But, before we enter into such examination, it may be proper to remark
that the Hebrew, in common with all the Shemitic languages, makes
abundant use of what we call rhetorical figures. The word בֵּן _ben_
means a son; but by _prosopopœia_ it is made to mean an _arrow_. Thus,
_Lam._ iii. 13, “He hath caused the _arrows of his quiver_,” בְּנֵי֖
אַשְׁפָת֥וֹ _beney_, _ashpatho_—literally, the _sons of his quiver_,
from the notion that the arrow is the produce, issue, adjunct, &c. of
the quiver. We might quote a great number of instances where the word
בֵּן _ben_, by the same figure, is used to express some other idea than
_son_, yet never unassociated with the primitive idea but, what would be
the value of the lexicographical assertion that this word in Hebrew
meant an arrow? The following fifteen verses are wholly of the same
character: “He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunk
with wormwood.”
The Arabians have a common way of expressing “_one of great
affliction_,” by saying that he is a “_wormwood beater_.” Yet the Arabic
word that means _affliction_, by no means is synonymous of _wormwood_.
The figure of Lamentations is also used in _Ps._ cxxvii. 4, 5: “As
awards are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth.
Happy _is_ the _man_ that hath his quiver full of them.” Yet, the word
אֶת־אַשְׁפָּתֹוֹ is in no sense a synonyme of whatever word for which it
is here figuratively used. A singular instance of this figure is found
in _Lam._ ii. 13: “Let not _the apple of thine eye_ cease;”
בַּת־עֵינֵֽךְ _bath eynek_, the _daughter of the eye_. The translators
have understood this to mean the “_pupil_,” otherwise called the apple
of the eye; but, the word _bath_, _daughter_, shows that the thing meant
is a _produce_ of the eye; hence, it cannot mean the _apple_ or _pupil_
of the eye, but _tears_. But how stupid the page that shall put down as
a signification of the word בַּת _bath_, an apple, or the apple of the
eye, or the pupil, or yet, what it here means, a tear?
These two words _ben_, a _son_, and _bath_, a _daughter_, sometimes
_beth_, are associated in so many different forms of figure and in
connection or compound with other Hebrew words, to express some
complex idea, that, if each different idea thus conveyed was to be
considered a legitimate signification of these words, their
description would be quite lengthy, and contradictory; for instance,
_Gen._ xxiv. 16, בְּתוּלָ֕ה is used to mean a _virgin_. But, 1 _Sam._
i. 16, בַת־בְּלִיַּעַל is used to mean quite a different character, as
if of different origin. In _Eccl._ xii. 4, בְּנוֹ֥ת הַשִּׂ֥יר is
generally understood to mean the voice of an old man. But in _Dan._
xi. 17, בַ֤ת הַנׇּשִׁים֨ is understood to mean a princess. We might
multiply examples without number; yet, in all instances, the leading
idea, a daughter, is ever present: other primitive words, whose
signification was an idea of great and leading interest, will be found
in similar use. And it may be remarked, that, at one age of the world,
when a large proportion of the children of men were slaves, that the
word signifying that condition would be naturally and exceedingly
often used in a figurative manner. Even among us, our word _servant_,
which, from use, has become merely a milder term to express the same
idea, is in the mouth of every devout man, while _slave_ is in
constant use among the moral and political agitators of the day.
One among the causes of our finding in the lexicons so many and
adverse significations of the word _ebed_, is the fact, that the
Hebrew often expressed an adjective quality, by placing the
substantive expressing the quality as if in apposition with the
substantive qualified, thus, עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִים _they_, slaves
(not) spies; עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧ים _they slaves_, brethren, _Gen._ xlii.
11–13, לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּ _thy slave our father_, _Gen._ xliii. 28.
In an analogous sense the word א֤יִשׁ is used in 2 _Kings_ i. 9, 10, 11,
12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, preceding הָֽאֱלֹהִ֤ים _a man of God_,
meaning one so wholly devoted to God as to partake of the divine nature.
But such use in no manner changes the meaning of the word אִישׁ or
אֱלהים. This mode of expressing quality, by placing one of the
substantives in the genitive, is quite common even in the modern
languages. Grammarians will also inform us that substantives are often
used adverbially, designating the time, place, and quality of the action
of the verb.
But again, the Hebrew adjectives are in disproportional scarcity to the
substantives, which the language remedies by a kind of circumlocution;
this, אִ֨ישׁ דְּבָרִ֜ים _a man_ (of) _words_, _i.e._ an eloquent man, as
in _Ex._ iv. 10; _the son of strength_ בֶּן־חַיִל _valiant_ or _worthy
man_, 1 _Kings_ i. 52; בְּנֵי־קֶדֶם the sons of the East, _i.e._ the
orientals, _Gen._ xxix. 1; בֶּן מָוֶת the son of death, _i.e._ doomed to
death, 1 _Sam._ xx. 31; בַּת־בְּלִיַּעַל the daughter of baseness,
_i.e._ a base woman, 1 _Sam._ i. 16.
This use of language is common to our word, _ebed_, _slave_: עֲבֵד
אֱלָהָא slaves of God, _i.e._ a man devoted to God, as a slave to a
master, _i.e._ a man who most devotedly worships God, _Dan._ iii. 26;
עֲבֵד אֱלָהָא _slave of God_, _i.e._ devoted worshipper of God, &c.,
_Dan._ vi. 21, the 20th of the English text; and to express this
adjective quality, is thus compounded in _Ezra_ v. 11, עַבְדוֹהִ֩י
slaves of God, _i.e._, devoted to God as slaves are to their masters.
