Exactly 143 years ago to the day, America's paper of record (aka The New York Times) published a review of a recently published introduction to a Greek New Testament by two Cambridge scholars named Westcott and Hort. It is not signed and my online source (ProQuest) does not give an author, but your best guesses are welcome in the comments.
Pure guesses might include Ezra Abbott, Caspar Rene Gregory, or Philip Schaff.
ReplyDeleteSchaff was my first guess too but I wonder if it’s too salty for him.
DeleteToo salty and too sloppy. I doubt that Philip Schaff would have mistaken "textus receptus" for "textus preceptus".
DeleteThose were the days of manual typesetting (the linotype had not yet been invented). Just as with the "Green" typo, "preceptus" is more likely the fault of the typesetter and not the writer.
DeleteYes, preceptus must be a typo. But "pagan Green texts," with or without the capital letter, could refer to Druids and such.
DeleteS. D. F. Salmond?
ReplyDeleteSalmond is a mere guess. But one could compare the earlier NYT article on the text volume, Dec. 26, 1881 (is this the previously "expressed" opinion?). And Salmond in Catholic Presbyterian, June 1882, p. 414ff and Sept. 1882, p. 206.
Deleteis "pagan Green texts" in the second-last paragraph simpy a typo or did I miss some kind of 19th century joke?
ReplyDeleteB.B. Warfield?
DeletePeter, you have mail.
ReplyDeleteEasier to digest this way, and much better fit to submit to linguistic comparison programs
Dr Hort's comments on the lack of evidence of falsification for doctrinal purposes, or to quote a British phrase "more cock-up than conspiracy", are just as pertinent today. “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this most interesting piece.