|
Having Reference to the Employment of Anesthetics in
Cases of Labour.
By the Rev. Abraham De Sola, Lecturer on Hebrew
Language and Literature, University of M’Gill
College.
Note.—Verbal criticisms are certainly of much use,
as they tend to fix the sense and meaning of
disputed and difficult passages; and as we have not
devoted enough space to such papers, we cannot avoid
giving currency to the following production of our
valued correspondent, Mr. De Sola, which first
appeared in the British American Journal of Medical
and Physical Sciences. It argues greatly in favour
of Mr. De Sola’s popular standing in the community
when a work purely scientific admits dissertations
emanating from a non-professional man, because of
the esteem which is felt for the author, and because
at the same time his ideas tend to illustrate,
collaterally, the subject which the editor has in
view. We congratulate Mr. De Sola sincerely on the
elevated position he occupies, and wish him many
happy years to enjoy it.—Ed. Oc.
The employment of anaesthetic
agents in midwifery has been opposed by many
persons, on grounds both religious and professional.
The professional objections we have neither the
ability nor inclination to canvass here; but we do
propose, agreeably to the editor’s invitation, to
make some few observations, in a spirit, we trust of
fairness and candour as to the so-called religious
objections, founded, not on any received figurative
interpretation, which would at once preclude our
remarks, but upon the plain, grammatical sense of
certain words of Holy <<99>>Writ.
This announcement, coming as it
does from one who does not generally accept the
principles of Christian interpretation, may perhaps
be considered startling, certainly somewhat novel in
its character; but to remove any nervous objections
which may on this account prevail in the mind of the
Christian reader, we shall proceed to give a brief
outline of the manner in which we shall conduct our
investigation of that Scriptural passage upon
which, as all agree, the pro’s and contras
in this discussion are almost entirely based.
From the perusal of various books and papers on this
subject, and more especially from the perusal of Dr.
Simpson’s excellent work,* at his third and fourth
chapters, which may be regarded as a kind of cervatio
argumentorum, we are led to conclude that all
objections to the superinduction of anaesthesia in
labour are founded on certain words occurring in the
16th verse of the 3d chapter of Genesis. Now, we
believe that if it can be shown on scientific
principles that the words have no such meaning as
have been attributed to them by the translators of
the Anglican version, and others, the objections
founded on them must be considerably modified, if
not entirely removed; hence one principal portion of
our labours will be a grammatical analysis of these
disputed words.
As
it appears to us that in conducting such an inquiry
no source of information should be neglected,
however repugnant it may prove to our pre-conceived
notions and prejudices, we shall not fail to seek
light and assistance from Hebrew as well as
Christian authorities. The advantage of consulting
the former must be evident to every unbiassed mind,
recollecting, as it needs must, that for whatever
knowledge we may possess of the Hebrew language and
its grammar, we are indebted to them;—that Christian
compilers of Hebrew grammars and Lexicons have
taught little or nothing more, and very much less,
than they have taught; and that their commentaries
and paraphrases have avowedly assisted Christian
translators in their renderings of the sacred text.
But, before proceeding to our task, we think it
necessary to make some observations on a passage in
Dr. Simpson’s work, which, we think, ought not to
pass unnoticed; since it may induce many, anxious
to arrive at the truth, but unable to consult the
original text of Scripture, to form erroneous
notions on the questions under consideration, to
establish false hypotheses, and to imagine that they
have unanswerable arguments against those who
defend, on Scriptural grounds, the employ‑<<100>>ment
of anaesthetics in labour. The passage referred to
is as follows: “Those who, from the terms of the
first curse, argue against the superinduction of
anaesthesia in labour, aver that we are bound to
take and act upon the words of the curse
literally, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception,’ or as Gesenius and other Hebrew
authorities state, that being a case of Hendiadys,
it may be more correctly rendered, ‘I will
greatly multiply the sorrow of thy
conception, &c.’”*
Now, we have to remark, that the rendering here
spoken of, instead of being more correct, is most
incorrect. It is plainly untenable, and if Gesenius
has written after this fashion it is truly
astonishing. Not having his Lexicon, in the original
before us, we can only turn to an English
translation (Gibb’s), and there we find that
Gesenius says no such thing. We do, indeed, find
that under the root עצב
(ngatsab) he thus remarks, “עצבון
(ngitsahbohn), verbal from
עצב (ngatsab)
means, 1. labour, toil, 2, pain, Gen. iii. 16.
