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.
DeleteEzra Abbot (not Abbott) appears to be a better guess than some others. He was favorable to the text criticism and was several times mentioned in "Arrivals at the Hotels" in the New York Times.
DeleteCompare, e.g., Abbot
Deletea) "its necessary explanation"--Sunday School Times
b) "necessity...explanation"--New York Times
Plus, Abbot could be "salty."
pagan Greek
DeleteHaving re-read the sharp comments regarding Burgon in Abbot's posthumously published "The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and other Critical Essays," I am quite convinced that Abbot is the author of the NY Times review in question.
DeletePutting aside my stupidity about Green/Greek, I share the view of Maurice A. Robinson that Abbot is the author of the NY Times review in question. (Further indications may be forthcoming, if needed.)
DeleteThe author of "New Testament Criticism" (about the American edition of W-H's second volume) in NYT 1882-02-2, page 3, col 2, refers to the review of Schaff's edition of W-H's tekst volume in NYT 1881-12-26, page 3, cols 1-3.
DeleteIn 1882 he wrote about this first volume: "... which has already been explained in these columns". And earlier: "In reviewing ... we expressed the opinion ...". So both reviews are from the same author, I suppose.
When we compare the Abbot's review of Schaff's W-H volume 1 in the Sunday School Times of 1881-11-5 with the review in NYT 1881-12-26, can we really be sure these reviews are from the same author Abbot?
https://archive.org/details/sim_new-york-times_1881-12-26_31_9454
https://archive.org/details/sim_new-york-times_1882-02-20_31_9502
Subject to correction (and hoping some may read my "Qumran-Related History" publication):
DeleteThe NYT probably had no so-well-informed on staff reviewer, but as {RSV} reviewer, Abbot was. And non-US ones (e.g., Salmond) are less likely.
Warfield may have ben too inerrantist to qualify.
Schaff to review Schaff?
Gregory to diss English usage of Hort?
I asked Harvard archive (never-mind Cambridge for now) about this--low priority surely.
Or, who else?
In The Presbyterian Review, no. 10-April 1882, pp. 325-356, is an interesting review of the W-H Greek NT.
Deletehttps://books.google.nl/books?id=93Xfh2P3DIIC
From this review it is clear that the young Warfield is positive about the work of the Drs. Westcott and Hort and certainly negative about the Quarterly Reviewer (= Dean Burgon).
Qualifications of Burgon's arguments are "salty": beneath the dignity of scholarship; laughable weakness.
Elements from Warfield's review are four years later inserted in his "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament".
Clearly, Warfield is not an advocate of the inerrancy of the Textus Receptus (or in Burgon's words Traditional Text).
Admittedly, my why-not-Warfield sentence was poor.
DeleteBut, as to why-Abbot, in addition to the "explanation" example above, and the fact that Abbot is mentioned more often in the NYT than "young" Warfield, there is the fact that Abbot's Sunday School Times publications on Westcott and Hort *predate* the NYT articles.
S. 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 this of interest?
DeleteIn the Catholic Presbyterian S.D.F. Salmond is calling W-H "Messrs. Westcott and Hort". In the NYT it is: "Drs. Westcott and Hort".
"Drs." is also used by Warfield. See p. 208 of his An Introduction ..., 1886 (https://archive.org/details/introductionto00warf/page/208/mode/2up ).
Well spotted, Teunis, and perhaps diagnostic, if not due to an editor.
DeleteAlso, how about Basil Gildersleeve?
is "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.
No doubt the corruption "Green" was due to the influence of the preceding, nu-final "pagan". If NYT-30 is ever published, I hope this reading is emended.
ReplyDelete