PRONUNCIATION OF SCRIPTURE PROPER NAMES

These examples might be greatly multiplied, particularly in the case of what might be termed more familiar names in regard to which there are two ruling modes of accentuation, as Aga'bus and Ag'abus, Ahime'lech and Ahim'elech, Bahu'rim and Bah'urim, Bath'sheba and Bathshe'ba, Ced'ron and Ce'dron, Mag'dalene and Magdale'ne, Peni'el and Pen'iel, Rehob'oam and Rehobo'am, Thaddae'us and Thad'daeus. An examination of the lists will show the very considerable extent of the variation which exists even among those who may be regarded as guides in the matter, and it will show also that a great part of the variation may be accounted for by the degree to which the Editors of the respective lists are disposed to give weight to the forms of the word in the original, or to what may be considered the popular and current pronunciation. This is indeed the crux of the matter.

2. Principles adopted. — In what follows we shall keep in view especially the contributions of Professor Cheyne and Professor Stevenson, each of whom explains in an introduction the principles on which he has sought to solve the problem presented; and perhaps we may be allowed once for all to acknowledge our obligations to these able and scholarly discussions. In reference to the point just referred to. Professor Cheyne says: —

' Strict accuracy is no doubt unattainable. In some cases (e.g. Moses, Aaron, Solomon, Isaac, Samuel, Jeremiah) the forms adopted by the Authorized Version are borrowed from the Septuagint through the medium of the Vulgate. Here the correct pronunciation would require an alteration of familiar names which would be quite intolerable. But even where the current forms are derived from the Hebrew, a strictly accurate pronunciation would offend by intro-ducing a dissonance into the rude but real harmony of our English speech. Besides, that quickness of ear which is necessary for reproducing foreign sounds is conspicuously wanting to most natives of England. Still, the prevalent system of pronouncing Biblical names seems unnecessarily wide of the mark. There is no occasion to offend so gratui-tously against the laws of Hebrew sound and composition asjwe do at present. Not a few of our mispronunciations of Hebrew names impede the comprehension of their meaning, especially in the case of names of religious significance, when the meaning is most fully fraught with instruction. A working compromise between pedantic precision and persistent mispronunciation is surely feasible.'

Professor Stevenson remarks, with reference to his list of Scripture Proper Names, that —

' It does not offer an absolute standard, for no such standard exists. The supreme authority in pronunciation is prevalent usage (among educated people). But the weakness of such an authority is specially clear in the case of Scripture names. Even names not uncommon are variously pronounced, and many are so unfamiliar that there is no ' ' usage " by which to decide. ... In actual speech unfamiliar words are pronounced as analogy suggests, uncon-sciously it may be. . . . There is no single court of appeal. In particular, the original pronunciation is not the only, nor perhaps the chief, influence. If it were better understood how impossible it is to pronounce Hebrew names as the ancient Hebrews did, there would be less temptation to lay stress on the original as the best guide. On the other hand, the closer the incorporation of Scripture names into English, the better; and this also is a consideration entitled to influence. . . . The principles here adopted are those which seem to express the English treatment of ancient foreign names which have become common property in the language.'

(1) New Testament. — ^The case is no doubt widely different with regard to the Old Testament as compared with the New. In the New Testament the Greek form of the name (including the transliteration of Hebrew names) may almost invariably be followed; thus, Aristobu'lus, Ar'temas, Diot'rephes, Epe'netus, Proch'orus, Tab'itha. The diphthong of the Authorized and Revised Versions justifies Thaddae'us rather than Thad'daeus. Cheyne and Stevenson both spell the name Thaddeus, the former accenting the first, and the latter the second, syllable. It is desirable to follow the Greek sometimes even in the face of fairly common usage, as by making Bethsa'-i-da a word of four syllables, and Ja-i'-rus a word of three. There are some peculiarities which have to be noticed, e.g. that final e is sounded in Bethphage, Gethsemane, Magdalene, but not in Nazarene, or Urbane. For Phcenice the R.V. reads Phoenix. Sos'thenes, again, is a word of three syllables. With some attention to these principles, of which the above are merely examples, the pronunciation of New Testament names should present little difficulty.

(2) Old Testament. — When we turn to the Old Testament we find ourselves in presence of a much more complicated problem. Here it is impossible to conform our pronunciation to that of the original language; yet if we are not to pronounce at haphazard, and follow each his own taste and habit, we must reflect upon the conditions, and frame at least general rules for our guidance. In the absence of a standard list of pronunciations constructed by experts of such authority that we might waive in favour of their dicta our personal predilections, there will, at the best, be considerable room for individual judgment. We do not aim, therefore, at doing more in the following observations than aid such judgment by showing the alternatives before it, and indicating the limits within which it may be profitably exercised.

'The supreme authority in pronunciation,' says Professor Stevenson, 'is prevalent usage (among educated people).' The difficulty in many cases is to determine what is prevalent usage and how far the education which is presumed to guide it has included the elements which would make it reliable in such a connexion. Prevalent usage itself may be educated and corrected, and the question is where the line shall be drawn between 'pedantic precision' and 'persistent mispronunciation' (to use Professor Cheyne's phrase), how much shall be conceded to a regard for the methods of the ancient Hebrews on the one side, and for those of the modem Britons on the other? This question is the more