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.

    678/800 (page 622)
    2d. This is a quotation by the Apostle from Deuteronomy xxi. 23 ; which, in king James’s version stands — “ (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;)” [The French of Cahen reads—“car un pendu est une malediction de Dieu ” (v. pp. 93, 94); which conforms better to the context, and resembles current superstitious aversion to gibbets.] Apart from illiteral citation, the New Testament, in this passage, leaves out the word ELoIIIM, ‘ God.’ Theologists who combat for “plenary inspiration” can doubtless answer the following interrogatories. If those words be Paul’s (always provided for), did he quote from memory ? then his recollection was faulty. If he copied the LXX, then, in his day, the Greek already differed from the Hebrew ; and who can tell which of the two transcripts preserved the original reading? The catalogue continues with—“ Epiphanius, 403 — Augustine, 430”—but we abridge twenty-two folio pages of extracts from later Christian writers, who protest to the same effect, into a line; epitomizing the series by one name — Ludovicus Capellus, founder of sacred criticism in 1650. All the subjoined commentators vouch for inaccuracies in the Text: viz.— “Raymond de Pennaforti, 1250—Nic. Lyranus, 1320—Itudolphus Armachanus, 1359—Tostatus, 1450 — Jacob Perez de Valentia, 1450 — Marsilius Ficinus, 1450 — Baptista Mantuanus, 1516 — Zuinglius, 1528—Martin Luther, 1546—Bibliander, 1564,” &c. The same corruptions are certified through the decrees of the Council of Trent, 1546 ; through the Vulgate of Sixtus V., 1590; and through king James’s version, 1604-1611: on which the Oxonian critic remarks (p. 50, £ 108): — “To the Authors of the English version that which is due: many examples prove that they did not always mind what they found in the Hebrew, but what they thought ought to be read therein: tantamount to that, in their opinion, the He- brew Text was corrupt. This the reader evolves from twenty places:—Gen. xxv. 8: xxxv. 29: Ex. xx. 10: Dcut. v. 14; xxvii. 26; xxxii. 43: Jos. xxii. 34: Jud. vii. 18—vid. com. 20—1 Sam. ii. 23: 2 Sam. iii. 7; v. 8; xxi. 19; xxiii. 8: 2 Kings xxv. 3: 1 Chron. vii. 6; ix. 41; xxiv. 23: Ps. xxxiv. 17: Ixx. 1: Isa. xxviii. 12: Ezech. xxvi. 23.” After citing “Jos. Scaliger; the Buxtorfs, father and son, defenders of the purity of the text; Capellus; Glassius; Joseph Mede; Usher, Morinus, Beveridge, Walton, Hammond, Bochart, Hottinger, Huet, Pococke, Jablonski, Clericus, Opitius, Yetringa, Micliaelis, Wolfius, Carpzovius, Joseph Ilallet, Francis Hare” — Kennicott concludes ($ 132): — “Id autem a me maximb propositum fuit, ut ostenderem — produci posse testimonia multa et insignia, per intervallum fere 2000 annorum, ad probandas mutationes in Hebrai- cum Textum invectas: quanquam in contrariam sententiam, annis abhinc triginta, docti fere omnes abierint.” (189) One would have thought (to return to Prof. Stuart’s metaphor), that this “immense desert” contained “game enough,” in all conscience! but, in some men, the love of chase is insatiable. “ Defence,” as he justly observes, “ would seem to be needed. The contest has become one pro aris et focis” — “truly become one, as I have said, pro arts et focis.” (190) “ It has become plain,” frankly declares this lamented Hebraist, “ that the battle which has been going on over most European ground these forty or fifty years past, has at last come even to us [alluding to the exegetical works of his learned and reverend New England colleagues, Noyes, Palfrey, Norton, Parker, &c.], and we can no longer decline the contest. Unbelief in the Voltaire and the Thomas Paine style we have coped with, and in a measure gained the victory. But now it comes in the shape of philosophy, literature, criticism, philo- logy, knowledge of antiquity, and the like.[!] Hume’s arguments against miracles have been exhumed, clothed with a new and splendid costume, and commended to the world by many among the most learned men in Europe. Before them, all revelation falls alike, both Old Testament and New.” (191) And, considering who these “most learned men ” veritably are, it is not for us to ques- tion the uprightness of his outspoken recognition, that— (189) Ih'ssertatio Gencralis; 1780; pp. 7, 8, 33-43, 55, teq. (190) Op. cit. ; pp. 3, 422. (191) Op. cit.; p. 420.