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
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

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.

    670/800 (page 614)
    sentence into a philosophical description of the spiritual nature of angelic beings, and say (in the Greek), ‘ Ilemaketh his angels into spirits, and his servants into aflame of fire.' Again, when the Hebrew text, in opposition to the polytheism with which the Jews were sur- rounded, says (Text, Deul. vi. 4), ‘ The Lord is our God, the Lord alone’ [literally, ‘ Hear, 0 Israel! leHOuall, our God, IeHOuall (is) one/’] ; the translators turn it to contradict the Egyptian doctrine of a plurality of persons in the unity of the Godhead, (153) by which the priests said that their numerous divinities only made one God; and in the Alex- andrian Greek this text says, ‘ The Lord our God is one Lord.’ ” (154) Should the reader now turn to the above passages in our “ authorized ” version, he will perceive that the forty-seven have rendered into English the exact words of the Greek; and thus he will behold a little of the damning evidence produceable that these worthies could not construe a simple line of the Hebrew Text; but have palmed off upon us, as genuine “inspiration,” language that, being Alexandrian forgeries, cannot be Divine; confessions of creed that, not being in the original Hebrew, cannot be “ inspired.” Here, as concerns king James’s translation in its relations to the Greek versions, we might bring our inquiries to a close : the seal of condemnation has been so legibly stamped upon it. But, inasmuch as some data respecting the origin of these Grecian documents may be useful to our researches into the Hebrew Text, it is desirable to reach that epoch when the Septuagint had not yet been manufactured. Ascending from St. Jerome in the IVth century to the great Origen in the lid, we find him complaining of the corruptions manifest in the Greek MSS. of his day — “ But now there is obviously a great diversity of the copies, which has arisen either from the negli- gence of some transcribers, or the boldness of others—or from others still, who added or took away, as they saw fit, in making their corrections.” (155) “From the time of the birth of Christ to that of Origen,” continues Eichhorn, “the Text of the Alexandrian version was lamentably disfigured by arbitrary alterations, inter- polations, omissions, and mistakes. Justin Martyr had a very corrupt Text, at least in the minor Prophets.” (156) He was decapitated in a. d. 164, having been converted about the year 132; thus sealing his convictions with his blood. The works of Origen’s predecessors in the first century, Flavius Josephus, born a. d. 37, and of Philo Judaeus, who flourished about A. d. 40, exhibit through their citations, (both being Hellenized Jews writing in Greek rather for Grecian and Roman readers than for their own countrymen,) that some alterations had already been made in the copies of the Septuagint respectively used by them: at the same time that the writers of the New Testament, by quoting the Greek version, in lieu of the Hebrew, have invested the former with a tradi- tionary sanctity, fabulous when claimed for extracts from the Old Testament not cited directly from the Hebrew Text. (157). Its discussion would lead us astray from the inquiry as to when and by whom the Original Greek translations were made; and the fact is noted merely to establish the existence of the latter, in what state of literal preservation no man can tell, at the Christian era. “All we can determine with certainty is, — that the whole, or the greater part of the Old Testament, was extant in the Greek language in the time of Jesus the sou of Sirach. [Sirach presupposes that ‘the Law and the Prophets, and the rest of the books,’ were already extant in his time; that is, in the 38th year, which is probably the 38th year of Evergetes II., about 130 n. c.] ” (158) This year before Christ 130 is recognized, nowadays, by all biblical scholars, to be the minimum epoch at which Greek versions of certain books of the Old Testament canon were already in circulation at Alexandria. Tradition, itself, claims no date for the existence of (153) Compare Burnap: Expository Lectures; Boston, 1845; p. 9;—and Chenevi&rk: Systeme Thcologique de Ui Triniti; Geneva, 1831; passim. (154) Sharpe: Hist, of Egypt; 1846; p. 196. (155) Dr Wette: i. p. 165. (156) De Wette: i. p. 166. (157) Strauss: Vie de Jesus; and IIeknell: Origin, Ac.; enlarge upon these themes. (158) De Wette: p. 146; — also, Stuart; Crit. Hist, and Defence; pp. 241, 423.