Appendix D: The Obituary/Homage to Lightfoot
Notes
Quotations
F. J. A. Hort, “Lightfoot, Joseph Barber,” in The Dictionary of National Biography, ed. L. Stephen (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1885), 33:238. Hort wrote the biographical entry on Lightfoot.
Adolf von Harnack, review of Essays in Biblical Greek by Edwin Hatch, Theologische Literaturzeitung 15, no. 12 (1890): 298. Cf Hort, “Lightfoot,” pp. 239-40.
G. R. Eden and F. C. Macdonald, eds., Lightfoot of Durham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), p. 110.
Cited by Eden and Macdonald, Lightfoot of Durham, p. 13.
Foreword
C. K. Barrett, “Joseph Barber Lightfoot,” Durham University Journal 64 (1972): 193–204.
Professor Dunn edited this special edition of the journal, which includes articles by David M. Thompson on Lightfoot as a churchman, Martin Hengel on Lightfoot’s interaction with the Tübingen school on the Gospel of John and the second century, C. K. Barrett on Lightfoot as a biblical commentator, and James D. G. Dunn on the contributions of Lightfoot to church and academy.
G. R. Treloar, Lightfoot the Historian: The Nature and Role of History in the Life and Thought of J. B. Lightfoot, Wissenschafthche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).
B. N. Kaye and G. R. Treloar, “J. B. Lightfoot and New Testament Interpretation: An Unpublished Manuscript of 1855,” Durham University Journal 82 (1990): 160–75 (on 171–75).
There are a few other exceptions to this remark: (1) The appendices in this volume were previously published in periodicals and dictionaries but have long since been out of print and are in the public domain, and (2) Lightfoot’s essays on the authenticity of the Gospel of John, examining both the external and internal evidence, were published, but not his exegesis of John. These essays were first published posthumously by Macmillan in 1893. Baker republished them in 1979 with a fresh introduction by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes under the title Biblical Essays. We have re-presented here just one of the twelve essays in that volume, the essay about Paul’s fate after the events chronicled in Acts. (BW3)
The editors would also like to express their gratitude to Ben Snyder of Asbury Seminary for his help in compiling the list of abbreviations and to Andy Stubblefield of Truett Seminary for creating the indices.
Todd Still joined this ambitious project at the invitation of BW3 in early June 2013. (TDS)
While Lightfoot’s books were divided between Cambridge and Durham after his death (his actual library had been on the shelves in the library of Bishop Auckland Palace), it does not appear that any of his papers and unpublished materials went back to Cambridge. I did some digging during my most recent stint in Cambridge and found nothing there. There might be something in the Trinity College archives, but nothing so far has surfaced. Whatever it may be, if anything, it does not look like it will add to this largesse of unpublished biblical materials. (BW3)
Lightfoot’s comments on these Pauline letters were published posthumously as Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895).
Happily, we have found this long-out-of-print article and have included it in this volume as appendix A. This article attests to the fact that Lightfoot was still working on Acts in the 1880s and, as Hort says, wanted to write a proper commentary on it. (BW3)
Editors’ Introduction: J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator
William Sanday, “Bishop Lightfoot,” The Expositor 4 (1886): 13–29 (on 13). Sanday was also a Durhamite, most well known for producing the International Critical Commentary on Romans with Arthur Headlam.
Lightfoot’s successor (with one in between) as bishop of Durham.
He made this remark to J. R. Harmer. See G. R. Eden and F. C. Macdonald, Lightfoot of Durham: Memorials and Appreciations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 118–19. Apparently, Lightfoot also knew Arabic. It is a great pity that no proper biography has ever been written on Lightfoot. What we have in Lightfoot of Durham is some fond remembrances of the man by a few of the people who knew him. Only a portion of the volume discusses his academic work, and even then only very cursorily. Do see, however, pp. 105–22 and the brief discussions by H. E. Savage and Bishop J. R. Harmer (Lightfoot’s chaplain, secretary and proofreader for some years, before becoming a bishop himself). Note also the essays by the dean of Wells and the bishop of Gloucester (pp. 123–41). Notice that there are no scholars writing essays in this volume. This speaks volumes about Lightfoot’s work for and impact on the church. There is a nice anecdote in appendix D below about how as a boy at school, when someone asked how he was coming along with his German, the reply given from the school was: “Oh he’s mastered German, he’s moved on to Anglo-Saxon!” (BW3)
If one wonders why someone like Lightfoot agreed to take a post like the episcopal seat in Durham after a thriving academic life in Cambridge and after having turned down the chance to be bishop of Litchfield, the answer in part is family connections. He had a great love for the “north” of England, as his mother was from Newcastle and his family on his father’s side was from Yorkshire. He saw it, in one sense, as returning to his ancestral home. (BW3)
A tripos is an exam taken for the BA degree with honors at Cambridge University. (TDS)
C. K. Barrett, “J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” Durham University Journal (1992): 53–70 (on 54).
F. J. A. Hort, “Lightfoot, Joseph Barber,” Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900 (London: Smith, Elder & Co), 33:232–40, on p. 233.
