The Gospel of St. John E-Book

J. B. Lightfoot

• Herausgeber: IVP Academic
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Serie: The Lightfoot Legacy Set
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Seitenzahl: 761

Beschreibung

Preaching's Survey of Bibles and Bible Reference award InterVarsity Press is proud to present The Lightfoot Legacy, a three-volume set of previously unpublished material from J. B. Lightfoot, one of the great biblical scholars of the modern era. In the spring of 2013, Ben Witherington III discovered hundreds of pages of biblical commentary by Lightfoot in the Durham Cathedral Library. While incomplete, these commentaries represent a goldmine for historians and biblical scholars, as well as for the many people who have found Lightfoot's work both informative and edifying, deeply learned and pastorally sensitive. In addition to the material on the Acts of the Apostles, published in volume one, there were detailed notes on the Fourth Gospel, a text that Lightfoot loved and lectured on frequently. These pages contain his commentary notes for John 1-12. Lightfoot had long wanted to write a commentary on the Gospel of John, but he was unable to do so due to more pressing demands on his time, as well as his respect for his colleague B. F. Westcott. As a result, though he continued to compile notes on the text, they never saw the light of day until now. Included alongside the commentary are Lightfoot's long out-of-print essays on the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel. Now on display for all to see, these commentary volumes reveal a scholar well ahead of his time, one of the great minds of his or any generation.

Leseprobe

J. B. Lightfoot

The Gospel of St. John

A Newly Discovered Commentary

The Lightfoot Legacy set

Volume 2

Edited by

Ben Witherington III

and Todd D. Still

Assisted by

Jeanette M. Hagen

Figure 1. Bishop Lightfoot's Bookplate

Quotations Regarding J. B. Lightfoot and His Work

“His editions and commentaries . . . as well as his critical dissertations have an imperishable value, and even where it is impossible to agree with his results, his grounds are never to be neglected. The respect for his opponent which distinguishes him . . . has brought him the highest respect of all parties. . . . There never has been an apologist who was less an advocate than Lightfoot. . . . He [was] an independent, free scholar . . . in the absolute sense of the words. He has never defended a tradition for the tradition’s sake. But how many times, when the tradition was previously defended inadequately and so threatened to lose its reputation, has he saved the tradition with sweeping reasons!”1

Adolf von Harnack

“In the great bulk of his literary work Bishop Lightfoot depended entirely on his own labours. He never employed an amanuensis; he rarely allowed anyone else even to verify his references. The only relief which he would accept was the almost mechanical correction of the proof/sheets of the new editions, as they were called for, of his Epistles of St Paul.”2

H. E. Savage

“His lectures on the Greek New Testament were distinguished not only by their ability but also by their spiritual power. A pupil who attended one of the earliest courses remarks: ‘I remember well how much the class was impressed, when, after giving us the usual introductory matter, Lightfoot closed the book and said, “After all is said and done, the only way to know the Greek Testament properly is by prayer” and dwelt further on this thought.’ ”3

The Cambridge Review

“We are glad to be able to hope, from hints which have from time to time reached the public ear, that a large portion of the whole field was covered by Dr. Lightfoot’s labours, and that some of the MSS. which are in the care of his literary executors will in due course be published; for even if they are only posthumous fragments, the student . . . will thankfully welcome them.”

Anonymous obituary to Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, 1890

To all the doctoral students past and present who have studied under the remarkable scholars who have taught in Durham’s theology department over the last century.

Contents

Abbreviations

Foreword

Editors’ Introduction: J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator

Introduction: External and Internal Evidences of the Authenticity and Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel

The Commentary on John

Excursus: The Logos Doctrine

The Prologue and the Preparation; the Word and the Witness (John 1)

Excursus: Evidence of the Authenticity and Authorship of This Gospel

The Beginning of the Signs of the Messianic Times (John 2)

Excursus: The Chronology of St. John and the Synoptists

Nicodemus and the New Birth (John 3)

The Samaritan Woman and the Courtier’s Child (John 4)

A Sabbath Healing and the Aftermath (John 5)

Bread on Earth, Bread from Heaven (John 6)

Jesus the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7)

Excursus: The Question of the Authenticity of John 7:53–8:11

Jesus the Light and Abraham the Forefather (John 8)

Jesus and the Man Born Blind (John 9)

The Good Shepherd and His Lost Sheep (John 10)

The Raising of Lazarus and the Plotting of the Foes (John 11)

An Annoying Anointing (John 12)

Appendix A: External Evidence for the Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel

Appendix B: More Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John’s Gospel

Appendix C: Lightfoot and German Scholarship on John’s Gospel

Author Index

Scripture Index

Praise for The Gospel of St. John

Notes

About the Author

The Lightfoot Legacy Set

More Titles from InterVarsity Press

Abbreviations

Biblical Versions

א*

Original text of the Codex Sinaiticus

A/al.

Codex Alexandrinus

Arm.

Armenian

A.V.

Authorized Version

B

Codex Vaticanus

B.M.T.

Byzantine Majority Text

C

Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus

C*

Redaction of Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus

Δ

Codex Sangallensis 48

D

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis

E

Codex Basilensis

Ethiop.

Ethiopian

E.V.

English version

G

Codex Seidelianus I/Codex Harleianus

Goth.

Gothic

H

Codex Wolfii B

Harcl.

Harclean Syriac

K

Codex Cyprius

L

Codex Regius

Lact.

Lactantius

Lat.

Latin

M*

Codex Campianus

Memph.

Memphis

Peshit.

Peshitta

Symach.

Symmachus

Syr.

Syriac

Teb.

Tebtunis

T.R.

Textus Receptus

Vulg.

Vulgate

X

Codex Monacensis

Ancient Authors and Works

Aelian

An.

De natura animalium

Aeschylus

Sept.

Septem contra Thebas

Ambrose

Ep(ist).

Epistulae

Comm. in Luc.

Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam

Apost(l). Const(it).

Apostolic Constitutions

Aristot.

Aristotle

Rhet.

Rhetoric

Aristophanes

Vesp.

Vespae

Augustine

c. Faust.

Contra Faustum Manichaeum

de conj. adult

.

De adulterinus conjugiis

Op.

De opera monachorum

Sermo.

Sermones

Basil

ad Eunom.

Adversus Eunomium

B.T.

Babylonian Talmud

Can. Mur.

Canon Muratoni

Chron. Pasch.

Chronicon Paschale

Cicero

Prov. Cons.

De provinciis consularibus

Clem. Hom.

Clementine Homilies

Clem. Recog(n).

Clementine Recognitions

Clement of Alexandria

Quis div. salv.

