The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races Part 25

"And G.o.d said, let the earth bring forth _gra.s.s_, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so." _Gen._ i.

11.

"And G.o.d said, let the waters bring forth _abundantly_, the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." v. 20.

"And G.o.d created great _whales_, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth _abundantly_," &c. v. 21.

"And G.o.d said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so." v. 24.

"G.o.d created _man_ in his own image; _male_ and _female_ created he _them_."

In the language above quoted, nothing is said about one seed or one blade of gra.s.s; about one fruit tree, or about _single pairs_ of animals or human beings. On the contrary, this chapter closes with the distinct impression on the mind that everything was created _abundantly_. The only difficulty arises with regard to the human family, and we are here confused by the contradictory statements of the first and second chapters. In the first chapter, man was created _male and female_, on the sixth day--in the second chapter, woman was not created until after Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Commentators explain this discrepancy by the difference in style of the two chapters, and the inference that Genesis is a compilation made up by Moses from two or three different writers; but it is not our purpose here to open these theological discussions. Both sides are sustained by innumerable authorities. From what we have before shown, it is clear that the inspired writers possessed no knowledge of physical sciences, and as little respecting the natural history of man, as of any other department.

Their _moral_ mission does not concern our subject, and we leave that to theologians, to whom it more properly belongs. On the other hand, we ask to be let alone in our study of the physical laws of the universe. The theologian and the naturalist have each an ample field without the necessity of interfering with each other.

The Bible is here viewed only in its relations with physical science. We have already alluded to the fact that in astronomy, geology, &c., the authors of the Bible possessed no knowledge beyond that of their profane contemporaries, and a dispa.s.sionate examination of the text from Genesis to Revelation will show that the writers had but an imperfect knowledge of contemporary races, and did not design to teach the doctrine of unity of mankind, or rather origin from a single pair. The writer of the _Pentateuch_ could attach little importance to such an idea, as he nowhere alludes to a future existence, or rewards and punishments--all good and evil, as far as the human race is concerned, with him, were merely temporal.

This idea of a future state does not distinctly appear in the Jewish writings until after their return from the Babylonish captivity.

The extent of the surface of the globe, known even to the writers of the New Testament, formed but a small fraction of it--little beyond the confines of the Roman empire. No allusion is even made to Southern and Eastern Asia; Africa, south of the Desert; Australia, America, &c.; all of which were inhabited long before the time of Moses; and of the races of men inhabiting these countries, and their languages, they certainly knew nothing. The Chinese and Indian empires, at least, are beyond dispute. The early Hebrews were a pastoral people; had little commercial or other intercourse with the rest of the world, and were far from being "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." The Egyptian empire was fully developed--arts and science as flourishing--pyramids and gorgeous temples built, not only before the time of Moses, but long prior to that of the Patriarch Abraham, who, with Sarah, went to Egypt to buy corn of the reigning Pharaoh. What is remarkable, too, the Egyptians had their ethnographers, and had already cla.s.sified the human family into four races, and depicted them on the monuments, viz: the black, white, yellow, and red.[216]

In fact, nothing can be more incomplete, contradictory, and unsatisfactory than the ethnography of Genesis. We see Cain going into a foreign land and taking a wife before there were any women born of his parent stock. Cities are seen springing up in the second and third generations, in every direction, &c. All this shows that we have in Genesis no satisfactory history of the human family, and that we can rely no more upon its ethnography than upon its geography, astronomy, cosmogony, geology, zoology, &c.

We have already alluded to the fact that the writers of the New Testament give no evidence of additional knowledge in such matters. The sermon from the Mount comes like a light from Heaven, but this volume is mute on all that pertains to the physical laws of the universe.

If the common origin of man were such an important point in the eyes of the Almighty as we have been taught to believe, is it reasonable to suppose it would have been left by the inspired writers in such utter confusion and doubt? The coming of Christ changed the whole question, and we should expect, at least in the four Gospels, for some authority that would settle this vital point; but strange as the a.s.sertion may seem, there is not a single pa.s.sage here to be found, which, by any distortion, can be made to sustain this _unity_; and on searching diligently the New Testament, from one end to the other, we were not a little surprised to find but a single text that seemed to bear directly upon it, viz: the oft quoted one in Acts xvii. 26: "And hath made of _one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," &c. Being astonished at the fact that this great question of common origin of man should thus be made to hang so much upon a single verse, it occurred to me that there might be some error, some interpolation in the text, and having no material at hand for such an investigation in Mobile, I wrote to a competent friend in Philadelphia, to examine for me all the Greek texts and old versions, and his reply confirmed fully my suspicions. The word _blood_ is an interpolation, and not to be found in the original texts. The word _blood_ has been rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome to the present hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe, generally as the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the word blood does not appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities to the same effect, but as it is presumed no competent authority will call our a.s.sertion in question, it is needless to cite them. The verse above alluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:--

"And hath made of _one_ all races (genus) of men," &c.

The word _blood_ is a gloss, and we have just as much right to interpolate _one form_, _one substance_, _one nature_, _one responsibility_, or anything else, as _blood_.

These remarks on the ethnography of the Bible might be greatly extended, but my object here is simply to show that the Bible, to say the least, leaves the field open, and that I have entered it soberly, discreetly, and advisedly.

FOOTNOTES:

[215] Prichard, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 8. London, 1843.

[216] See "_Types of Mankind_," by Nott and Gliddon.