§ 82. Etymology does not teach the true meaning, but only illustrates it.

As the association of ideas may be endless, it is evident that words are susceptible of transfer to an almost indefinite variety of meanings, and in every language methods of transfer have been arbitrarily selected; so that, unless a man is omniscient, he cannot possibly divine all the associations of ideas or transfers of words which any people may have adopted. It is evident, then, that derivative meanings cannot be deduced with certainty from the primary idea; the possibility of any particular transfer being all that can be inferred. But although it follows from this that etymology can by no means teach the derived and commonly used ideas of words, it is not on this account to be considered as unproductive, for it yields the interpreter many and great advantages of another kind.-1) It illustrates derived significations, and renders them clearer and distinct, as in ; to which might be added

,הופיע

وقع
,ידע

ya, Comp. &;, Comp. &;

777, 70, 8, 4, and others.—2) Such illustrations are more

-T

important where synonymes are joined together, one of which expresses more than another, as vand o in Isa. xli. 11. xlv. 16., and and y in Job xvi. 19.3) The syntax, sometimes anomalous, receives light from etymology; as, for instance, this shows why ay, to love, and 2, to choose, are construed with the prefixes

-T

↳y and 2, D1NI, to spare, (Comp. cob and coli) with by,

, (Comp.) with applied to the person.

Etymology is also of very great service to the memory, which retains with the more facility the various and sometimes widely diverging meanings of the same word, if it have in the primary signification a firm centre point, as it were, to which it can connect the other meanings by different lines and circles supplied by etymology.

13

§ 83. The necessity of Etymology.

But it is not only for the illustration of meanings, and for a correct and advantageous comparison of dialects, that etymology is required; there are also other reasons on account of which it is necessary.- -1) In the Bible the primary signification does sometimes occur, although obscure and indistinct, as in Ex. xiv. 5., in the verb п, to fly, the

original meaning of which, is to turn the left side to;[a] so also in 17, (used in its primitive sense of led, ductus,) in Prov. xxv. 11. Comp. also Prov. xiii. 20.[b]—2) There is often an allusion to the primary meaning, as in the words on and win in Eccl. vi. 10. Ps. viii. 5. ix. 20, 21., and not unfrequently also in the word n. In

TT

deed sometimes the trope, by which a word is transferred from its primary signification to others, is changed into a simile or allegory which it is impossible to understand without resorting to etymology; as for instance, the phrase-to heap coals of fire upon an enemy's head, Prov. xxv. 22. Rom. xii. 20., which conveys no other meaning than what is expressed by the etymological signification of hy,

ضلا

TT

to apply to the fire, to scorch, to roast, then to roast a man as it were; but in the second form, to render well disposed to one's self; then in fine, to render God disposed or propitious to him, that is, to pray. The same method of transfer is observed in the use of the Talmudic word ho, to be burnt, and to pray.- -3) Doubts which sometimes arise

-T

respecting some particular signification of a word which is very remote from its other meanings, cannot be removed except by etymology, which shows that this signification may be conveyed by the word. An example of this is afforded in the word DDD, in Ps. xvi. 1. lvi. 1. lvii. 1. lviii. 1. lix. 1. lx. 1., which is rendered by the Alexandrine translation and by Theodotion, an inscription on a stone or pillar, nλoygapia, a meaning quite foreign from the other significations of the word; but the primary idea which remains in the Syriac dialect, to impress scars, to mark, gives a reason for that version.—4) Words and significations which occur but rarely, or only once, and derive no light from the dialects, are to be investigated by means of

the series of the discourse and the subject; yet this is a very dangerous matter, unless the primary signification afford assistance. Comp. via, to delay, in Jud. v. 28. from w, to be dry, to be dry in the mouth, to hesitate in discourse.- -5) The old versions, without the aid of which the interpreter of the O. T. cannot succeed, are not to be understood without the light of etymology, since they often express the original meaning. Thus the Alexandrine version in Hab. i. 5. (Comp. Acts xiii. 41.) has apavione, for , which is correctly rendered by the Vulgate; admiramini. But in other translations it is rendered according to the derived idea, disparete, which gives no sense. The original meaning of apavicouai and DA is to change odour

TT

or colour; hence to turn pale, to become astonished. Comp. Matt. vi. 16.

The etymology of the Shemitish language is necessary also in order to understand some places of the New Testament. See Germ. Introd. p. 300, 301.

