John XXIII. (Baltasare Cossa): Pope 1410-15. He came of a noble Neapolitan family. At first he took up the profession of arms, but later he studied at the University of Bologna and became cardinal in 1402 and legate of Bologna in 1403. In this position he rendered distinguished services for the restitution and protection of the Papal States (q.v.) and for the increase of the papal finances. He fell out with Gregory XII. and became the leading spirit of the Council of Pisa (q.v.); the newly elected pope, Alexander V., was only an instrument in his hands. After the death of Alexander, John himself was elected pope May 17, 1410. He carried on a successful war against Ladislaus of Naples (battle of Roccasicca, Apr. 29, 1411), but was forced to flee and throw himself into the arms of the Roman King Siegmund. By his ignominious flight from the Council of Constance (Mar. 20 to 21, 1415), John incurred the hatred of the whole assembly. On May 29, 1415, the council deposed him and delivered him into the hands of Count Palatine Louis of Bavaria. He was then imprisoned in Radolfszell, Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mannheim till 1418, when he was released by Martin V. and made cardinal bishop of Tusculum. He died Dec. 22, 1419.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pastor, Popes, i. 191-199; Creighton, Papacy, i. 267-344; C. Hunger, Zur Geschichte Papst Johannes XXIII., Bonn, 1876; J. Schwerdfeger, Papst Johann XXIII. und die Wahl Siegmunds, 1410, Vienna, 1895; H. Blumenthal, in ZKG, xxi. 1900; Neander, Christian Church, v. 90 sqq.; Bower, Popes, iii. 171-201; E. J. Kitts, In the Days of the Councils; a Sketch of the Life and Times of Baldassare Cossa, Edinburgh, 1909.
In nearly all the lists of the apostles, after the names of Peter and Andrew come those of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. That in Acts i. 13 John comes before James, and both before Andrew may be explained by the fact that in this book John was to be frequently named as a prominent man in the apostolic circle, while James appears only once, in the mention of his martyrdom (xii. 2). On the other hand, it may be concluded from the almost constant precedence given to James in the Gospels that he was the elder brother, for the greater historical importance of John was well known by the time the Gospels were written. According to an old and wide-spread tradition, John was the youngest of all the apostles. If this is accepted, it adds to the probability of the assertion that he died a very old man after the accession of Trajan, 98 A.D.
The father of James and John pursued with them and with several hired men (Mark i. 20) the trade of a fisherman at Capernaum. More is known of the mother; she accompanied Christ on his last journey to Jerusalem, and by her request for places of honor in the Messianic kingdom for her sons showed not only her own ambition but her firm belief in the coming of that kingdom; she was seen again at the cross and appears as one of the women who had helped to support the Savior in Galilee and on this last journey, and cared for the proper burial of his body after the crucifixion. Her name, Salome, is preserved by Mark (xv. 40, xvi. 1; cf. Matt. xxvii. 56). The comparison of John xix. 25 with this last passage and Mark xv. 40 leads to a tempting hypothesis that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would tend to explain more than one traditional statement about the boldness of her demand for her sons. Their call, as well as that of Peter and Andrew, is
With Peter the two brothers formed the inner circle of his associates, whom he took with him to the house of Jaïrus, to the mount of the transfiguration, and to Gethsemane. A comparison of Mark x. 35 with Matt. xx. 20 shows that they shared their mother's ambitions for their future; though it must not be forgotten that in reply to the searching question of Jesus, they declared their readiness to go through all the trials and sufferings which must precede his glorification. It is they, with Peter, who come to the mind in reading of strife as to precedence among the apostles (Matt. xviii. 1; Mark ix. 33; Luke xxii. 24). In connection with one of the admonitions of Jesus on these occasions occurs the account of John's complaint of the man who worked wonders in his name without being his avowed disciple (Luke ix. 49). It was not their own honor, however, that they wished to see avenged by a divine judgment upon the Samaritan village in the following passage (ib. verses 51-56). It can scarcely be doubted that it was such expressions of an unchastened spirit that caused Christ to give them the name of Boanerges (Mark iii. 17). That both the brothers afterward learned to master their impetuous wrath and their jealous ambition is amply attested. A story of James preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., II., ix. 2, 3) gives a touching evidence of it; and the whole history of John speaks for it, though his natural disposition appears not extirpated but purified and regulated in the words and actions of his old age. It must have been his natural gifts and fiery zeal which procured for him, even in the lifetime of his elder brother, so commanding a position among the apostles and in the church of Palestine (Acts iii. 1-11, iv. 13, 19, viii. 14). In Acts xv., indeed, he does not appear so prominently as Peter