Chapter XXVIII: Part 28

עָשָׂה _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_ וַיַּעַשׂ the firmament.” 16: “God _made_ וַיַּעַשׂ two great lights.” ii. 2: “God ended his _work_ מְלַאכְתּוֹ which he had _made_,” עָשָׂ֥ה. 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. עָשׂ֣וּ. _Exod._ xxxi. 4: “To work in gold and silver.” 5: It is used with _malabkah_, thus: “to _work_ לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹת in all manner of workmanship,” (מְלָאכָֽה malakah.) These two words occur together again in _Neh._ iv. 15, the iv. 21 of the English text: “So _we laboured_ עֹשִׂ֣ים _in the work_,” בַּמְּלָאכָ֑ה. _Ezek._ xxix. 20: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his _labour_,” עָ֣שׂוּ. _Exod._ xxx. 25: “And thou shalt make it (וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ labour it) an oil of holy ointment, an ointment composed after the art of the apothecary.” Art is here translated from מַ֥עֲשֵׂ֣ה _maase_, which is another word of very similar import, and is derived from עָשָה, 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_ הַמַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה is this that ye have done?” xlvii. 3: “What is your _occupation_?” מַּֽעֲשֵׂיכֶ֑ם. _Exod._ xxiii. 16: “And the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of thy _labours_ מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ, 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_,” מַעֲשֶׂ֖יךָ. _Hag._ ii. 17: “And I smote you with blasting and with hail in all the _labours_ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה of your hands.” _Hab._ iii. 17: “Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vine, the _labour_ מַֽעֲשֵׂה of the olive shall fail.”

סֵבֶל _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 סִבֹּלֶה _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_,” בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם. _Ps._ lxxxi. 7: “I delivered מִסֶּ֣בֶל thee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong to _labour_,” מְֽסֻבָּ֫לִים. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idea _labour_ accompanied with different adjective qualities. So the word עֶבֶד _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_ עֹֽבְדֵ֥י 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_ תַּ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֮, as a verb “_do_” is from וְעָשִ֣֭יתָ and “_work_” from מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָ. 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 וְעָשִ֣֭יתָ _labour_, or make all thy מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָ 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 תַֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה _any work_ כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה֡ thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (עַבְדְּךָ, _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 עַל־יָד _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_ (עַל־יָ֣ד _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 עבד _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.

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

LESSON IV.

Some of the lexicons say that this root עֶבֶד _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 וְנִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֖ה, from the root שׁחה _shahah_, which means to bow down. xxiii. 12: “_And_ Abraham _bowed down himself_ before the people of the Lord,” _bowed down himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ֙. xlvii. 31: “_And_ Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head,” וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ. _Exod._ iv. 31: “Then they bowed their heads and worshipped,” וַיִּ֥שְׁתַּ֥חֲוֽוּ. 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,” וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּ. xx. 5: “_Thou shalt not bow down thyself_ תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶ֥֣ה _unto them_.” xxxiii. 10: “And the people rose up and _worshipped_,” וְהִ֥שְׁתַּֽחֲו֔וּ. _Deut._ xxvi. 10: “And _worship_ וְיִִּֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֔יתָ before the Lord thy God.” _Josh._ v. 14: “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did _worship_,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֔ח֗וּ. 1 _Sam._ xv. 30: “That I may _worship_ וִהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵ֖יתִי the Lord thy God.” 31: “And Saul worshipped וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ the Lord.” 2 _Sam._ i. 2: “That he fell to the earth and did _obeisance_,” וַיִּשְׁתָּ֥חוּ. xiv. 33: “And _bowed himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ on his face to the ground before the king.” 1 _Kings_ i. 23: “He _bowed himself_ וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ before the king with his face to the ground.” 2 _Kings_ v. 18: “When my _master_ goeth into the house of Rimmon to _worship_ לְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲ֙וֹת there, * * * and I bow myself וְהִֽשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֵיתִי in the house of Rimmon, * * * _when I bow myself down_ בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוָיָתִי in the house of Rimmon.” xviii. 22: “Ye shall worship תִּשְׁתַּ֥חֲו֖וּ before the altar of Jerusalem.” xix. 37: “And it came to pass as he was _worshipping_ מִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה in the house of Nishrosh, his God.” _Job_ i. 20: “Then Job arose and fell down upon the ground and _worshipped_,” וַיִּשְׁהָֽחוּ. _Ezek._ viii. 16: “And they _worshipped_ מִשְׁהֲוִיהֶ֥ם 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 וְהִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוִי thou him,” xcix. 5: “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and _worship_ וְ֭הִשְׁתַּ֥חֲווּ at his footstool.” cvi. 19: “They made a calf in Horeb and worshipped הִ֥שְׁתַּ֖חֲווּ the molten image.” xcvii. 7: “Confounded be all they that _serve_ (עֹבְדֵי slave themselves to) graven images; that boast themselves of idols: _worship_ הִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ 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_ (δοῦλος, slave) of Jesus Christ. In an analogous sense, the Arabic words هَلَّ _hel_ and هَلّلَ _hallel_, Hebrew הַלֵּל _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 هَوْدٌ _hōd_, Hebrew הוֹד _hōd_, 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 עֲבֹדָת _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 עֲבֹֽדָתוֹ _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_ וַֽיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּ unto him.” The word is from the root שֵׁרֵת _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_ (διηκονουν, _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_ וְשֵֽׁרְת֖וּ unto it.” iv. 12: “And they shall take all the instruments of ministry וְשֵֽׁרְתוּ wherewith they _minister_.” 14: “Wherewith they _minister_ about it.” xviii. 2: “That they may be joined unto thee and _minister_ וִֽישָֽׁרְת֑וּךָ֩ unto thee.” 1 _Kings_ i. 4: “And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king and _ministered_ וַתְּשָׁ֣רְתֵ֔הוּ to him.” 15: “The Shunammite _ministered_ מְשָׁרַ֖ת 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_ מְשָׁרֵת before the Lord, being a child.” iii. 1: “And the child Samuel _ministered_ מְשָׁ֣רֵ֥ת unto the Lord before Eli.” 2 _Sam._ xiii. 17: “Then he called his servant (נַֽעֲרוֹ _his young man_) that _ministered_ מְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ 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 נער _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, (עֲבָדָיו֩ _slaves_,) and the attendance of his ministers,” מְשָׁרְתָי֜ו.