At an earlier point in time, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were meant to write commentaries for the Smith’s Commentary series. Although this plan did not pan out, it is of present import to note that Lightfoot was supposed to have commented on Acts for this series. (TDS)
It was Alexander Macmillan who suggested to Westcott the possibility of a Cambridge commentary on the entire New Testament. Westcott in turn enlisted Lightfoot and Hort for the project, to be based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Until beginning this work on Lightfoot, I had not realized that the original attempt to have a Cambridge Bible Commentary on the whole New Testament had begun with this agreement, although it never came to full fruition. In the 1960s and ’70s, C. F. D. Moule, the relative of the successor of Lightfoot in the Durham episcopacy (H. G. C. Moule), revived the attempt to have a Cambridge Bible Commentary on the Greek New Testament, but it too was destined not to be completed. Indeed, it produced only a couple of notable volumes, C. E. B. Cranfield’s volume on Mark and Moule’s on Colossians and Philemon. This brings us to the turn of the twenty-first century when I, another Durham man, was named editor of the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series, along with my Asbury colleague Bill Arnold, who is the Old Testament editor. This third attempt has now produced volumes on both Old and New Testament books, but there is still much to be done, and more volumes are forthcoming. (BW3)
For example, he became absorbed in training ordinands for the Anglican ministry, in setting up the diocese of Newcastle and in paying for churches to be built.
Hort, “Lightfoot,” 237–38.
John A. T. Robinson, “Joseph Barber Lightfoot” (Durham Cathedral Lecture, 1981), p. 13.
Stephen C. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 57.
Robinson, “Lightfoot,” p. 11.
G. R. Treloar, “J. B. Lightfoot and St. Paul, 1854–65: A Study of Intentions and Method,” Lucas: An Evangelical History Review 7 (1989): 5–34 (here 7–8).
Hort, “Lightfoot,” p. 234.
There are clear indications that Lightfoot revised his Acts notes at least three times: (1) There are two whole sets of lecture notes, one set in three brown notebooks (the earlier ones) and a second set written on loose-leaf sheets and stored in a blue box (the later ones). (2) Within the latter notes, there are two revisions, one in pen and another in pencil. When one reads through all these Acts notes it becomes evident that these are not merely notes intended to support university lectures. They are too detailed (including footnote references to secondary sources) to be just that. No, Lightfoot seems to have been preparing this material for possible future publication. However, he was never able to finish the work. (BW3)
Hort (“Lightfoot,” p. 237) says that Lightfoot’s library was divided between the divinity school at Cambridge and the University of Durham. What he does not tell us is what happened to his papers, letters and unpublished manuscripts. We now know that they stayed in Durham in a cupboard in the Monk’s Dormitory in the Cathedral close.
Barrett (“Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” p. 55) observes, “Three commentaries [i.e. Galatians, Philippians and Colossians] were published in Lightfoot’s lifetime. He left lecture notes, and other notes, on other epistles which doubtless he would have used in published work had he lived, and had his interest not become absorbed in what must be regarded as his greatest work, that on the text of 1 Clement and the Epistles of Ignatius (with 2 Clement and Polycarp thrown in for full measure)—not to mention his conscientious, time-consuming work as bishop of Durham.”
Robinson, “Lightfoot,” p. 13.
Ibid., p. 16.
Hort, “Lightfoot,” p. 239.
The only New Testament scholar I have ever met, studied with or talked to that was even close to Lightfoot in these skills was Bruce Metzger, with whom I studied the apostolic fathers in a summer course at Princeton. He too had a vast panoply of languages at his command as well as an encyclopedic knowledge of Greek and early Christian literature. It appears he had a photographic memory, and one wonders whether Lightfoot did as well. Savage (Lightfoot of Durham, p. 110) seems to confirm this conjecture when he speaks of Lightfoot’s “remarkable accuracy of memory which enabled him to apply it readily. Page after page was written currente calamo with few or no books of reference at hand, and with only a ‘ver.’ here and there in the margin, where future verification was required.” (BW3)
Barrett, “Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” p. 57.
James D. G. Dunn, “Lightfoot in Retrospect,” Durham University Journal (1992): 71–94 (here 75–76), italics added for emphasis.
It is possible that he might be a bit miffed to see all this material published since it is incomplete. Lightfoot was nothing if not a perfectionist when it came to fully completing tasks to the best of his ability. The numerous little parenthical notes to himself to verify a reference or the check marks in the manuscript indicating a reference verified testify to this scholarly habit. Nevertheless, this material, even though incomplete, is extremely valuable, as even a casual reading of what follows should demonstrate. (BW3)
Lightfoot’s treatment of the logos in John 1 will appear in vol. 2 of this series.
C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (New York: Scribner’s, 1961), p. 5.
Part One: Introduction to Commenting in General
I have inserted this heading so that the reader will know the sort of prolegomena that follows in the next few pages. Those looking for Lightfoot’s comments on introductory matters dealing with Acts may proceed to the next section. (BW3)
The transcription of Lightfoot’s own words begins with this sentence.
The first few pages of Lightfoot’s first Acts notebook were previously transcribed by B. N. Kaye and G. R. Treloar and published in the Durham University Journal. See B. N. Kaye and G. R. Treloar, “J. B. Lightfoot and New Testament Interpretation: An Unpublished Manuscript of 1855,” Durham University Journal 82 (1990): 160–75 (on 171–75). The bulk of that article, however, is not a transcript. It is an analysis of Lightfoot’s hermeneutical approach. After having read the handscript of Lightfoot, I made a few minor emendations to their rendering of the first four or so pages of the first brown notebook, but their transcription is largely accurate and is followed here. (BW3)
This is seemingly an allusion to Phil 4:8. (TDS)
See Jas 1:17. (TDS)
This is the later version of Lightfoot’s sentence. The earlier version in the notes reads: “Nor again do I lay much stress on there being a difference of kind, rather than of degree in the two cases. I fear this distinction between difference in kind and difference in degree is in most cases an artificial distinction, appealing to our limited faculties and imperfect knowledge, that in the moral and spiritual as in the physical world, it will be very difficult to draw the line where the one ends and the other begins.” See Kaye and Treloar, “J. B. Lightfoot and New Testament Interpretation,” p. 172n3. They concur that the sentences in this note are the earlier recension of what Lightfoot wrote at this juncture. (BW3)
Kaye and Treloar have “rearing the fabric” here, but this is surely a misreading of what Lightfoot wrote, though I admit his handwriting is sometimes quite difficult to decipher. A fabric cannot be “reared” but it can be “woven” (if cloth were meant) or “raised” (as here, when material construction is meant; cf. the German Fabrik). (BW3)
See 2 Cor 3:6. (TDS)
Here as elsewhere we will be following the Westcott and Hort version of the Greek text, as is only appropriate in a volume on Lightfoot, except where Lightfoot differs.