and James in the discussions of the council at Jerusalem; but Paul names him with them as a pillar of the Church (Gal. ii. 9). Paul refutes the assertions of his Galatian opponents by facts which he could not have invented and would not have adduced if they were not demonstrable; all that those assertions prove is that John, like Peter and James, continued to live, with the churches immediately subject to their guidance in Palestine, according to the forms of the Jewish law, while they solemnly declared themselves satisfied with the missionary vocation of Paul and the independence of his non-Jewish converts. The position of John in regard to these burning questions of the middle of the first century is the last historical notice of him in the New Testament, outside of the Johannine writings themselves.
II. The Writings Attributed to John: The works to be discussed under this heading are five books of the New Testament, viz., the Fourth Gospel, three Epistles, and the Book of Revelation or Apocalypse.
This comes first in order because it is the only one which bears John's name upon its face. If the author of such a pastoral letter to the seven churches of Asia did not think it necessary to identify himself any further than by the bare mention of his name and his designation as a servant of God, it follows that his personality must have been well known to all these churches, somewhat widely scattered throughout Asia Minor, and that at the time of its composition there was no other John in those parts with whom he could be confused. It follows, again, from the addresses to the individual churches that the writer was as well acquainted with the circumstances of these churches as the churches were with him. A third fact to be borne in mind is that the book was not only destined originally to be read in their gatherings, but that in these very churches it was actually received from the beginning of the second century as a divine revelation.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis near Laodicea, attests its credibility about 125; Justin includes in his "Dialogue with Trypho" (written about 155 A.D.) a report of a discussion held at Ephesus to prove that the gift of prophecy had passed over from the synagogue to the Church; the "presbyters in Asia," whom Irenaeus reveres as disciples of John, taught by his own lips, occupied themselves with a discussion of the number of the beast (Rev. xiii. 18); the "Acts of John," composed in the same province hardly later than 160-170 by one "Leucius" of the school of Valentinus, attributes the order of the seven churches to the successive migrations of the apostle. About the same time the Alogi (q.v.), who, in their opposition to Montanism, wished to see all prophecy, and thus the Apocalypse with the other Johannine writings, banished from the Church, could press this demand only by the assertion that the heretic Cerinthus, John's contemporary at Ephesus, had foisted the Apocalypse on the Church under John's name. Baur and his school held to Johannine authorship, and, in fact, considered the Apocalypse the only authentic work of the apostle.
Those who could not accept the book as written by the brother of James, and yet shrank from the pseudonymous theory, at least in the startling form in which it was held by the Alogi and Caius of Rome, cast about to find another John who would serve the purpose. Thus Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 260) attempted to support the possibility of there having been such a man, at the time and place, by the fact of the existence of a twofold tradition as to the burial-place of John at Ephesus. Eusebius followed him, and discovered the other John in the prologue of Papias (Hist. eccl., III., xxxix. 5, 6), calling him "John the Presbyter." This view has been taken by Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, and others in modern times; and recently a strong tendency has shown itself to make this "John the Presbyter" responsible for all that bears the name of John (Meyer-Bousset, Harnack). Even John Mark, who was set aside by Dionysius as out of the question, has been taken up by Hitzig as the author of the whole Apocalypse, and by Spitta as the
Space forbids going into the long history of the hypotheses which have been set forth as to the growth of the book, which is frequently held to have been a lengthy process. The following conclusions, however, seem safe. The assertion of Irenaeus (Haer., V., xxx, 3) that the visions were seen and the book written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, or about 95, finds support in the numerous historical data of the opening chapters. The designed and immediately accomplished introduction of the book into public liturgical use precludes the possibility of any notable alterations in it between 100 and 150. The author, as his name and idiom show, is of Hebrew birth, and about 95 had a recognized position of authority over the church of the province, without having any contemporary rival of the same name. He is the only John of Ephesus of whom anything is known from a tradition reaching back into his lifetime and in decisive points independent of his own writings. That he does not call himself an apostle is no proof that he was not one; his apostleship had no immediate connection with his apocalyptic purpose, and he does not describe himself at all.
