LESSON I.
The Hebrew letters ?? ain, ?b beth, and ?d 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 ??????ebed 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 ???????abd 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 e, 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 e 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 ebed of Jerusalem became abed 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 ????bd 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 ??????ebed 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 ??????ebed ebed.
LESSON II.
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 ????ben ben means a son; but by prosopopoeia it is made to mean an arrow. Thus, Lam. iii. 13, “He hath caused the arrows of his quiver,” ??????? ???????????beney ?aŠpatÔ 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 ????ben 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 ?????????????????et-?aŠpatoÔ 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;” ?????????????bat-?Ênek 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 ????bat 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, ??????????betÛl is used to mean a virgin. But, 1 Sam. i. 16, ???????????????bat-beliyya?al is used to mean quite a different character, as if of different origin. In Eccl. xii. 4, ???????? ?????????benÔt hassÎr is generally understood to mean the voice of an old man. But in Dan. xi. 17, ???? ???????????bat hannoŠÎm 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, ????????? ????????????abadÊka meraggelÎm they, slaves (not) spies; ?????????? ????????abadÊka ?a?Îm they slaves, brethren, Gen. xlii. 11–13, ??????????? ??????????le?abdeka le?abÎnÛ thy slave our father, Gen. xliii. 28.
In an analogous sense the word ???????yiŠ is used in 2 Kings i. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Also iv. 25 and 27, preceding ????????????ha?elohÎm 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 ??????Ί or ???????elhym. 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, ?????? ???????????Ί debarÎm a man (of) words, i.e. an eloquent man, as in Ex. iv. 10; the son of strength ??????????ben-?ayil valiant or worthy man, 1 Kings i. 52; ????????????benÊ-qedem the sons of the East, i.e. the orientals, Gen. xxix. 1; ???? ?????ben mawet the son of death, i.e. doomed to death, 1 Sam. xx. 31; ????????????????bat-beliyya?al the daughter of baseness, i.e. a base woman, 1 Sam. i. 16.
This use of language is common to our word, ebed, slave: ????? ????????abed ?elaha? 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; ????? ????????abed ?elaha? 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, ????????????abdÔhÎ 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 ???? ??????ben yÔn ben yonah, the son of a dove, i.e. a young dove, a squab? Lev. xii. 6. Shall we say that ????ben 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? ?????? ??????benÊ ?oreb bene oreb, the sons of the raven, i.e. young ravens, Ps. cxlvii. 9: does beni then mean young ravens also? ???? ??????ben baqar 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, ????????banÊha, 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 ?????benÊ 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, ????? ??????????abad haddamÎn abad haddamin, which literally was “to enslave in pieces.” The term is expressed thus in Dan. ii. 5: ????????? ?????????????haddamÎn tit?abdÛn 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 ????bd 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 ?????????? ?????????haddamÎn yit?abed 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.
LESSON III.
The lexicons seem tenacious that a very usual signification of the word ????bd ebed is labour, both as a noun and verb; and inasmuch as to many there may seem some relation between the ideas slavery and labour, we wish to be particular in examining the Hebrew use of the terms expressive of these ideas. It appears to us that the Hebrew word ?????yaga? yaga, it simply our idea of labour, more closely than any other word. Yet this word is never disconnected with the idea fatigue and weariness, and perhaps something of the same character will be perceived to be attached to our word labour. In Gen. xxxi. 42, it is used and translated, “the ????????yegiy?a labour of my hands.” xxv. 18, “and when thou wast faint and ?????????weyagia? weary.” 3: “And make not all the people to ?????????teyaga? labour thither.” xxiv. 13: “And I gave you a land for which you did not ??????????yaga?ta labour.” 2 Sam. xvii. 2: “And I will come upon him while he is ??????yagea? weary.” Neh. v. 13: “So shall God shake out every man from his house and from his ?????????????ÛmÎgÎ?Ô labour.” Job iii. 17: “And the ?????????yegÎ?Ê weary be at rest.” ix. 29: “If I be wicked, why then ????????Îga? labour I in vain.” x. 13: * * “despised the ????????yegÎa? work of thy hands * *.” xxviii. 18: “That which he ?????yaga? laboured for shall he restore.” xxxix. 11: * * “Wilt thou leave thy ???????????yegÎ?eka labour to him.” 16: * * * “ her ??????????yegÎ?ah labour is in vain without fear?” Ps. lxix. 4: “They that hate me without a cause;” the idea is, they that labour to injure, &c. “And their ?????????wÎgi?om labour unto the locust.” cix. 11: “let the stranger spoil his ?????????yegÎ?Ô labour.” cxxviii. 2: “For thou shalt eat the ????????yegÎa? labour of thy hands.” Prov. xxiii. 4: “????????tÎga? labour not to be rich.” Eccl. xii. 12: “Much study is ????????yegi?at weariness to the flesh.” Isa. xliii. 22, 23, 24: “But thou hast been ??????????yaga?ta ??????????????hÔga?tÎka wearied thee with incense.” “Thou hast ???????????????hÔga?tanÎ wearied me with thine iniquities.” xlv. 14: “The ????????yegÎa? labour of Egypt.” xlvii. 15: “with whom thou hast ??????????yaga?at laboured.” lv. 2: “And your ?????????????wÎgiy?akem labour for that which satisfieth not.” lxv. 23: “They shall not ?????????yige?Û labour in vain.” Jer. iii. 24: “For shame hath devoured the ????????yegiy?a labour.” xx. 5: “And all the ??????????yegÎ?ah labours thereof.” xlv. 3: “I ??????????yaga?tÎ fainted in my sighing.” The idea is, my sighing was a labour of great weariness, &c. Ezek. xxiii. 29: “And shall take away all thy ?????????yegÎ?ek labour.” Hag. i. 11: “And upon all the ????????yegiy?a labour of thy hands.” Mal. ii. 17: “Ye have ?????????????hÔga?tem wearied the Lord with your words, yet ye say, Wherein have we ???????????hÔga?enÛ wearied him?” Eccl. i. 8: “All things are full of ?????????yege?Îm labour.” x. 15: “The (??????amal amal) labour of the foolish (????????????tÎga?ennÛ) every one of them.” The word labour in this sentence is translated from amal, another Hebrew word, which signifies labour, but in its signification is implied the association of the idea grief, sorrow, &c. The adjective quality of this word is mental—in yaga, it is physical. This word amal seems to be derived from the Arabic ????????amln amelan, and from thence the Syriac ??????, having nearly the same signification. In Arabic the signification is put down by Castell, operator, mercenarius; and in Syriac, labore defessus. It is used in Hebrew as follows: Gen. xli. 51: “And Joseph called the name of his first-born Manessa; for God, said he, hath made me forget all my ????????amalÎ toil,” (labour, sorrow.) The word manessa means to forget, to cause to forget, &c. Num. xxiii. 21: “He hath not beheld ???????amal iniquity in Jacob,” i.e. labour designed to give trouble, perplexity, or sorrow. Deut. xxvi. 7: “The Lord heard our voice and looked upon our affliction, and our ???????????amalenÛ labour and our oppression.” Judg. v. 26: “And her right hand to the workman’s (??????????ameliym labourer’s) hammer.” Job iii. 10: “Nor hid ????????amal sorrow from mine eyes.” 20: “Wherefore is light given unto him that is in ????????le?amel misery.” iv. 8: “They that plough iniquity and sow ???????amal wickedness shall reap the same.” v. 7: “Yet man is born to ????????le?amaltrouble.” vii. 3: “So I am made to possess months of vanity, and ???????amol wearisome nights are appointed to me.” xv. 35: “They conceive ???????amol mischief and bring forth vanity.” xvi. 2: ???????amal “Miserable comforters are ye all.” xx. 22: “In the fulness of his sufficiency he shall be in ???????amel straits.” But it should be remembered that the Hebrew copy of Job is itself a translation. Ps. vii. 15: “He made a pit and digged it, and has fallen into the ????????amal ditch (sorrow bringing labour) which he made.” 16: “His ?????????amalÔ mischiefs shall return upon his own head.” x. 7: “Under his tongue is ??????amal mischief and vanity.” 14: “Thou beholdest ????????amal mischief and spite.” xxv. 18: “Look upon mine affliction and my ???????????wa?amalÎ pain, and forgive my sin.” “Yet is their strength ???????amal labour and sorrow.” cv. 44: “And they inherit the ?????????wa?amal labour of the people.” cxxvii. 1: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain.” Prov. xvi. 26: “He that ??????????amelÛ laboureth ????????? ???????amel ?amel Isa. liii. 11: “He shall see of the ???????me?amal travail of his soul,” (labour producing sorrow, &c.) “And that write ??????amal grievousness which they have prescribed,” (a labour producing sorrow, &c.) Jonah iv. 10: “Thou hast had pity on the gourd for which thou hast not ???????????amalta laboured.” Eccl. i. 3: “What profit hath a man of all his ????????amalÔ labour which he taketh under the sun?” ii. 10: “For my heart rejoiced in all my ????????amalÎ labour.” 11: “And then I looked on all the work that my hands had wrought, and on all the ???????????Ûbe?amal labour that I had ??????????????Še?amaltÎ laboured.” I hated all my ????????amalÎ labour which I had ???????amel taken (laboured) under the sun.” 19: “Yet shall he have rule over all my ?????????amalÎ labour wherein I have ???????????????Še?maltÎ laboured.” 20: “Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the ????????he?amol labour which I ???????????????he?amol took (laboured) under the sun.” 21: “For there is a man whose ?????????????Še?amalÔ labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity—yet to a man that hath not ???????amal laboured herein shall he leave it for his portion.” 22: “For what hath man of all his ?????????amalÔ labour and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath ???????amel laboured under the sun?” iv. 4: “Again I considered all ??????amal travail,” (labour and sorrow.) 8: “Yet there is no end to all his ?????????amalÔ labour, neither saith he, For whom do I ???????amel labour.” iii. 9: “What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he ???????amel laboureth?” v. 18: “And to enjoy the good of all his ????????????ba?amalÔ labour.” vi. 7: “All the ???????amal labour of a man is for his mouth.” ix. 9: “For that is thy portion in this life and in thy ??????????????Ûba?amaleka labour.” x. 15: “The ???????amal labour (amal) of the foolish ???????????????teyagge?ennÛ wearieth every one of them.”