Quis dives salvetur

Strom.

Stromata

Cyprian

Adv. Jud.

Adversus Judaeos

(Pseudo-Cyprian)

Epist.

Epistulae

Demosthenes

Phorm.

Pro Phormio

Dionysius Areopagiticus

de eccles. hierarch.

De ecclesiastica hierarchia

Ephraem

Haer

.

Against Heresies

Epiph.

Epiphanius

De mens. et pond.

De mensuris et ponderibus

Haer.

Adversus haereses

Hom.

Homilies

Erub.

ʿ

Erubim

1 Esdr

1 Esdras

Eusebius of Caesarea

Chron.

Chronicon

Demonstr. Evang

.

Demonstratio evangelica

Hist. Eccles.

Historia ecclesiastica

Onam(astic)./Onom.

Onomasticon

Praep. Ev(ang).

Praeparatio evangelica

Fabricius

Cod. Apoc. N. T.

Johann Albert Fabricius,

Codex Apocryphus Novi Testameni

Gregory of Nyssa

Cant.

In Canticum Canticorum

Eunam.

Contra Eunomium

Heliod.

Heliodorus

Hippol.

Hippolytus

c. Noet.

Contra haeresin Noeti

Haer./Refut.

Refutatio omnium haeresium

Ign.

Ignatius

Eph(es).

Epistle to the Ephesians

Magn.

Epistle to the Magnesians

Phil(ad).

Epistle to the Philadelphians

Polyc.

Epistle to Polycarp

Rom.

Epistle to the Romans

Smyrn.

Epi

s

tle to the Smyrnaeans

Trall.

Epistle to the Trallians

Iren.

Irenaeus

Jerome

Matth./Comm. in Matt.

Commentariorum in Matthaeum

Vir. Ill(ustr).

De viris illustribus

Josephus

Ant.

Antiquitates judaicae

Bell. Jud.

Bellum judaicum

c. Apion.

Contra Apionem

Vit.

Vita

Justin

Apol.

Apology

Dialog./Dial. Trypho

Dialogue with Trypho

Lactant.

Lactantius

Inst.

Divinarum institutionum

1 Macc

1 Maccabees

Mart. Polyc.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Orac. Sybll.

Oracula Sibyllina

Orest.

Euripides,

Orestias

Origen

Comm. in John.

Commentarii in evangelium Joannis

c. Celsum

Contra Celsum

Philastrius

Haer.

Diversarum Hereseon Liber

Philo

Fragm.

Fragments

de cherub

.

De cherubim

de. Confus. Ling.

De confusione linguarum

de Festo Cop.

De festo cophini

de Migra. Abr.

De migratione Abrahami

de Poster. Ca.

De posteritate Caini

de Spec. Leg.

De specialibus legibus

Flacc.

In Flaccum

Leg. All.

Legum allegoriae

quod omn. prob.

Quod omnis probus liber

Plato

Gorg.

Gorgias

Sympos.

Symposium

Tim.

Timaeus

Plautus

Asinar.

Asinaria

Pliny the Elder

Nat. Hist./H. N.

Naturalis historia

Plutarch

de Alex.

Alexander

Moral.

Moralia

Pomp.

Pompeius

Pseudo-Ignatius

Philadel.

Epistle to the Philadelphians

Ruinart

Sanhed(r).

Sanhedrin

Seneca

Epistl.

Epistulae morales

Shepherd of Hermas

Mand.

Mandates

Sim.

Similitudes

Vis.

Visions

Sir

Sirach

Suetonius

Jul.

Divus Julius

Vesp.

Vespasianus

Syncellus

Chron.

Chronicle of Theophanes

Tacitus

Hist.

Historiae

Tertull.

Tertullian

adv. Hermos

Adversus Hermogenem

adv. Judaeos

Adversus Judaeos

adv. Marc.

Adversus Marcionem

Adv. Prax.

Adversus Praxean

de carn Chr.

De carne Christi

de praescr./Praescr. Haer.

De praescriptione haereticorum

de pud.

De pudicitia

Test. Twelve. Pat. Levi

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi

Theod. Mops.

Theodore of Mopsuestia

praef. in Epist. ad Ephesos

Preface to the

Commentary on Ephesians

Theodoret

H(aer). F(ab).

Haereticarum fabularum compendium

Theophilus

ad Autol.

Ad Autolycum

Vict. Ant.

Victor of Antioch

ap. Cramer Cat. in Marc.

John Cramer,

Catena in Marcum

Wis. Sol.

Wisdom of Solomon

Xenophon

Anab.

Anabasis

Mem.

Memorabilia

Modern Sources and Persons

Alford

Henry Alford,

The New Testament for English Readers

, 4 vols. (London: Rivingtons, 1866)

Anc. Syr. Documents

Ancient Syrian Documents

Assem.,

Bib. Or

.

Assemani,

Bibl. Orient

.

Bengel

Johannes Bengel

Boeckh,

C. I. G.

Philipp August Boeckh,

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum

Bretschneider,

Lex.

Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider,

Lexicon manuale Graeco-Latinum in libros Novi Testamenti

BSHST

Basler Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie

Bunsen

Hippolytus

C. J. Bunsen,

Hippolytus and His Age

(1852)

A. Buttmann

Alexander Buttmann

Cave

William Cave,

Primitive Christianity

Clinton,

Fast. Rom

.

Henry Fynes Clinton,

Fasti Romani

Cotelier,

Patr. Apost

.

Jean-Baptiste Cotelier,

Patres Apostolici

Credner,

Canon

Carl August Credner,

The History of the Canon of the New Testament

Cureton,

Spicileg. Syr

.

William Cureton,

Spicilegium Syriacum

Cureton,

Anc. Syr. Documents

William Cureton,

Ancient Syrian Documents

Ewald

W. H. A. Ewald,

Kritische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache

(1827)

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte

Gesenius

W. Gesenius,

Hebräisches u. Chaldäisches Handwörterbuch

(1812)

Lightfoot

Hor. Heb

.

John Lightfoot,

Horae Hebraicae

Lipsius,

de Grace

Justus Lipsius,

De Grace

Meyer

H. A. W. Meyer

Migne,

Pat. Graec.

see

PG

PG

Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca

. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 162 vols. (Paris, 1857–1886)

PTS

Patristische Texte und Studien

Renan,

Vie de Jesus

Ernest Renan,

The Life of Jesus

(London: Trübner & Co., 1864)

Robinson

Armitage Robinson

Scrivener,

Collatio Cod. Sinait.