Of the Epistles, the first, which
Papias cites and Polycarp obviously imitates, is
not in form a letter. Not only is the introduction
(i. 1-4) unlike the ordinary beginning
of a letter, but it lacks at its close, too,
what would be expected. There is
almost no allusion to any local conditions of the
The second and third Epistles are intimately
connected with the first by their language and line
of thought, by the combating of the same errors
(I John ii. 18-26, iv. 1-3, v. 5-12; II John 7-11),
and by the position of the writer, which stands out
even more clearly from them than it does from the
first Epistle and the Apocalypse. That this position
was not unquestioned appears from I John iv. 6;
and in II John 8-11 the author
charges the churches to have nothing
to do with those who refused to receive his teaching. From III John 9,
10 it appears that a leader of the Church has not
only employed "malicious words" against John
but has renounced communion with John's associates and attempted to cut off those who received
them. Asserting his authority, John writes not
to the insubordinate Diotrephes, but to one Gaius
who is in close relation with himself, sending a
letter at the same time to the whole Church of the
region—for there should be no doubt that the reference in III John 7 is to
3. The Gospel: This resembles the works already discussed in being directed not to a general public but to a definite circle of readers, whom the author twice addresses (xix. 35, xx. 31) as a preacher might his hearers. By this fact and by tradition the view is supported that the author of the Apocalypse and the Epistles is here addressing the same churches; and it is confirmed by the undeniable likeness of both language and religious views, to say nothing of the obvious fact that the Gospel is destined for readers unfamiliar with the speech and customs of the Jews. In i. 14, 16, as well as in xix. 35, he reckons himself, precisely as in the Epistles, among the eye-witnesses of the facts which he relates.
Note must be taken, however, of the theory of
Weizsäcker, that the book is a product of the
school of John the apostle, written in
the spirit and the name of the master,
and that of Renan (from the thirteenth
edition of his Vie de Jésus on; followed, though a little less definitely, by Harnack) that "John the Presbyter,"
a disciple of the apostle and depending on his narrative, wrote it. If it be noticed that throughout the
whole Gospel the two apostles who with Peter stood
next to Jesus are never once named, it appears
that this is too constant an attitude to be fortuitous, and that it can be explained only by the
author's feeling that it was unfitting to introduce
into the sacred history his own and his parents'
names. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" of the
last supper (
The upholders of these various views have agreed only in the negative judgment that an immediate disciple of Christ can not have written the book, for the reason that its contents are incredible on historical, psychological, or philosophico-dogmatic grounds. Of these grounds the following brief sketch will suffice: (1) On account of the great difference in language and manner of thought it seems impossible, they say, that the same man (even at different periods of his life) could have written the Gospel and the letters on one side and the Apocalypse on the other. (2) If the synoptic Gospels are older than the fourth, as both tradition and criticism show, and are a trustworthy reproduction of the general tradition of the years 60-100, then the incompatibility of their narrative with John's in the whole plan of the story and in certain important details (for example the chronology of the Passion) will render impossible a belief in the composition of the Fourth Gospel by an eye-witness. (3) Still more, the picture given in it of the person of Jesus, his relation to his disciples, and the tone of his reputed speeches differ fundamentally from these given by the synoptics; and this difference leads to the belief that the Fourth Gospel was written by a man of the second or third generation, under the influence of speculative and churchly ideas. (4) One of these ideas is the doctrine of the Logos, which comes from Philo or the Alexandrian philosophy and can not have been known by the Galilean fisherman. (5) The way in which the writer introduces himself with apparent unconsciousness, at the same time putting himself forward as the favorite disciple, is morally more conceivable in a later writer who more or less assumed the character of the apostle than in the latter himself. (6) Evidences of ignorance of the historical and geographical conditions of Palestine in the time of Christ are adduced, though less confidently in modern times than was formerly the case. (7) The tradition as to the residence of the apostle John at Ephesus is partly uncertain, because depending on the testimony of writings bearing his name; partly equivocal in that the apostolic character of the John who lived there between 70 and 100 is not clearly shown; and partly unfavorable to the composition of the Fourth Gospel by this John, of whom words and acts are reported (e.g., in connection with the Quartodeciman controversy) which do not harmonize with the thought of the evangelist. While a discussion of the first six points is impossible here, the last must be dealt with at some length, because it relates to the last period of the apostle's life and because the whole historical foundation for his literary activity is involved in it.