?????????mela?kah melahkah is also quite analogous in its signification to our word labour, insomuch that our word labour may be often used in translation without impairing the sense. Gen. ii. 2: “On the seventh day God ended his work,” ????????????mela?ktÔ labour. xxxix. 11: “Joseph went into the house to do his business,” (labour.) Exod. xx. 9: “And do all thy work,” ?????????????mela?kteka 10: “In it thou shalt not do any work,” (labour, ?????????mela?kÂ.) xxxi. 3: “All manner of workmanship,” ?????????mela?kÂ. 14: “For whosoever doeth any work,” ?????????mela?kÂ. 15: “Six days may work ?????????mela?kah be done.” Lev. xiii. 48: “Of any thing made ?????????mele?ket of skin,” (done, laboured, manufactured.) Ezra iii. 8: “To set forward the work of the house.” 9: “To set forward the workman,” ????????????hammela?kÂ. Esther iii. 9: “And those that have charge of the king’s business,” ????????????hammela?kÂ. ix. 3: “And officers ????????????hammela?kah of the king. Without multiplying examples, it may suffice to say, that this word, as expressive of labour, is ever associated with the idea of particularity, or class of labour, business, employment or job, without reference to any other adjective quality; and hence it came to mean a message, or one charged with a message, and is therefore sometimes used to mean an angel, because they were supposed to be messengers, charged to do a particular labour; hence, also, applied to a prophet; and hence, also, the prophet Malachi’s name.
???????as Asa properly means work or labour, as the result of making, procreating, producing, doing, acting, or performing, without any regard to the condition of the agent or actor. Gen. i. 7: “God made ?????????wayya?as the firmament.” 16: “God made ?????????wayya?as two great lights.” ii. 2: “God ended his work ???????????mela?ktÔ which he had made,” ????????asÂ. This word is also used to express the result of labour in acquiring slaves and other property generally, as in Gen. xii. 5: “All their substance that they had gathered, and the souls they had gotten in Haran,” i. e. all the property and slaves that they had laboured for, &c. ????????asÛ. Exod. xxxi. 4: “To work in gold and silver.” 5: It is used with malabkah, thus: “to work ???????????la?asÔt in all manner of workmanship,” (?????????mela?k malakah.) These two words occur together again in Neh. iv. 15, the iv. 21 of the English text: “So we laboured ?????????osÎm in the work,” ?????????????bammela?kÂ. Ezek. xxix. 20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour,” ????????asÛ. Exod. xxx. 25: “And thou shalt make it (???????????we?asÎta labour it) an oil of holy ointment, an ointment composed after the art of the apothecary.” Art is here translated from ??????????ma?ase maase, which is another word of very similar import, and is derived from ??????aŠÂ, and expresses the idea of labour, as of a thing done, or wrought, a work, deed, action, concern, business, i. e. a labour emanating from a habit, or an occupation of business. Gen. xliv. 15: “What deed ????????????hamma?ase is this that ye have done?” xlvii. 3: “What is your occupation?” ??????????????ma?asÊkem. Exod. xxiii. 16: “And the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours ???????????ma?asÊka, which thou hast sown in the field, and the first of the ingathering, which is the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours,” ???????????ma?asÊka. Hag. ii. 17: “And I smote you with blasting and with hail in all the labours ??????????ma?ase of your hands.” Hab. iii. 17: “Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vine, the labour ?????????ma?ase of the olive shall fail.”
?????sebel sebel is sometimes translated labour, but it more often means something consequent to labour, as the burthen of labour is consequent to the labour: it is sometimes used to mean the produce of labour, and hence the Syrian Ephraimitish word ????????sibbole siboleth, which is said to mean an ear of corn, because an ear of corn was the produce of labour. Hence, it is sometimes used to mean prolific and fruitful, because the produce of labour is prolific and fruitful; and because to sustain a burthen, as of labour, carries with it the idea of physical ability and strength, it is used in the sense of bearing up, to elevate, to deliver from, &c. A few instances of its use will suffice. Exod. i. 11: “To afflict them with their burthens,” ?????????????besiblotam. Ps. lxxxi. 7: “I delivered ?????????missebel thee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong to labour,” ?????????????mesubbalÎm. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idea labour accompanied with different adjective qualities. So the word ??????ebed ebed may express the idea labour; but when so, it is always slave-labour, the labour peculiar to, or performed by a slave as in Isa. xix. 9: “They that work ??????????obedÊ in fine flax.” The meaning is, they that labour or slave themselves in fine flax. The working in fine flax was slave-labour. If it were good English for us to say, they that slave in fine flax, it would be exactly what the prophet did say in this passage. So in Exod. xx. 9: “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.” Here labour is translated from ebed ???????????ta?abod, as a verb “do” is from ???????????we?aŠÎta and “work” from ????????????mela?bteka. The literal meaning of this is—Six days shalt thou slave and labour all thy work;—or, more plainly—Six days shalt thou slave thyself (i.e. do slave labour) and ???????????we?aŠÎta labour, or make all thy ????????????mela?bteka particular, accustomed, professional or usual work or labour. This command is addressed to all mankind, and the propriety of it, as here explained, will be seen in the succeeding verse. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do ??????????ta?ase any work ??????????????kol-mela?kah thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (??????????abdeka, ebeddeka, slave.)” So, then, if this particular word had not been used, we could not have said that the command applied to slaves.
But the Hebrews had a way of expressing the idea of labour alone, associated with the idea of industry as its adjective quality: Should I say; By your hands you shall be sustained, the idea would be that you shall be sustained by your labour; that is, your personal industry. So the Hebrews used the words ????????al-yad el yod, which means “by hand,” and is used to mean labour. Thus, Prov. xiii. 11: “He that gathereth by vanity shall be diminished, but he that gathereth by labour (?????????al-yad by hand, i. e. by his own industry) shall increase.” Is it not clear, then, that the Hebrews stood in no need of the word ebed to mean labour generally. They did use it to mean slave-labour, and slave-labour alone, as we shall more fully see hereafter.
This language enabled its writers to express the distinctive shades of meaning—those adjective qualities associated with the idea labour. These facts may appear to the mere English scholar as matters of no importance—not worth investigation. But, touching the Hebrew use of this word ????bd ebed and its compounds, as it affects and expresses the institution of slavery, amid the eras of Divine inspiration, we hope to be sustained in the consideration of its very great importance.
Some of the lexicons say that this root ??????ebed ebed means also worship, to worship God, or idols, &c., without any connection with the idea of slavery. In Gen. xxii. 5: “And I and the lad will go yonder and worship;” here, worship is from ??????????????????weniŠta?aweh, from the root ????Š?h shahah, which means to bow down. xxiii. 12: “And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the Lord,” bowed down himself ???????????????wayyiŠta?Û. xlvii. 31: “And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head,” ???????????????wayyiŠta?Û. Exod. iv. 31: “Then they bowed their heads and worshipped,” ???????????????????wayyiŠta?awÛ. This root, like all others, takes upon itself a change of shape, according to the condition in which it is used. We will present a few instances of its application in Hebrew. Exod. xi. 8: “And bow down themselves unto me,” ????????????????wehiŠta?awÛ. xx. 5: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself ?????????????????tiŠta?awe unto them.” xxxiii. 10: “And the people rose up and worshipped,” ??????????????????wehiŠta?awÛ. Deut. xxvi. 10: “And worship ??????????????????????weyiiŠetta?awÎta before the Lord thy God.” Josh. v. 14: “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did worship,” ????????????????wayyiŠta?Û. 1 Sam. xv. 30: “That I may worship ????????????????????wihiŠta?awÊtÎ the Lord thy God.” 31: “And Saul worshipped ???????????????wayyiŠta?Û the Lord.” 2 Sam. i. 2: “That he fell to the earth and did obeisance,” ???????????????wayyiŠta?Û. xiv. 33: “And bowed himself ??????????????wayyiŠta?Û on his face to the ground before the king.” 1 Kings i. 23: “He bowed himself ???????????????wayyiŠta?Û before the king with his face to the ground.” 2 Kings v. 18: “When my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship ?????????????????lehiŠta?awot there, * * * and I bow myself ????????????????????wehiŠetta?awÊtÎ in the house of Rimmon, * * * when I bow myself down ?????????????????????behiŠta?awayatÎ in the house of Rimmon.” xviii. 22: “Ye shall worship ????????????????tiŠta?awÛ before the altar of Jerusalem.” xix. 37: “And it came to pass as he was worshipping ??????????????miŠta?awe in the house of Nishrosh, his God.” Job i. 20: “Then Job arose and fell down upon the ground and worshipped,” ??????????????wayyiŠha?Û. Ezek. viii. 16: “And they worshipped ??????????????miŠhawÎhem the sun towards the east.”
