Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon.

Nott, Josiah C. (Josiah Clark), 1804-1873.

Date:: 1860

Credit: Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

669/800 (page 613)

trary method, 'whereby something foreign to the text is brought in. In general,, it betra3rs the want of an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, though it furnishes many good explanations. (147) “ The character of this version is different, according to the different books. It is easy to distinguish five or six different translators. . . . Indeed, the real value of the Septuagint, as a version, stands in no sort of relation to its reputation. All the translators engaged in it appear to have been wanting in a proper knowledge of the two languages, and in a due attention to grammar, etymology and orthography. Hence they often confound proper names, and appellations, kindred verbs, similar words and letters, &c., and this in cases where we are not at liberty to conjecture various readings. The whole version is rather free than literal,” &c. . . . The Text of the Septuagint has suffered greatly. Through the multitude of copies, which the very general usage rendered necessary, and by means of ignorant critics, the text of this version, in the third century, had fallen into the most lamentable state.” (148) “ Although we cannot say from whom it (the LXX) emanated, it is certain that it is the work of one or several Jews of Egypt, of Greek education (if always our version called the Seventi/ be exactly the same as the one that was made at that epoch) ; because one may discover in it traces of that philosophy which afterwards developed itself among the Alex- andrian Jews, and of which Philo is for us the principal representative. It does net appertain to us to characterize here the translation under its philological aspect; we must content ourselves with establishing that, in many places, it differs sensibly from our Hebrew text, and that very often its variants agree better with the text of the Samaritans. Never- theless, the latter does not sufficiently conform to the version of the Seventy, that one could imagine a common source for both compilations.” (149) It results from Talmudic exegesis that its authors, beyond vague impressions of errors contained in the Greek version, not only did not know, save through hearsay, the Septua- gint themselves (although they suppose its Translators to have beert seventy-two), but that it was impossible for the Palestinic Jewish Rabbis to read it, owing to their igno- rance of the Greek tongue.(150) Not a word in the Mishna and the two Guemeras refers to Aristobulus, or Thilo, or to the Apochryphal books; neither to the Essence, nor to the Therapeuta;. The Jews of Palestine were separate people from those of Alexandria; and it was a concern exclusively interesting to the latter to defend the many false renderings of the Septuagint, of which remarkable examples are exhibited in the learned treatise of Franck, whence we condense some facts into a foot-note.(151) But hear Sharpe: — “ It will be enough to quote two passages from this (LXX) translation, to show how the Alexandrian Jews, by a refinement of criticism, often found more meaning in their Scrip- tures than ever entered the minds of the writers. Thus when the Psalmist, speaking of the power of Jehovah, says with a truly Eastern figure (Psalms civ. 4, Text), ‘ lie maketh the winds Ids messengers, and the lightning his servants,' (152) these translators change the (147) Ibid.; p. 147. (148) Tayi.or’3 Calmet; voce “ Versions.” (149) Munk : Palestine; p. 487. Cf. also, Ampere : Pecherches en figypte, &c., 2de part.; Rev. des D. Mondcs, 1846. (150) Franck: La Kabbale: Paris, 1843; pp. 273, 329. (151) “Already the Thalmud had a vague knowledge (Thalm. Babyl. Tract. Meguillah ; fol. 9, ch. i.) of the numerous infidelities of this antique translation [viz., of the LXX]. ... Thus, when the sacred Text says posi- tively (Exod. xxiv. 9, 10) that Moses, his brother, and the seventy elders, saw the Clod of Israel upon a throne of sapphire; according to the (Greek) translation, it is not God who was seen, but the place which he inhabits. When auother prophet, Isaiah, sees the Lord seated on his throne and filling the temple with the folds of bis robe (Isaiah, vi. 1), this too-material image is replaced by the glory of God. .. . When it concerns Adam and Eve, (the Greek interpreter) would carefully avoid saying, with the Text, that God created them male and female (Gen. i. 27); but this double character, these two halves of humanity, are united in one and the same being— ' Kpatv sal OfjXv l-olyatv avrdv ‘ Who has created all things?’ asks the Hebrew prophet (Isaiah lx. 26); ‘Who has rendered them invisible t' says the Alexandrian interpreter” (Fit an-ck: La Kabbale; Paris, 1843; pp. 329-331). Our author furnishes several other examples of downright perversions committed by those Alexandrines called “ the LXX”: of which our space deuies insertion. After our own conclusions were formed, it was most gratifying to find them all confirmed by Rcbexsohn (“ Origin and Structure of the Septuagint” — Christian Examiner; Boston, March, 1853; pp. 165-187), who truthfully observes— “ Such a version — if it should be thus designated — is not only conformable to the spirit of those times, but there are many indica- tions that the Greek version was originally intended only as an auxiliary book for the use of the Alexandrian Jews.” (152) So also Caitf.n, xiii. p. 229, and note 4 — “des flammes brfilantes, ses ministres.” St. Pact, too, although said to have been “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” follows the Septuagint in quoting this passage (Epist. to the He- brews; i. 7) even to Jews! (Sharpe's New Test.; p. 395)— a passage non-existent in the Ucbrew Text.

Licence and re-use

Contents