Footnotes

[1.]Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page [399] to page 413 of what follows.[2.]Dr. Newth. See pp. [37-9].[3.]See pp. [24-9]: [97], &c.[4.]See below, pp. 1 to 110.[5.]This will be found more fully explained from pp. [127] to 130: pp. [154] to 164: also pp. [400] to 403. See also the quotations on pp. [112] and [368].[6.]See below, pp. [113] to 232.[7.]See below, pp. [235] to 366.[8.]Gospel of the Resurrection, p. viii.[9.]

Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “Contemporary Review” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “last Twelve Verses.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars are quite unalterably made up on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.” [Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, among positive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... formed no part of the original apostolic autograph ... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as being beyond the reach of serious dispute ... would be expressing the views which are regarded as indisputable by the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.” [Expositor, p. 173.]