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener,

Collations of the Codex Sinaiticus

Smith’s Dictionary

William Smith,

Dictionary of the Bible

Stud. und Krit.

Studien und Kritiken

Tisch./Tischendorf

Constantin von Tischendorf

Tregelles

S. P. Tregelles,

Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament

(1854)

Trench (

Syn

./

New Testament Synon.

)

R. C. Trench,

Synonyms of the New Testament

, 9th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1880)

Trench,

Miracles

R. C. Trench,

Notes on the Miracles of our Lord

(1883)

Turpie

The Old Testament in the New

(1868)

Westcott,

Canon

B. F. Westcott,

A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament

(1855; revised 1875)

Westcott,

Introd. to the Gospels

B. F. Westcott,

Introduction to the Study of the Gospels

(1860; revised 1866)

Wettstein

J. J. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum manuscript (1751)

Winer

G. B. Winer,

Grammatik des N.T. Spachidioms und Biblisches Realworterbuch

Zahn,

Ignatius

Theodore Zahn,

Ignatius of Antioch

Miscellaneous

A.U.C.

Ab urbe condita

Comp. fol.

Compare folio

l.c.

loco citato

LXX

Septuagint

MS/MS.

manuscript

sq./sqq.

the following one(s)

t.r.

textus receptus

v.l.

varias lectiones

Foreword

In 1978, I was in the Durham Cathedral cloister visiting the Monk’s Dormitory that then, as now, served as a display room for important artifacts and manuscripts. It was also something of an archival library. I was a young doctoral student of Charles Kingsley Barrett and had already come across the name of J. B. Lightfoot on various occasions. Indeed, I had bought a reprint of his classic Philippians commentary while I was still in seminary in Massachusetts several years earlier. While perusing the various display cases, I came across an open notebook that displayed Lightfoot’s comments on a notoriously difficult passage in Acts 15, and I wondered whether more of this sort of meticulous exegetical material existed, written in Lightfoot’s own hand, somewhere else in that library.

Naturally, I was interested, since there were no publications by Lightfoot that directly dealt with Acts, and certainly no commentaries by Lightfoot on Acts. I mentioned this discovery to Professor Barrett, who himself was an admirer of J. B. Lightfoot. In fact, in the early 1970s he had written a Durham University Journal article in which he praised Lightfoot as arguably the foremost scholar of the New Testament of his era.1 Somehow, however, nothing more happened in regard to this matter, and in truth, I forgot about it.

I mentioned in passing seeing this material some years later to Professor J. D. G. Dunn, who was then (the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity) at Durham University. Still, nothing more came of it. Yes, there was a celebration of the centennial of Lightfoot’s death in 1989, planned and organized by the tireless efforts of Professor Dunn, that produced a fine special issue of the Durham University Journal, published in 1990, with various articles about the legacy of Lightfoot.2 There was even a fine monograph done by G. R. Treloar on Lightfoot as a historian.3 Although it was clear that Treloar had read and studied some of Lightfoot’s unpublished work on Acts, the primary sources had not been completely read or studied, much less published.

On my sabbatical in the spring of 2013, when I was scholar-in-residence in St. John’s College at Durham University, I decided to try and see just what Lightfoot materials might still be gathering dust in the Cathedral library. I must confess, I was not prepared for what I found. There, in the Monk’s Dormitory in a tall bookcase—whose lower compartment was crammed with Lightfoot files, folders, letters, pictures, inkwells and more—sat not only three brown notebooks of Lightfoot’s detailed exegetical lectures on Acts numbering over 140 pages, but also a further gigantic blue box full of hundreds of pages of additional Acts materials, including a lengthy excursus on the authenticity of the Stephen speech. But even that was not all.

There was also a whole blue box full of hundreds of pages of Lightfoot’s exegetical studies on the Gospel of John, lectures on 2 Corinthians two notebooks on 1 Peter, and finally a further notebook of Lightfoot’s reflections on early Judaism. All were in Lightfoot’s own hand, all done in great detail and none of it, except the first four or five pages of the introduction to Galatians contained in the first Acts notebook (which Kaye and Treloar excerpted and published in a Durham University Journal article in the 19904), has ever been published—until now.5

It is important to say at this juncture that this material would still be unpublished were it not for (1) the capable help of the Durham Cathedral Library staff, especially Catherine Turner (now retired) and Gabrielle Sewell; (2) the hard work of a current doctoral student at the University of Durham, Jeanette Hagen, who did some of the painstaking work reading and transcribing this material, as well as Andy Stubblefield, who made the indexes; (3) the generosity of Asbury Seminary, Baylor University (through an Arts and Humanities Faculty Development Program Grant administered by the office of the vice provost of research) and Willard J. Still, who helped to pay for the digitalization and transcription of these materials; and (4) our friends at InterVarsity Press, in particular Andy Le Peau, Jim Hoover, Dan Reid and David Congdon, who saw the value of letting this material see the light of day so it might provide valuable help for our understanding of the New Testament, help from an unexpected quarter.6

From where exactly did this material come? The answer is from Lightfoot’s lecture notebooks. When Lightfoot served as fellow (1851), Hulsean Professor of Divinity (1861) and Lady Margaret’s Professor (1875) at Cambridge University, he gave several series of lectures on Acts, the Gospel of John, 1 Peter and 2 Corinthians (among other subjects). The first Acts notebook, which also includes notes on Galatians, begins with these words—“Lenten Term, 1855.” Over time, as he continued to lecture on these great New Testament texts, Lightfoot would revise his lectures, further annotate them, change his mind on a few things and add things.

When Lightfoot became bishop of Durham in 1879, he brought all of his Cambridge work on the New Testament, and much else, with him. This is how these materials eventually came into the possession of the Durham Cathedral Library. Lightfoot had been lecturing on Acts and John and other parts of the New Testament for more than twenty years when he left Cambridge for Durham, and the impression one gets from these unpublished manuscripts is that, having already published commentaries on Galatians (1865), Philippians (1868), and Colossians and Philemon (1875), Lightfoot’s views on Acts, John, 2 Corinthians and 1 Peter were mostly formed by the time he came to Durham. Indeed, one finds in these same Acts notebooks some of the materials that went into Lightfoot’s Galatians commentary and his fragmentary commentaries on certain Pauline letters (namely, Romans, the Corinthian and Thessalonian correspondences, and Ephesians).7

Our hope is that these materials will be as rewarding for you in your reading and studying as they have been for us. To be sure, it is an honor to work on these long-lost manuscripts from a great exegete and historian who set in motion a long line of great New Testament scholars in Durham. Scholars who, like Lightfoot, left their mark in Durham include Lightfoot’s contemporary and friend B. F. Westcott as well as Alfred Plummer, William Sanday, H. E. W. Turner, C. K. Barrett, C. E. B. Cranfield, J. D. G. Dunn, J. M. G. Barclay, Stephen Barton and Francis Watson. These are but a few of those who have followed in the footsteps and in the tradition of Lightfoot, focusing on detailed historical, exegetical and theological study of the text. This volume, and the one to follow, continue that Durham legacy and contribution to New Testament scholarship.