This earlier version seems more to the point than the later substituted remark: “The passage is a very difficult one no doubt and raises grave questions. But for my purpose it is convincing.”
At this juncture he continues to multiply specific grammatical examples.
This allusion to Mt 15:27 is followed in the subsequent sentence with a reference to Gen 32:22-32. (TDS)
It is not clear which writer from the eighteenth century Lightfoot here has in mind, though he made similar criticisms of his contemporaries A. P. Stanley and B. Jowett. (BW3)
Lightfoot uses “lighteth,” which is no longer an English word. (BW3)
See Jn 1:9. (TDS)
For an example of what Lightfoot might have in mind here, see William Wordsworth’s 1798 poem “The Tables Turned,” which among other lines includes the well-known words: “Books! ’tis a dull and endless strife: / Come, hear the woodland linnet, / How sweet his music! on my life, / There’s more of wisdom in it.” (TDS)
See Acts 25:12.
On Paul’s trial before Agrippa and Festus, see Acts 26.
For this Greek phrase and the ones that follows, see 1 Cor 2:13-14.
Lightfoot adds in parenthesis here the term σαρκικός, but this is probably not the equivalent to the term ψυχικός.
See Jn 7:17.
Part Two: Introduction to Acts—Preliminary Matters
Here and in various other places in these volumes what Lightfoot has given us is detailed notes for lectures coupled with some fully written out paragraphs. The editors have to decide whether to expand the notes into whole sentences or simply leave the notes as notes. Since it seemed better that there be a narrative flow to these volumes, in some places the notes have been turned into full sentences where it was clear what the thrust of the notes was indicating. In other cases, where the handwriting was rather impenetrable or the telegraphic fashion of a note made it difficult if not impossible to decipher, I decided it would be the better part of valor to leave out anything that was truly obscure and did not seem likely to be of major importance to Lightfoot’s case. We have decided to leave the Greek text without the breathing and accents marks where Lightfoot does so because sometimes he follows the standard Greek text of his day in these matters and sometimes he does not. The same applies to the Hebrew vowel pointing. Sometimes he includes it and sometimes not. (BW3)
This remark of course is highly ironic today in view of all the arguments used to support the so-called Majority Text in defense of the KJV English translation of the text. Lightfoot, it will be noted, was part of the team of revisers of the Authorized Version and had no interest in propping up an ancient translation, for instance the 1611 KJV, not well supported by the best textual criticism. (BW3)
What is remarkable about all this is that in an age where precritical approaches to the text of the New Testament were still very common, particularly in the English-speaking world, Lightfoot was fully committed to the principle that text determines canon, that is, that only what was in the original inspired manuscripts should be considered and dealt with as Scripture, hence the need for textual criticism and the need for recovering the earliest possible text. (BW3)
It is worth comparing this introductory material to appendix A in this volume, not least because there we find a fuller expression of Lightfoot’s views on these essential matters of prolegomena.
Lightfoot wrote a splendid article on Acts for William Smith’s second British edition of his Dictionary of the Bible. The original article in that dictionary, which was first published in 1863 in London by John Murray in three volumes, was deemed deficient, and Lightfoot was asked to supply a better article. We are able to provide that full article once more in this volume in appendix A. (BW3)
The Superscript
Nothing is claimed about St. Luke receiving the facts by inspiration.
The Preface
See Rev 1:18: καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
Note Mt 28:20.
And as our Lord refers back to John and his baptism here, so does John carry our thoughts forward to Jesus and His baptism by the Holy Spirit. “I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier than I comes . . . He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Luke 3:16 though the account is not peculiar to this evangelist)—a prophecy which has its fulfillment at least partially and that in a remarkable manner on the day of Pentecost. Observe that the baptism by fire on the day of Pentecost is represented in the Acts as the work of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:33).
“Which be it observed, reminds us strongly of the language and spirit of St. Paul—I mean, that though it is assumed by all the inspired writers, it appears most prominently in the great Apostle of the Gentiles—this personal presence of Jesus in the church.”
See Baumgarten pp. 28–29.
This expansive sentence concludes with an allusion to Rom 8:22 (“creation groaneth and awaiteth in pain”) and a quotation of the last line of the Lord Alfred Tennyson’s famous poem In Memoriam. (TDS)
Ascension, Judas’ Demise, the Filling Up of the Twelve (Acts 1)
Cf. Lk 1:3. (TDS)
See, e.g., Rom 1:16. (TDS)
The GNT says πρὸς, but Lightfoot notes εὶς. (TDS)
The Beginnings and Trials of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 3–6)
See Eph 2:20-21. (TDS)
A citation of Ps 118:23 (LXX). (TDS)
This is a reference to John Lightfoot’s much earlier work, not to J. B. Lightfoot’s. (ΒW3)
It is actually Eph 2:20.
It is a mistake to suppose that the diaconate arose from the synagogue. See further Lightfoot’s Philippians.
cf. Junia s.v. 870.1.
This subject is well treated by Thiersch. Kirchem Geschichte i. p. 73 sqq.