Even if the Apocalypse is pseudonymous, which few nowadays maintain, it still teaches that at the date of its composition (about 95 A.D.) there was a well-known and revered Christian of Jewish birth named John, whose permanent home was on the mainland and his enforced habitation at that time the island of Patmos. As far as tradition speaks clearly, it constantly designates him as an apostle, whether it mentions him as the author of the Johannine writings, or as a teacher in the province of Asia, or as an authority for the ecclesiastical usages prevalent there. There has been much discussion of the passage in Eusebius where he cites Papias, and apparently in part at least misunderstands him. Without discussing this at length, it is safe to say that the "Presbyter John" is a product of the critical and exegetical weakness of Eusebius; and the question becomes merely who was the John who (according to the testimony of the Apocalypse and of his disciples Polycarp, Papias, and the other "presbyters" mentioned by Irenaeus) lived at Ephesus in the closing years of the first century, exercised a predominant influence on the Church of the province, died after the accession of Trajan or about 100, and (by the testimony of Polycrates, bishop
It is safe, then, to say that the apostle John, with other disciples of Christ, came from Palestine to Asia Minor. If Polycarp, on the day of his death (Feb. 23, 155), was looking back on eighty-six years of life as a Christian, not as a man, and was thus baptized in 69, and if his conversion (according to Irenæus, Haer., III., iii. 4) was the work of an apostle, this migration to Asia Minor must have occurred before that date, possibly as a result of the outbreak of the Jewish war. John, then perhaps not more than sixty or sixty-five, would thus have been able to devote some thirty years to the fostering of Christian life in the province. His image as a priest in pontifical garments long lived in the memory of the Christians of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V., xxiv. 3). The whilom "Son of Thunder" was not in his old age a subtle philosophical disputant nor the soft-hearted preacher of a weak tolerance, but stands out a sharply defined character, his own position firmly taken and earnestly pressing others to decide between light and darkness, Christ and Antichrist. The John of the years between 27 and 52 pictured in the older New-Testament writings, stands out less clearly in the Apocalypse, in which his task was merely to reproduce what had been given him, than in the Epistles, in which he exercised his office as teacher and head of the Church of Asia Minor with unexhausted power. He is recognized again in the story left by his disciple Polycarp (Irenæus, Haer., Ill., iii. 4) of his encounter with the heretic Cerinthus in the public bath at Ephesus, and in the account (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V., xxiv. 3, 16) of his celebration of the Christian Passover in the form borrowed from the old covenant and familiar to him in Palestine. (T. ZAHN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Various phases of the subject are discussed in the treatises on the Church history of the period, e.g., Schaff, Christian Church, i. 406-431; in works on the theology of the Bible and the N. T. (so particularly Beyschlag); and in works on introduction to the Bible and the N. T. Some of the most elaborate introductions are prefixed to the commentaries, e.g., to Westcott's treatment in the Bible Commentary.