Ben Witherington III

St. John’s College, Durham, England

Pentecost 2013

Todd D. Still

Baylor University/Truett Seminary, Waco, Texas

Advent 2013/Epiphany 2014

Editors’ Introduction

J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator

No one could match Lightfoot for “exactness of scholarship, width of erudition, scientific method, sobriety of judgment and lucidity of style.” 1

William Sanday

“No one ever loitered so late in the Great Court that he did not see Lightfoot’s lamp burning in his study window, though not many either was so regularly present in morning Chapel at seven o’clock that he did not find Lightfoot always there with him.” 2

Bishop Handley C. G. Moule

Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–1889) was in many ways ideally suited to be a commentator on the New Testament. He had mastery of at least seven ancient and modern languages (German, French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, Classical Greek, Koine Greek, and the Greek of the church fathers) and a good working knowledge of many others, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic and Coptic. Some of these languages he taught himself. It was clear enough from early on that Lightfoot had a gift for languages. He once asked a friend whether he did not find it to be the case that one forgets what language one is reading when one becomes absorbed in a text!3 There have been precious few biblical scholars over time that could have candidly made such a remark about so many different languages.

Lightfoot also had a keen interest in history and understood its importance for the study of a historical religion such as Christianity. He was a critical and perspicuous thinker and writer with few peers in any age of Christian history. Furthermore, Lightfoot was able to devote himself to the study of the New Testament in ways and to a degree that few scholars before or since his time have been able to do, not least because he never married and had no family for whom to care.4 Yet when we look at the list of his publications, we may be somewhat surprised that there are not more works of biblical exegesis. Here is a list of his works that were first published in the nineteenth century.

Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians

(London: Macmillan, 1865)

Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians

(London: Macmillan, 1868)

S. Clement of Rome

(London: Macmillan, 1869)

Fresh Revision of the English New Testament

(London: Macmillan, 1871)

Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon

(London: Macmillan, 1875)

Primary Charge

(London: Macmillan, 1882)

The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp

, 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1885–1889)

Essays on Supernatural Religion

(London: Macmillan, 1889)

The Apostolic Fathers, Part 1, S. Clement of Rome

, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1890)

Cambridge Sermons

(London: Macmillan, 1890)

Leaders in the Northern Church

(London: Macmillan, 1890)

Ordination Addresses

(London: Macmillan, 1890)

Apostolic Fathers Abridged

(London: Macmillan, 1891)

Sermons Preached in St. Paul’s

(London: Macmillan, 1891)

Special Sermons

(London: Macmillan, 1891)

The Contemporary Pulpit Library: Sermons by Bishop Lightfoot

(London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1892)

Dissertations on the Apostolic Age

(London: Macmillan, 1892)

Biblical Essays

(London: Macmillan, 1893)

Historical Essays

(London: Macmillan, 1895)

Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublished Commentaries

(London: Macmillan, 1895)

Compare this to the inventory created by B. N. Kaye after inspecting everything the Durham Cathedral Library had in handwritten script by Lightfoot:

Lecture notes on Acts

Lecture notes on Ephesians

Script on the destination of Ephesians (published in

Biblical Essays

)

Lecture notes on 1 Corinthians 1:1–15:54

Lecture notes on 1 Peter

Internal evidence for the authencity and genuineness of St. John’s Gospel (printed in

Biblical Essays

)

External evidence for the authenticity and genuineness of St. John’s Gospel (printed in

Biblical Essays

)

External testimony for St. John’s Gospel (rough notes worked up in

Biblical Essays

)

Second set of notes on internal evidence (printed in

The Expositor

[1890])

Notes on introduction to John and John 1:1–12:2

Notes on introduction to Romans and Romans 1:1–9:6 and a separate set of incomplete notes briefly covering Romans 4–13

Notes on Thessalonians

Preliminary text for William Smith’s

Dictionary of the Bible

article

Chronology of St. Paul’s life and epistles

The text of St. Paul’s epistles

St. Paul’s preparation for the ministry

Chronology of St. Paul’s life and epistles (printed in

Biblical Essays

)

The churches of Macedonia (printed in

Biblical Essays

)

The church of Thessalonica (printed in

Biblical Essays

)

Notes on the genuineness of 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Unlabeled notes on the text of 1 and 2 Thessalonians

From even a cursory comparison of these two lists, several things become apparent: (1) There is a good deal of material on Acts, John, Paul and 1 Peter that never saw the light of day; and (2) Lightfoot wrote as much, and as often, for the sake of the church and its ministry and about the church and its ministry as he did on subjects of historical or exegetical interest. But where had Lightfoot gained all his knowledge and erudition? What sort of education and what teachers produced such a scholar and churchman?

The Grooming of a Scholar

C. K. Barrett reminds us that Lightfoot in the first instance gained his skills as a commentator on the Bible from studying at King Edward’s School in Birmingham under James Lee Prince. Such study gave him a thoroughgoing training in both Greek and Latin, with wide reading in classical literature and history. When Lightfoot went to study at Trinity College, Cambridge, he worked with B. F. Westcott, who was three years his senior. In 1851 he took the Classical Tripos and came out as a Senior Classic.5 Barrett relates the well-known story that Lightfoot wrote his tripos exam without a single mistake, which Barrett thinks refers to his work on the language parts of the exam. Afterward, Lightfoot was elected to a fellowship at Trinity and went on to teach languages to other students at Trinity. In his “spare” time he was learning theology and reading the Apostolic Fathers.6

At the tender age of thirty-three, Lightfoot was named Hulsean Professor of Divinity and was the mainstay of the faculty there, even with the addition of Westcott and Hort. Of his lectures in Cambridge, F. J. A. Hort reports,

They consisted chiefly, if not wholly, of expositions of parts of books of the New Testament, and especially of St. Paul’s Epistles, with discussions and leading topics usually included in “Introductions” to these books. Their value and interest were soon widely recognized in the university, and before long no lecture-room then available sufficed to contain the hearers, both candidates for holy orders and older residents; so that leave had to be obtained for the use of the hall of Trinity.7

His commentaries on what we now call the later Pauline letters (Philippians, Colossians and Philemon) as well as on Galatians began to come out in the 1860s, but it is clear that already in the 1850s, based on his Cambridge lecture notes, which we can now inspect, that Lightfoot had already sorted out his view of Acts and its relationship to the Pauline corpus as well as Pauline chronology. He had also done extensive work on the Gospel of John and 1 Peter. Indeed, we find some of his Galatians commentary in the same notebook as his lecture notes on Acts. In other words, Lightfoot’s previously unpublished work on Acts, John, 1 Peter and some of Paul’s letters was produced when he was at the height of his powers and commentary-writing ability. These heretofore unpublished are often as detailed as the published commentaries and are from the same period of Lightfoot’s life.