&c., to express the adjective qualities of devotion and obedience. This
word is used and compounded with many other words in a great variety of
instances.
But, doubtless, another cause which has led the lexicographers into the
alleged error, is the peculiar disposition of the Hebrew, (common to all
the Shemitic tongues) to express the idea intended, by expressing
another to which it has a real or supposed analogy, either in primitive
relation or in ultimate result. For example, let us take the word _ben_,
a son, thus: _Isa._ v. 1, _keren_, here used to mean the top of a
mountain, because they fancied an analogy between the top of a mountain
and a _horn_. _Ben_, a son, _shamen_, fat, son of fatness, is here used
to mean a fruitful mountain. But, do these words acquire new
significations from this figurative use of them? The sons of the quiver,
_i.e._ arrows. _Lem._ iii. 13. Shall we say that _ben_, means an arrow?
_Ben kasheth_, the son of the bow, (_cannot make him flee_,) _i.e._ the
arrow, _Job_ xli. 20, (the 28th of the English text.) Shall we indeed
then say that _ben_ means an arrow? _Ben shahor_, the son of
_blackness_, here used to express night,—_son of the night_,—used to
convey our idea, the _morning star_. Shall we say that _ben_ means a
star? or, that _blackness_ means the morning? _Isa._ xiv., 12 בֶּן
יוֹנָה _ben yonah_, the _son of a dove_, _i.e._ a young dove, a squab?
_Lev._ xii. 6. Shall we say that בֶּן _ben_ means a squab? _Lev._ xii.
8, _beni yonah_, sons of a dove, _i.e._ two young doves or squabs. Shall
we then, surely say that _beni_ means two squabs? But, in _Lev._ xiv.
22, we have the same words used in the same sense: must we say that this
word means squabs? בֶּנֵי עֹ֝רֵב _bene oreb, the sons of the raven_,
_i.e._ young ravens, _Ps._ cxlvii. 9: does _beni_ then mean young ravens
also? בֶּן בָּקָר _ben baker_, xxix. 1. What, does _ben_ mean a calf?
_Num._ xxix. 2–8, _son_ of an _ox_, also; _ben_ the son of an ox—meaning
a calf, does _ben_ most surely mean a calf? _Job_ xxxix. 16, speaking of
ostrich-eggs, calls them, בָּנֶיהָ, the plural: what! does this word
also mean ostrich-eggs? But, _Eccl._ ii. 7, _canithi_, I purchased,
_ebadim_, male slaves, _shepaphath_, and female slaves, and _sons,
bayith_, of my house, _haya_, there were, _li_, to me:—here בְנֵי _bené_
is used to express the idea “_home-born slaves_.” But, shall we say that
this word means such young slaves? Would such a catalogue of
significations placed to the word _ben_, a son, be legitimate or
truthful?
But, in _Jer._ ii. 14, we again find this word _bayith_, preceded by
_yelid, born of the house_, meaning a house-born slave. The same words
are used to mean the same thing in _Gen._ xiv. 14, meaning _house-born
slaves_; and again, _Gen._ xvii. 12, meaning a _house-born slave_; also,
_idem._ 13, meaning a slave born in thy house—thy _house-born slave_.
God did not speak to Abraham in an unintelligible language: every one
knew what the idea was, even down to this day. Yet, are either of these
words a synonyme of _ebed_, a slave?
But we will close this portion of our remarks by stating that the
lexicographers might, in the manner here pointed out, (which they have
pursued to great extent,) have still increased their catalogue of
significations to the word _ebed_.
Let us show an instance. It is well known that the ancient eastern
nations punished great offenders by _cutting them in pieces_. The
term expressing and threatening this punishment was used somewhat
technically, as is now the term _to guillotine_, meaning _to cut off
a man’s head_. The term used by the ancients to express this
_cutting in pieces_, as introduced in Hebrew, was, עֲבַד הַדָּמִין
_abad haddamin_, which literally was “_to enslave in pieces_.” The
term is expressed thus in _Dan._ ii. 5: הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְדוּן _in
pieces ye shall be enslaved_, _i.e._ “Ye shall be cut in pieces.”
The lexicographers might have continued their catalogue with the same
truthfulness with which they have extended it to such length, and have
said that עבד _ebed_ also meant to hew, to cut, &c., and have cited this
instance in proof.
But in _Dan._ iii. 29, the term is used again thus הַדָּמִ֣ין יִתְעֲבֵד
_in pieces shall be enslaved_, _i.e._ “shall be cut in pieces.” Surely,
they should have added, that _ebed_ means _to cut_. It is true that the
literal meaning of this term cannot always be given in English so as to
be in pleasant accordance with our use of language.
But the same is true as to many other phrases and terms, and perhaps
applicable to every other language. This form and use of this word as
here used by Daniel, is rather a Persian adulteration than pure Hebrew,
of which several instances may be found in some of the later books. The
Babylonian and Persian kings considered even _all their_ subjects as
slaves to them, and this word was evidently used with greater latitude
among them than it appears to have been among the Hebrews at the time of
Moses.
------------------