Acts 6:5 states that Stephen was “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου).
Would that Lightfoot had told us how he knew this! (TDS)
The First Martyr for Christ (Acts 7)
The words in parenthesis here are not in the current LXX.
Ex 25:40 (LXX); cf. Heb 8:5. (TDS)
See Ex 25:8 (LXX). (TDS)
The text reads Ἰακώβ but Lightfoot writes Ἰσραήλ. (BW3)
Lightfoot is alluding here to Gal 3:19, which reads in Westcott and Hort διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων. (TDS)
See Acts 7:53. (TDS)
This comparison is between Acts 7:43 and 7:44. (TDS)
Cf. Acts 3:22 with Deut 18:15, 18. (TDS)
Cf. Col 2:17. (TDS)
N.B.: there is quite a lot in this section that is crossed out with pencil.
Cf. Jn 1:11. (TDS)
Note Lk 2:52. (TDS)
Another reference to Jn 1:11. (TDS)
The rest of this page, which expands the allegory or typology, is crossed out.
So 1 Cor 10:2-4. (TDS)
See Acts 7:38. (TDS)
Note Acts 7:44. (TDS)
This lecture was the last Lightfoot was to give in Cambridge. It was given in 1879 in the dining room in Trinity Hall before a hastily assembled multitude of faculty and students. The occasion was that Lightfoot had just accepted the appointment to become bishop of Durham. When one compares the handwriting of this piece with that of the Acts notebooks, it seems clear that this was written with some speed. Nevertheless, it shows Lightfoot as a master of the detailed excursus. (BW3)
Supernatural Religion was published anonymously but ascribed to one Walter Richard Cassells (though he never admitted to writing it). Subsequent responses to Lightfoot’s rebuttals were also published anonymously. Speculation that Cassells was the author really began after Lightfoot’s death, when in 1895 Cassells published a series of theological articles that seemed to resonate with the themes of that book. (BW3)
Here and elsewhere W+H is always the abbreviation for Lightfoot’s two colleagues Westcott and Hort, and their then-new critical edition of the Greek New Testament. In this manuscript we employ the W+H text of the Greek NT that Lightfoot used, except at these points where he corrected their text because he thought them to be mistaken.
The pattern here is clear enough, and Lightfoot’s point is—there is nothing in the Stephen speech that could not have come from reflection on the OT by Stephen himself, particularly reflection on the LXX, nothing that requires the theory that it was derived from elsewhere in the NT, and nothing that requires the thesis that it was an invention of the author of Acts. This is the conclusion to which Lightfoot is driving by providing this vast amount of linguistic data to refute S.R.’s arguments. As the lecture goes on, in places in the original the handwriting became very difficult to read, in some places impenetrable, but the overall thrust and direction of providing all this linguistic data, and the examples cited above, illustrate his argument clearly enough. For those who want to puzzle out some of the additional examples, there are digital images of the Lightfoot pages, now housed in Asbury Seminary Library. Fortunately, the handwriting is clearer as he concludes his lecture by turning around and providing argument in favor of the genuineness of the speech, to which we now turn. (BW3)
In other words, Lightfoot’s point is that the lack of parallels is due to the differences in types of material. It does not necessarily provide evidence that the “author” was freely inventing and composing this material out of whole cloth. (BW3)
He means a philosophically sophisticated audience. (BW3)
Simon, the Samaritans, and Philip (Acts 8)
Note that Lightfoot uses a different word order than that used in Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland 27/28. (TDS)
See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 298 5th ed.
It is perhaps here in this excursus, and to some degree in the one on Stephen’s speech, that we find Lightfoot could have most benefited from this last century of careful study of early Judaism and Gnosticism, for to a considerable degree he is wrong on both counts. Gnosticism probably did not exist in the first century A.D. and probably cannot be traced back to Simon the Magician (and Luke does not suggest it can) and perhaps more importantly the caricature of early Judaism as essentially a religion of heartless and unspiritual formalism and mere ritual is in no way a fair representation of the great diversity and variety we find in early Judaism, as has been shown by, among others, two later Lightfoot Professors at Durham—J. D. G. Dunn and John M. G. Barclay. One can also say that what we now know about first-century Samaritanism does not suggest it was riddled with Gnostic mysticism whatever may have been the case with Simon. To the contrary it seems to have been another temple-centered form of early Judaism with messianic expectations, and its sacred texts were just the books of the Pentateuch, not unlike Sadducean thinking. On this see Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). (BW3)
On this place see Illgen, Zeitschrift, 1841, Fasc. 3, p. 18sq. and Otto.
The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9)
Here is one of the rare places where Lightfoot requires correction, having written Caesarea Philippi by mistake. But in his later notes he does correct himself, saying it is absolutely not Caesarea Philippi, but rather Caesarea Stratonis and cites C+H 1:114n4.
I have noted in these lecture notes a little check mark over a reference from time to time. What this means is that while Lightfoot wrote all of this out from memory, he went back in some cases and double-checked references. (BW3)
Trouble in Zion—Peter Explains (Acts 11)
I.e., in these lectures. But clearly Lightfoot has given himself far more material than the lectures needed here and elsewhere in the manuscript, material he had hoped to form into a commentary. (BW3)
The First Missionary Journey (Acts 13–14)
The Wordsworth of whom Lightfoot speaks here is not William Wordsworth the poet but John Twycoss Christopher Wordsworth, the minister (canon of Westminister). See J. T. C. Wordsworth, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour in the Original Greek: With Notes, part 2, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Rivingston, Waterloo Place, 1857), p. 63. (TDS)
It is detailed references like these, including cross references to Lightfoot’s own commentaries, that strongly suggest Lightfoot was not just writing up lecture notes. We may also have a clue here to a terminus a quo for when he last worked on these notes, for the Colossians commentary came out in 1875 and this reference here suggests it is already in print. (BW3)
Westcott and Hort reads ἔτεσι instead of ἔτεσιν. (TDS)
Stanley actually calls it “the Jewish Church,” but I have altered this for obvious reasons. (BW3)
He is following Westcott and Hort here, cf. the Nestle-Aland GNT.
