ARTICLE VIII. DOMINICI DIODATI I. C. NEAPOLITANI, DE CHRISTO GRÆCE Translated by O. T. Dobbin, LL. B. of Trinity College, Dublin. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. THOSE who have read Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, or a translation of Sect. 10, Part II. in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. No. 3, p. 530, and the article of Prof. Pfannkuche, Bib. Rep. Vol. I. No. 2, p. 317, are aware that there has been much controversy in respect to the language spoken in Palestine, in the time of Christ and his apostles. This question has been more or less connected with that relating to the language in which Matthew wrote the gospel bearing his name. Those contending for an Aramæan original, are disposed to represent this as the current language of Palestine, at that time; whilst those, on the other hand, who believe in a Greek original, contend that Greek was the vernacular tongue. On this question Pfannkuche and Hug differ: the former advocating the Aramæan as the prevailing language, the latter the Greek. The work of Diodati, one of the earliest and most extended on the subject, had become so rare that neither Pfannkuche nor Hug had seen it prior to the writing of their essays. Professor Dobbin, therefore, the editor of the present edition recently published, merits the commendation of the literary world for his enterprise in offering to them an exact reprint of the original Latin. We are also indebted to him for the translation which we have begun to publish and intend to complete in successive numbers of the Repository, probably extending through the present year. We Considering the treatise valuable, we had made up our minds to translate it, but, in correspondence with Prof. Dobbin, ascertained that he had himself undertaken the task. consequently obtained his consent to furnish the translation for the pages of the Repository. As far as we have compared it with the original, we feel confidence in pronouncing it lucid and accurate. Diodati has, undoubtedly, made out a strong case, and although he may have erred in carrying his hypothesis to an extreme, yet the evidence adduced by him, as well as by Hug, proves incontestably the general prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine, and renders it certain that Christ and his apostles spoke it freely, if not habitually. His lucubrations will, at all events, be perused with pleasure and profit, and, we have thought, would give value to our work. Of Diodati Mr. Dobbin says, in his Preface, "DOMINICK DIODATI, a civilian, the author of the following Exercitation, was born at Naples in the year 1736, of a family distinguished for several generations by literary eminence. He received his education in the University of his native city, and proved by his whole illustrious career that the seed did not fall upon an unproductive soil. His first publication was the Essay, "DE CHRISTO GRACE LOQUENTE," which appeared in the year 1767. It excited the liveliest interest throughout the learned world, and procured for the author enrolment by acclaim among the members of several Academies, and other literary institutions. Royalty itself condescended to express its approbation of the genius and ability of Diodati, and Catherine II. of Russia forwarded to Naples tokens of her imperial regard. After this publication, his researches were chiefly directed to the antiquities of Italy and Sicily. Besides one or two separate volumes on this subject, he enriched the Transactions of the Academy of Herculaneum (Academy d'Ercolano) with several learned antiquarian papers. He died in the year 1801 in the city of his birth, where a memoir of her distinguished son appeared in the year 1815." Let our readers judge for themselves of the ability of the Essay, as also of its conclusiveness, after a comparison with the articles from Pfannkuche and Hug.-[ED. Dominici Diodati I. C. Neapolitani, De Christo Græce Loquente Exercitatio; Qua Ostenditur Græcam sive Hellenisticam linguam cum Judæis omnibus, tum ipsi adeo Christo Domino et Apostolis nativam, ac vernaculam fuisse. Neapoli MDCCLXVII. Excudebat Josephus Raymundus, Utraque potestate annuente. DOMINICUS DIODATI.-TO THE READER. The desire to learn as much as possible of those who have been celebrated in past times is so common, as to be almost an instinct of our nature. Nor does this propension confine its researches to those who owe their notoriety to their merits, being such "Whom rare desert Has raised to seats in heaven." It embraces those within its range, no less, who have been distinguished only for their crimes. Our curiosity extends not merely to their acts and history, but also to their personal appearance, their features, their carriage, and every habit of their body. It is this which imparts such extreme interest to the description of the persons of Plato, Alexander, Aristotle, Cæsar, Tully, Nero, and others. A likeness of these remarkable men upon a pebble gives it the value of a gem, and as such it decorates the fingers of our wealthy virtuosi. Let but antiquity render up some memorial of the illustrious dead, which it has long concealed beneath the soil, and men will hie from afar to gaze upon the relic that has been disinterred, will esteem it beyond price, and count it among the choicest treasures of the world. Now, far be it from us with cynic censure to condemn an enthusiasm so innocent, so unblameworthy as this! But if this feeling be pardonable when indulged in relation to distinguished men, how much more worthy is it of indulgence when the Redeemer of mankind is its object! Francis Vavassor, for instance, has engaged in an inquiry respecting the form and countenance of Christ. Joannes Merekenius has