Before we close our examples, let us notice how the Hebrews applied this word in poetry. Ps. xlv. 12 (11 of the English text): “Worship ????????????????wehiŠta?awÎ thou him,” xcix. 5: “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship ?????????????????wehiŠta?awÛ at his footstool.” cvi. 19: “They made a calf in Horeb and worshipped ???????????????hiŠta?awÛ the molten image.” xcvii. 7: “Confounded be all they that serve (????????obedÊ slave themselves to) graven images; that boast themselves of idols: worship ???????????????hiŠetta?awÛ him, all ye gods.” In this instance, the word serve associates with the idea of slavery, as does the original; but the worship with that of reverence. Both words occurring in the same sentence, will give us some idea of their different uses; yet some think this word in such instances synonymous with the word worship, notwithstanding the Hebrew writers thought differently; yet true it is, this word is sometimes used (as it were by figure) to express humility, subserviency, and devotedness of the true worshipper. In the same manner, St. Paul expresses the idea, when he says, that he is the doulos (d?????, slave) of Jesus Christ. In an analogous sense, the Arabic words ?????hal hel and ??????hallal hallel, Hebrew ??????hallel hallal, are used to mean worship, &c. Ps. cl.: “Praise ye the Lord, praise God in his sanctuary,” &c., where this word is in frequent use, and from which our word hallelujah has arisen. Also the Arabic word ??????hawdun hod, Hebrew ????hÔd hod, is in somewhat similar use: Ps. cxxxvi. 1, 2, 3, all commencing, “O give thanks to the Lord,” meaning glory, majesty, or dignity to the Lord, as the worship of the Almighty. We trust no one has ever found the word ebed used in such a sense.
But it is said that ????????abodat avoda means implements, utensils, appurtenances, (see Gessenius,) and Num. iii. 26, 31, and 36, is quoted in proof: “And the hangings of the court and the curtains for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it, for all the service thereof.” Service is translated from ???????????abodatÔ avodatho. The word, as here used, means slave-labour, and might well have been translated, “For all the slave-labour thereof,” i. e. of the tabernacle. We cannot perceive that it means the hanging of the court, or the curtains, or cords. The other instances quoted are of the same character, and we dismiss their consideration, asking the passages to be read.
But it is said, to minister, to minister unto, is sometimes translated to the word ebed. 1 Kings xix. 21: “Then he arose and went unto Elijah, and ministered ????????????????wayŠortehÛ unto him.” The word is from the root ??????Šeret shereth, and means to wait upon, to attend to, &c., distinct from the idea of slavery. In Matt. iv. 11: “Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered (d????????, diekonoun) unto him.” This Greek word, we deem, would be a good translation of this word from Hebrew into Greek. This word is used in Num. iii. 6: “That they may minister unto him.” 31: “Wherewith they may minister ????????????weŠeretÛ unto it.” iv. 12: “And they shall take all the instruments of ministry ???????????weŠeretÛ wherewith they minister.” 14: “Wherewith they minister about it.” xviii. 2: “That they may be joined unto thee and minister ?????????????????wΊaretÛka unto thee.” 1 Kings i. 4: “And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king and ministered ?????????????????watteŠaretehÛ to him.” 15: “The Shunammite ministered ?????????meŠarat unto the king.” If the word ebed had been used, it would have shown that she was a slave. The same word is continued to be used to mean minister. In 1 Sam. ii. 11: “And the child did minister unto the Lord before Eli.” 18: “But Samuel ministered ????????meŠaret before the Lord, being a child.” iii. 1: “And the child Samuel ministered ??????????meŠaret unto the Lord before Eli.” 2 Sam. xiii. 17: “Then he called his servant (????????na?arÔ his young man) that ministered ????????????meŠaretÔ unto him.” Now, had the ebed been here used instead of this word, as a verb, in the required mood and tense, &c., it would have been proof that the young man was a slave. But, in case the word ebed, as a noun, had been used, instead of ???n?r nar, then this word might have been used as it is, without affecting the slave character of the servant. 1 Kings x. 5: “And the sitting of his servants, (??????????abadayw slaves,) and the attendance of his ministers,” ????????????meŠortayw.
This passage shows with great distinctness the different use and meaning of the words ebed and shereth, between those who ministered unto him, and those who did slave-labour, between the minister and the slave and so we ever find the distinct uses and meanings of these words. See Exod. xxviii. 43: “Or when they come near unto the altar to minister ?????????leŠaret in the holy place.” Deut. x. 8: “To stand before the Lord to minister ????????????leŠaretÔ unto him.” xviii. 5: “For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to minister ????????leŠaret in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever.” 1 Kings viii. 11: “So that the priests could not stand to minister ?????????leŠaret because of the cloud.” 2 Kings xxv. 14: “And all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, ???????????yeŠaretÛ, took they away.” 2 Chron. xxiv. 14: “ Even vessels to minister,” ??????Šaret. Neh. x. 36 (the 27th of the Hebrew text): “Unto the priests that minister in the house of God.” 39 (the 40th of the Hebrew text): “And the priests that minister,” ????????????????hamŠaretÎm. Isa. lx. 7: “The rams of Nebaioth shall minister ????????????????yeŠaretÛnek unto thee.” Let it be noticed that the word strangers is translated from the word ?????nekar nechar. The word is of Arabic derivation from eker, and has a privative sense, as nescivit, abrogavit, improbavit. Hence, the Hebrews used it to mean strange, foreign, and sometimes false, as in Deut. xxxii. 12: “No strange (false) God with him.” Mal. ii. 11: “The daughter of a strange (false) God.” And this word was used to mean the strangers, idolaters, and rejected people, out of whom the Hebrews were allowed to make slaves, and therefore it was used in Gen. xvii. 12: “Or bought with thy money of any stranger (??????nekar neker) which is not of thy seed.” And therefore the propriety of the use of this word in the description of those who should be their drudges and slates, is beautifully expressed by the idea of building up their walls, as here expressed by the prophet. But the idea of the kings ministering, is as before, from the root, shereth. Many more examples of the use of this word might be quoted; but we trust the foregoing are sufficient to establish its meaning to be altogether different and distinct from any use of the word ebed. Yet, there are in the received translation of the holy books, a few instances where this word is translated erroneously, as though it were a synonyme of the word ebed.
In Num. xi. 28, “And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses,” the word servant is translated from ?????????meŠaret, and should have been the minister of Moses. In Exod. xxiv. 13: “Moses rose up and Joshua his minister” ????????????meŠaretÔ. In this last quotation, minister is correctly translated from the word as above, proving the error in Numbers. A similar error occurs also in Ezek. xx. 32; it reads thus: “And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of the country to serve ?????????leŠaret wood and stone.” Serve is translated from as above, and should have been to minister unto wood and stone. A like error occurs in Exod. xxxiii. 11: “But his servant ?????????????ÛmeŠaretÔ Joshua,” should have been rendered, “his minister Joshua.” So, also, in Num. iv. 47, the word ebed is translated as a synonyme of sherath. The passage reads thus: “From thirty years old and upward, even unto fifty years old, every one that comes to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation.” In this passage, the word ebed, with affixes, is used four times consecutively, and immediately followed by the word massa, which we have before seen means labour, with the idea of the burden of labour altogether predominating.
In the translation, it is plain to see that one of these words is totally left out, which, we suppose, no one will pretend is not an error. The translation made of these five words at the Theological College at Andover, is far more correct than the received version. It is thus: “to perform the business of the service and the business of the burden,” &c. Yet this is not the language of the original, which reads thus: ????????? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ????????la?abod ?abodat ?abod wa?abodat massa?.
If our proposition is correct, that the word ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, then this passage from Numbers should read: “From thirty years old and upwards, even to fifty years old, every one that comes to slave in the slavery of the slave labour, and in the slavery of the burdens of the tabernacle of the congregation.” We agree that the passage is somewhat difficult to render into English but because we may find some difficulty in making good English, we are not to translate from other words of different meaning from the ones used. The holy penmen said what they meant, and surely meant what they said: there was no double dealing in the spirit of Jehovah, who dictated to them. But that translators should have, in some few instances, mistaken or confounded the use of one word, is not to be thought strange. Taking into view the volume of the holy books, it is truly wonderful that greater errors were not committed. And we take occasion here to remark, that, of all the ideas, qualities, and actions, given in definition of the word ebed, unassociated with the idea of slavery, upon examination of the language, we shall find graphic symbols representing their phonetic signs, distinct from the idea of slavery, as we have these already examined.
LESSON V.