On the life of St. John consult, besides Schaff, ut sup., and McGiffert, as below: F. Trench, The Life and Character of St. John, London, 1850; M. Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, Leipsic, 1871; J. M. Macdonald, The Life and Writings of St. John, New York, 1880; P. J. Gloag, Life of St. John, London, 1892.
General commentaries on the Johannine writings are H. Ewald, Die johannischen Schriften, 2 vols., Göttingen, 1861; J. T. Harris, The Writings of the Apostle John, 2 vols., London, 1889; H. J. Holtzmann, Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes, Tübingen, 1908. An excellent review of recent Johannean literature is furnished in the Theologische Rundschau, Sept.-Oct., 1906, Apr.-May, 1907 (all of these very valuable to the close student).
Questions of introduction to the Apocalypse are discussed in: F. Lücke, Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes, Bonn, 1852; H. Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse und dem Verhältniss zum Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Epistel des Johannes, Gotha, 1873, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1878; D. Völter, Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, Freiburg, 1885; idem, Das Problem der Apokalypse, ib. 1893; E. Vischer, Offenbarung Johannis, in TU, ii. 3 (1886); H. Schön, L'Origine de L'Apocalypse, Paris, 1887; P. Schmidt, Ueber die Composition der Offenbarung, Freiburg, 1891; W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judentums, des N. T., und der alten Kirche, Göttingen, 1895; H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, ib. 1895; J. Wellhausen, Analyse der Offenbarung Johannis, Berlin, 1907.
The exegetical literature on the Johannine writings is exceedingly voluminous; the following is a selection of that on the Apocalypse: H. B. Swete, London, 1909 (best); A. Ewald, Leipsic, 1828; M. Stuart, 2 vols., Andover, 1845; E. W. Hengstenberg, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1861-62, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1851-52; J. H. A. Ebrard, Königsberg, 1853; F. Bleek, Berlin, 1862, Eng. transl. London, 1875; E. B. Elliott, 4 vols., ib. 1862; G. Volkmar, Zurich, 1862; H. Kienlen, Paris, 1870; E. Renan, L'Antechrist, Paris, 1873, Eng. transl., London, 1897; T. Kliefoth, Leipsic, 1874; F. Düsterdieck, Göttingen, 1877; W. Lee, in Bible Commentary, London, 1881; C. J. Vaughan, ib. 1882; J. T. Beck, Gütereloh, 1884; J. Waller, Freiburg, 1885; E. Vischer, Leipsic, 1886; A. Chauffard, 2 vols., Paris, 1888; G. Spitta, Halle, 1889; W. H. Simcox, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1890; D. Brown, London, 1891; B. Weirs, Leipsic, 1891; W. Milligan, London, 1892; W. Bousset, Göttingen, 1895; J. M. Gibson, Apocalyptic Sketches, London, 1901; E. Huntingford, ib. 1901; J. A. Petit, Paris, 1901; L. Pragen, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1901; A. Raymond, Lausanne, 1903; J. B. Knappenberger, Syracuse, N. Y., 1908; J. J. L. Ruttow, Essays on the Apocalypse, London 1908; J. L. Scott, ib. 1909.
Commentaries on the Epistles are: B. F. Westcott, London, 1892; W. Augusti, Die katholischen Briefe, 2 vols., Lemgo, 1801; J. W. Grashof, Essen, 1830; J. H. A. Ebrard, Königsberg, 1859, Eng, transl., Edinburgh, 1860; W. Alexander, in Bible Commentary, London, 1881; idem, in Expositor's Bible, ib. 1889; A. Plummer, ib. 1886; J. J. Lias, The First Epistle of St. John, ib. 1887; E. Dryander, The First Epistle of St. John, ib. 1899; J. E. Belser, Freiburg, 1906; R. Law, The Tests of Life. A Study of I John, Edinburgh, 1909; G. G. Findlay, London, 1909.