If you are wondering why Lightfoot belabors this particular text-critical point it is because: (1) he is on the A.V. revision committee and is arguing against the traditionalists who want to strongly support D, and for that matter the “Majority Text,” at numerous points. This should sound familiar to those who even in the twenty-first century hear arguments for the Greek text that is the basis of the kjv; (2) he is quite convinced such arguing on behalf of the Western text of Acts is historically wrong. It does not represent the original text of Acts. (BW3)
It is worth pointing out that it was Archbishop Stephen Langton (1150–1228) who first divided the Bible into chapters and verses, a very long time after the New Testament era. (BW3)
The Apostolic Council and Its Aftermath (Acts 15)
This is a note of Lightfoot to himself to investigate this matter further. He suspects this is true but wants to do more research. (BW3)
There is an interesting note in the margin of the manuscript here—a note from Lightfoot to himself—‘see former notes.’ He is surely referring to his brown notebooks, and so this means he saw these materials as a supplement to all he had done before in preparing to lecture on Acts. This brings up an important point. If one wants to get the full picture of Lightfoot’s views on Acts, it is not enough to go either just through the earlier brown notebooks or the later single leaf blue box materials. The latter is fundamentally not a revision of the former except in small ways of addition; rather it is Lightfoot going through and completing, filling in the gaps. For instance, there is nothing in these blue box pages about Philip and Simon from Acts 8. The episode is entirely skipped over. This is because he had already covered it in detail in his brown notebooks. What we have done in this manuscript is put the pieces together. One final point: I have found not a single place in all these pages where there is evidence that Lightfoot had changed his mind in some major way on some significant issues pertaining to Acts history, grammar, syntax, theology, ethics etc. between the time he began writing the notes in the brown notebooks in 1855 and when he put down his pen in the 1880s after writing some of this material. (BW3)
Here, as throughout the volume, Lightfoot uses the term ‘peculiar’ in its older English sense of ‘unique’ not in the sense of ‘strange’ or even ‘weird.’ (BW3)
Again, this is a note from Lightfoot to himself, wanting to make sure that he is correct about such a statement. (BW3)
In his earlier notes he says, ‘ἀλισγημάτων must be taken either with all the four words which follow or with the first only, probably the latter, for cf. Acts 15:29. The use of the term also in the LXX points to this as the probable construction.’ In pencil he adds later, ‘This was written before I saw Alford’s note.’ (BW3)
In a penciled note he adds, ‘Examine the injunctions to the church at Thyatira (Rev 2:18) with reference to this apostolic letter.’ (BW3)
Lightfoot in his notebook had earlier written: ‘It is not a sufficient account of καὶ οἱ to say that these words were omitted on hierarchial grounds. The probability is they are spurious and were inserted for grammatical reasons. See Bunsen, Hippol. I, p. 15.’ (BW3)
Perhaps an editorial comment will be forgiven at this point. Here, Lightfoot’s argument for the later date of Galatians simply falls apart. Had the Jews who insisted on Gentile circumcision and their never eating nonkosher food shown up in Antioch after the Acts 15 council and after the decree was circulated, it is impossible to understand why Paul didn’t just cite the decree, whether in Antioch or to his Galatians churches, and thereby render the Judaizing argument about Gentiles keeping the law null and void without going through all the polemics we find in the Galatian letter. In Galatians his silence on the decree is pregnant, and he is silent because there has been no resolution of this matter yet in Jerusalem. Galatians dates to the earlier period before that meeting, when Paul was well and truly swimming against the Judaizing tide with no help yet from James or the Jerusalem church. (BW3)
Lightfoot’s notes on 1–2 Thessalonians, along with 1 Corinthians 1–7, Romans 1–7 and Ephesians 1:1-14, were published as Notes of the Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublished Commentaries (New York: Macmillan, 1895). Upon publication of those notes, one reviewer wrote, ‘One of the permanent regrets of New Testament students has been the incompleteness of Lightfoot’s publications upon New Testament books. In many respects the greatest biblical scholar of his own generation in England, and preeminently the defender of the conservative view of the New Testament history and literature, his works are regarded by Christians as nearly authoritative as the work of any single scholar can be’ (so C. V. W., review of J. B. Lightfoot, Notes of the Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublished Commentaries, The Biblical World 6.4 [1895]: 312–13 [on 312]). Subsequent to the publication of the three volumes constituting The Lightfoot Legacy, New Testament scholars (and others) will have a good bit less to regret with regard to the paucity of published commentary by Lightfoot on the New Testament. (TDS)
I have left this in the text, even though Lightfoot later crossed it out. It shows at least that he took very seriously the critical analysis of later church traditions. Apparently, he changed his mind about this tradition. (BW3)
The Second Missionary Journey (Acts 16)
Lightfoot in a parenthesis asks, ‘Why is it called here and at Acts 18:23 “the Galatian and Phrygian region”?’ (BW3)
Macedonia and On to Athens (Acts 17)
Here Lightfoot notes, ‘I cannot find where this reference is in Xenophon, though Wettstein and others cite it.’ Notice again how he does not simply cite the primary sources as found in secondary sources; he checks them against the originals. (BW3)
There are in fact four such altars to be seen in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, on the third floor of the old building where biblical items (like the Gezer calendar, the inscription from Hezekiah’s tunnel, and the warning sign from the Herodian temple) are to be found. (BW3)
And So to Corinth (Acts 18)
A noted rhetorician. (BW3)
The Third Missionary Journey (Acts 19:21–21:39)
We can now answer this question in the negative. It was near neither the theater nor the agora. (BW3)
Conclusions on the Rest of Acts
See the discussions below in appendixes A and C.