To show more clearly that the word ??????ebed ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, we now propose to examine that word as used by the Hebrew writers in the holy books. Our words SERVANT, servitude, service, &c. are all derived from the Roman word SERVUS, which meant a SLAVE; and our word servant, when first introduced into our language, as absolutely meant a slave as now does that term itself, and even now fully retains that meaning, where the English language and slavery coexist. The oriental scholar (and let him be invited to examine) will perceive that the word ??????ebed ebed was common to all the Shemitic tribes, and almost with the same phonetic particulars; but as their figures representing the same phonetic power were quite dissimilar, we think it a proof, almost demonstration, that the word ??????ebed ebed was used as a phonetic symbol by them long before any of those languages were written. This circumstance shows the extreme antiquity of the word; and if we succeed to establish the fact, that this word meant nothing but what is now meant by the word slave, we shall also have established the extreme antiquity of the thing itself. A word means nothing, until it is by some means agreed what it shall represent, what idea, or association of ideas it shall excite in the mind. Hence, it not unfrequently occurs that a thing may be better described by paraphrasis than by the expression of a single term. In Gen. xii. 5: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran.” The latter clause of this sentence is from this Hebrew expression, ???????????????? ?????????????? ?????????we?et-hannepeŠ ?aŠer-?asÛ beo?aran, which is correctly translated in the Andover lexicon, “The souls they had acquired in Haran.” Every one knows that the things here meant are slaves. But, when the scholar comes to examine the power of the language of this Hebrew paraphrasis, he will discover three incident attendants. ?????????hannepeŠ hannephesh, translated souls, also carries with it the idea a living soul, to have life, the life itself, the living principle, and is so translated in many places. A slave, therefore, must have life: when dead, the condition ceases. In the same way, the sentence expresses the idea of acquiring property by purchase, or any other way in which property may be acquired so as to be property. The three incidents then are life, a capacity of being acquired, and, when so acquired, property. All this could not have been expressed by the single term ??????ebed ebed, only as it is made the representative of this complex idea: and God has no doubt caused this passage to be on record at this early period, that these incidents should finally come to the knowledge of all men. A somewhat similar expression is used in Rev. xviii. 13. Every one knows that Babylon had been a great slave-market. St. John, after naming the various articles of her merchandise, adds ?a? t?? s?at??, ?a? t?? ?????, kai ton somaton, kai ten psuchen, which is translated, “slaves and souls of men:” s?at?? does not mean slaves, but a dead body, and is so used by Homer, Xenophon, and by the New Testament itself; but, when united with ?a? t?? ?????, means slaves alone. The phrase “souls of men,” therefore, in the translation, is surplusage. But the xii. 16 of Genesis is more particular in giving the different kinds of property and their appropriate names. “And he had sheep and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants (?????????abadÎm abadim), and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The word men-servants is translated from the plural of ??????ebed ebed. Here we find the conventional term expressing the complex idea, previously expressed by the phrase “ souls gotten,” persons in life, subject to be purchased, and when purchased, property, as were sheep and oxen, and he-asses and she-asses, and camels. In Gen. xvii. 9–13, we begin to find the law influencing the conduct of Abraham in the management of this property: “And God said unto Abram, thou shalt,” &c. 12: “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised,” &c.: “He that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed.” 13: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.” And let it here be remembered that God recognises the possession of this property, by giving directions with his own voice concerning its government. And in Gen. xx. 14, we have some account of the origin of Abraham’s title to some portion of this property: “And Abimelech took sheep and oxen and men-servants (??????bdym ebedim, the plural of ebed), and gave them to Abraham.” xxiv. 35: “And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses.” Here the plural of ebed is also used. Such is the title by which he possessed this property, described as given to him by the Lord. But God had promised that he would bless Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1: “The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God.” 2: “And I will make my covenant between me and thee.” 7: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant.” 10: “This is my covenant.” (This covenant extends from the beginning of the 10th to the end of the 14th verse.) One part of this covenant was, that these ebeds, translated men-servants, whether born in his house or bought with his money of any stranger, should be circumcised. Wherefore, the possession of these ebeds as property became agreeable to the terms of the covenant, a part of the covenant itself—a covenant first proposed and promulgated by the great Jehovah; as he styles himself in the covenant, the Almighty God! Gen. xxvi. 2: “And the Lord appeared unto him (Isaac), and said, Go not down into Egypt: dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee.” 4: “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” 13: “And the man (Isaac) waxed great, and went forward and grew until he became very great.” 14: “For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants (??????????abudd abuddah, slaves, a plural formation of ebed), and the Philistines envied him.”!!!
LESSON VI.
Gen. xxvii. 29: “Let people serve thee (??????????????ya?abdÛka be slaves to thee), be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee; cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” Let us notice the conformity of this passage with Gen. xxv. 23: “And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve (?????????ya?abod be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxx. 43: “And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants, and men-servants (????????????wa?abadÎm the plural of ebed), and camels and asses.” Exod. xx. 1, 2, 9, 10, 17: “And God spake all these words, saying,” 2: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (???????????abadiym out of slavery): 5: “Thou shalt not bow down (???????????????tiŠta?aweh worship them) thyself to them, nor serve (???????????ta?obdem be a slave to them) them.” 9: “Six days shalt thou labour (???????????t?abod slave thyself, or do SLAVE-LABOUR) and do (oso, labour or do work) all thy work,” (???????????we?asiyta all thy accustomed labours.) This command embraces all classes, the slave as well as the most elevated. All men, by the fall of Adam, had become subject to slave-labour. 10: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant (??????????abdeka thy slave), this commandment we are directed not to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s, including his man-servant and maid-servant. Here the same word ?????????abdÔ is also used. Exod. xxi. 1: “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” 2: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant (???????ebed ebed), (?????????ya?abod shall slave himself),” 5: “And if the servant (???????ha?ebed ha ebed, slave) shall plainly say, I love,” &c. Exod. xxi. 7: “She shall not go out as the men-servants do.” (????????????ha?abadÎm the plural is here used.) 20: “If a man smite his servant ?????????abdÔ or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: for he is his money.” 26: “If a man smite the eye of his servant,” ??????????abdÔ. 27: “ If he smite out his man-servant’s tooth,” ??????????abdÔ. 32 “If the ox shall push the man-servant ??????ebed or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”
Lev. xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men ??????????we?abdeka and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bond-men,” (???????ebed ebed.) 45: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.” 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your bond-men ????????????ta?abodÛ for ever.”
Deut. v. 14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant ???????????we?abdeka, nor thy maid-servant, that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” 15: “And remember that thou wast a servant (????????ebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 21 (18th of Hebrew text): “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant ??????????we?abdoew, or his maid-servant.” Deut. xii. 12: “And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants (????????????we?abdÊkem a plural form of ebed), thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant,” ???????????we?abdeka. Deut. xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve ????????????wa?abadeka thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (???????ebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (??????ebed ebed) for ever.” Deut. xvi. 11: “And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant ???????????we?abdeka, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you.” 12: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (??????ebed ebed) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant ????????????we?abdeka, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow.” Deut. xx. 10: “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” 11: “And it shall be if it make thee an answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people found therein shall be tributaries (??????lamas lamas, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall serve (?????????????wa?abadÛka be thy slaves) thee.” Deut. xxiii. 9–17 contains certain laws to be observed in time of war with their enemies, &c., one of which is, that a slave escaped to them from the enemy should not be restored, &c. Deut. xxiii. 16 (15th of the English text): “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant,” (??????ebed ebed, slave.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man,” (??????ebed ebed, slave.) wast a bond-man,” ??????ebed Gen. ix. 25: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants (ebed-ebedim) shall he be unto his brethren.” 26: “And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant,” (??????ebed ebed.) Many more instances of a similar use of this word might be selected from the holy books; some of which we hope to notice in the progress of our study. Such, then, was the Hebrew use of the word, to mean slave, a person purchased or otherwise acquired, and the unquestionable property of the master. Such then being the condition of the ebed, slave, it is evident that he could not be contented and happy, in case he had ambition to gratify, with hopes and prospects before him adverse from those of his master; his whole earthly felicities are bound up in his master’s welfare and prosperity; like an individual of an army, he feels that the elevation, the brilliancy of the commander is reflected upon him; and with a Christian spirit, he obeys his master in all things, “not with eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God.” See Col. iii. 22. In such a state of mind, the slave finds no unhappiness in his condition, but joy and gladness; and with the slave of Abraham, he implores Jehovah: “O Lord God of my master Abraham! I pray thee send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham: Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth.” Gen. xxiv. 12 and 27. Expressive of a character of perfect devotedness, humility, and obedience. The term ebed might well be borrowed to express the earnest devotion of a worshipper of Jehovah, and is so often used in connection with the patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets. The term thus used expresses the quality of their devotedness and obedience, and not necessarily the quality of the individual. In this sense, the apostles style themselves the (d?????, douloi) slaves of Jesus Christ; not that they were personally douloi, but in their devotion and obedience to him, they were what the doulos was or should be to his master. It is probable that, in some sense, all men feel that in the hand of God they are as clay in the hands of the potter; that the great Jehovah overrules and governs all things; that, as existences, they are from and dependent on him: under such a sense, we sometimes find the term ebed applied, as in the name Obadiah, Obadyahu, the slave of God, and used as a proper noun. But such compound words are dependent for their meaning upon the complex ideas of what their primitives signified; and, in a somewhat analogous sense, the term ebed is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, lie being in the hands of the Almighty, as clay in the hands of the potter, the mere instrument, the fabrication of his hand. There is, however, in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, a use of this word peculiar to them; but we should recollect that they were educated in the Persian capital and employed in high stations by the Persian monarch. We may therefore well expect some variation in their dialect.
LESSON VII.