discussed the question, whether he was subject to disease, and marked by any personal blemish. Boilæus has written of his stature, and others, of the number of years he lived, his language, aspect, and innumerable other particulars concerning him. Now, is all this to be denounced as the work of obscure diligence, (obscuræ diligentiæ,) or as labor expended in vain? Shall we say that the commonwealth of letters reaps little benefit from investigations of this nature? In our own judgment, such a sentence would be no less unwise than ungrateful. Among topics of this kind, none, I am persuaded, can justly claim a higher place than an inquiry into the language which Christ habitually spoke. Sacred philology cannot fail to gain advantage from labor bestowed on such a theme as this. But the subject is one upon which widely differing opinions are held by the learned. Some entertain the notion that Christ and the apostles spoke Hebrew. A few are found contending for Latin as his native tongue. The remainder agree in thinking that the Chaldee or the Syriac was the language which the Saviour spoke; some patronizing the one, and some the other dialect. In this last opinion, I myself long concurred. But when I came somewhat more minutely to look into this conclusion, I discovered many things which shook my confidence in its truth. In short, I learned to believe that neither Hebrew, Syriac, nor Latin was the vernacular language of the Saviour, but Greek. My proofs I now submit to the judgment of the learned in the following dissertation. Before, however, the reader enters upon the perusal of the work, I am bound, in common honesty, to state to whom I have been indebted for the idea on which it is founded. A long time since, when pursuing the study of the Greek language at the University of Naples, I had the good fortune to attend the lectures of Jacobus Martorellius, who taught there with distinguished ability. On one occasion, he casually dropped the opinion that the Lord Jesus spoke Greek, an assertion little likely to commend itself to the great body of his pupils, and to myself only attractive from its novelty. Accustomed as I had been from childhood to the perusal of the word of God, I derived from this hint an inducement to continue the delightful practice with increasing ardor. Every thing I now met with, which seemed to bear upon the opinion of the professor, I noted with care. When I had collected materials in considerable quantity, I set about arranging them to the best of my ability, and produced an adumbration of my present work. No sooner had I done so, than the conviction fastened itself upon my mind that the idea of Christ's Hellenism, startling though it might be at first from its strangeness, was amply sustained by the volume of Inspiration, by the testimony of coins, and by the other remains of antiquity. So satisfying to my own mind proved the evidence from these various sources, that I wondered the idea had never been fairly and fully examined before, especially as the language of Christ had long been the subject of controversy, and no common abilities had been employed in the discussion. I had a strong desire to finish my work and give it to the world in print. I paused, however, when I reflected that the path was entirely new. It was tempting indeed to the ambition of him who could say with Lucretius, "Juvat integros accedere fonteis, But a check was instantly applied in my case, by my conscious unfitness for an office which would task the noblest powers and the most extensive erudition. I was further disheartened by ,אמ הד בור כסף השתיקה זהב,remembering the Hebrew proverb "Speech is silver, but silence is gold," and in consequence had almost entirely renounced my design of publication. In this state of perplexity, a sentence of Isaac Vossius in his Treatise de Sybillinis Oraculis, which accidentally met my eye, encouraged me to proceed. In it I found this writer maintaining my very position against Simonius, in few, indeed, but unequivocal words. Nothing could have happened more providentially than this discovery of the coincidence between this accomplished scholar and myself, for it decided me at once upon presenting my lucubration to the world. Such is, in brief, the history of this Essay. I have little to add to what has been said. The reader will perceive that the name of the work, as it appears on the title-page, is different from the running title throughout the volume. The change was made advisedly. The ecclesiastical Censor had the strongest objection (qui-minime probaret) to the running title; but this could not be altered, as the sheets were struck off. title-page presents all the emendation in our power to effect. The Those who would see at a glance the plan upon which I have proceeded, may consult the synopsis which immediately follows. As for the work itself (2n), I have to allege that it is all mine, with the single exception of the fundamental idea, the position I have undertaken to establish (éow). For this I am indebted to the ingenious persons just named. But for all besides, the arguments, the illustrations, the answering of objections, and the solution of difficulties, I alone am responsible. I venture to hope the reader will not be disappointed in the issue; but of this he will be the proper judge. Should any thing herein appear, contrary to my expectation and wish, marked by rashness and inconsideration, with all the readiness of a lover of truth will the writer make the requisite alterations when his error is pointed out. His object in this treatise, the ascertainment of truth, establishes a strong claim for indulgent criticism. Conscious imperfection joins to reiterate the plea. Reader, farewell. NAPLES, MARCH MDCCLXVII. |