Appendix A: Lightfoot’s Article on Acts for Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible
This article by Lightfoot appears to be one of the last pieces he ever wrote on the New Testament itself. While some have conjectured that the piece was written before he became bishop of Durham in 1879, this can hardly be the case since Lightfoot interacts with works within the text itself (not just references in a bibliography that could have been added later by an editor) that were not written before the mid-1880s or so. Lightfoot died in 1889. This article then becomes important not only in itself but also for comparing what we have presented in the commentary, culled from his Cambridge lecture notes from the period from 1855 to 1879. It is a great pity that this article was replaced in the American edition of the second edition of Smith’s work by a much inferior piece and disappears altogether in subsequent editions of the dictionary in the twentieth century, as this article shows in detail Lightfoot’s capacity to argue his case about Acts, dealing with all, or almost all, of the introductory matters that needed to be covered. (BW3)
Using a different verb for go.
A different word for raised is used by Polycarp.
Noting the date of this article is a further clue of when this Lightfoot article was written. (BW3)
In Acts 18:7 the reading is most probably Τιτίου Ἰούστου, though some read Τίτου Ἰούστου, some Τίτου simply, and some Ἰούστου simply (the received reading). At all events the alternative lies between the first and the last, as the variation must have arisen from the addition or omission of the same recurring letters (ONOMATITITIOΥIOΥΣTOΥ). But even if ‘Titus’ were read here, he could hardly be the same person; for he is mentioned here as a Jewish proselyte, and his surname Justus implies that he was an observer of the Mosaic law; whereas the Apostle’s companion Titus had been converted to Christianity before this (Gal 2:1) and is called a ‘Gentile’ without any qualification. Moreover this Justus was a resident of Corinth, whereas St. Paul writing to the Corinthians (2 Cor. l.c.), mentions Titus in such a way as to preclude the supposition that he was one of themselves.
So far as regards St. Peter’s attitude towards the Pauline doctrine of faith and grace, we can only say that the Acts represents him as adopting it (Acts 15:9, 11), just as the Epistle bearing his name (1 Peter 1:5, 9, 13, &c.) adopts it, though not giving it the same special prominence, and as indeed it is distinctly implied that he adopted it in St. Paul’s argument in Gal 2:14.
Except of course for the second advent, final judgment, and restoration of Israel. (BW3)
Baur had previously suggested the idea of this ‘tendency’ in the Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. iii. p. 38sq. 1836.
Appendix B: ‘Illustrations of the Acts from Recent Discoveries’
This article first appeared in the now-defunct journal Contemporary Review 32 (May 1878): 288–96.
Les Apotres, p. xviii.
Les Evangiles, p. 436.
xvii. p. 840.
Sub ann. 46.
See Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. III.i.p. 294sq. Even De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that ‘according to Strabo, Cyprus was governed by propraetors,’ and he therefore supposes that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette’s error stands uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.
Dion Cassius liii.12.
Dion Cassius liv.4.
Q. Julius Cordus and L. Anninus Bassus in Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Graec. 2631, 2632.
Cominius Proclus and perhaps Quadratus; see Akerman’s Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament, p. 39.
Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii.6072, an Ephesian inscription discovered by Mr. Wood.
Corp. Insc. Lat. iii.218.
Cessnola’s, Cyprus, p. 425. [As a side note from one of the editors (BW3), there is an inscription on stone in Pisidian Antioch, now in its museum, which several of us discovered gathering mold and moss in the courtyard of the little museum there, and had the curator move inside. What it shows is a connection between Sergius Paulus on Cyprus and Pisidian Antioch, which may suggest that Paul got a letter of reference from the governor when he went there. On this stone the full name of the Paulii family is found. What this find shows, as does this article by Lightfoot, is that so far as Luke can be checked against the archaeological record he appears to be very accurate indeed, knowing first-century conditions, which must surely count against a second-century date for Acts when things had changed considerably in the provinces of Asia, Galatia and elsewhere.]
Dean Alford indeed (on Acts 13:7) following some previous writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two others—the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen—whom he describes as ‘one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.’ This however is a mistake. A certain inscription mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv.3) and others under the year 94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first time as suffectus, i.e. about about 150. See Marini, Atti e Monumenti de’ Fratelli Arvali, p. 198; Waddington, Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, p. 731.
This person is twice mentioned by Galen de Anat. Admin. i.1 (Op. ii. p. 218 ed. Kuhn) and Op. ii. p. 612. In this latter passage the words stand ‘Σέργιός τε καὶ ὁ Παῦλος’ in Kuhn and other earlier printed editions that I have consulted, but they are quoted Σέργιός τε ὁ καὶ Παῦλος by Wettstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense; for 1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that plainly one person alone is intended. 2) In the parallel passage Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit καὶ ὁ altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi (Euures viii p. 504).
Melito in Eusebius H.E. iv.26: see Waddington, Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, p. 731.
Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Graec. 2954. The first sentence which I have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our day.
Acts 19:37 where ἱεροσύλους is oddly translated ‘robbers of churches.’
Inscr. vi.1 p. 14.
Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. 2972.