And we may well bring to mind the fact that there are two distinctly marked eras in the Hebrew language. The first ends at the Babylonish captivity. The Pentateuch and older prophets, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, and Proverbs, come within this era. The second commences with the return of the Israelites from that captivity, and extends to the introduction of Greek into Palestine, subsequent to the conquests of Alexander. The first period may be emphatically called ancient Hebrew; and the latter, more modern. The Hebrew of this period is strongly marked by an approximation to the Chaldee and Persian. To this period of the language belong the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, Esther, Jonah, Haggai, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and a part of the Psalms; and these works will ever be regarded by the oriental scholar as inferior in classical literature to those of earlier date, notwithstanding their other merits of high excellence. But some of the peculiarities of the writings of the second period are not to be regarded as recent alterations, but as the phonetic, unwritten Hebrew of the more remote districts of Palestine itself. The variations of this more modern from the ancient Hebrew are extremely numerous, both as to the substitution of one word for another, but also as to a change of meaning of the same word; as, for instance, the more ancient would have used the word ??????malak malak to signify a king, to rule, &c.; but the more modern have used a word, which, from its strong phonetic relation, has evidently been derived from it, ?????Šala? shalat, to mean to rule, &c., and so used Ps. cxix. 133, Eccl. ii. 19, Esther ix. 1, Neh. v. 15, Dan. ii. 39, and in many other places. So also the ancient would use the word ??????amar amar, to signify to speak, to say; but the more modern uses the same word to signify to command. What we say is, that we cannot always learn the original meaning of a word from the more modern use of it. We will now notice the use of the ancient word ebed in this more modern dialect of the Hebrews. In Ezra iv. 19, we find, “And that rebellion and sedition have been made therein” is translated from ?????????mih?abed mithabed. Let us examine the circumstances under which this sentence was written. Rehum had written to the monarch Artaxerxes in opposition to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, informing him that it had ever been a rebellious city, hurtful to kings, &c.; in answer to which, the king writes, “that the records have been examined, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition hath been made therein.” The Persian monarchs were all absolute; they regarded those whom they conquered as slaves; and when they rebelled, they used this word to signify that it was slaves who rebelled. Our word servile is somewhat analogous, and might very properly be substituted for it in the foregoing text, thus: “And it is found, this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that there hath been servile rebellion and sedition therein.” When we speak of insurrection, sedition, rebellion, or war with slaves, we call it servile, as Artaxerxes did in this case, to show the fact that the war was with slaves. Ezra iv. 24, this word ??????????abÎdat is translated work. So in v. 8, ?????????????abÎdetta? work, vi. 7, ??????????abwdat work, to show that the labour was done by slaves, or, figuratively, that the labour was intense, devoted, and obedient, as of slaves. vi. 8: ???????????ta?abdoÛn “Ye shall do.” 12: ??????????yit?abed “Let it be done with speed.” 13: ?????????abadÛ “So they did speedily.”
vii. 18:
and | ???????????
??????????? ta?abdÛn
leme?bad | | “That do after the will of your God.”
“To do with the rest of the silver and gold.” |
21: ??????????yit?abed “It be done speedily.” 23: ?????????yit?abed “Let it be diligently done.” 26: ??????abed “Will not do.” ??????????mit?abed “Let judgment be executed speedily.” These instances of the use of monarch of Persia is speaking, who regarded not only the Jews, but all his subjects, as slaves. It was the court manner of the eastern monarchs in such decrees to throw in occasionally an exclamation of the nature of an imperative interjection, such as, Slave, attend! Pay attention, slaves! Listen, slaves! &c., all in substance meaning that those to whom the decree is issued should perform it quickly and without further notice. And we find the same custom existing among them even at this day, and such is the true sense in which the term is here used. Let us exemplify it. Ezra vi. 12: “I, Darius, have made a decree;” then follows the Persian adverb ??????????????osparna? asepporna, which means quickly, speedily, diligently, &c.; then the word in question, as before noticed: “quickly, slaves,” is therefore the literal meaning, i. e. what he had decreed they should instantly perform. We do not pretend to say that translating it to do, &c. gives a substantially wrong sense; but it seems it may have led lexicographers to an erroneous conception of the meaning of the word. Jer. x. 11: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth:” made is translated from ??????????abadÛ. If this word is the correct reading, the idea of the prophet had regard to the power, not to the act of a creator,—the gods that have not subjected, have not placed in subjection, as if in slavery to, whose laws do not govern the heavens and the earth. The gods who could not do these things are not gods, and they shall perish. This was the idea of the prophet. But this word is marked in all the best copies with a keri, showing that this reading was suspected by the Jewish scholars to be bad; and they supply in the margin the words ??? ?????pt? k?tn?, which is at least some proof that they thought its use in this instance unusual; and Kennecott and De Rossi found these words used instead of ????????? in some copies.
LESSON VIII.
But we have a sure method by which we may discover what meaning Ezra did affix to this word—by examining his use of it in those cases where its meaning cannot be doubtful. See Ezra iv. 11: “Thy servants,” ???????????????abdaykeyk. v. 11: “We are the servants,” ???????????abdÔhÎ, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word ???????????ya?abadÛ, which is omitted in our translation. The sentence should commence thus: “And the slaves, the children of Israel, the priests,” &c. ix. 9: “For we were bondmen ??????????abadÎm, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” ????????????????Ûbe?abdutenÛ. These instances clearly show how Ezra understood this word: notwithstanding his writings were touched with the Persian and Chaldee idioms. A similar result will be found upon the examination of Nehemiah and Daniel. Neh. ii. 10 and 19: “And Tobiah the servant ?????????ha?ebed, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the servant ????????ha?ebed, the Ammonite.” v. 5: “Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage (???????????kobeŠÎm kovshim) sons and our daughters to be servants (???????????la?abadiom slaves), and some of our daughters are brought into bondage (????????????nikbaŠÔt subjections, not necessarily slavery) already,” (??????kabaŠ kovash.) The root from which these two words are formed in no sense means slavery, but to reduce, to subdue, to humble; and in this sense is used in Esther vii. 8, and translated “force.” But this word aids very much in showing what idea was affixed to the word ebed; and we ask to compare this passage of Nehemiah with Jer. xxxiv. 8–16: “This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; * * * that every man should let his man-servant, (??????????abdÔ male slave,) and every man his maid-servant ???????????Šip?atÔ, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve (???????abad- slave) himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now, when all the princes, and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant (??????????abdÔ male slave), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none serve themselves (???????abad- slave themselves), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants (???????????ha?abadÎm ha abadim, slaves), and the hand-maids, whom they had let go free, to return. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond-men (??????????abadÎm ebedim, slaves), saying, At the end of seven years, let go every man his brother a Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee (????????????wa?obadeka slaved for thee) six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, (?????????abdÔ ebeddo, slave,) and every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection (???????????????wattikbeŠÛ) to be unto you for servants (????????????la?abadÎm for slaves), and for hand-maids.” The comparison of these passages proves the fact that Nehemiah and Jeremiah used the word ebed to mean a slave, without any variation of meaning. Nor will we hold Nehemiah responsible for his word ???????kabaŠ kavash, subjection, being translated bondage. Neh. vii. 66, 67, gives an account of the captive Israelites that returned from Susa and Babylon to Jerusalem. “And the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. Besides their man-servants (????????????abdÊhem male slaves), and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty score.” We trust that so varied, particular, and descriptive are the records left in the holy books through which we may search out what the Hebrews meant by their use of the word ebed (????bd), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word ???????kabaŠ kavash has been translated bondage, it may be well to give a few examples of its use in the holy books, that all may see and know that its meaning is totally distinct from that of slavery. Gen. i. 28: “Multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it,” ???????????wekibŠuha. Num. xxxii. 22: “And the land be subdued ?????????????wenikbeŠÂ before the Lord.” 29: “And the land shall be subdued ?????????????wenikbeŠÂ before you.” Josh. xviii. 1: “And the land was subdued ????????????nikbeŠÂ before them.” 2 Sam. viii. 1: “Which he subdued,” ???????kibeŠ. ?2 Chron. ix. 18: “With a footstool,” ????????wekebeŠ because a footstool was in the place of subjection. Zech. ix. 15: “And subdue ???????????wekabeŠÛ with sling-stones.” Micah vii. 19: “He will subdue ???????????yikbÔŠ our iniquities.” The foregoing examples, we trust, are sufficient to disabuse the mind of the idea of any synonyme of meaning of these two words.
LESSON IX.
