The commentator should further be a master of the materisl for the textual criticism of the Gospel, which is in itself the study of a lifetime.
The discussion of the question whether the First Epistle and the Gospel are by the same author may seem to many to be almost a waste of time.
The notes on textual criticism in the commentary are intended to treat chiefly those selected variants which make as difference in the sense ; the materials employed do not ordinarily go be yond the apparatus of Tischendorf.
There are few books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in regard to which there is more to be gained from renewed interpretation by different minds working under different conditions.
The Commentary of von Soden, though concise, is very acute and independent.
Readers who miss him in the present volume qualities which they valued in its predecessor may find in the above statement an explanation of the difference.
The book of Revelation, which in earlier years I feared could offer no room for fresh light or discovery, presented in reality a field of research infinitely richer than any of those to which my earlier studies had been devoted.
Thessalonica had been in existence about three hundred and sixty -five years and a free ciity for about a century when Paul first saw it.
The preparation of this volume was promised some years ago, but has been delayed by the many and multiform duties of practical life which have come to the author.
The book that i have used most for the purpose of the commentary are those of Alford, Kuhl, and von Soden, that of Dr. Hort for part of the First Epistle of St. Peter , that of Spitta for 2 Peter and Jude.