A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 5

too carefully avoided any indication as to who says "that there
is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what was possible to attract
attention to the actual indirect construction, a fact which must have
been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly trained schoolboy." I
doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, the commencement
of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, but actually
inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên diastolên
tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the
construction. That I did not myself mistake the point is evident, not
only from this, but from the fact that I do not make any objection to the
translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, beyond condemning the
unmarked introduction of precise words, and that I proceed to argue
that "the presbyters," to whom the passage is referred, are in no case
necessarily to be associated with the work of Papias, which would have
been mere waste of time had I intended to maintain that Irenaeus

quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation made to me regarding
my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had been misunderstood,
and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately withdrew the note
which had been interpreted in a way very different from what I had
intended, and at the same time perceiving that my argument was
obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which Dr. Lightfoot has
made such eager use, I myself at once recast it as well as I could within
the limits at my command, [8:1] and this was already published before
Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared, and before I had any knowledge of
his articles. [8:2]
With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he has
warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted to
point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high authorities
of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own. [9:2]
My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was
derived from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is
not a quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting
these words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from
the Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing
nothing more than the exegesis of his own day.
The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with a
discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage from
Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:

"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that
Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been
'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him as a
contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does
not say 'Celsus has promised,' but 'Celsus promises ([Greek:
epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's
knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he
does not say 'If he has not fulfilled his promise to write,' but 'If he did
not write as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
nor 'If he has commenced and finished,' but 'If he _commenced and
finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with the
earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the triumphant
exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here "an elaborate
argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey a totally wrong
impression of the case.
The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
[10:3] and to avoid anticipation