J. B. Lightfoot · 1890 · public-domain-translation
3 claims in this dataset rest on this source.
The critical edition and English translation that still stands behind every discussion of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp - Greek text, apparatus, and dissertations arguing the case for the letters' authenticity against the 19th-century Tubingen attack, which he largely won. Registered here because the dataset's earliest-episcopate glosses rested on Chadwick, who is copyrighted and can be cited but never quoted; Lightfoot is public domain and says it at greater length. ⚠ HE ARGUES A POSITION: that the monarchical episcopate developed out of a college of presbyters, which is a reading the traditions this project carries do not share, so his conclusions are paired rather than adopted - see the gloss ignatius-describes-or-argues. His facts, texts and apparatus are not in question. Public domain by date; CCEL and archive.org both confirmed 11 Aug 2026. FACTS-ONLY here, though the text is quotable if wanted. ⚠ READ AT LAST, AND IN BRONZE since 13 Aug 2026 — until then this row was cited by nothing, because no volume of it was held and a verdict of his could only have been quoted from memory. Two are held under data/bronze/archive-texts: apostolicfathers00lighuoft, the ONE-VOLUME edition of 1891 (Lightfoot and Harmer) whose short introductions carry his verdict on each document — Clement p. 3, Ignatius p. 97, Polycarp p. 165, the Martyrdom p. 185, the Didache p. 215; and apostolicfathep2v1clemuoft, Part II (S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp) 2nd ed. 1889 VOLUME I, which is where he argues rather than states: 'The Genuineness' pp. 328-430 summed up at 422-423, 'Genuineness of the Epistle' pp. 578-603, 'Letter of the Smyrnaeans' pp. 604-645, 'Date of the Martyrdom' pp. 646-722. ⚠ THE IDENTIFIER THIS ROW USED TO NAME WAS THE WRONG VOLUME: cu31924072037587 is catalogued 1885 and its title page reads PART II, VOL. III, 1889 — the Appendix Ignatiana, Latin and Syriac remains, with no dissertation in it. The catalogue date is not the date on the page and neither of them is the volume number, so a fascicle here is named by what its title page says. ⚠ NOT EVERY INTRODUCTION IN THE 1891 VOLUME IS HIS: its Introductory Note (p. ix) excepts those dealing with the text and the prefatory note to the Fragments of Papias, so no Papias claim may be hung on it. ⚠ AND THE OCR MUST BE CROSS-READ BEFORE A FACT IS TAKEN: at p. 3 the held scan prints 'Diocletian's persecution' where the page reads Domitian's, which is a hundred and ninety years of difference in one misread word — checked against a second scan of the same edition, archive.org a590752000clemuoft, on 13 Aug 2026.