If we ask why some of this material was not published during Lightfoot’s lifetime, the answer is ready to hand—it is incomplete. None of these unpublished manuscripts were full commentaries on the books in question. But there are further reasons why Lightfoot did not publish his voluminous materials on Acts and John. As Barrett notes, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort had agreed to divide up the New Testament among them and to write commentaries on each book.8 Lightfoot was tasked with treating the Pauline corpus, not the Gospels, Acts or 1 Peter.9 Furthermore, the last of his published commentaries (on Colossians and Philemon) came out less than four years before Lightfoot became bishop of Durham in 1879, a work in which he became almost totally absorbed for the rest of his life, which proved to be ten years.10 Regarding Lightfoot’s commentary work, Hort remarks:

Technical language is as far as possible avoided and exposition, essentially scientific, is clothed in simple and transparent language. The natural meaning of each verse is set forth without polemical matter. The prevailing characteristic is . . . good sense unaccompanied by either the insight or delusion of subtlety. Introductions, which precede the commentaries, handle the subject-matter with freshness and reality, almost every section being in effect a bright little historical essay. To each commentary is appended a dissertation, which includes some of Lightfoot’s most careful and thorough work.11

There was one gargantuan academic project Lightfoot continued to work on even after he became bishop—his monumental and groundbreaking studies on the apostolic fathers, though he mostly only found time to work on this project during holidays and while traveling.

There are vivid descriptions of Lightfoot being found in a boat or railway carriage with an Armenian or Coptic grammar in hand or calmly correcting proofs while being driven down precipitous paths in Norway. . . . But above all the secret lay in his ability to switch off, giving himself totally to what was before him. As his chaplain [J. R. Harmer] put it . . . “His power of detachment and concentration was extraordinary. I have seen him break off from an incomplete sentence for a momentous interview with one of his clergy, give him his undivided and sympathetic attention followed by the wisest counsel and final decision, and almost before the door was closed upon his visitor become once more absorbed in his literary work.”12

Lest we worry that in later life Lightfoot went off the boil as he labored away on the apostolic fathers, Stephen Neill assuages such concern. “If I had my way,” Neill maintains, “at least five hundred pages of Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers would be required reading for every theological student in his first year. I cannot imagine any better introduction to critical method, or a better preparation for facing some of the difficult problems of New Testament interpretation that yet remain unsolved.”13

There was probably, however, another reason why Lightfoot never published his work on John and Acts. His friend, colleague and original Cambridge mentor B. F. Westcott was producing a commentary on John. Lightfoot would likely have regarded it as bad form to publish something that competed with his colleague’s work, especially when they had already agreed regarding the division of labor when it came to the New Testament. Furthermore, his other colleague F. J. A. Hort was scheduled to do Acts.

Turning to another academic matter, we learn early on what kind of man Lightfoot was when it came to collegiality. Having become Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge at the remarkably young age of thirty-three, when the Regius Professorship of Divinity became open in 1870, it was assumed that he would take it. But when Lightfoot learned that Westcott would be returning to Cambridge after fulfilling an ecclesiastical assignment, he turned down the post so that it might be given to Westcott.

Lightfoot used all his influence to induce his friend Westcott to become a candidate and resolutely declined to stand himself. After Lightfoot’s death, Dr. Westcott wrote, “He called me to Cambridge to occupy a place which was his own by right; and having done this he spared no pains to secure for his colleague favorable opportunities for action, while he himself withdrew from the position which he had so long virtually occupied.”14

This speaks volumes about the character of the man.

Instead of becoming Regius Professor, five years later Lightfoot accepted the Lady Margaret’s chair. As such, Lightfoot focused on his exegetical work, work that went into his lectures. These labors remained largely unknown after he died, since they were mostly unpublished. In fact, Lightfoot never fully revised any non-Pauline materials into commentary form since there was neither time nor opportunity to do so once he became bishop of Durham. Then, he died prematurely.

So it was that these invaluable Cambridge New Testament notes of Lightfoot remained unpublished. They were presumably first moved to Bishop Auckland Palace (the residence of the bishop of Durham) when Lightfoot moved to Durham. Following his death, they were transported to the Durham Cathedral Library.15 There, they have barely seen the light of day since 1889, with only a handful of scholars and clerics even reading a small part of these materials over the last 150 years.16 We trust that these Lightfoot volumes will remedy this regrettable neglect.

Lightfoot’s Method

Lightfoot learned early on about the value of writing out one’s thoughts about the Scriptures. He once advised: “Begin to write as soon as you possibly can. That was what Prince Lee [his headmaster at King Edward’s, Birmingham] always said to us. This is the way to learn. Almost all I have learnt has come from writing books. If you write a book on a subject, you have to read everything that has been written about it.”17

As Robinson stresses, “One turns back with relief to his patient, inductive method after so many of the pre-judgments and unexamined assumptions of form- and redaction-criticism. . . . Lightfoot would have been horrified to think that serious scholarship could by-pass the historical questions or suppose they could be settled a priori by the theological.”18This is because Lightfoot believed wholeheartedly that nothing could be theologically true that was historically false when it comes to matters involving a historical religion such as Christianity.

If we ask about Lightfoot’s particular modus operandi with respect to commentary writing, his approach is basically the same inductive method: (1) Establish the text by dealing with the text-critical issues, including the textual variants. (2) Offer necessary grammatical and syntactical notes and discussions. (3) Proceed with exegesis proper. For Lightfoot, this sometimes entailed long excursi on special topics and more exegetically problematic matters as well as translations of key phrases into English. (4) Deal with theological issues and larger topics that might involve several New Testament documents.