WE propose to examine the Hebrew use of the word ebed in the 5th and 15th of the second chapter of Genesis: “In that day the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till ?????????la?abod the ground.” To till is here translated from this word ebed, with the affix of the preposition ?l. This is the first instance in which the word is used in the holy book; and it may seem extremely strange that the writers of these books found its use necessary in their description of events even before the creation of man. It is not our business to draw out theological doctrine unconnected with the subject of our present inquiry; but we suppose it will not be disputed that the great Jehovah as well knew, before he created the heavens and the earth, and man upon the earth, all and every particular of what would happen, as at any subsequent time: with him, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. We may behold the birth, maturity, and death of some animalcula, in a day or in an hour. But, with him the succession of generations, of the animal life of a thousand years, pass in instantaneous and present view. Time appertains alone to mortals. He saw the most ultimate condition of man; and the earth and the herb were made to suit it. But from the manner of the expression of the text, may we not conclude that the herb, although made, would not grow until man was created, and in the condition to till (?????????la?abod to slave) the ground? The support of the animal world, independent of man, is spontaneously presented before them: not so with man in his fallen state. “He sendeth the springs into the valley, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (???????????la?abodat for the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth,” Ps. civ. 10–14. The second instance in which this word is used is in Gen. ii. 15: “And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it.” To dress it is translated from this word ???????????le?obdah. There is certainly much obscurity in the use of the word in this instance. Professor Stuart, of Andover, supposes that it inculcates the doctrine that labour was imposed on man in the paradisiacal state; consequently, that labour was no part of the curse which followed the apostacy. (See his Chreestomathy, page 105.) This view excludes the idea that the word, as here used, is associated with the idea of slavery, and that, if, in the interchange of language, although the idea of labour may predominate, nevertheless, it must be slave labour. Our mind does not yield its assent to his position. We had associated with our idea of this paradise the most perfect heaven, the dwelling-place of Jehovah!! and that the generations of man, when guided and governed by Divine mercy in such a manner that we could be happy therein, that it would yet become our ultimate home,—(“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God,” Rev. ii. 7,)—and that the humble worshipper of Jehovah while in a state of progressive preparedness, would therefore cry out with the Psalmist, “Unto thee I lift mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants (??????????abadÎm male slaves) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a maiden (?????????Šip?ah shiphhah, female slave) unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until he have mercy upon us.” Ps. cxxiii. 1, 2. If then the paradise of old was the type of the paradise eternal, it would seem that the labour of the ebed was excluded therefrom: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (d???e?a?, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 21. And for this very good reason, that slavery, the consequent of sin, could never find entrance there: regeneration is therefore indispensable.
“It strikes me that the use of the verb (??????abad abad, presents no difficulty that calls for explanation. The language of inspiration is man’s language, though employed by God. The events, facts, things, acts, that preceded man’s creation, must still be described by language and terms that had come into use after man’s creation. Man must first exist before there could be words to be used in conveying knowledge to man. A word implying slavery might therefore most reasonably be found in a description of things prior to the existence of man, or of slavery, which description was written long afterwards by Moses, and in language which was in use amongst the men for whom he wrote. When Moses wrote, when God inspired him, ??????ebed ebed was a familiar word.” Extract from manuscript letter of the Rev. J.B. Stratton to the author.
But in the pursuance of the chain of thought that first was impressed on our mind, we have to remark that the word Eden meant pleasure, happiness. It seems to have been derived from or cognate with the Arabic word ???????adan aden, and means softness, gentleness, mildness, tenderness, and daintiness, in that language. The Hebrews had also another word from this same root, ??????adÎ adi, to mean ornaments, &c., and ????????adayin adain, to mean luxuriousness and delicate. The word, as used in the text before, is applied to a district of country, and confers the adjective qualities to said district, i. e. a district of country of great pleasure and delight. The general boundaries are given and described by the naming of its rivers. It was of considerable extent, embracing, perhaps, more than the whole of the ancient Armenia.
“And a garden was planted eastward in Eden.” Garden is translated from ???gan gan. The word is derived from ?????gann ganan. The word means, to protect, protection, a thing protected. The idea expressed by it is not confined to a single walled area; but the two words are often used together, as if it was intended to convey the idea of the fact that the protection extended to the whole of Eden. And it may be well conceived that innocency was its protection. Here cunning art never wove its web for the entanglement of its victim. Here no crocodile tears enticed sympathy within the reach of harm. Here no vile wretch ever betrayed a brother’s confidence. Here the lion and the lamb might have couched together, and the infant have played with the tiger’s paw. We are aware that some modern scholars consider the description of the garden of Eden by Moses a mere picture of the mind. Rosenmaeler says that it is on a par with Virgil’s description of the Elysian fields. This class of philosophers consider the whole as a fiction: but man had his commencement somewhere, and it is a fact that four large rivers, answering to the outlines of the general description of Moses, do flow from fountain-heads not more than thirty or forty miles apart, in the central and most elevated region of Armenia. These streams meander through the same countries described by him, and exhibit the same mineral productions: nor would it be any thing remarkable, if investigation should yet prove that they were all indebted to one and the same source. Let us consider then, whether it was not a fact that the garden of Eden was not confined to a little plat of ground, but included a whole district of country, embracing the visible sources of the rivers named: a district of country, from the mildness of its climate, fruitfulness, and other causes of pleasure and delight, exceedingly well adapted to the early residence of man. We have therefore no well founded reason to believe that the account given by Moses of the garden of Eden was a fiction, independent of Divine authority. But his account must be understood so as to be consistent with itself, and with the facts now existing of which it speaks. We are not under the necessity of supposing that the felicity of our first parents was confined to the locality named: a paradise was to them anywhere. It was their innocence, not the location, that made it so; and thus they were driven out of paradise, perhaps, without a change of location. The use of the word ebed ??????, in ii. 15 of Genesis, might then well be of the same foreshadowing import as in the first instance of its use, even before the creation of man. For, who must not conclude, when man was first placed in paradise, that God did not as clearly see his apostasy then, as now? By his wisdom, power, and mercy, all nature was ready-prepared for the change, and poor fallen man, without change of habitation, found that habitation no longer heaven, and commenced his first act of slavery by the vain attempt to hide himself from God and his own contempt. And here, let us remark, we find the true commencement of slavery. “And Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant (d?????, slave) of sin.” John viii. 34. Force, disease, ruin, and death were now introduced to man. For, “A. servant (???????abed slave) will not be corrected by words.” Prov. xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should be forced to action. “He that tilleth (???????obed slaveth) of bread; but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.” Prov. xxviii. 19. When God made “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” foreseeing the apostasy of man—its poisonous effect upon his moral and physical condition—its direct influence to produce immediate ruin and death, he also provided, ordained, and decreed a relation, a law between man and his mental and physical wants, which must cleave unto him, upon his apostasy, and be of the utmost value and efficacy in alleviating, removing, and preventing the final evils incident to his poisoned condition. This relation, law, institution, was the ebeduth, the institution of slavery, as expressed in Ezra ix. 8, 9: “And give us a little reviving in our bondage (?????????abdtnÛ ebeduthenu, slavery). For we were bond-men (??????????abadÎm abedim, slaves), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” ????????bdtnÛ. So in 2 Chron. xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his servants (??????l?bdym le-obedim, his slaves), that they may know my service (?????????????abÔdatÎ slavery), and the service (????????????wa?bÔdat and the slavery) of the kingdoms of the countries.” So in Esther vii. 4: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bond-men (?????????????? ????????????weliŠpa?Ôt la?abadÎm) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”
Towards the close of the book of Deuteronomy, Moses, having delivered to the children of Israel such of the laws of the Almighty as were then deemed necessary for their government and guidance, proceeds to inform them of the consequences of disobedience; and boldly informs them, xxviii. 15, “But, if it shall come to pass if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments, and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee. 16: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. 17: Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. 18: Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 19: Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. 20: The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings whereby thou hast forsaken me.” “And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again, and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bond-men (????????????la?abadÎm( for slaves), and bond-women, and no man shall buy you.” They should be so trifling and worthless that no one would wish to buy them. Josh. ix. 23–27: “Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bond-men (???????ebed slaves), and hewers of wood and drawers of water,” &c. “And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day.”
LESSON XI.