Critical discussions concerning the Gospel may be found
in: F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847; A. Hilgenfeld, Die
Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung, Leipsic, 1854; A.
Sabatier, Essai sur les sources de la vie de Jésus, Paris, 1866;
G. Volkmar, Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, Zurich,
1866; G. Müller, Die Entstehung der vier Evangelien,
Berlin, 1877; C. Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfaast? Leipsic, 1880; B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, London, 1895; C. Weizsäker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte,
ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung, Tübingen,
1901. Consult also the special discussions: B. Bauer,
Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes, Bremen,
1840; C. Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannes, Elberfeld, 1868; J. Orr, Authenticity of St. John's Gospel, London, 1870; C. E. Luthardt, Der
johannische Ursprung des 4. Evangeliums, Leipsic, 1874,
Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1885; W. Beyschlag, Zur johannischen Frage, Gotha, 1876; W. Sanday, Authorship
and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, London,
1876: idem, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, ib. 1905; E.
Abbot, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Boston, 1880;
A. Thoma, Die Genesis des johannischen Evangeliums
Berlin, 1882; F. Godet., Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
London, 1884; H. H. Evans, St. John the Author of the
Fourth Gospel, ib. 1888; H. W. Watkins, Modern Criticism
in its Relation to the Fourth Gospel, ib. 1890: P. J. Gloag,
Introduction to the Johannine Writings, Edinburgh, 1891;
G. W. Gilmore, The Johannean Problem, Philadelphia,
1895; A. C. McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic
Age, pp. 606-635, New York, 1897; J. Reville, Le Quatrième Evangile, Paris, 1900; H. T. Purchas, Johannine
Problem, London, 1901; J. Grill, Die Entstehung des 4.
Evangeliums, Tübingen, 1902; W. Wrede, Charakter und
Tendenz des Johannisevangeliums, ib. 1903; J. Drummond,
The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, London,
1904; H. L. Jackson, The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent
German Criticism, New York, 1906; K. Meyer, Der
Zeugniszweck des Evangelisten Johannes, Gütersloh, 1906;
W. Richmond, The Gospel of the Rejection: a Study of the
Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Three, London, 1906;
E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology,
Edinburgh, 1907; E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary,
London, 1905; idem, Johannine Grammar, ib. 1906; J.
d'Alma, La Controverse du Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1907;
H. P. Forbes, The Johannine Literature and the Acts of the Apostles, New York, 1907; J. A. Robinson, The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel, London, 1908; J.
Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Johannis, Berlin, 1908; F.
W. Worsley, Edinburgh, 1909.
Commentaries on the Gospel are: H. Klee, Mainz, 1829; F. Lücke, 4 vols., Bonn, 1843; A. Maier, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1843-45; A. Tholuck, Hamburg. 1857, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1870; S. J. Astié, Geneva, 1864; E. W. Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1867, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1865; E. H. Sears, Boston, 1874; C. E. Luthardt, Nuremberg, 1875, Eng. transl., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1876-79; D. B. von Haneburg, 2 vols., Munich, 1880; A. Plummer, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1881; F. Godet, 3 vols., Paris, 1881-85, Eng. transl., 2 vols., New York, 1885; B. F. Westcott, new ed., London, 1908; P. Schanz, Tübingen, 1885; A. Hovey, Philadelphia, 1886; R. Govett, London, 1887; O. Holtzmann, Darmstadt, 1887; G. F. Wahle, Gotha, 1888; T. Whitelaw, Glasgow, 1888; W. Bruce, London, 1891; M. Dods, 2 vols., London, 1890-92; W. Milligan and W. F. Moulton, Edinburgh, 1898; J. C. Ceulemans, Molines, 1901; A. E. Hillard, London, 1901; E. W. Rice, New York, 1902; A. Loisy, Paris, 1903: A. Plummer, in Cambridge Greek Testament; J. E. Belser, Freiburg, 1905; W. Kelly, London, 1908; T. Zahn, Leipsic, 1908.
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.