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_ לְשָׁרֵ֣ת in the holy place.” _Deut._ x. 8: “To stand before the Lord to _minister_ לְשָֽׁרְתוֹ֙ unto him.” xviii. 5: “For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to _minister_ לְשָׁרֵת 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_ לְשָׁרֵ֖ת because of the cloud.” 2 _Kings_ xxv. 14: “And all the vessels of brass wherewith they _ministered_, יְשָֽׁרְתוּ, took they away.” 2 _Chron._ xxiv. 14: “ Even vessels to _minister_,” שָׁרֵת. _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_,” הַ֥מְשָׁ֣רְתִ֔ים. _Isa._ lx. 7: “The rams of Nebaioth shall _minister_ יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְ unto thee.” Let it be noticed that the word _strangers_ is translated from the word נֵכָר _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 (נֵכָ֔ר _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 מְשָׁרֵ֥ת, and should have been the _minister_ of Moses. In _Exod._ xxiv. 13: “Moses rose up and Joshua his _minister_” מְשָֽׁרְת֑וֹ. 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_ לְשָׁרֵ֖ת 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_ וּמְשָֽׁרְתוֹ 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: לַֽעֲבֹ֨ד עֲבֹדַ֧ת עֲבֹדָ֛ה וַֽעֲבֹדַ֥ת מַשָּׂ֖א.

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 עֶבֶד _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 עֶבֶד _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 עֶבֶד _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, וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְֹחָרָ֑ן, 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. הַנֶּפֶשׁ _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 עֶבֶד _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 και των σωματων, και την ψυχην, _kai ton sōmatōn, kai tēn psuchēn_, which is translated, “_slaves and souls of men_:” σωματων 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 και την ψυχην, 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 (עֲבָדִים _abadim_), and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The word _men-servants_ is translated from the plural of עֶבֶד _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_ (עבדים _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_ (עֲבֻדָּֽה _abuddah_, _slaves_, a plural formation of _ebed_), and the Philistines envied him.”!!!

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

LESSON VI.

