A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 3

the sake of argument, that each slip in translation, each error in
detail and each oversight in statement, with which Canon Lightfoot
reproaches Supernatural Religion were well founded, it must be
evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of such a work would not
really be affected; such flaws--and what book of the kind escapes
them--which can most easily be removed, would not weaken the central

argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has been exerted to the
utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of Supernatural Religion would
not be made one whit more secure. It is, however, because I recognise
that, behind this skirmishing attack, there is the constant insinuation
that misstatements have been detected which have "a vital bearing"
upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked" which are of serious
importance, and omissions indicated which change the aspect of
reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once to reply. I shall
endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to sap the strength of
my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the weakness of his own.
Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has the "misfortune" "to
dispute not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed in
maintaining." He will probably find that "most critics," for their part,
will not consider it a very great misfortune to differ from a divine who
has the misfortune of differing on so many points, from most critics.
The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words "say
they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of a
passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to
what "the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom,
and he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: "In
addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears to
have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a note

on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the Elders'
may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of interpretation;"
[4:2] and then follows the passage in which the indirect construction
receives a specific direction by the insertion of "they taught." [4:3]
Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the slightest allusion to
the fact that they are almost alone in advancing this testimony, which
Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital bearing on the main question
at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel." The reader who had not the
work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the justness of the ascription of
this passage to Papias, and who was not acquainted with all the
circumstances, and with the state of critical opinion on the point, could
scarcely, on reading such statements, understand the real position of the
case.
Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the
suggestion to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour,
and no one whom I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps
Professor Hofstede de Groot, now seriously supports this view. Zeller,
[5:1] in his celebrated treatise on the external testimony for the fourth
Gospel, argued against Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction
of the passage, there is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not
himself interpolate the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed
the fact that there is no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work.
Anger, [5:2] discussing the evidence of the presbyters quoted by
Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers to this passage in a note with marked
doubt, saying, that fortasse (in italics), on account the chiliastic tone of