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.

712/800 (page 656)

become detei’mined through an accurate examination of all its historic fountains. . . . Leaving therefore aside anysoever system of biblical chronology; because,of the quantity hitherto brought into the field by the erudite none are certain, nor exempt from difficulties the most grave; and, because the Church, to whose supreme magistracy belongs the deci- sion of controversies appertaining to dogma and to morals, has never intermeddled in pro- nouncing sentence upon any one of the systems aforesaid, of which but one can be true, while all peradventure may be erroneous. ... I shall finish by repeating in this place that which already I declared elsewhere, viz.: it is not my intention to combat any systems regarding biblical chronology; but inasmuch as, of these, not one is propounded as true under the CnuRcn’s infallible authority ; I have placed all these (systems) aside in the present examining, in order to treat Egyptian chronology through the sole data of history and of Egyptian monuments.” Finally, we quote Lepsius:— (330) “The Jewish chronology differs in a most remarkable manner from every other; and even in times as modern as those of the Persian kings the difference amounts to no less than 1G0 years, from known dates. Its several sources present but little difference among themselves. They count according to years of the ivorld; a calculation which, as also Ideler {Hand. d. Chron. I. pp. 569, 578, 580), considers most probable, was invented, together with the whole 'present chronology of the Jews, by the llabbi Hiller Hanassj, in the year 344 after Christ: and thenceforward gradually adopted. They fix the creation of the world 3671 B. o.; and all agree, even Josephus, in the usual calculation of the Hebrew text. They fix the deluge at 1656, the birth of Abraham at 1948, Isaac’s 2048, Jacob’s 2108, Joseph’s 2199, Jacob’s arrival in Egypt 2238, Joseph’s death 2309, years after Adam.” . . . “ The question is now, how must we explain this obvious dislocation of facts as compared with the true dates. Ideler has demonstrated that the introduction of the era of the world, and consequently of the whole system of chronology, must be ascribed to the author of the Moleds,{or ‘ New Moons,’) and in general of the whole later Jewish calendar, the Rabbi Hillel who flourished in the first half of the IVth century.” Reserving further extracts until we take up the Hebrew chronology, it here suffices to notice that Moses, who lived about the fourteenth century b. c., is not amenable for nume- rical additions made, to books that go by his venerable name, about 1800 years after his death, by a modern Rabbi. The unanimity of science in the rejection of any system of biblical computation might be exemplified by many hundred citations : either, of savans who, establishing grander systems more in accordance with the present state of knowledge, pass over the rabbinical ciphers in contemptuous silence ; or, of divines who, like the Rev. Dr. Hitchcock (Presi- dent of Amherst College, and Professor of Natural Theology and Geology) strive, vainly we opine, to reconcile the crude cosmology of the infantine Hebrew mind with the terrestrial discoveries of matured intellects like Cuvier, De la Beche, Murchison, Owen, Lyell, or Agassiz. Nevertheless, Calvinism in the pages of Hitchcock begins to affect a more amiable disguise than was worn by the magnanimous slayer of Seryetus, or by the iconoclastic John Knox ; to judge by the following admissions: — “ If these positions be correct, it follows that, as we ought not to expect the doctrines of religion in treatises on science, so it is unreasonable to look for the principles of philo- sophy in the Bible. . . . But a still larger number of [clerical] authors, although men of talents, and familiar, it may be, with the Bible and theology, have no accurate knowledge of geology. The results have been, first, that, by resorting to denunciation and charges of infidelity, to answer arguments from geology, which they did not understand, they have excited unreasonable prejudices and alarm among common Christians respecting that science and its cultivators; secondly, they have awakened disgust, and even contempt, among scientific men, especially those of sceptical tendencies [! ] , who have inferred that a cause which resorts to such defences must be very weak. They have felt very much as a good Greek scholar would, who should read a severe critique upon the style of Isocrates, or Demosthenes, and, before he had finished the review, should discover internal evidence that the writer had never learned the Greek alphabet.” (331) How true the latter part of this paragraph is, the reader has convinced himself by the perusal of our Essay T. [s?//jra]; where the Ilcbraical knowledge of Calvinistic divines in Ame- (330) Chrondlogie der TF.gyptcr: “ Kritik dor Quellen,” i. pp. 259, 360, 361, 362. (331) The Religion of Geology; Boston, 1852; p. 3, and Preface, p. 7.

Licence and re-use

Contents