A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 6

of the point, I promise to give the
passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself by
Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick of his
precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words in a way
of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments as follows:
"But here again we have to do with nothing else than a completely
abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's poverty. For the
assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen rests upon gross
ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words of Origen to his
patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition of the
whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes

widerlegten Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen,
worin u.s.w.' 'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines
Versprechens nicht geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es
uns mit diesen acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben.
Wenn er aber auch jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has
undertaken and completed_], 'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es,
damit wir auch darauf antworten,'" &c. [11:1] Now this translation of
Tischendorf is not made carelessly, but deliberately, for the express
purpose of showing the actual words of Origen, and correcting the
version of Volkmar; and he insists upon these tenses not only by
referring to the Greek of these special phrases, but by again contrasting
with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2] Whatever disregard of
tenses and "free handling" of Origen there may be here, therefore, are
due to Tischendorf, who may be considered as good a scholar as Dr.
Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.
Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent
of this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point is
only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than my
own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the
reasons. In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard
that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is
the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against
Christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats
him as a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others
assert, on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date; but,
on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus

attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their
authors, which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the
reality of Divine Revelation.
I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot interest
the readers of this Review. I