Lightfoot assumed that his audience would know enough Greek and scholia to be able to figure out his elliptical references to parallels in other Greek texts and the like as well as his brief (and sometimes infrequent) footnotes referencing the work of other scholars. “The permanent value of Lightfoot’s historical work depends on his sagacity in dealing with the materials out of which history has to be constructed. He was invariably faithful to a rigorous philological discipline, and was preserved by native candor from distorting influences.”19

It may be asked at this juncture, What is the value of this material today, since many good commentaries on Acts, John, 2 Corinthians and 1 Peter have been written since the time of Lightfoot? The answer to this question is twofold. First, there is Lightfoot’s encyclopedic knowledge of early Greek literature, a knowledge that is probably unequaled to this day by any subsequent commentator on the New Testament.20 As Barrett points out, Lightfoot did not have, nor did he need, a lexicon to find parallels to New Testament Greek usage. As a close look at his Galatians commentary shows: “He knows Origen, Ephraem Syrus, Eusebius of Emesa, Chry­sostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Euthalius, Gennadius, Photius, Victorinus, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, Cassiodorus, John of Damascus,” not to mention all the pagan Greek literature and later catenae of Greek and Latin sources.21 Lightfoot was a walking lexicon of Greek literature of all sorts, and not infrequently he was able to cite definitive parallels to New Testament usage that decided the issue of the meaning of a word or a phrase.

Second, as Dunn notes, time and again Lightfoot “clearly demonstrates the importance of reading a historical text within its historical context, that the meaning of a text does not arise out of the text alone, but out of the text read in context and that the original context and intention of the author is a determinative and controlling factor in what may be read or heard from such a text. . . . Lightfoot would certainly have approved a referential theory of meaning: that that to which the language of the text refers determines and controls the meaning of the text.”22

This approach is sorely needed today as commentators increasingly dismiss or ignore the importance of original-language study and of the original historical context of a document, or who try to do “theological interpretation” of the text without first having done their historical homework to determine the original contextual meaning of the text, whether theological in character or not. It may be hoped that this series of volumes will revive an interest in the full gamut of subjects relevant to the study of the New Testament, not least ancient history, including social history; the classics; a precise knowledge of Greek, including its grammar and syntax and rhetoric; and, of course, the theology and ethics of the material itself. Doubtless Lightfoot himself would be pleased if this were one outcome of the publication of his long-lost exegetical studies on the New Testament.23

Finally, this commentary shows exactly the way Lightfoot approached his study of the New Testament—carefully, prayerfully and, in his own words, with “the highest reason and the fullest faith.” Not one or the other, but both. Time and again Lightfoot’s intellect and his piety shine through in these lost manuscripts. He shows us repeatedly that faith and reason need not be at odds with each other, especially if it is fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”). Honesty about early Christianity and its Lord need not be feared by a person of Christian faith, whether then or now. Taken for what it is, this commentary will not merely “tease the mind into active thought” (a phrase made famous by C. H. Dodd, a Cambridge man like Lightfoot)24 but also nourish the soul.

Lightfoot and the Gospel of John

If there was one commentary J. B. Lightfoot most wanted to write and publish, it was a commentary on the Gospel of John. There were many reasons for this hope and inclination. First of all, Lightfoot regularly lectured on this Gospel at Cambridge and knew the literature on it well. He loved teaching this material and thought it exceedingly important for understanding the real character of early Christian thought. He once remarked that while the Synoptics presented the facts about the Jesus of history, John’s Gospel presented the profound commentary.

Second, for much of his career Lightfoot was deeply concerned about the negative impact of the radical criticism of early Christianity, especially criticism of the historical trustworthiness of documents like the Gospel of John, emanating from the successors of F. C. Baur at Tübingen in his own day. Lightfoot was too much of a historian and too much of an apologete for Christian orthodoxy to be silent for long about the sort of cannonading that resounded all the way to the United Kingdom from the Tübingen school.

And besides, he read critically and took seriously German scholarly works to a degree seldom seen in nineteenth-century British biblical scholarship. He was the ideal person to attempt a deconstruction of the “new” edifice erected by Baur and others. It is clear that what radical critics were saying about Lightfoot’s favorite Gospel struck a nerve. You do not write two hundred or so pages defending the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospel of John if you are not exercised about the subject and motivated to present a different view—especially to the views then making inroads all across Europe.25

In view of all this, why exactly did all those detailed Cambridge lectures notes on the background and text of the Gospel of John never see the light of day before now? One reason, already noted above, was that Lightfoot’s sometime mentor, colleague at Cambridge and friend B. F. Westcott was writing such a commentary.

Nevertheless, I can say now with some assurance that he continued to work on John throughout the period he was at Cambridge, beginning with the Michaelmas term in 1848, when he first began teaching the Gospel of John, and continuing until 1879, when he was “called up North.” I say this for three primary reasons: (1) Lightfoot’s notes on John are more fulsome than his notes on some of the material in the other two volumes of this series. (2) His notes on John are in several different inks and in some cases in pencil, signaling ongoing work. This is clear because although the original date at the beginning of the manuscript is 1848, we have, for example, a comment on John 7:35 with an article title and author penciled in from 1853. What is interesting is that only rarely is anything crossed out, indicating Lightfoot had later changed his mind on something. And (3) Lightfoot was convinced that the Gospel of John was the most important Gospel theologically, chronologically and historically for a whole host of reasons, not least its clarity on the doctrine of the incarnation. In times when the authenticity and veracity of the Gospel of John were being challenged both at home (by the author of Supernatural Religion and others) and abroad (by the successors of F. C. Baur), Lightfoot strongly felt that his Cambridge students, especially the divinity students, needed a hearty sampling of the Gospel meat served up by the Beloved Disciple, and he was going to be sure they did not miss that meal. The massive amount of work he did on authenticity and genuineness of John (see appendix A and appendix B below) reveals Lightfoot’s protracted commitment to vindicating the Gospel.

Thus Lightfoot continued to work on this Gospel time and again, revising his notes and updating his references. Perhaps he hoped for a day when all of his material on the Gospel might see the light of day, once Westcott’s commentary had “had a good innings,” as cricketers would say. These notes come from before and during the period Westcott was working on John, and unfortunately they were never published, until now. If Lightfoot did have a hope that one day this rich material would emerge into the light of day, we are delighted to be able to fulfill that hope, even if this commentary is born out of due season. As it turned out, the Cambridge commentary series did not get very far. No other volumes on the Gospels emerged other than the one by Westcott, and Lightfoot himself did not finish the work on the Pauline epistles. There were two other matters pressing in on him.

The first of these is that Lightfoot was convinced the big issue when critiquing the Tübingen approach to early Christianity was history. Baur developed, and his successors built on, a particular interpretation of the first four centuries of early Christianity according to which neither the New Testament nor the apostolic fathers could be taken at face value historically. These texts had to be read critically and with a certain degree of skepticism when it came to Geschichte as well as Historie.

