Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Who did he send as leader of the colony ?" p. 26.
"Who did the Plymouth company send out?" p. 37.
"What did the proprietors obtain?-Who make gover-
p. 63.

nor ?"

"Who did he send to take the country?" p. 95.

"Who did he send over as governor-general?" p. 110.
"Who did king William send over in 1790 ?" p. 122.
"Who did Fletcher succeed?" p. 133.

"Who did Queen Anne make governor?" p. 134.
"Who did Sir Henry Clinton authorize?" etc. p. 238.
"Who did they make treasurer?" p. 241, etc. etc.

We might have made a much larger collection of similar examples. Those we have selected are taken exclusively from the common school edition of Mrs. Willard's works, although we notice, generally, the same, and even more numerous errors in the larger history, called the library edition. We ought, perhaps, here to remark, that Mrs. Willard's history is not a recent work, as many suppose; and that the sentences we have selected have not, therefore, gone forth in haste from the hands of the writer, without sufficient time for their revision. The original work, if we mistake not, was published more than fifteen years ago; but in the changes through which it has passed, to its present improved form, well may we ask, where are the corrections?

In our remarks, we trust we have not gone beyond the legitimate province of the reviewer; we have spoken of works, now the property of the public, with that freedom which we believed the subject demanded; and should the cause of education gain any thing by our efforts, we shall deem ourselves most amply rewarded.

ARTICLE VIII.

DOMINICI DIODATI I. C. NEAPOLITANI, DE CHRISTO GRÆCE LOQUENTE EXERCITATIO.

Translated by Rev. O. T. DOBBIN, LL. D., of Western Independent College, Exeter, England Continued from page 366, Vol. I.

PART III.-Answers to the positions and objections of those

who advocate other views.

As we have now, we conceive, more than demonstrated our assertion that the Jews, from the time of the Maccabees, and that the Lord Christ used the Hellenistic tongue, it now only remains that we weigh the opinions of others on this point. The remainder of our plan, then, engages us in the double task of canvassing and refuting the various theories of our opponents, and of meeting the objections which the patrons of these theories urge against our own hypothesis.

CHAPTER I.-The various opinions concerning the language of Christ are described and refuted.

There are three opinions upon this subject. Of these the first is, that Christ spoke Hebrew, which has met with but a small share of public approbation. The second is, that he used the Latin tongue. This is confined to but one or two.

The third, and the most commonly received is, that he spoke the Chaldee or Syriac. These we shall refute in order. But pardon, gentle reader, the preliminary observation, that we speak here of the language naturally spoken by Christ, or which is the same thing, of that which prevailed in Judea during the period of his life. For, apart from this question, who will deny that he knew all languages? The mere accident of his using a Chaldee or Hebrew word occasionally does not, by any means, of necessity imply that he commonly spoke these tongues, or that either was his vernacular language. Far from it. To our purpose however.

§ 1. The Hebrew tongue was neither vernacular to Christ nor to the Jews of his day.

Some suppose that Christ spoke Hebrew, on the ground that that language was more sacred than any other: just as if sacredness could characterize the tones and modulation of a tongue. Otho Sperling' was of this opinion, together with at few others to whom the Sacred History must have been very imperfectly known. The great body of the learned teach us that this language ceased to be vernacular after the Babylonish captivity. In the reign of Jehoiachim, the Chaldeans came up against Judea and inflicted the direst cruelties upon the inhabitants: many were slain; and of those who survived, the greater part was carried captive to Babylon. There they were constrained to learn and use the language of their captors; and thus they gradually forgot their own during the course of seventy years. Their dispersion amongst the Chaldeans, and their intermarriages with the women of the country, would aid in producing this effect, as all the children of such connections would speak only the language of the native Chaldeans. It is natural also to believe, that the elder members of the Jewish community must have died off during this long period, while the juniors, born and brought up among the Chaldeans, would be ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, and use only the dialect of the country with which they were familiar from childhood. From all this it would readily happen that, when the Hebrews returned to the land of their fathers, they could not understand the language of their fathers. Nehemiah tells us that, when the book of the law was read in Hebrew in the temple, the people wept because they could not understand it, and when Ezra interpreted the divine statutes in Chaldee they were affected with the liveliest joy. Hence it came to pass that, after the return of Ezra, the law

