to S. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objections and Established (Oxford and Lond., 1871,
334 pages), a very learned book, but marred by its over-confident tone and unreasonable hostility
to the oldest uncial MSS. (א and B) and the most meritorious textual critics (Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles). For other able defences see Dr. Scrivener (Introd. to the Criticism of the New Test., 3d
ed., 1883, pp. 583–590), Dr. Morison (Com. on Mark, pp. 446 and 463 sqq.), and Canon Cook (in
Speaker’s Com. on Mark, pp. 301–308).
Lachmann gives the disputed section, according to his principle to furnish the text as found
in the fourth century, but did not consider it genuine (see his article in "Studien und Kritiken" for
1830, p. 843). Tischendorf and Tregelles set the twelve verses apart. Alford incloses them in single
brackets, Westcott and Hort in double brackets, as an early interpolation; the Revised Version of
1881 retains them with a marginal note, and with a space between Mark 16:8 and 9. Dean Burgon
("Quarterly Rev." for Oct., 1881) holds this note of the Revision (which simply states an
acknowledged fact) to be "the gravest blot of all," and triumphantly refers the critical editors and
Revisionists to his "separate treatise extending over 300 pages, which for the best of reasons has
never yet been answered," and in which he has "demonstrated," as he assures us, that the last twelve
verses in Mark are "as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named." The infallible organ
in the Vatican seems to have a formidable rival in Chichester, but they are in irreconcilable conflict
on the true reading of the angelic anthem (Luke 2:14): the Pope chanting with the Vulgate the
genitive (εὐδοκίας,bonae voluntatis), the Dean, in the same article, denouncing this as a "grievous
perversion of the truth of Scripture," and holding the evidence for the nominative (εὐδοκία) to be
"absolutely decisive," as if the combined testimony of א* A B D, Irenaeus, Origen (lat.), Jerome,
all the Latin MSS., and the Latin Gloria in Excelsis were of no account, as compared with his
judgment or preference.§ 82. Luke.
Lucas, Evangelii el medicinae munera pandens;
Artibus hinc, illinc religione, valet:
Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri;
Utilior, per quem tot didicere mori!"
Critical and Biographical
Schleiermacher: Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. Berlin, 1817. Reprinted in the second vol. of his
Sämmtliche Werke, Berlin, 1836 (pp. 1–220). Translated by Bishop Thirlwall, London, 1825.
James Smith (of Jordanhill, d. 1867): Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, prefixed
to his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (1848), 4th ed., revised by Walter E. Smith, London,
1880 (pp. 293). A most important monograph, especially for the historical accuracy and
credibility of the Acts, by an expert in navigation and an able scholar.
E. Renan: Les Évangiles. Paris, 1877. Ch. XIX, pp. 435–448.
Th. Keim: Aus dem Urchristenthum. Zürich, 1878, Josephus im N. T., pp. 1–27. An unsuccessful
attempt to prove that Luke used Josephus in his chronological statement, Luke 3:1, 2. Keim
assumes that the third Gospel was written after the "Jewish war" of Josephus (about 75–78),A.D. 1-100.