As regards the intefjrHy of the Gospel, Ewald, Reuss, and others have called in question the genuineness of the opening verses (i, 1-13). But the external evidence for them is as great as that for the authenticity of any part of the Gospels. Internal evidence is too subtle a thing, and varies too much with the subjectivity of the writer, for us to rely on it exclusively.
The case is different with the closing portion (xvi, 9-20), where the evidence, both external and internal, is somewhat strong against its having formed a part of Mark's original Gospel, which is thought to have broken off abruptly with the words t^o/Soiirro yap (for various theories to account for this, the death of Peter, that of Mark, sudden persecution, flight, the loss of the last leaf, etc., see Hug, Meyer, Schott). No less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it, some of them repeat- edly, which are never elsewhere used by IMark. This alone, when we remember the peculiarities of diction in the pastoral epistles, as compared with Paul's other writ- ings, would not be sufHcient to prove that it was not written by the same author; though when taken in con- nection with the external evidence, it would seem to show that it was not composed at the same time. On this ground, therefore, we must conclude that if not the work of another hand, it was written at a later period than the rest of the Gospel. The external evidence, though somewhat inconsistent, points, though less de- cidedly, the same way. While it is found in all codices of weight, including A, C, D, and all versions, and is re- peatedly (pioted, without question, by early writers from the time of Iren.xus {Ilnr. iii, 10, ti). and appears in the very ancient Syriac recension published by Cureton, it is absent from the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS, (in the former of which, after the subscription, the greater part of the column and the wliole of the next are left vacant, a ])henomenon nowhere elie found in the N,-T. portion of that codex), while in several MSS. that contain it, it is noted that it is wanting in others, and those the most accurate copies. Jerome {ad Ihdib. iv, 172) speaks of it as being found in but few copies of the Gospels, and de-
ficient in almost all the Greek MSS. Eusebius {ad ^fa- rin. quasst. 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 genuineness. The note of the latter may be con- sulted, as well as those of Alford and Mej'er, who take the other side, for a fuU statement of the evidence for and against. See also Burgon, The last twelve Verses of Mark vindicated (Lond. 1871).
XII. Canonicity. — The citation of v, 19 as Scripture by Irenicus appears sufficient to establish this point. With regard to other passages of Mark's Gospel, as it presents so few facts peculiar to himself, we cannot be surprised that there are but few references to it in the early fa- thers. The Muratorian canon, however (cir. A.D. 170), commences with words which evidently refer to it. It is mentioned by Papias. Justin Martyr refers to it for the name Boanerges {Tryph. lOG), as the "Memoirs of Peter." Irenreus, as we have seen above, quotes from it, and in the 19th Clementine Homily (ed. Dusseldorf, 1853) a peculiar phrase of Mark (iv, 34) is repeated ver- bally. The fact also recorded bj- Irenieus {Ilcer. iii, 11, 7), that the Docetic heretics preferred the Gospel of Mark to the others, affords an early proof of its accept- ance in the Church.
XIII. Commentaries. — The following are the special exegetical helps on the entire Gospel of IMark ; to a few of the most important we prefix an asterisk : Victor of Antioch, In Marciim (Gr. ed. Matthiii ; also in the Bill. Max. Patr. iv, 370) ; Jerome, Expositio (in 0pp. \Siip- ]ws.\ xi, 758) ; also Commentarius (ibid, xi, 783); Pos- simis.Catena Gr.Patntm (Rom. 1G73, fob); Bede, £07)0- sitio (in C/)/;. v, 92 ; Woi-lcs, x, 1) ; Aquinas, Catena (in 0pp. iv ; also in vol. ii of Engl, transl.) ; Albertus Mag- nus, Commentarius (in Opji. ix) ; Gerson, Lectiones (in 0pp. iv, 203) ; Zwingle, Annotaliones (in Ojjpi. iv, 141) ; Brentius, //omiVitE (in 0pp. x); Myconius, Commentarius (Basil. 1538, 8vo) ; Hegendorphinus, Adnotationes (Hag. 1526, 153G, 8vo) ; Sarcer, Scholia (Basil. 1539, 1540, 8vo) ; BuUinger, Commentaiia. (Tigur. 1545, fob); Ilofmeister, Commentarius [includ. IMatt. and Luke] (Lovan. 1562, fob; Par. 1563; Colon. 1572, 8vo); Dansus, Qutestiones (Genev. 1594, 8vo) ; Gualther, Ilomilia- (Heidelb. 1608, fol.) ; Winckelmann, Commentarius (Francof. 1612, 8vo) ; Del Pas, Commentaria (Rom. 1623, fol.) ; Novarinus, Ax- jiensio (Lugd. 1642, fob) ; Petter, Coiniiientary (London, 1662,2 vols, fob); Waxt^ocVer, A antekiniiu/i it (Amsterd. 1671, 4to); \)<i\eie\,Ex2dicatio [includ. Matt.] (Lend. 1688, 8vo); Ttorchc, Commentarius (Kilon. 1690, 4to) ; Heupel, A o^fp (Argent. 1716, 8vo); Klemm, A'a-^-aV/a (Tubing. 1728, 4to) ; *Elsner, Commentarius (Traj. 1773, 4to); Cunningham, TAoi/^/^s (Lond. 1825, 12mo) ; Hinds, Manual (Lond. 1829, 8vo) ; ^IawA, Annotations (Lond. 1830, 8vo) ; *Fritzsche, Conwieniarii (Lips. 1830, 8vo) ; Ford, JUustrations (Lond. 1849, 1864, 8vo) ; Hilgenfeld, D. Marcus -evanyclium (Halle, 1850, 8vo) ; Gumming, Readim/s (Lond. 1853, 8vo) ; *Alexander, Explanation (N. Y. 1858, 1 2mo) ; Klostemnann, D. Marhis-eranf/elium (Getting. 1867, 8vo) ; Goodwin, Notes (Loud. 1869, 8vo). See Gospels.