Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary: B F à have merely κατὰ Μάρκον . Others: τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον . Others: ἐκ τοῦ κ . Μ . ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου . Comp. on Matt. p. 45.
After ὁδόν σου Elz. has ἔμπροσθέν σου , from Matthew and Luke.
Mar_1:5. πάντες ] which in Elz. Scholz, and Fritzsche stands after ἐβαπτίζοντο , is rightly placed by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. after Ἱεροσολ . (B D L Δ à , min. vss. Or. Eus.). if καὶ ἐβαπτ . πάντες had been the original arrangement and πάντες had been put back, it would, conformably to usage ( πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία ), have been placed before οἱ Ἱεροσολ . The Recepta is explained from the circumstance that πάντες was omitted (so still in min. and Brix.), and that it was then restored beside ἐβαπτίζοντο , because in Mat_3:5 also Ἱεροσόλυμα stands alone.
Mar_1:10. ἀπό ] So also Scholz. But Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκ , which also Griesb. approved of, following B D L Δ à , min. Goth.; ἀπό is from Mat_3:16.
Mar_1:11. ἐν ᾧ ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν σοί , following B D L P à , min. vss. The latter is right; ἐν ᾡ is from Mat_3:17.
Mar_1:13. Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche have ἐκεῖ after ἦν . It is wanting in A B D L à , min. vss. Or.; it was, however, very easily passed over as superfluous (K. min. omit ἐν τ . ἐρ .) between ἦν and ἐν .
Mar_1:14. τῆς βασιλείας ] is not found in B L à . min. vss. Or. It is regarded as suspicious by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is an addition in accordance with what follows. Comp. Mat_4:23.
Mar_1:16. περιπατῶν δέ ] Lachm. and Tisch. read καὶ παράγων , which Griesb. also approved, following B D L à , min. Vulg. It. al. The Recepta is from Mat_4:18, from which place also came subsequently αὐτοῦ , instead of which Σιμῶνος (Lachm.: τοῦ Σιμῶνος ) is with Tisch. to be read, according to B L M à .
ἀμφιβάλλ .] Elz. has βάλλοντας , contrary to decisive evidence. From Mat_4:18.
Mar_1:18. αὐτῶν ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C L à , min. vss., to be deleted as a familiar addition, as also in Mar_1:31 αὐτῆς .
Mar_1:19. ἐκεῖθεν ] is wanting in B D L, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. From Mat_4:21.
Mar_1:21. The omission of εἰσελθών (Tisch.) is attested indeed by C L Δ à , min. Syr. Copt. Colb. Or. (twice), which assign various positions to ἐδιδ . (Tisch.: ἐδιδ . εἰς τ . συναγωγήν ), but might easily be produced by a clerical error on occasion of the following εἰς , and it has the preponderance of the witnesses against it.
Mar_1:24. ἔα ] is wanting in B D à *, min. Syr. Perss. Arr. Aeth. Copt. Vulg. It. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The exclamation, which only occurs again in Luk_4:34, and is there more strongly attested, was the more easily introduced here from that place.
Mar_1:26. ἐξ αὐτοῦ ] Lachm.: ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ , without preponderating testimony. From Luk_4:35.
Mar_1:27. Instead of πρὸς αὐτούς , read with Lachm., in accordance with decisive evidence, πρὸς ἑαυτούς . Tisch., following only B à , has merely αὐτούς .
τί ἐστι τοῦτο ; τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη ; ὅτι κατʼ κ . τ . λ .] Lachm.: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο ; διδαχὴ καινὴ · κατʼ κ . τ . λ . Just so Rinck and Tisch., who, however, connect διδ . καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσ . together. The authority of this reading depends on B L Δ à , min.; it is to be preferred, since manifestly the original διδαχὴ καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσίαν was conformed to the question in Luke, τίς ὁ λόγος αὕτος , ὅτι κ . τ . λ ., and thus arose τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη , ὅτι .
Mar_1:28. Instead of ἐξῆλθε δέ , preponderating attestation favours καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (Lachm. Tisch.).
After εὐθύς Tisch. has πανταχοῦ .[46] So B C L à ** min. codd. It. Copt. Rightly so; the superfluous word, which might easily be regarded as inappropriate ( à * min. omit εὐθύς also), dropped away.
Mar_1:31. εὐθέως ] after πυρ . is wanting in B C L à , min. Copt. Arm.; and D, Vulg. Cant, have it before ἀφῆκεν . Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. But it was easily omitted, since Mat_8:15 and Luk_4:39 have not this defining word.
Mar_1:38. After ἄγωμεν , B C L à , 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Tisch. have ἀλλαχοῦ . To be adopted (comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127); being unnecessary and without corresponding element in Luk_4:43, it was very easily passed over; comp. on πανταχοῦ , Mar_1:28.
Instead of ἐξελήλυθα , B C L à , 33 have ἐξῆλθον , which Griesb. and Scholz have approved, and Tisch. has adopted. Rightly; the explanation of procession from the Father suggested the Johannine ἘΛΉΛΥΘΑ , which, moreover, Δ and min. actually read.
Mar_1:39. ΕἸς ΤᾺς ΔΥΝΑΓΩΓΆς ] So also Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. on preponderant attestation. The Recepta ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς is an emendation.
Mar_1:40. καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν ] is wanting in B D G Γ , min. Cant. 1 :Verc. Colb. Germ. 1, Corb. 2. Deleted by Lachm.; omission through the homoeoteleuton. Had any addition been made from Mat_8:2, Luk_5:12, another expression would have been used. Tisch. has deleted αὐτόν , but following only L à , min. vss.
Mar_1:41. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ] B D à , 102, Cant. Verc. Corb. 2 have merely καί . So Lachm. and Tisch. But comp. Mat_8:3; Luk_5:13. From these passages comes also the omission of εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ , Mar_1:42, in B D L à , min. vss. Lachm. Tisch.
Mar_1:44. μηδέν ] deleted by Lachm., following A L L Δ à , min. vss. Vict. Theophyl. The omission occurred in conformity with Mat_8:4; Luk_5:14
Mar_1:45. Elz. reads πανταχόθεν . But πάντοθεν is decisively attested.
[46] In the text of the Synops. of Tisch. it is omitted by mistake.