Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion | Page 4

indicative,
or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so
he boldly translates [Greek: einai tên diastolên] as though it were
[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: hê diastolê], and
[Greek: eirêkenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eirêken ho
Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to
persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and
between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our
author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view by
several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own remarks,
because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto], though in
every instance the indicative and not the infinitive is used. To complete
this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr Westcott with what
'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],' because this scholarly
writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to show that in the original
the sentence containing the reference to St John is in the oblique
narrative and therefore reports the words of others [5:4]. I shall not

retort this charge of 'falsification,' because I do not think that the cause
of truth is served by imputing immoral motives to those from whom we
differ; and indeed the context shows that our author is altogether blind
to the grammatical necessity. But I would venture to ask whether it
would not have been more prudent, as well as more seemly, if he had
paused before venturing, under the shelter of an anonymous publication,
to throw out this imputation of dishonesty against a writer of singular
candour and moderation, who has at least given to the world the
hostage and the credential of an honoured name. It is necessary to add
that our author persists in riveting this grammatical error on himself.
He returns to the charge again in two later footnotes [6:1] and declares
himself to have shown 'that it [the reference to the Fourth Gospel] must
be referred to Irenæus himself, and that there is no ground for
attributing it to the Presbyters at all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit
the uncertainty [6:2].' As it will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute
not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it
is somewhat reassuring to find that they are quite indifferent to the
most elementary demands of grammar [6:3].
The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in the
preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this person had
been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first book again
he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is disposed to
identify him with a person of the name known to have flourished about
a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close of the last book
[7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him the work, and
at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he writes (or rather,
he is represented by our author as writing) as follows:--
'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise
after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a

second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to
his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and finished this work
also, seek it and send it in order that we may answer it also, and confute
the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]
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, for 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]) [7:4]. Thus Origen's language itself here points to a past
epoch, and is in strict accordance with