עצבונך וחרונך, (ngitsebonech
veheronech) thy pain and thy conception, i. e.
the pain of thy conception.”
Here it will be perceived that there is no case of
Hendiadys affirmed, though there is one suggested.
The learned Professor translates just as the
Anglican authorized version translates. He says,
plainly enough, the words mean thy pain
(authorized version, thy sorrow), and thy
conception, always supposing that his translator has
not misunderstood nor misrepresented him, and we
have no reason to believe that he has. It is true,
as we before remarked, that he suggests such
a case; but here he speaks theologically, and we may
be permitted to differ from him.
Philologically he must needs reject the theory, and
for these simple reasons: prefixed to the latter of
the two nouns there is the letter
ו (vav), which,
when so occurring, must necessarily be translated by
either of the words or, and, or
but; in short, ו
is either a conjunctive or disjunctive. Now, the
occurrence of either of these would at once exclude
from the mind of one at all acquainted with Hebrew
philology any idea of Hendiadys. If we may be
permitted to transfer here certain principles of
Hebrew grammar, with which the merest tyro in that
study is acquainted, but of which the holders of the
opinion under notice appear to have been ignorant,
or unmindful, we should remark that Hendiadys can
only obtain, in Hebrew, where two nouns are in
juxtaposition; or, to speak more technically, in
construction with each other, and for this
latter purpose the first noun must be in the
genitive case, and have the word of added to
it. Unless this rule be observed, the nouns will
stand as absolute, or having no connexion
with each other.
<<101>>
This will be more clearly seen by example. Let the
two words, דבר (dahbar),
a word, and אמת (emeth), truth, be placed together,
and the former, being in the nominative case, and
therefore having the vowel point (a) called
Kamets, must be translated as in that case; and
the two words will mean, a word truth. But
the [kamets,] being changed into
ְ (sheva), as is
required for the genitive, the words will then
express, a word of truth, which we could
render in English, a true word.
It
will be perceived, then, from this example, that,
what in English requires to be an adjective, may be,
and is, in Hebrew, a noun substantive, used as a
definitive or predicate. And indeed, to the class of
nouns substantive,* almost all adjectives in Hebrew
are reduced. Hence, too, it will be perceived the
figure of Hendiadys is more common in Hebrew than in
other languages.
But let us now apply these rules to the examples
with which we have more immediate business. We
observe, in the first place, that the noun
עצבון ngitsahbohn, is in the genitive case,
and so far agrees with the rule laid down for
constructive nouns; but we quickly perceive that it
is so, not because it is in construction with the
following noun, but with the personal pronoun
ך (chaf) thee.
Moreover, we observe that the second noun
הריון (herayon), is
also in the genitive case, having the conjunction
ו (vav) prefixed
and the personal pronoun ך
(chaf) postfixed. We must then, of necessity,
translate the two words thus:—עצבונך
(ngitsebonech) the trouble, or labour of
thee, i. e., thy trouble—וחרונך
(veheronech) and the conception of thee, i.
e., thy conception.
The foregoing, we fear somewhat tedious,
illustration, may perhaps be sufficient to show that
there is no case of Hendiadys in the passage under
consideration, and that those who insist upon such a
figure, and the translation so resulting, can only
do so in defiance of, and opposition to, the most
simple and evident rules of Hebrew grammar.
We
shall now proceed to our examination of Genesis iii.
16. The first word upon which we have to remark is
עצבון ngitsahbohn, rendered by the
authorized version, sorrow. To determine the primary
signification of this word we shall, of course,
refer to its root; but shall not, as Dr. Simpson has
incorrectly done, discover this root in ngatsab
or atsab† i.e., third person,
masculine gender, preterite tense, and indicative
mood of the form or conjugation Kal, but in
the noun עצב ngetseb.
The first may be a very useful form, wherein
to reduce all <<102>>roots for lexicographers and
grammarians;* but we think we are justified in
stating that the great majority of those who have at
all regarded the philosophy of grammar have decided
that in such cases the noun is prior to the verb. It
is of course impossible to show this at any great
length here; but to those who desire to see the
subject briefly, but lucidly and ably, considered,
we recommend the perusal of the introductory
chapters of the late Professor Hurwitz’s excellent
“Hebrew Etymology.”