_Gen._ xxvii. 29: “Let people serve thee (יַֽעַבְדּ֣וּךָ _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 (יַֽעֲבֹ֥ד _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_ (וַֽעֲבָדִ֔ים 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” (עֲבָדִֽי֑ם out of _slavery_): 5: “Thou shalt not _bow down_ (תִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה֣ _worship them_) thyself to them, nor _serve_ (תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם _be a slave to them_) them.” 9: “Six days shalt thou _labour_ (תּֽ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֘ _slave thyself_, or do SLAVE-LABOUR) and do (_oso_, _labour or do work_) all thy work,” (וְעָשִׂי֣תָ 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_ (עַבְדְּךָ 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 עַבְד֤וֹ is also used. _Exod._ xxi. 1: “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” 2: “If thou buy a Hebrew _servant_ (עֶ֣בֶד _ebed_), (יַֽעֲבֹ֑ד _shall slave himself_),” 5: “And if the _servant_ (הָעֶבֶד _ha ebed_, _slave_) shall plainly say, I love,” &c. _Exod._ xxi. 7: “She shall not go out as the _men-servants_ do.” (הָֽעֲבָדִֽים the plural is here used.) 20: “If a man smite his _servant_ עַבְדּוֹ 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_,” עַבְדּ֛וֹ. 27: “ If he smite out his _man-servant’s_ tooth,” עַבְדּ֛וֹ. 32 “If the ox shall push the _man-servant_ עֶבֶד 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_ וְעַבְדְךָ 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_,” (עֶ֥בֶד _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_ תַּ֖עֲבֹ֑דוּ 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_ וְעַבְדְּךָ, 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_ (עֶ֣בֶ֥ד _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_ וְעַבְדֵֹו, 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_ (וְעַבְדֵיכֶם a plural form of _ebed_), thy son, and thy daughter, and _thy man-servant_,” וְעַבְדְּךָ. _Deut._ xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and _serve_ וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֖ thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a _bond-man_ (עֶ֣בֶד _ebed_) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (עֶבֶד _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_ וְעַבְדְּךָ, 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_ (עֶבֶד _ebed_) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy _man-servant_ וְעַבְדְּךָ֣, 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_ (לָמַ֖ס _lamas_, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall _serve_ (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָ _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_,” (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a _bond-man_,” (עֶבֶד _ebed_, _slave_.) wast a bond-man,” עֶבֶד _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_,” (עֶבֶד _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 (δουλοι, _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 מָלַךְ _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, שָלַט _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 אָמַר _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 מִהְעֲבֶד _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 עֲבִידַ֣ת is translated _work_. So in v. 8, עֲבִ֥ידְתָּא _work_, vi. 7, עֲבוׄדַ֭ת _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: תַעַׄבדֹוּן “_Ye shall do._” 12: יִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “Let it be done with speed.” 13: עֲבַֽדוּ “_So they did speedily._”

vii. 18: תַֽעַבְדוּן } “_That do_ after the will of your God.”

and לְמֶעְבַּ֑ד } “_To do_ with the rest of the silver and
gold.”

21: יִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “It be done speedily.” 23: יִתְעֲבֵד “Let it be diligently _done_.” 26: עָבֵד “Will not _do_.” מִתְעֲבֵ֖ד “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 אָסְפַּ֖רְנָא _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 עֲבַ֑֗דוּ. 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 פתח כאתנח, 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 עבדוֹ 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,” עַבְדָּ֛י֯ךְיך. v. 11: “We are the servants,” עַבְדוֹהִי, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word יַֽעֲבַ֣דוּ, 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_ עֲבָדִ֣ים, yet our God hath not forsaken _us in our bondage_,” וּבְעַבְדֻתֵ֔נוּ. 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_ הָּעֶ֣בֶד, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the _servant_ הָעֶ֣בֶד, 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_ (כֹֽ֠בְשִׁים _kovshim_) sons and our daughters to be _servants_ (לַֽעֲבָדִֹם _slaves_), and some of our daughters are brought into _bondage_ (נִכְבָּשׁוֹת _subjections_, not necessarily slavery) already,” (כָּבַש _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_, (עַבְדּ֔וֹ _male slave_,) and every man his maid-servant שִׁפְחָת֛וֹ, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should _serve_ (עֲבָד־ _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_ (עַבְדּ֔וֹ _male slave_), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none _serve themselves_ (עֲבָד־ _slave themselves_), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the _servants_ (הָ֥עֲבָדִים _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 (עֲבָדִ֖ים _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 (וַֽעֳבָ֖דְךָ _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_, (עַבְדּוֹ _ebeddo_, _slave_,) and every man his _hand-maid_, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into _subjection_ (וַתִּכְבְּשׁ֣וּ) to be unto you for _servants_ (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖ים _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 כָּבַשׁ _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_ (עַבְדֵיהֶ֤ם _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_ (עבד), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word כָּבַשׁ _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,” וְכִבְשֻׁהָ. _Num._ xxxii. 22: “And the land _be subdued_ וְנִכְבְשָׁ֥ה before the Lord.” 29: “And the land _shall be subdued_ וְנִכְבְּשָׁה before you.” _Josh._ xviii. 1: “And the land _was subdued_ נִכְבְּשָׁ֖ה before them.” 2 _Sam._ viii. 1: “Which he _subdued_,” כִּבֵשׁ. 2 _Chron._ ix. 18: “With a footstool,” וְכֶבֶשׁ because a footstool was in the place of subjection. _Zech._ ix. 15: “And _subdue_ וְכָ֥בְשׁוּ with sling-stones.” _Micah_ vii. 19: “He will _subdue_ יִכְ֖בּוֹשׁ 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_ לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד the ground.” _To till_ is here translated from this word _ebed_, with the affix of the preposition ל. 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_ (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖ד _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_ (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣ת _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 לְעָבְדָ֖הּ. 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_ (עֲבָדִ֠ים _male slaves_) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a _maiden_ (שִׁפְחָה֮ _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_ (δουλείας, _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 (עָבַד _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, עֶבֶד _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 عَدْنٌ _aden_, and means softness, gentleness, mildness, tenderness, and daintiness, in that language. The Hebrews had also another word from this same root, עֲדִי _adi_, to mean ornaments, &c., and עֲדָיִן _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.