Eckhel, Doctr. Num. ii. p. 520. The legend is ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ.ΤΡΙΣ.ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ.ΚΑΙ.ΤΗΕ.ΑΡΤΕΜΙΔΟΣ.
Mionnet, iii. p. 153, Suppl. vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.
Xenephon, Anab. v.3, 6.
Inscr. vi.6 p. 50.
Acts 19:38: ἀγόραιοι ἄγονται καὶ ἀνθύπατοί εἰσιν, translated ‘the law is open, and there are deputies’ in the Authorized Version, but the margin, ‘the court days are kept,’ gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second clause ‘proconsuls’ is a rhetorical plural just as e.g. in Euripides (Iph. Taur. 139). Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for ‘stealing from the land its images and priestesses’ . . . though there was only one image and one priestess.
Inscr. vi.1 p. 38.
Ignatius, Eph. 9.
Inscr. vi. 1 p. 42.
Appendix C: St. Paul’s History After the Close of the Acts
This lecture was originally published posthumously in a collection of biblical essays, which Baker reprinted in 1979 with a fresh introduction by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, though now long out of print. We are happy to re-present this lecture here as a fitting conclusion to this volume’s presentation of Lightfoot’s direct discussion on Acts. (BW3)
Lightfoot is referring to his previous lecture on the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, which suggested to him a setting considerably later than the Captivity Epistles—Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon. Having concluded that these documents are from a later period in Paul’s life, the inference he drew was that Paul must have been set free in around A.D. 62 or so. (BW3)
For the expression, referring to the western extremity of Spain, the pillars of Hercules, comp. Strabo ii.1 (p. 67) . . . ii.4 (p. 106) . . . iii.1 (p. 137) . . . iii.5 (pp. 169-70) . . . and see Strabo’s whole account of the western boundaries of the world and of this coast of Spain. Similarly Veil. Patere 1.2, ‘In ultimo Hispaniae tractu, in extreme nostril orbis termino.’
It is instructive to mention some interpretations by which the force of these words has been evaded: 1) ‘to his extreme limit towards the west’ (Baur, Paulus der Apost. p. 230, Schenkel, Studien und Kriitken, p. 71, Otto, Pastoralbr.), 2) ‘the sunset of his labors’ (Reuss, Gesch. Des N.T. Schrift, p. 124) explained metaphorically, 3) ‘to the boundary between the East and the West’ (Hilgenfeld, Ap. Vot. p. 109, Schrader, Paulus) 4) ‘to the goal or centre of the west’ (Matthies Pastoralbr.), 5) ‘before (ὑπὸ for ἐπί) the supreme power of the west’ (Wieseler Chron. Der ap. Zeitalt. p. 533 followed by Schaff, History of Apostl. Ch., I p. 400). Such attempts are a strong testimony to the plain inference that follows from the passage simply interpreted. Had the expression been ἐπί τὰ τέρματα τοῦ κόσμου, it might be explained (as Meyer proposes) as a rhetorical exaggeration, but not as it stands. [See the notes on the passage in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers Pt. 1, Vol. II p. 30 ed. 2, from which the above are expanded.]
It has been urged (e.g. by Davidson Introd. II p. 101 ed. 1), that Clement cannot have meant this, because in that case Eusebius (H.E. iii.4) would certainly have adduced the passage which he does not. To this the reply is twofold: 1) that all arguments drawn from silence of a writer are in the highest degree precarious; and 2) that we are quite as competent to judge what Clement meant as Eusebius was.
‘Lucas obtime Theofile (l. optimo Theophilo) comprindit, quia (l. quae) sub presentia wius singular gerebantur sicuti et semote passsionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profecrionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis’ Frag. Murat. (pp. 19, 40 ed. Tregelles Oxon. 1867; Westcott, Hist. of Canon, pp. 517, 528 ed. 4). The drift of the latter part of the sentence seems to have been generally misunderstood. I take ‘semote’ to be opposed to ‘sub praesentis eius’ in the sense ‘at a distance’ ‘in his absence.’ Other solutions, either in the way of interpretation or of correction of the text, may be found in Routh, R.S. p. 394, Bensen, Anal. Antenic. I, p. 125, Westcott, p. 528, Credner, Kanon, p. 141 (ed. 1860), and Wieseler, Chron. p. 536.
Eusebius, H.E. ii.22.
Meyer’s inference (on Romans Einl. 1 p. 15) from Origen’s silence that he was ignorant of this release is quite arbitrary. At least it did not strike Eusebius so, who quotes Origen . . . H.E. iii.1 [approvingly].
Athanasius, Ep. Ad Dracont. 4, I. p. 265 ed. Bened.
Cyril, Hier. Catech. xvii pp. 276-7.
Epiphan. Haer. xxvii, p. 107 ed. Pet.
Hieron. De Eccles. Script 5, Vol II p. 823 ed. Vallarsi . . . cf. Comm. in Amos v.8, 9 Vol. vi. p. 291.
Theod. Mops. Argum. in Eph. I, p. 116 ed. Swete.
Pelagius Comm. in Philemon, v. 22; in Rom. 15.24 ‘utrum in Hispania fuerit incertum habetur.’
Theodoret Comm. in Phil. i.25 vol. iii. p. 451 ed. Schulze, in Ps 116, Vol. I p. 1425, in 2 Tim 4:17.
His use of the phrase ‘ab urbe’ referring to Rome, shows this.
Phil 1:24; Philemon 22. This conclusion however must not be regarded as absolultely certain. It may be that we should not press the ταχέως of Phil 2:24. And the injunction to Philemon to prepare him a lodging may point rather to the certainty than to the nearness of the visit. It is as if the Apostle had said ‘You may certainly expect to see me. I shall myself observe what treatment Onesimus has received from you.’ With delicate tact, the Apostle’s language, suggested by some slight misgiving, assumes the form of an appeal to Philemon’s hospitality and kindly feeling towards himself.
