A NOTABLE CENTENARY.

Evening Star, Issue 19841, 14 April 1928, Page 6

A NOTABLE CENTENARY.

It was a delightful piece of apostolic irony that gave to the world the needed injunction to “suffer fools gladly.” There are few things more difficult to tolerate than the outspoken intolerance of cocksure ignorance. One who had occasion to know it, and yet met with calm cordiality the censures of incompetent opponents, was Bishop Lightfoot, the renowned Biblical scholar and lecturer. Ho is -in the rarest kind of Apostolic Succession. It was in April, 1828, that Lightfoot was born. He overcame the handicap of a sickly boyhood, and attained outstanding distinction as a theologian and classical scholar at Cambridge. His fame came in his own lifetime. Though declared by his biographers to bo unusually reserved, Lightfoot was a valued and responsive friend. He acknowledged the helpful influence of Dr Westcott, whoso friendship he gained while they were at Trinity together. But there is abundant evidence that the benefit was mutual. Lightfoot’s tireless delight in his work was remarkable. As a professor he sought to bo on the most friendly terms with his students, and during vacations arranged extended excursions with parties whom lie helped with their studies. This unselfish interest in younger men showed again when, as Bishop of Durham, he gathered recent Cambridge graduates into his home in order to train them for the ministry. The privileged members of this informal college were treated as sons, and any suggestion of payment fell on deaf ears. In this and other ways the whole ofjiis ecclesiastical income was spent in Ids diocese. Whether as professor or bishop, Lightfoot was constantly occupied with research and writing, but he bad in addition many varied interests. Causes which aimed at the extension of higher education, temperance, and social purity benefited from his active support. He became chaplain to the Prince Consort in IS6I and fo the Queen in 1862. It is probably as an authority on Greek and as a, reviser of the New Testament that Bishop Lightfoot is best known. His ability was first generally recognised through his controversy with Professor Jowett. Prior to this time the language of the New Testament was considered to be that of men poorly acquainted with classical Greek, who copied the style of a literature three centuries earlier than their day. Jowett had written in this strain. Lightfoot’s reply contended that the late Greek of the-New Testament was as definite a language as the classical, and that Paul, far from being a muddler in the earlier, was a master of the later form. This was a striking anticipation of what has since been securely established by the researches of Deissman and others. There had been a development of the language after the close of the classical period, and as the Christian message was for the people its preachers and writers used the common tongue and not an archaic and obsolete style. To interpret the. language of Paul in the light of that of Plato “is almost as if a learned German were to translate a Kipling story with a Shakespearean grammar and a Chaucer glossary at his elbow.” Jowett discreetly surrendered, and a firm friendship commenced between the two disputants. Bishop Lightfoot was one of the original company of twenty-seven scholars chosen in 187 U to produce the .Revised Version of the Mow Testament. They met four days cadi month for ten months each year, and over a period of ton years Lightfoot was present at practically every session. Because of his repeated plea for diligent revision and his weighty contribution it is not too much to say that the book as wc now have it was largely moulded by him. His book, ‘ A Fresh Revision of the New Testament,’ published in 1871, was a defence of the work done, and helped to gain for the version a ready acceptance when it was issued. As a professor at Cambridge, Lightfoot was famous for his lectures on the epistles of Paul. Ordinary lecture rooms were overcrowded, and it became necessary to secure the use of the hall at Trinity. He intended to publish a complete set of commentaries on the epistles, but finished only three, which arc deservedly popular. Common sense interpretations, plain language, a temperate tone in discussion combine to make those books of abiding worth. The same fine qualities in the man did much to prevent disunion at a troubled time in English church history.

The “dissertation*” which accompany the commentaries arc excellent examples of the careful historical work which gave Bishop Lightfoot’s utterances such weight and worth. He was not of a speculative turn of mind, and kept closely to established fact. His work on ‘The Christian Ministry,’ in which he traced the growth of the monarchical episcopacy from the primitive order of elders and deacons, throws light on an obscure and important period and is most highly esteemed. A further aid to understanding early church history was his publication of tho epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, with introductions and commentaries, and especially his inquiry as to the genuineness of the Ignatian writings. In his early books Lightfoot accepted three, but further study led to the establishment of seven epistles as authentic works of the ancient martyr. This judgment is now generally accepted, though it was a reversal of that previously held. As Ignatius was put to death either just before or just after the close of the life of the Apostle John, tho value of his writings as a link between the first and second Christian centuries is obvious. Similar stability attaches to other conclusions reached by Lightfoot on historical matters. No theological writer of similar age has so many of his views on difficult questions accepted to-day. Where more recent research has brought new facts to view it is to be expected that different conclusions have been reached. This has happened in connection with the essay on ‘The Churches of Galatia ’; but if Lightfoot could have known of the recent work of Sir Wm. Ramsay he would probably have been the first to make use of it. As Harnack said of him: “There never has been an apologist who was less an advocate. He never defended a tradition for tradition’s sake.” “A free, independent scholar whose works have an imperishable value,” was another deserved tribute paid to him by Harnack.