Before closing this subject we offer a few more examples of the Hebrew use of this word. “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants (??????????abadÎm slaves) now-a-days that break away every man from his master.” 1 Sam. xxv. 10. Nabal pretended in his drunkenness, that he might be a runaway slave. 1 Kings ii. 29, 40: “And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants (?????????abadÎmebedim, slaves) of Shimei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah king of Gath; and they told Shimei, saying, Behold thy servants (??????????abdeka slaves) be in Gath. And Shimei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants (?????????abadayw slaves), and Shimei went and brought his servants (??????????abadayw slaves) from Gath.” 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, and 22: “And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebuzites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service (??????abed obed, slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bond-men,” (??????abed ebed, slaves.) 2 Chron. viii. 9: “But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no servants (????????????la?abadÎm la ebedim, no slaves) for his work, (??????????????limla?ktÔ his works, labours.) But they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.” 2 Kings iv. 1: “Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant, my husband, is dead, and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord, and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond-men,” (????????????la?abadÎm la ebedim, for slaves.) In 1 Chron. xxvii. 26, this word is used in a sense quite analogous to slave-labour, thus: “And over them that did the work (meleketh, i.e. the particular work or labour) of the field for tillage (?????????la?abodat slave-labour) of the ground, was Ezra, the son of Chelub.” Job i. 2, 3: “And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five thousand yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and a very great household.” The word “household” is here translated from ???????????wa?abudd a body of slaves, i. e. a large family of slaves. Job iii. 19: “The small and the great are there, and the servant (???????we?ebed ve ebed, master.” Job xxxi. 13: “If I did despise (??????????miŠpa?a misjudge) the cause of my man-servant,” (??????????abdÎ my slave.) Job xxxix. 9: “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee?” (?????????abdeka be a slave to thee.) Ps. cxvi. 16: “O Lord, truly I am thy servant (?????????abdeka obedeka, slave); I am thy servant (??????????abdeka slave), and the son of thy hand-maid (??????????amateka amatheka, female slave): thou hast loosed my bonds.” It is a little remarkable how similar is this sentiment of David to one expressed by St. Paul. Prov. xii. 9: “He that is despised and hath a servant (??????ebed ebed, slave) is better than he that honoureth himself and lacketh bread.” Prov. xvii. 2: “A wise servant (??????ebed ebed, slave), shall rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren.” Prov. xxx. 21, 22, 23: “For three things is the earth disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a servant (??????ebed ebed, slave) when he reigneth (??????????yimlÔk imlok), and a fool when he is filled with meat. For an odious woman when she is married, and a hand-maid (??????????weŠip? female slave) that is heir to her mistress.” Eccl. ii. 7. “I got me (?????????qanÎtÎ kanithi, I purchased) servants (??????????abadÎm male slaves) and maidens (????????????ÛŠepa?Ôt female slaves), and had servants born in my house.” Eccl. vii. 21: “Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken, lest thou hear thy servant (?????????abdeka slave) curse thee.” Jer. ii. 14: “Is Israel a servant (???????ha?ebed slave)? is he a home-born slave? why is he spoiled?” In the latter part of this quotation, the word ????bd ebed is not expressed in Hebrew, but understood, as is often the case in English: yet King James’s translators did not hesitate to supply it in English with the word slave, giving indisputable proof of what they understood the word ebed to mean, and also, that they used the English word servant as a synonyme of the word slave. The omission to express the word ??????ubed ebed in Hebrew, in this instance, has the effect to make the idea conveyed by the prophet more emphatic; and hence the translators seem to have felt the necessity of using the most forcible synonyme, in order that they might truly and beyond doubt convey the full import of the prophet’s meaning. Mal. i. 6: “A son honoureth his father, and a servant (????????we?ebed slave) his master.” This passage is a connecting link in a chain of reasoning, and the prophet continues thus: “If then I be a father, where is my honour? If I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?” As though they were astonished at the accusation! And this is the answer—7: “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.” A figure, to show that they had become wholly disobedient, and held in disregard the law of God. By their disobedience, they were degenerating from the condition of the son to that of the ebed. Instead of being influenced by love, they were about to be operated upon by fear, and hence the prophet continues, ii. 1: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings, yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.” He would curse them with the hateful curse of Cain. And we beg to notice this scriptural glancing at the doctrine that a course of sin does produce some change upon the physical man,—some change of countenance, which is continued, degenerating and deteriorating the succeeding generations,—and ask, is not such a doctrine alluded to in Ezek. xviii. 2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” And, again, in Ps. lviii. 2, 3: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.” Again, in Jer. vii. 19: “Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord. Do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?” And, in Isa. iii. 9: “The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom. They hide it not. Wo unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.” Jer. xiii. 22: “If thou say in thy heart, wherefore have these things come upon me? for the greatness of thine iniquities are thy skirts discovered and thy heels made bare.” And ii. 22: “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” We will not enter into the examination of this doctrine at present, but hasten to close our view of the Hebrew use of the word ????bd ebed. In Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29th of the English text) is this remarkable passage: “And also upon the servants (????????????ha?abadÎm ha ebedim, the male slaves) and upon the hand-maids (?????????????haŠŠepa?Ôt hashshephahoth, the female slaves) in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” This passage was translated at Jerusalem by St. Peter, into Greek. See Acts ii. 18: “And on my servants, and on my hand-maids (d?????? ?a? ep? ta? d???a?), will I pour out in those days my Spirit,”—using those Greek words that most unconditionally mean a slave, and showing as effectually as language can show, and proving as distinctly as language can prove, that St. Peter well understood these words of Joel to mean male and female slaves. He translates the passage, referring to it, and quoting it. There can have been no mistake. Besides, the passage is rendered definite by its particularity; for the preceding sentence avers that his Spirit should be poured out “upon all flesh,” and goes on to particularize, “your sons” and “daughters,” “your old men,” “your young men,” and then in this passage includes the slaves, thus explaining whom he means by “all flesh.” It was on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples of Jesus Christ “were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting; and there appeared upon them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Acts ii. 1, 2, 3.
Such were the circumstances under which this translation was made—just after the death of Jesus Christ. Circumstances more solemn, more imposing, more awful to the human mind cannot well be conceived. In the immediate presence of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost operating upon the mind of St. Peter!! Should any one, timorous, decline to believe men, or mortals, permit us, in the name of that Jehovah whose work we all are, to call their reflection on what may be the nature of that sin which contemns, denies, or treats as untruth the very language of the Holy Ghost.
LESSON XII.
The Hebrew noun ebed belongs to the declension of factitious, euphonic segholate nouns of two syllables, with the tone on the penult and a furtive vowel on the final:
| Singular absolute. | Construct state. |
| ???????abed or ??????ebed | ??????ebed |
|
| With light suffix. | Grave suffix. |
| ????????abdÎ | ??????????abdekem |
|
| Plural absolute. | Construct state. |
| ?????????abadÎm | ????????abdÊ |
|
| With light suffix. | Grave suffix.[1] |
| ????????abaday | ???????????abdÊkem |
Declined with the personal pronoun, thus:
| Absolute | singular, | ??????ebed | a slave. |
| Suff. | 1. | ????????abdÎ | my slave. |
| 2. m. | ??????????abdeka | thy slave. |
| 2. f. | ?????????abdk | thy slave. |
| 3. m. | ??????????akdeka | his slave. |
| 3. f. | ?????????abdah | her slave. |
| 1. (plur.) | ??????????abdenÛ | our slave. |
| 2. m. | ??????????abdekem | your slave. |
| 2. f. | ??????????abdekek | your slave. |
| 3. m. | ????????abdam | their slave. |
| 3. f. | ????????abdak | their slave. |
| Absolute | plural, | ?????????abadÎm | slaves. |
| Suff. | 1. | ????????abaday | my slaves. |
| 2. m. | ??????????abadÊka | thy slaves. |
| 2. f. | ???????????abadayik | thy slaves. |
| 3. m. | ?????????abadayw | his slaves. |
| 3. f. | ??????????abadÊha | her slaves. |
| 1. (plur.) | ???????????abadÊnÛ | our slaves. |
| 2. m. | ???????????abadÊkem | your slaves. |
| 2. f. | ???????????abdÊken | your slaves. |
| 3. m. | ???????????abdÊhem | their slaves. |
| 3. f. | ???????????abdÊhen | their slaves. |
Prefixed by a preposition, it will stand thus: ??????be?bd in, at, with, &c. a slave; or with ?l thus, ?????le?bd to, at, in, towards, till, until, &c. a slave; or, when the word ????bd is used as a verb, it will stand in place of our infinitive mood, thus, ?????????la?abod to slave, as in Num. iv. 47. So this word ????bd or any form of it may be prefixed by ?m as a contraction of ??nm, a preposition of various meanings or applications, as from, apart from, of, out of, by, &c. &c.; and so it may be prefixed by any of the letters ??????????????he?emantÎ forming the word heemanti, each prefixed letter giving to the root word some shade of meaning, emphasis, or adjective quality. So, also, it may be prefixed by ??k, used both as a preposition, and as a conjunction, thus, ????????ki?abed as, so, according to, after, about, nearly, almost, &c. &c. a slave. Hebrew nouns may also be prefixed by particles of old obsolete words, varying their form, and exceedingly so their phonetic representation; as for example, ????????Šelomo Shelomah was the son and successor of King David. Now ??Š, as the particle of some ancient word, and followed by ?l, becomes the sign of the possessive case; but when the word begins with these two letters, they then will be duplicated, as in Canticles iii. 7, ??????? ??????????????mi?atÔ ŠelliŠlomo mittatho shellishlomoh, Solomon’s bed, &c.
Prepositions, sometimes two or more, are, or seem to be, compounded, yet used in the sense of the last in the compound, thus: ???min and ????al used thus, ?????me?al for ????al, or ?????lemin for ???min, &c. &c.
The noun ??????ebed ebed may also be prefixed by a conjunction, thus, ?????we?bd and a slave, &c. &c.
It may also often be compounded with other nouns. Thus, ???????????obadyahw the slave of God. In this manner the composition of significant terms, and their conversion into proper names, is unlimited: thus, ??????????abdÔn the judgment, or government of a slave, and made the name of a city. See Josh. ii. 30; also 1 Chron. i. 59, the 74th of the English text; and hence the word abaddon has been used by some to signify a place of punishment. We can give but a mere sketch of the grammatical formations and variations of the word ebed; aware that even such sketch, can be considered of value only by a few, we refrain from even a glimpse of its phonetic variations and peculiarities, deeming them only interesting to the advanced and more critical of the proficients in the language; but we cannot refrain from giving a sketch of its declension as a verb, for the benefit of the Greek and Roman scholar.
