The Hebrew letters ע ain, ב beth, and ד 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 עֶבֶד
_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 عَبْدࣨ _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.