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.

711/800 (page 655)

ability of the chronological systems of other nations at the expense of Judaism. On the contrary, they bear with undivided force upon Hebrew computations, viewed for themselves alone. Not less truthfully does the language of a profound thinker — expression of a fifth, and far more liberal philosophy, — set forth the etfeteness of Jewish chronology. Luke Burke’s writings are unmistakeable: his “ Critical Analysis of the Hebrew Chronology ” (326) is one of the most masterly productions our literature can boast. Curtailment is injustice to its author: to the reader garbled extracts would be unsatisfactory; and the sincere inves- tigator knows where to peruse the whole. We content our present requirements with one specimen : — “Such, then, is the character and importance of ‘the most brilliant and important of Primate Usher’s improvements in chronology ! ’ [as Dr. Hales terms the fabulous notion that Abraham was not the eldest son of Terah!] It consists, first, of an argument that turns out to be groundless, in every one of its elements; and, which, if well founded, would prove the Old Testament to be one of the most absurdly written books in existence; and secondly, of an assumption which, apart from this argument, is wholly gratuitous and improbable; and which also, if admitted, would bear equally hard against the character of the very writings for the support of which it was invented. And it is by such argu- ments as these that grave and learned divines seek to ascertain the realities of ancient his- tory, and endeavor to place chronology upon a rational and sure foundation! And it is to such as these that men of science are required to bow, at the risk of being deemed scep- tical, dangerous, profane, &c., &c. For it must not be supposed that the present is an isolated or exceptional instance of theological argument. On the contrary, it is a rule. Volumes upon volumes have been wi’itten in precisely the same spirit — volumes numerous enough, and ponderous enough, to fill vast libraries. Until a comparatively late era, all historical criticism, on which Scriptural evidences could in any manner be brought to bear, was carried on in this spirit. Nothing else was thought of; nothing approaching to genuine independence would have been tolerated. And thus the human world rolled round, century after century; the brave trampled upon by slaves; the wise compelled to be silent in the presence of fools; the learned alternately serfs and tyrants, deluded and deluding, cheat- ing themselves, and cheating others with sophistries which, upon any other subject, would disgrace even the mimic contests of schoolboys! For ourselves, we should feel a humilia- tion to contend with such sophistries seriously, and in detail, were we not firmly convinced that to do so is not merely the most legitimate, but also the only mode by which truth can be rendered permanently triumphant. Wit and sarcasm may obtain a temporary success, they may awaken minds otherwise prepared for freedom, but they are often unjust, usually unbenevolent, and consequently, in the majority of cases, they merely awaken antagonism, and cause men to cling with increased fondness to their opinions. Nothing but minute, searching, inexorable argument will ever obtain a speedy, or a permanent triumph over deep-seated prejudices.” (327) “ But, fortunately,” winds up another and a sixth formidable adversary to Hebrew com- putation— no less an archiiologue than the great Parisian architect, Lesueur—“fortu- nately, questions of ciphers have nothing in common with religion. What imports it to us, to us Christians, who date so to say from yesterday, that man should have been thrown upon our globe at an epoch more or less remote; that the world should have been created, in six days, or that its birth should have consumed myriads of centuries? Can God, through it, become less grand, his work less admirable? We are, since the last eighteen hundred years, dupes of the besotted vanity of the Jews. It is time that this mystification should cease.” (328) Italian scholarship speaks for itself:—(329) “ The Bible is, certainly, as the most to be venerated, so the most authoritative fount of history; but, in so many varieties of chronological systems, which are all palmed off by their authors as based upon indications of time taken from the Bible; in the very notable difference of these indications between the Hebrew and the Samaritan text, and the Greek version, and between the books of the Old and of the New Testament; finally, in the inde- cision, in which the Church has always left such controversy, that, I do not see any certain standard, by which the duration of the Egyptian nation has to be levelled, unless this (326) London Ethnological Journal; June, July, November, December, 1848. (327) Op. cit.; pp. 274, 275. (328) Chronologic des Eois tffigyple—ouvrage couronnfi par l’Academic: Paris, 1848; pp. 304, 305. (329) Barccchi, Director of the Museum of Turin; Discard Critici sopra la Cronologia Egizia; Torino, 1844; pp. 29, 43, 44, 147.

Licence and re-use

Contents