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.

    676/800 (page 620)
    greatly distress themselves about the latter; for, a century and a half elapsed before Ken- nicott proclaimed how — “ the Hebrew Bible was printed from the latest, and consequently the worst manuscripts(177) thus corroborating his previous acknowledgment-^ “ that the Sacred Books have not descended to us, for so many ages, without some mistakes and errors of transcribers.”(178) He enlarges upon the certainty of corruptions in the printed Hebrew Test, powerfully refuting those who claim textual unity; and then passes on to establish the absurdity of attributing perfection, either, to the manuscripts. (179) Of all men down to his epoch, 1780, Kennicott had the best right to speak decisively; his conclusions being drawn from the collation of no less than 692 manuscripts of the Hebrew text; whereof about 250 were collated by himself personally, and the remainder by Mr. Bruns, under his direction. Of the most ancient relics, but two were assigned by him to the tenth century after Christ; to the eleventh or twelfth centuries, only three; while all the rest ranged between the years 1200 and 1500 a. d. (180) The bulk of his work, its costliness and comparative rarity, combine with its Latin idiom to render it inaccessible to ordinary readers, save at second-hand. But few of the facts established by this great and upright scholar are popularly known; or they have been misrepresented, more or less, by some of the ecclesiastical mediums (181) through which they have reached the public eye. Cardinal Wiseman, (182) for example, would lead his readers to infer, that the innumerable variants and corruptions of the Hebrew Text, verified by Kennicott, were of small import- ance; and even the Rev. Moses Stuart (183) slurs lightly over those depreciatory results which it will be archaeology's duty presently to enumerate, in saying: — “ Indeed, one may travel through the immense desert (so I can hardly help naming it) of Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture to speak in homely phrase) not find game enough to be worth the hunting.” So again, “ Have they (the Jews) added to, or diminished from, their Scriptures during all this period of 1800 years ? Not the least. . . . Their Bible has remained inviolate.” Now, to continue the sagacious Professor’s simile, the quantity of game to be found in a given wilderness frequently depends upon the keenness of the huntsman; its quality upon his individual tastes; some sportsmen being partial to tomtits, whilst others sigh that nothing fiercer than grizzly-bears encounters their ferine combativeness. And, with respect to the “ inviolate ” state of the Text, Kennicott shall speak for himself, after we have opened a volume of De Rossi. G. Bernardo de Rossi, of Parma, was that august Italian critic who resumed investiga- tion into the actual condition of the Hebrew Text at the point where his English prede- cessor had left off; recasting also (wherever the same MSS. could be reached by him) the work of the illustrious Oxonian. Written in Italian, and intended solely for the lettered, his books are not very familiar to the general reader. A quotation or two, therefore, may place matters in their proper light: “Here it suffices to observe, that the totality of manuscripts collated is 1418, of editions 374; that to the English 577, and 16 Samaritan, I have added 825; of which my cabinet alone furnished 691, and 333 editions; besides the ancient versions, the commentaries, the works of criticism and other sources that are also themselves in the greatest number.” (184) In another work he states:—“Of the manuscript codices most ancient of the sacred Text” . . . the oldest, that of Vienna, dates in a. d. 1019; the next is Reuchlin’s, of Carls- ruhe ; its age being a. d. 1038. There is nothing in manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testa- (1”) State of the printed Hebrew Text; 2d Dissert.; Oxford, 1709; p. 470. (178) Ibid.; 1st Dissert.; 1753; Introd. (179) Ibid.; pp. 234, 263. (180) Dissei-tatio Qeneralis in Veins Testamentum Hcbraicum; Oxford, 1780; in folio; pp. 110-113. (181) “lly ‘ecclesiastical persons’ are understood such as are iudeed subjects, yet their office and works is |ric/] in matters of Religion; they act between God and man, as messengers, and mediators between them. They deliver God’s mind to men; and offer men’s prayers and gifts to God”; says the Rev. Geohoe Lawson, Rrotestant Rector of More (Potitica Sacra cl Civilis; London, 1660; p. 230). (182) Connection between Science and Revealed Religion; 1844; ii. pp. 168, 169. (183) Chit. Hist, and Defence of the O. T. Canon ; Andover, 1845 ; pp. 193, 239. (184) Compendia di Critica Sacra; Parma, 1811; ii. p. 37.