1 Sperlingius de Num. non cusis, cap. 18, p. 110.

2 Jerem. cap. 25; lib. 2 Paralip. cap. 36.

3 V. Nehemiam, cap. 8, et Interpr. ibi.

was translated into Chaldee for the benefit of the people, because they had forgotten the Hebrew during the captivity, as the Rabbis Azariah and Gedaliah,' with others, inform us. Hence, too, originated the composition of the Books of Daniel, Nehemiah and Ezra, in Chaldee rather than in Hebrew. Hence, too, the use of the Chaldean era in chronological computation, as we find it adopted by Daniel and others." Moreover, while the Jews were in slavery they adopted the Chaldee instead of the Hebrew characters, for those we now call Hebrew are really Chaldee, the older Hebrew having been what we now designate Samaritan. How can it be, then, with the least appearance of likelihood, that that language which had so long ceased to be spoken should yet, in the time of Christ, be the vernacular tongue of the Jews? The supposition is manifestly absurd. Let us now look at another hypothesis.

§ 2. Hardouin's opinion laid open and confuted.

John Hardouin, a man of distinguished genius and wonderful learning, at the close of his commentaries on the New Testament, says, that the Latin Language was familiar to our Lord and to the Jewish people. "Ever since," he says, the Romans obtained the supreme power in Judea and Jerusalem, after the establishment of Herod the Great, but especially after the death of Archelaus, when the prætors or procurators were sent thither by the emperors, the Latin language was used every where by the people on account of their necessary intercourse with the Romans. The Jews of Jerusalem, therefore, spoke Latin with the Romans, just as much as the inhabitants of Avignon French, those of Rome Italian, those of Germany German, and those of England English." In this citation I have exposed, not the grave sentiment of a

1 R. Azarias et R. Gedalias, citati in p. 75.
2 Ut in lib. 4 Reg. cap. 1, v. 17, cap. 3, v. 1, etc.

a Vide Danielem, cap. 2, v. 1.

4 Esdras, cap. 1, v. 1; Nehemias, cap. 5, v. 14.

philosopher, but the phantasy of a lover of paradox (rov nagaδοξοτάτου). The volume in which such absurdities are broached can claim no milder name for its author or his work, and so far as I have learned has not yet secured the suffrage of a single intelligent mind. That this hypothesis is utterly unworthy a man of sense and erudition, will at once appear upon consideration. It is true, indeed, as we expressed it in the beginning of this essay, "that the languages of conquered nations have frequently given place to those of their conquerors." Yet the case of Judea, when invaded by the Romans, forms a notable exception to that axiom. Twice before the birth of Christ had that warlike people made incursions into Judea and taken possession of the holy city. The first occasion was in the year B. C. 59, under Cneius Pompey, who reduced the Jews to subjection. Previous to this, and during the Maccabaite period, the Jews had been in alliance with the Romans, but even when Pompey invaded them, the object of the Roman General was not so much to hold the country, as to settle the disputes between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus about the succession. Jerusalem being taken and the temple entered, Pompey took nothing therefrom, believing that the people would be more easily attached to him by kindness than kept down by fear, for which he is commended by Cicero' and Josephus.5 He ordered that the temple should be purified and sacrifice presented; and having restored Hyrcanus to the pontificate, departed."

The second time was in the year B. C. 33, when Sosius went to Jerusalem, by order of Antony, to assist Herod in

'['Ineptum sane libellum super eodem argumento nuperrime scripsit M. Molkenbuhr, cui titulum fecit: Problema Criticum, Sacra Scriptura Novi Testamenti in quo idiomate originaliter ab apostolis edita fuit? Paderbornæ, 1822. Qui totam hanc rem exvero dijudicare vult consultum eat A. J. Binterim, Propempticum ad Problema Criticum. Moguntiæ, 1822.-ED.]

2 Tacitus, lib. 5 Historiarum, cap. 9.

3 Lib. 1 Mach. cap. 8, 12, et 14.

4 Cicero, Orat pro Flacco, cap. 28.

5 Joseph. de Bello, lib. 1, cap. 7, p 67 ad 69.

Id. ibidem, cap. 6 et 7, p. 65 ad 69.

« PreviousContinue »