Philo, Leg. Ad. Gaium ii p. 587 (ed. Mangey).
See Remond, Ausbrietung des Judenthums, no. 31.
2 Tim 4:10; see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 3, 31. On Crescens see esp. Gerarius, Mogunt. Resp. p. 225 and on the early Church in Gaul, Neander, Ch. Hist. I p. 116 (Eng. trans. by Torrey).
See the interesting speculations of Blunt, The First Three Centuries, p. 184sq. (1861).
Irenaeus, Haer. i.10.2.
The journey to Britain must be abandoned as highly improbable, though maintained with a patriotic urgency by many able advocates (Stillingfleet, Burgess, etc.); see the references in Soames, Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 21 sq. (1844).
Thus the winter of Titus 3:12 becomes identical with that of 2 Tim 4:21.
2 Tim 4:12. Tychicus and Trophimus were Ἀσιαηοί cf. Acts 20:4; 21:29.
We know that Nero was in Greece at this time and that he was still there in August 67, though he was recalled to Rome towards the close of the year by Helius (see Clinton, Fasti Romani I. p. 50). Perhaps the Emperor himself sent the Apostle to the capital.
On the supposed connection of Pudens and Claudia with Britain see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers Pt. I; Clement of Rome, I. p. 76 (1890).
2 Tim 4:19; 1:16. Onesiphorus himself seems to be absent (2 Tim 1:17).
The essay ends with a note that it was written in 1862, that is, in the midst of his commentary-writing period in Cambridge. (BW3)
Appendix D: The Obituary/Homage to Lightfoot
This piece first appeared in the Contemporary Review in 1893, and was reprinted in 1894 with a new preface by B. F. Wescott and some emendations from certain others. Long out of print, it can now be found at the Project Canterbury website (http://anglicanhistory.org/lightfoot/west cott1894/). Westcott is B. F. Dunelm, the regular abbreviation for a Durham man, just as Lightfoot’s was J. B. Dunelm. As to who actually wrote this long tribute, it seems likely to have been either Harmer or Hort. (BW3)
Contemporary Review, Feb. 1890, p. 174.
Cf. ‘Memorial Sermon on the Right Rev. James Prince Lee,’ by Edward White Benson (1870).
Ibid. Memorial Notes, pp. 40, 41.
See Cambridge Review, Jan. 16th, 1890, p. 135.
Vol. i. pp. 109–124.
Vol. ii. pp. 119, 120.
Ibid. pp. 194–205.
Ibid. pp. 360 seq.
Ibid. pp. 361–363.
Ibid. 363, 364.
Vol. iii. pp. 81–121, cf. infra, pp. 24 seq.
Ibid. p. 238.
Ibid. pp. 289–327.
Vol. iv. pp. 57–79.
Ibid. pp. 153–186.
Ibid. pp. 294–302.
Ibid. pp. 107–109.
Since this article was in type, a sketch of Bishop Lighfoot’s life from the pen of Dr. Hort, has appeared in the Dictionary of National Biography; and, alas! obituary notices of Dr. Hort himself have appeared in the current magazines.
Contemporary Review, Feb. 1890, p. 175.
Journal of Philology, ut supra, vol. iii, pp. 81-121.
Philippians, p. 212, first edition; p. 214, later edition.
Ibid. p. 265, first edition; p. 267, later edition. Cf. Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 239-246.
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, 1892, pp. 21-246.
Quarterly Review, April, 1886, pp. 467-500.
Expositor, December, 1885, p. 1. Cf. Harnack’s still more remarkable testimony to Dr. Lightfoot’s absolute fairness as distinguished from the tendency of German writers, in Theologische Literaturzeitung, No. 12, 1890, col. 298.
Bishop Westcott, in Clement, prefatory note, p. vi.
Ignatius, Preface, p. ix.
Ibid. p. xv.
Preface, pp. xi. xii.
Cf. Bishop Westcott, From Strength to Strength, p. 47.
Journal of Philology, vol. ii. p. 362.
Preface to the second edition, 1891, p. xii.
Quarterly Review, vol. 152, pp. 307 seq.; and vol. 153, pp. 1 seq., and pp. 309 seq.
Cambridge Texts and Studies, No. 3: ‘Lord’s Prayer in the early Church.’
Quarterly Review, vol. 154, p. 338.
Journal of Philology, vol. iv. p. 108.
Cf. Preface of Revised Version of the New Testament.
B. F. Dunelm, in prefatory note to Clement.
From Strength to Strength, pp. 17, 18.
Leaders in the Northern Church, pp. 164, 165.
There is a long section here enumerating in great detail the churches Lightfoot helped build in the Durham and Newcastle area and the money he raised to accomplish this end. I have deleted this because the point has already been made and is made later of his great work as churchman. (BW3)
The George Stephenson Centenary, which had been recently observed at Newcastle.
Diocesan Conference, 1889.
He goes on to list various places where Lightfoot spoke or preached. (BW3)
See a full account in the Guardian of Jan. 1st, 1890.
Cambridge Sermons, p. 119 (of Dr. Whewell).
From Strength to Strength, p. 44.
Presentation of Pastoral Staff, October 29th, 1889.
Unveiling of Monument, October 20th, 1892.
Contemporary Review, Feb. 1890, p. 174.
Published after his death in the Expositor, March, 1890, p. 188. With this remark we may take our leave of Lightfoot in this volume, but we shall return to this note in the future volume that provides Lightfoot’s discussions on the Gospel of St. John and early Judaism. (BW3)