While Lightfoot agreed that critical analysis was required, he did not think that the highest reason necessarily led to a radical deconstruction of the nature and character of Jesus, the New Testament and early Christianity.26 As a historian, Lightfoot became convinced that he needed to present a very different picture of early Christianity, which in turn led him to focus on providing a definitive critical edition and commentary on the apostolic fathers. To counter the influence of the Tübingen school, one needed to provide better readings not only of the New Testament but also of the earliest successors to the original apostles—the apostolic fathers. To this latter task Lightfoot devoted most of his time and academic attention in the 1870s and 1880s. Indeed, he was still working on revisions of a later edition of his Clement volume just before he died prematurely in 1889.27

Lightfoot’s election as bishop of Durham in 1879 left him no time to write more biblical commentaries. He had previously turned down an offer to take up episcopal office elsewhere in Britain, but when the chance to “go up North” came, from where various of his ancestors and in particular his mother (who was from Newcastle) had come, he simply could not refuse it. With the exception of his work on the apostolic fathers, from 1879 on his time was consumed with ministerial duties. He even turned down opportunities to lecture (something he loved to do) at Durham. But there are ways for the dead to continue to address us. One way is by publishing their lost, misplaced, forgotten or long-out-of-print works that are still of enormous value. Lightfoot’s commentary on John is one such lost treasure.28

Introduction

External and Internal Evidences of the Authenticity and Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel

The Author Explains Himself1

This lecture originally formed one of a series connected with Christian evidences, and delivered in St George’s Hall in 1871. The other lectures were published shortly afterwards; but, not having been informed beforehand that publication was expected, I withheld my own from the volume. It seemed to me that in the course of a single lecture I could only touch the fringes of a great subject, and that injustice would be done by such imperfect treatment as alone time and opportunity allowed. Moreover I was then, and for some terms afterwards, engaged in lecturing on this Gospel at Cambridge,2 and I entertained the hope that I might be able to deal with the subject less inadequately if I gave myself more time. Happily it passed into other and better hands [i.e., Westcott’s], and I was relieved from this care.

A rumor got abroad at the time, and has (I am informed) been since repeated, that I did not allow the lecture to be published, because I was dissatisfied with it. I was only dissatisfied in the sense that I have already explained. It could not be otherwise than unsatisfactory to bring forward mere fragmentary evidence of an important conclusion, when there was abundant proof in the background. The present publication of the lecture is my answer to this rumor. I give it after eighteen years exactly in the same form in which it was originally written, with the exception of a few verbal alterations. Looking over it again after this long lapse of time, I have nothing to withdraw.

Additional study has only strengthened my conviction that this narrative of St. John could not have been written by any one but an eye-witness.3 As I have not dealt with the external evidence except for the sake of supplying a statement of the position of antagonists, the treatment suffers less than it would otherwise have done from not being brought down to date. I have mentioned by way of illustration two respects in which later discoveries had falsified Baur’s contentions. The last eighteen years would supply several others. I will single out three: (1) The antagonists of the Ignatian Epistles are again put on their defense. The arguments which were adduced against the genuineness of these epistles will hold no longer. Ignatius has the testimony of his friend and contemporary Polycarp, and Polycarp has the testimony of his own personal disciple Irenaeus. The testimony of Irenaeus is denied by no one; the testimony of Polycarp is only denied because it certifies the Ignatian letters. Before we are prepared to snap this chain of evidence rudely, and to break with an uninterrupted tradition, we require far stronger reasons than have been hitherto adduced; (2) Justin Martyr wrote before or about the middle of the second century. His use of the Fourth Gospel was at one time systematically denied by the impugners of its apostolic authorship. Now it is acknowledged almost universally, even by those who do not allow that this evangelical narrative was written by St. John himself; (3) The Diatessaron of Tatian was written about A.D. 170, and consisted of a ‘Harmony of Four Gospels.’ Baur and others contended that at all events St. John was not one of the four. Indeed how could it be? For it had not been written, or only recently written, at this time. The Diatessaron itself has been discovered, and a commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon it in Armenian has likewise been unearthed within the last few years, both showing that it began with the opening words of St. John. [1889]

External Evidence for John’s Authenticity Briefly Reviewed

The fourth of our canonical Gospels has been ascribed by the tradition of the Church to St. John the son of Zebedee, the personal disciple of our Lord, and one of the twelve apostles. Till within a century (I might almost say, till within a generation) of the present time, this has been the universal belief, with one single and unimportant exception, of all ages, of all churches, of all sects, of all individuals alike. This unanimity is the more remarkable in the earlier ages of the Church, because the language of this gospel has a very intimate bearing on numberless theological controversies that started up in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Christian era; and it was therefore the direct interest of one party or other to deny the apostolic authority, if they had any ground for doing so. This happened not once or twice only, but many times.

It would be difficult to point to a single heresy promulgated before the close of the fourth century, that might not find some imaginary points of coincidence or some real points of conflict, some relations whether of antagonism or of sympathy, with this gospel. This was equally true of Montanism in the second century, and of Arianism in the fourth. The Fourth Gospel would necessarily be among the most important authorities, we might fairly say the most important authority, in the settlement of the controversy, both from the claims which it made as a product of the beloved apostle himself, and from the striking representations which it gives of our Lord’s teaching. The defender or the impugner of this or that theological opinion would have had a direct interest in disproving its genuineness and denying its authority. Can we question that this would have been done again and again, if there had been any haze of doubt hanging over its origin, if the antagonist could have found even a prima facie ground for an attack?

And this brings me to speak of that one exception to the universal tradition to which I have already alluded. Once, and once only, did the disputants in a theological controversy yield to the temptation, strong though it must have been.

A small, unimportant, nameless sect, if indeed they were compact enough to form a sect, in the latter half of the second century, denied that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by St. John. These are the two canonical writings which especially attribute the title of the Word of God, the Logos, to our Lord: the one, in the opening verses, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’; the other, in the vision of Him who rides on the white horse, whose garments are stained with blood, and whose name is given as the ‘Word of God.’4 To dispose of the doctrine they discredited the writings.

Epiphanius calls them Alogi, ‘the opponents of the Word,’ or (as it might be translated, for it is capable of a double meaning) ‘the irrational ones.’ The name is avowedly his own invention. Indeed they would scarcely have acknowledged a title which had this double sense, and could have been so easily turned against themselves. They appear only to disappear. Beyond one or two casual allusions, they are not mentioned; they have no place in history. This is just one of those exceptions which strengthen the rule.

