Jerome (ad Hedib. iv. 172) speaks of it as being found in but few copies of the gospels, and defi cient in almost all the Greek MSS. Eusebius (ad Jlfarin, Quest. I.) states that it is wanting in nearly all the more accurate copies,' while the canons that bear his name and the Ammonian sections do not go beyond v. 8. Of later critics, Olshausen and De Wette pronounce for its genuine ness. The note of the latter may be consulted, as well as those of Alford and Meyer, who take the other side, for a full statement of the evidence for and against. The citation of v. 19 as Scrip ture by Irenaeus appears sufficient to establish its canonicity.
With regard to St. Mark's Gospel generally, as it presents so few facts peculiar to himself, we cannot be surprised that there are but few refer ences to it in the early Fathers. The Muratorian canon, however (circa no), commences with words which evidently refer to it. It is mentioned by Papias. Justin Martyr refers to it for the name Boanerges (Tryph. 106), as the Memoirs of Peter.'
as we have seen above, quotes from it, and in the 19th Clementine Homily (ed. Dusseld. 1853) a peculiar phrase of St. Mark (iv. 34) is repeated verbally. The fact also recorded by humus (fieer. iii. Ir. 7), that the Docetic heretics preferred the Gospel of St. Mark to the others, affords an early proof of its acceptance in the church.
Commentaries. —The Gospel of St. Mark has been the subject of but few separate commentaries. In addition to the works on the gospels and the N. T. generally, Walch mentions special com ments and annotations by the Lutheran divines, Hegendorf, Erasmus Sarcerius, Winckelman, Klemm, and Heupel, as well as by Myconius and Danus of the Reformed, and Del Pas and Nova rinus of the Romish Church. We may also refer to the works of Elsner, Van Willes, and Baum garten-Crusius, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, and the very suggestive little treatise of Kenrick in his recently published Biblical Essays.—E. V.