Affirming, then, the root of
עצבון ngitsahbohn to be the noun
עצב ngetseb, we seek its signification,
not from Gesenius, whom Dr. Simpson “believes to be
the highest authority he could quote on such a
point;Ӡ but from an authority whom all Hebrew
critics would decide to be incomparably higher than
Gesenius, viz., R. David Kimchi.
In
his “Sepher Hashorashim,”‡ before giving the
signification of this noun, he adduces the following
passages of scripture: 1, Gen. iii. 16, “In
עצב ngetseb (authorized version, in
sorrow) shalt thou bring forth children.” 2, Prov.
xiv. 23, “In all ngetseb
עצב (a, v. labour) there is profit,” 3, Isa.
lviii. 3, “and exact all
עצביכם ngatsbechem” (a. v. your labours.) 4,
Prov. v. 10, “And עצביך ngatsabecha (a. v. thy labours) be in
the house of a stranger.” 5, 1 Chron. iv.
“Because I bare thee בעצב bengetseb” (a. v. in sorrow). 6, Isa.
xi v. 3, “The Lord shall give thee rest
מעצבך mengotsbecha”
(a. v. from thy sorrow). 7, Gen. iii. 17, “Cursed is
the ground for thy sake
בעצבון bengitsabohn,
(a. v. in sorrow) shalt thou eat of it.” 8, Gen.
iii.16, “I will greatly multiply
עצבונך ngitsebonech” (a. v. thy sorrow).
After citing these eight passages, Kimchi then
remarks, הכל העמל והיגיעה
nginyan hakol hengamal vehayegingha, i. e.,
“The meaning of (ngetseb contained in) all
these texts is labour and toil,” (hengamal
vehayegingha.) The words of Kimchi are explicit
enough; but to remove all doubts from the mind of
the reader, and to show that we wish to consider
this question in a fair spirit of inquiry, we shall
examine now what are the significations of
עמל ngamal and
יגיעה yegingha,
not seeking our information from any Hebrew author,
but from Gesenius himself.
The learned professor tells us that
עמל ngamal means, 1, labour, fatigue, or
toil; 2, fruits of labour; 3, trouble, adversity,
like labour, χάματος, πόνος, Gen. xlii. 51, &c.; 4,
iniquity, injustice.
But that the third signification he gives cannot be
understood in the sense of pain or sorrow, is clear,
first, from his expression, “like labour;” secondly,
from <<103>>his Greek illustration; (we should here
remark that Parkhurst renders ΚΑΜΝΩ, to labour
even to fatigue, and πόνος, in one of its
significations, also labour.) Thirdly, from
the scriptural passages quoted by him.
Let us refer to his first (Gen. xlii. 51), where
Joseph calls the name of his first-born Menasseh,
“because God, said he, hath made me forget
all עמלי ngamali (a. v. my toil), and all my
father’s house.” That the authorized version,
Buxtorf who translates, labor meus, and
others who render it toil, have translated
correctly will be admitted by those who observe that
Joseph apparently alludes to the toil of providing,
for the seven years’ famine, which toil the text has
already particularized, and farther from his adding,
“and all my father’s house,” alluding in this latter
expression to the sufferings he had experienced
through his brethren. Otherwise understood there
would be a strange redundancy in the passage.
Gesenius’s next reference is, to Deut. xxvi. 7,
where the Israelite says, “The Lord heard and looked
on our affliction and
עמלנו ngamalenu
(a. v. our labour) and our oppression.” The same
remarks which refer to the correctness of the
received English version of the preceding passage in
Genesis, to this passage also. Gesenius’s
last references are to Job iii. 10, “nor hid
עמל gnamal (a. v. sorrow, but may as well
mean) trouble or fatigue from my eyes;” and to Job
xvi. 2, “Ye are all מנחמי
עמל menachamé
ngnamal (a. v. miserable comforters), i. e.,
“Ye trouble or fatigue me with your long and
profitless harangues.”
Thus much respecting עמל ngamal, the first of Kimchi’s
significations of עצב ngetseb; that his second, viz.,
יגיעה yegingha, means labour, toil, or
fatigue, is generally admitted.
Thus then we find that one of, if not the most
eminent of Hebrew scholars, has pronounced that both
ngetseb and ngitsahbohn, in Gen. iii.
16, do not mean sorrow, as the English version of
the Bible renders them; but that they signify
physical labour, toil, or effort, without any
reference to pain or sorrow.
(To be continued.) |