What these Alogi did, numberless other sectaries and heretics would doubtless have done, if there had been any sufficient ground for the course. But even these Alogi lend no countenance to the views of modern objectors. Modern critics play off the Apocalypse against the Gospel, allowing the genuineness of the former, and using it to impugn the genuineness of the latter. Moreover there is the greatest difference between the two. The modern antagonist places the composition of the Fourth Gospel in the middle or the latter half of the second century; these ancient heretics ascribed it to the early heresiarch Cerinthus, who lived at the close of the first century, and was a contemporary of St. John. Living themselves in the latter half of the second century, they knew (as their opponents would have reminded them, if they had found it convenient to forget the fact) that the Gospel was not a work of yesterday, that it had already a long history, and that it went back at all events to the latest years of the apostolic age; and in their theory they were obliged to recognize this fact. I need hardly say that the doctrine of the Person of Christ put forward in the Gospel and the Apocalypse is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Cerinthus, as every modern critic would allow. I only allude to this fact, to show that these very persons, who form the single exception to the unanimous tradition of all the churches and all the sects alike, are our witnesses for the antiquity of the Gospel (though not for its authenticity), and therefore are witnesses against the modern impugners of its genuineness.

With this exception, the early testimony to the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospel is singularly varied. It is a remarkable and an important fact, that the most decisive and earliest testimony comes, not from Fathers of the orthodox Church, but from heretical writers. I cannot enter upon this question at length, for I did not undertake this afternoon to speak of the external evidence; and I ask you to bear in mind, that any inadequate and cursory treatment necessarily does a great injustice to a subject like this; for the ultimate effect of testimony must depend on its fullness and variety. I only call attention to the fact that within the last few years most valuable additions have been made to this external testimony, and these from the opposite extremes of the heretical scale.

At the one extreme we have Ebionism, which was the offspring of Judaizing tendencies; at the other, Gnosticism, which took its rise in Gentile license of speculation and practice. Ebionism is represented by a remarkable extant work belonging to the second century, possibly to the first half of the second century, the Clementine Homilies. The greater part of this work has long been known, but until within the last few years the printed text was taken from a MS mutilated at the end; so that of the twenty Homilies the last half of the nineteenth and the whole of the twentieth are wanting. These earlier Homilies contained more than one reference to gospel history which could not well be referred to any of the three first evangelists, and seemed certainly to have been taken from the fourth. Still the reference was not absolutely certain, and the impugners of St. John’s Gospel availed themselves of this doubt to deny the reference to this gospel.

At length, in the year 1853, Dressel published for the first time, from a Vatican MS., the missing conclusion of these Homilies; and this was found to contain a reference to the incidents attending the healing of the man born blind, related only by St. John, and related in a way distinctly characteristic of St. John—a reference so distinct, that no one from that time has attempted to deny or to dispute it. So much for the testimony of Ebionism, of the Judaic sects of early Christianity. But equally definite, and even more full, is the testimony which recent discovery has brought to light on the side of Gnosticism. Many of my hearers will remember the interest which was excited a few years ago by the publication of a lost treatise on heresies, which Bunsen and others ascribed (and, as is now generally allowed, correctly ascribed) to Hippolytus, in the earlier part of the third century. This treatise contains large and frequent extracts from previous Gnostic writers of diverse schools—Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians; among them, from a work which Hippolytus quotes as the production of Basilides himself, who flourished about A.D. 130–140. And in these extracts are abundant quotations from the Gospel of St. John. I have put these two recent accessions to the external testimony in favor of the Fourth Gospel side by side, because, emanating from the most diverse quarters, they have a peculiar value, as showing the extensive circulation and wide reception of this gospel at a very early date; and because also, having been brought to light soon after its genuineness was for the first time seriously impugned, they seem providentially destined to furnish an answer to the objections of recent criticism.

If we ask ourselves why we attribute this or that ancient writing to the author whose name it bears—why, for instance, we accept this tragedy as a play of Sophocles, or that speech as an oration of Demosthenes, our answer will be, that it bears the name of the author, and (so far as we know) has always been ascribed to him. In very many cases we know nothing, or next to nothing, about the history of the writing in question. In a few instances we are fortunate enough to find a reference to it, or a quotation from it, in some author who lived a century or two later. The cases are exceptionally rare when there is an indisputable allusion in a contemporary, or nearly contemporary, writer. For the most part, we accept the fact of the authorship, because it comes to us on the authority of a MS. or MSS. written several centuries after the presumed author lived, supported in some cases by quotations in a late lexicographer, or grammarian, or collection of extracts. The external testimony in favor of St. John’s Gospel reaches back much nearer to the writer’s own time, and is far more extensive than can be produced in the case of most classical writings of the same antiquity.

From the character of the work also, this testimony gains additional value; for where the contents of a book intimately affect the cherished beliefs and the practical conduct of all who receive it, the universality of its reception, amidst jarring creeds and conflicting tendencies, is far more significant than if its contents are indifferent, making no appeal to the religious convictions, and claiming no influence over the life. We may be disposed to complain that the external testimony is not so absolutely and finally conclusive in itself that no door is open for hesitation, that all must, despite themselves, accept it, and that any investigation into the internal evidence is superfluous and vain.

But this we have no right to demand. If it is as great, and more than as great, as would satisfy us in any other case, this should suffice us. In all the most important matters which affect our interests in this world and our hopes hereafter, God has left some place for diversity of opinion, because He would not remove all opportunity of self-discipline. If then the genuineness of this gospel is supported by greater evidence than in ordinary cases we consider conclusive, we approach the investigation of its internal character with a very strong presumption in its favor. The onus probandi rests with those who would impugn its genuineness, and nothing short of the fullest and most decisive marks of spuriousness can fairly be considered sufficient to counterbalance this evidence.

As I proceed, I hope to make it clear that, allowing their full weight to all the difficulties (and it would be foolish to deny the existence of difficulties) in this gospel, still the internal marks of authenticity and genuineness are so minute, so varied, so circumstantial, and so unsuspicious, as to create an overwhelming body of evidence in its favor. But before entering upon this investigation, it may be worthwhile to inquire whether the hypotheses suggested by those who deny the genuineness of this gospel are themselves free from all difficulties. For if it be a fact (as I believe it is) that any alternative which has been proposed introduces greater perplexities than those which it is intended to remove, we are bound (irrespective of any positive arguments in its favor) to fall back upon the account which is exposed to fewest objections, and which at the same time is supported by a continuous and universal tradition.