[a) According to this interpretation, the meaning of Dyn na

would be, that the Israelites had turned to the right, on their departure from Egypt. See the Germ. Introd. p. 297, and Comp. MICH. Sup. Heb. Lex. p. 219. ROSENMUEL. Scholia in loc. rejects this meaning of the text. Tr.]

[¿) See STORRII Observat. ad Analogiam et syntaxin Hebraicum. p. 5. MICHAELIS Suppl. in voce. Tr.]

§ 84. Limits of Etymology.

In urging the utility of etymology, it is not meant that the primary meaning of every word, which in many instances is involved in obscurity or altogether lost, is really to be discovered, but only that the investigation is to be continued as far as it is possible to advance. If an onomatopoetic meaning can be found, or at least the idea of a thing subject to the operation of the senses, from which all the other significations can readily be deduced according to the original usage by a person skilled in languages, this is to be set down as the primary signification of the word; but if nothing of this kind is discoverable, we must content ourselves with such other testimonies respecting the meaning as may be within our reach. It is by no means requisite that

one common original idea should be sought for in the different meanings of such words as are written with the same letters but distinguished by a different pronunciation. In very many of these it never existed, since they are often really different words, to each of which the inventors of the language originally attributed a different idea. § 85. The ancient translators as witnesses of the usage of language.

It has been already stated, (§ 71,) that the ancient translators of the Old Testament are inadequate witnesses respecting the usage of language, on account of their remoteness from the

age when the language was vernacular. This cannot be denied, if direct and immediate witnesses be meant, but there can be no objection to admitting them as mediate and indirect witnesses, and as such their authority is supported on two grounds. 1) The periods in which several of them lived approximated to that in which the Hebrew was a vernacular language. These were acquainted with very many words preserved in common, or liturgic, or scholastic use, the meaning of which they preserved in their versions, from which it may be deduced by us. This principle is of the fuller application, if the words are such as are peculiar to the Hebrew dialect, and have the same meaning given in all the versions, and also confirmed by etymology.- -2) To many of the ancient translators some dialect cognate to the Hebrew was vernacular, and thus they enjoyed the benefit of a more extensive and more perfect acquaintance with than could otherwise possibly be attained, which, by consequence, shed a clearer light on the Hebrew. The mediate and indirect testimony of the ancient translators is therefore of great importance, and not to be neglected, although by a comparison of all the dialects, and by the rules of grammar and criticism, a superiority over them may be acquired.

§ 86. Twofold advantage of the ancient versions.

It is the duty of a translator to express the sense of the Hebrew phrases in a manner adapted to the usage of his own language, without a servile adherence to words or etymology. But, with the exception of Symmachus, there is scarcely any one of the old transla

tors that has constantly attended to this most important rule of interpretation; almost all eagerly cling to the words, and continually give the etymological meaning. This, however, which is a fault in their works considered as translations, frequently renders them useful to us by affording us indications of the etymology of words. Nevertheless, these must not be implicitly received, but should be subjected to accurate and impartial examination.

But the principal information to be derived from the versions, consists in the significations of words and the meanings of sentences. The necessity of the use of them for this purpose might be shown by an ample induction of particulars, since there are very many words the definitive meaning of which cannot be ascertained from the dialects. Thus, it is only from the versions that we learn that and i mean a terebinth, but s an oak. -The Aramæan

signi

fies a tree, and of course it would be impossible from this dialect to determine what trees were designated by those Hebrew words. Comp. also 8, 11, &c.

§ 87. What versions ought to be used.

Those translators who have merely transferred some ancient version into the idiom of their own nation, neither examined nor understood the Hebrew text, and consequently they are incompetent to testify respecting the Hebrew usage of language. All these mediate versions, therefore, such as the Hexaplar Syriac, the Arabic in the London Polyglot with the exception of the Pentateuch, the old Latin, the translation of the Psalter in the Vulgate, the Ethiopic, Coptic, Sahidic. Armenian, and Slavonic versions, are of no utility in the interpretation of the Hebrew text. Those only which were made immediately from the Hebrew are useful for this purpose, in all of which is dispersed that knowledge of Hebrew, which the translators found preserved in common use, in the public service, or in the schools, or which was afforded by the aid of their own vernacular cognate language. For this reason none of these versions are to be entirely neglected; yet they do not all offer equal advantages, and therefore some, either for their antiquity or superior excellence, are preferable