A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 4

the passage, it may, as Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias;
but in the text he points out the great caution with which these
quotations from "the presbyters" should be used. He says, "Sed in usu
horum testimoniorum faciendo cautissime versandum est, tum quod,
nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab Irenaeo memoriter repetuntur, tum quia
hic illic incertissimum est, utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an
presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer, [5:3] who refers to the passage,
remarks that it is doubtful whether these presbyters, whom he does not
connect with Papias, derived the saying from the Gospel or from
tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it merely to abandon the passage

as evidence connected with Papias, and only claims the quotation, in an
arbitrary way, as emanating from the first half of the second century.
Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the translator of Tischendorf's work
into Dutch, and his warm admirer, brings forward the quotation, after
him, as either belonging to the circle of Papias or to that Father himself.
Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly separates the presbyters of this passage from
Papias, and asserts that they may have lived in the second half of the
second century. Luthardt, [6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on
the fourth Gospel, does not attempt to associate the quotation with the
book of Papias, but merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus
was indebted for it formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias
belonged. Zahn [6:2] does not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson,
while arguing that "it is impossible to show that the four (Gospels)
were current as early as A.D. 150," refers to this passage, and says: "It
is precarious to infer with Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his
account of the presbyters from Papias's book, or that the authority of
the elders carries us back to the termination of the apostolic times;" and
he concludes: "Is it not evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word
'elders') loosely, without an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3]
In another place Dr. Davidson still more directly says: "The second
proof is founded on a passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing
to give an account of the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a
disciple of the Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the
Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is
equally uncertain whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of
the quotation, and whether that Father did not insert something of his
own, or something borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the
text of the Gospel." [6:4]
With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the external
evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in discussing the
question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do apologetic writers
like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, Thiersch, or
Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, Gfrörer, Lücke,
and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, although many of
them directly endeavour to refute the article of Zeller, in which it is
cited and rejected, and all of them point out so indirect an argument for

his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of Eusebius that Papias
made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on neither side is the
passage introduced into the controversy at all; and whilst so many
conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with the fourth
Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of apologetic critics is,
that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. Those who go further and
urge the supposed use of the Epistle as testimony in favour of his also
knowing the Gospel would only too gladly have produced this passage,
if they could have maintained it as taken from the work of Papias. It
would not be permissible to assume that any of the writers to whom we
refer were ignorant of the existence of the passage, because they are
men thoroughly acquainted with the subject generally, and most of
them directly refer to the article of Zeller in which the quotation is
discussed.
This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All that I
suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there is
anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of Dr.
Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what I objected
to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But although I
perhaps