Conjugation of the word ??????abad as a verb, to slave, &c.
| In Kal. |
| Praet. | 3. p. m. | ??????abad |
| 3. f. | ??????????abadah |
| 2. m. | ???????????abadta |
| 3. (plur.) | ?????????abedÛ |
| 2. m. | ???????????abadtem |
| Infinitive absolute, | | ???????abÔd |
| Construct state, | | ??????abod |
| Future, | 3. m. | ???????ya?abod |
| 2. m. | ???????ta?abd |
| 3. (plur.) | ?????????ya?abdÛ |
| 3. f. | ????????????ta?aboden |
| Imperative, | 2. p. m. | ??????abod |
| 2. f. | ???????bdy |
| Participle, | act. | ???????Ôbed |
| pass. | ???????abÛd |
|
| Niphal. |
| Praet. | 3. m. | ???????ne?ebad |
| 2. m. | ????????????ne?ebadta |
| Infinitive, | | ???????he?abed |
| Future, | | ???????ye?abed |
| Imperative, | | ???????he?abed |
| Participle, | | ???????ne?ebad |
|
| Piel, (poel, polel.) |
|
| Praet. | | ???????ibbed |
| Infinitive, | | ???????abbed |
| Future, | | ????????ye?abbed |
| Participle, | | ????????me?abbed |
|
| PUAL, (poal, polal.) |
|
| Praet. | | ???????ubbad |
| Infinitive, | | ???????ubbad |
| Future, | | ????????ye?ubbad |
| Participle, | | ????????me?ubbad |
|
| Hiphil. |
|
| Praet. | | ????????he?ebÎd |
| 2. m. | ????????????he?ebadta |
| Infinitive, | | ????????ha?abÎd |
| Future, | | ????????ya?abÎd |
| Participle, | | ????????ma?abÎd |
|
| Hophal. |
|
| Praet. | | ???????ha?obad |
| Infinitive, | | ???????ha?obad |
| Future, | | ???????ya?obad |
| Participle, | | ???????ma?obad |
|
| Hithpael. |
|
| Praet. | | ??????????hit?abbed |
| Infinitive, | | ??????????hit?abbed |
| Future, | | ??????????yit?abbed |
| Participle, | | ??????????mit?abbed |
The unusual conjugations sometimes found in the form of some Hebrew words, hothpaal, pilel, pulal, hithpalel, and the Arabic iq-talla, pealal, pilpel, and the Aramaen tiphel, and the Syriac shaphel, are not known to the writer to have an example in the Hebrew Scriptures in the word ????bd, and are therefore not exemplified.
Paradigm of the verb ??????abad to slave, as a 1. guttural in Kal.
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ???????abad |
| | 3. f. | ??????????abed |
| | 2. m. | ???????????abadta |
| | 2. f. | ???????????abadt |
| | 1. com. | ????????????abadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ??????????abedÛ |
| | 2. m. | ???????????abadtem |
| | 2. f. | ????????????abadten |
| | 1. com. | ???????????abadnÛ |
| Infinitive absolute, | | | ????????abÔd |
| Infinitive construct, | | | ???????abod |
| Imperative, | singular, | m. | ???????abod |
| | f. | ?????????ibdÎ |
| Plural, | m. | ?????????ibdÛ |
| | f. | ???????????aboden |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ?????????ya?abod |
| | 3. f. | ??????????ta?abod |
| | 2. m. | ??????????ta?abod |
| | 2. f. | ????????????ta?abdÎ |
| | 1. com. | ??????????e?ebod |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ???????????ya?abdÛ |
| | 3. f. | ??????????????ta?aboden |
| | 2. m. | ???????????ta?abdÛ |
| | 2. f. | ??????????????ta?aboden |
| | 1. com. | ?????????na?aboad |
| Pres. apocope, | | | ????????ya?abd |
| Participle, | | active, | ??????obed |
| | passive, | ????????abÛd |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Niphal.
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ?????????ne?ebad |
| | 3. f. | ???????????ne?ebd |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ne?ebadta |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ne?ebadt |
| | 1. com. | ??????????????ne?ebadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ???????????ne?ebdÛ |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ne?ebadtem |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ne?ebadten |
| | 1. com. | ????????????ne?ebadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ?????????he?abed |
| Imperative, | singular, | m. | ????????he?abed |
| | f. | ???????????he?abedÎ |
| Plural, | m. | ????????????he?abedÛ |
| | f. | ????????????he?abeden |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ????????ye?abed |
| | 3. f. | ?????????he?abed |
| | 2. m. | ?????????te?abed |
| | 2. f. | ????????????te?abedÎ |
| | 1. com. | ??????????e?abed |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ???????????ye?abedÛ |
| | 3. f. | ?????????????t?abeden |
| | 2. m. | ????????????te?abedÛ |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????te?abeden |
| | 1. com. | ????????ne?abed |
| Participle, | | | ?????????ne?ebad |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Pihel or piel, (poel, polel.)
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ????????ibbed |
| | 3. f. | ?????????ibbad |
| | 2. m. | ???????????ibbadta |
| | 2. f. | ???????????ibbadt |
| | 1. com. | ????????????ibbadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ??????????ibbedÛ |
| | 2. m. | ????????????ibbadtem |
| | 2. f. | ???????????ibbadten |
| | 1. com. | ???????????ibbadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ???????abbed |
| Imperative, | singular, | m. | ????????abbed |
| | f. | ?????????abbedÎ |
| Plural, | m. | ???????bdÛ |
| | f. | ???????????abbeden |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ?????????ye?abbed |
| | 3. f. | ????????t?abbed |
| | 2. m. | ?????????te?abbed |
| | 2. f. | ??????????te?abbed |
| | 1. com. | ??????????a?abbed |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ??????????ye?abdÛ |
| | 3. f. | ?????????????te?abbeden |
| | 2. m. | ????????????te?abbedÛ |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????te?abbeden |
| | 1. com. | ?????????ne?abbed |
| Participle, | | | ????????me?abbed |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Puhal, (pual, poal, polal.)
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ???????ubbad |
| | 3. f. | ??????????ubbed |
| | 2. m. | ???????????ubbadta |
| | 2. f. | ????????????ubbadt |
| | 1. com. | ?????????????ubbadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ?????????ubbedÛ |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ubbadtem |
| | 2. f. | ????????????ubbadten |
| | 1. com. | ????????????ubbadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ????????ubbad |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ????????ye?ubbad |
| | 3. f. | ??????????te?ubbad |
| | 2. m. | ??????????te?ubbad |
| | 2. f. | ??????????te?abbdÎ |
| | 1. com. | ??????????a?ubbad |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ???????????ye?ubbedÛ |
| | 3. f. | ?????????????te?ubbedn |
| | 2. m. | ????????????te?ubbedÛ |
| | 2. f. | ????????????te?ubban |
| | 1. com. | ?????????ne?ubbad |
| Participle, | | | ?????????me?ubbad |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Hiphil.
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ??????????he?ebÎd |
| | 3. f. | ???????????he?ebÎd |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????he?ebadta |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????he?ebadt |
| | 1. com. | ??????????????he?ebadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ???????????he?ebÎdÛ |
| | 2. m. | ????????????he?ebadtem |
| | 2. f. | ????????????he?ebadten |
| | 1. com. | ???????????he?ebadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ??????????ha?abÎd |
| Imperative, | singular, | m. | ?????????ha?abed |
| | f. | ????????????ha?abÎdÎ |
| Plural, | m. | ????????????ha?abÎdÛ |
| | f. | ????????????ha?abeden |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ??????????ya?abÎd |
| | 3. f. | ???????????ta?abÎd |
| | 2. m. | ??????????ta?abÎd |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ta?abÎdÎ |
| | 1. com. | ???????????a?abÎd |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ????????????ya?abÎdÛ |
| | 3. f. | ??????????????ta?abeden |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ta?abÎdÛ |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ta?abeden |
| | 1. com. | ?????????na?abÎd |
| Pres. apocope, | | | ????????ya?abed |
| Participle, | | | ??????????ma?abÎd |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Hophal.
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ????????ho?obad |
| | 3. f. | ???????????ha?obd |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ha?obadta |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ho?obadt |
| | 1. com. | ??????????????ho?obadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ???????????ha?abidÛ |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????ha?obadtem |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????ha?obadten |
| | 1. com. | ?????????????ho?obadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ?????????ho?obad |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ?????????yo?obad |
| | 3. f. | ????????ta?obad |
| | 2. m. | ????????ta?obad |
| | 2. f. | ????????????ta?abedÎ |
| | 1. com. | ??????????o?obad |
| Plural, | 3. m. | ???????????ya?obdÛ |
| | 3. f. | ??????????????to?obadn |
| | 2. m. | ???????????ha?abdÛ |
| | 2. f. | ??????????????ho?obadn |
| | 1. com. | ?????????no?obad |
| Participle, | | | ?????????mo?obad |
Paradigm of the verb ????bd to slave, as a 1. guttural in Hithpael.
| Praeter, | singular, | 3. m. | ??????????hit?abbad |
| | 3. f. | ????????????hit?abbed |
| | 2. m. | ??????????????hit?abbadta |
| | 2. f. | ??????????????hit?abbadt |
| | 1. com. | ???????????????hit?abbadtÎ |
| Plural, | 3. com. | ????????????hit?abbedÛ |
| | 2. m. | ???????????????hit?abbadtem |
| | 2. f. | ???????????????hit?abbdeten |
| | 1. com. | ??????????????hit?abbadnÛ |
| Infinitive, | | | ??????????hit?abbed |
| Imperative, | singular, | m. | ??????????hit?abbed |
| | f. | ????????????hit?abbedÎ |
| Plural, | m. | ????????????hit?abbedÛ |
| | f. | ??????????????hit?abbeden |
| Present, | singular, | 3. m. | ??????????hit?abbed |
| | 3. f. | ???????????tit?abbed |
| | 2. m. | ???????????tit?abbed |
| | 2. f. | ?????????????tit?abbedÎ |
| | 1. com. | ???????????et?abbed |
| Present, | plural, | 3. m. | ????????????yit?abbedÛ |
| | 3. f. | ???????????????tit?abbeden |
| | 2. m. | ?????????????tit?abbedÛ |
| | 2. f. | ???????????????tit?abbeden |
| | 1. com. | ???????????nit?abbed |
| Participle, | | | ??????????mit?abbed |
In close, it may be remarked that there is perhaps no Hebrew verb found in all the forms of conjugation in the Holy Books.
