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.

    677/800 (page 621)
    mentnow extant of an earlier date than the eleventh century after Christ. (185) And, “of the most ancient manuscripts of the Greek Text of the New Testament,” . . . the oldest are the Alexandrian aud Vatican, which may ascend to the fourth, but cannot be much later than the fifth century after Christ. Considering such circumstances, our credulity is not strained by accepting what De Rossi asserts, as rather more authoritative than the fiats of some “ teologini ’ we might name; for he, at least, had advanced by studious discipline to the positive stage of philo- sophy. These are his Italian views rendered into English:—under the head of “ Premure degli Ebrei per loro Testo : ” — “ It is known [ ? ] with what carefulness Esdras, the most excellent critic they have had, had reformed [the Text] and corrected it, and restored it to its primary splendor. Of the many revisions undertaken after him none are more celebrated than that of the Massoretes, who came after the sixth century [annis d.]; who, in order that the Text should not in after time become altered, and that it might be preserved in its integrity, numbered all the verses, the words, the letters of each book, together with their form and place. But their fatigues being well analyzed, one perceives that they had more in aim to fix the state of their Text, than to correct it; that, of infinite interesting and grave variants they do not speak; and that, ordinarily, they do not occupy themselves but with minutise of orthography of little or no weight: aud all the most zealous adorers and defenders of the Massora, Christians and Jews, while rendering justice to the worthiest intentions and to the enor- mous fatigues of its first authors, ingenuously accord and confess that it [the Massoretic Text], such as it exists, is deficient, imperfect, interpolated, full of errors; ... a most unsafe guide.” (186) Why, “the single Bible of Soncino [earliest printed Text] furnishes more than twelve thou- sand (variants)! ” Which said, our authority continues through above eleven 8vo pages to deplore and make manifest “the horrible state of the Text,” resulting from his own compa- risons of 1418 Hebrew manuscripts, and 874 printed editions. Such being the truth, published a quarter-century before the Rev. Dr. Hales’s “Analysis of Chronology,” (187) the reader can qualify the following attestation of an ecclesiastic by what epithet he pleases: — “ It is not more certain that there are a sun and moon in the heavens, than it is, that not a single error of the press, or of a Jewish transcriber, has crept into the present copies of the Masorete Hebrew Text, to give the least interruption to its chronological series of years.” And yet, so devoid of consistency is this theologer, that he designates the Hebrew chro- nology as “spurious,” and actually follows that of the Sepiuagint! From the loud denunciations of one of the most learned Church-of-England Frotestant divines, and the sterner sorrow of an Italian Catholic cenobite, turn we to the wild despair of the Hebrew Rabbis: — “ Peruit consilium! Computruit sapientia nostra! Oblivioni traditse sunt leges nostra! Multte etiam corruptelce, et errores, ceciderunt in Legem nos- trum sanctam! ” (188) But Kennicott substantiates that the disorderly condition of the Hebrew Tv St, and its multitudinous vitiations, resile from the works, or are lamented in the language, of all claimants to biblical knowledge for 1700 years previously to the Rabbis and himslf; equi- valent to 1730 prior to De Rossi. Here is a skeleton of his list, omitting citations: — “Justin Martyr, died a. d. 165—Tertullian, 220 — Clemens Romanus, 102—Origen, 254- Eusebius Csesarienensis, 840 — Eusebius Emisenus, flourished 350 — Ephraim Syrus, died 378 — Hieronymus, 420.” We pause to illustrate. 1st. King James’s version. — Paul, Galatians, iii. 13: — “for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” [The English of the Greek passage in Griesbach't text is, apud Sharpe, “(for it is written; cursed is every one that is hanged on a tree„•)”]. (185) Introduzione alia Sacra ScriUnra; Parma, 1817; pp. 34, 47. (186) Compendio; ch. iv. p. 7; and pp. 9-22. De Rossi furthermore proves these positions in his “ Specimen Variarum Lectionum Sacri Textus”; Rome, 1782. (187) Analysis; 2d edit.; 1830; i. p. 277. (188) Hebrew edition of 1751; the preface, cited in Dissert. Generalis ; p. 27.