakness:—pride to be thought learned, has more or less, among the European nations and languages, had its effect in the compilation of dictionaries.
In some instances, men of learning have undertaken their compilation without using their ability to fathom the depths of language, or to discover the sources of its streams, or describe the qualities of their combinations. And the world is full of servile imitations of former and old errors; and each one seems to think that the authority of a book warrants their perpetuation.
But there will occasionally arise, in the walks of knowledge, some Moses, some Confucius, some Homer, some Euclid, some Socrates, some Bacon, some Newton, some Franklin, some Champollion, before the fire of whose genius and mental power, all imitations of error wither away.
Touching the subject of the Asiatic languages generally, and the darkness that has for ages overspread them, may we not fondly hope that such a luminary is now culminating in the region of the universities of England. Permit us, at least, to have some hope for the Regius Professor of Cambridge.
But to our subject:—We sometimes find the philologist yield his sceptre and borrow his definitions from a bad translation. And we often find the translator sacrificing his original upon the altar of his own imperfections. Now, it is not uncommon that a word in one language may be in such peculiar use, that, consistently with the constitution of some other language, it cannot be translated therein by any one single term and even if so, not always by the same word. Should all the different terms and words that might thus be legitimately used in translation, be collected together, and put down as the descriptive meaning of some foreign or ancient term, our lexicons would, of necessity, contain some portions of error. For example, suppose we take the Arabic word عَبْدࣨʿabd abed, which means absolutely a slave in that language: we all know that an Arabian, speaking or writing to one far his superior, would someway call himself by this term. He uses it to express great devotedness, honesty, and integrity of intentions to the one addressed. If we were composing an Arabic lexicon, what would the scholar have good reason to say, if we should put as the definition of this word,—honesty, integrity of intention, &c.? This Arabic word is the same as in Hebrew, and the word is used in both languages with great similarity: also in Chaldee, Syriac, and other Shemitic dialects.
While we premise that the Koran is taken as the standard of Arabic literature, we present this word, as used in that language, as a sample of its use in the other Shemitic dialects.
This word, as above, in Arabic, is composed of the letters gain, or ain, under point jesm, which is equivalent to the Hebrew quiescent sheoa, but really having the shortest possible trace of the sound of our short ĕ, and terminated by the letter dhal, or dal, under the diacritical sign of nunnation.
Mr. Sale, who had great experience in Arabic literature, has left this word frequently untranslated in his notes, quoting Beidawi and Iolalo'ddin, to his version of the Koran, and in Roman letters expressed it thus, abda, and, without annunation thus, abd. We confine ourselves to this particular form of the word. If, by long experience we supply the shortest possible trace of our vowel ĕ between the b and d, and in annunation cause the terminating vowel to coalesce in some trace of our consonant n, we should perhaps arrive at as correct a pronunciation as could be attained by mere rules and it will be seen that the ebĕd of Jerusalem became abĕd at Mecca.
We copy from Sale’s translation, without burthening our page with a repetition of the original; our object is to show the precise idea for the expression of which the Arabians appropriated this word.
“God causeth some of you to excel in worldly possessions: yet, they who are caused to excel do not give their wealth unto the slaves whom their right hands possess, that they may become equal sharers therein.” Koran, chap. 16.
Al Beidawi, an Arabian commentator on the Koran, upon this passage says—
“A reproof to the idolatrous Meccans, who could admit created beings to a share of the divine honour, though they suffered not their slaves to share with themselves in what God had bestowed on them.”
The expression of a thing done, held, or “possessed by the right hand,” in Arabic, is a full concession that the doing, holding, or possessing, is just, rightful, and righteous.
“God propoundeth, as a parable, a possessed slave, who hath power over nothing, and him on whom we have bestowed a good provision from us, and who giveth alms thereout, both secretly and openly; shall these two be esteemed equal? God forbid.” Koran, chap. 16.
Of this, the above commentator says, “The idols, we have likened to a slave, who is so far from having any thing of his own, that he is himself in the possession of another.” Idem.
“And this is the favour which thou hast bestowed on me, that thou hast enslaved the children of Israel.” Koran, chap. 26.
“O prophet, we have allowed thee thy wives, unto whom thou hast given their dower, and also the slaves which thy right hand possesseth, of the booty which God hath granted to thee.” Koran, chap. 33.
Yet, so it is, we find in our Hebrew lexicons, among the significations of this word עבדʿbd ebed, not only its true signification,—slave, slavery, &c.,—but also, to labour, cultivate, labour generally, worship, to make, to do, or deal with any one, to take place or happen, work, business, tillage, cultivation of land, agriculture, implements, utensils, appurtenances, a worship of God or of idols, wearied, to be wearied with labour, complied with, assented to, performed, religious service, a submissive epithet, a minister, to minister unto, any one employed in the service of a king, any one who worships, adores God, one who is commissioned by him for any purpose, benefit, employment of any kind.
But we will desist from increasing this catalogue of definitions, for fear of being charged with slander on the Hebrew lexicons. Must not that be a very strange language in which one little word of only three letters has so many varied and adverse meanings? Yet, in all sobriety, we might double the number. If each and every Hebrew word were like this, thus loaded with lexicographical learning, we beg to know who would undertake and what would be the use of its study; for surely, from the same page, there might be a very great number of adverse and contradictory translations, all equally correct. But, if such catalogue is not legitimate, to what cause are we to look for its existence? to some abiding influence, secret but persevering, in the minds of the lexicographers for the last thousand years? Or shall we rather confine our views to the casualities of hurried translations and bad readings, to the facility of the copyist in book-making, instead of the laborious study of the investigator?
This circumstance, from whatever cause it may have sprung, will impose on us some labour to show the correctness of our proposition, to wit, the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, however used, and in whatever form, is never used in Hebrew disconnected from the idea of slavery.
We first propose to show that the Hebrew is abundantly supplied with words to express all these other meanings, disconnected with the idea of slavery.
Aware that such examination may be extremely uninteresting to the most of us, yet, deeming it of great importance to our subject, we humbly ask indulgence, while we examine a few of the most leading terms as examples, whose significations have been appropriated to the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed.