Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_10:4. With Lachm. and Tisch. the order ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς , following B C D L Δ , min., is to be preferred.
Mar_10:6. ὁ Θεός is wanting in B C L Δ à , Copt. Colb. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition by way of gloss, which appeared necessary here, although not at Mat_19:4.
Mar_10:7. πρὸς τ . γυν .] Lachm. has τῇ γυναικί , following A C L N Δ , min. codd. It. Jer. From Matthew. Tisch. has now again deleted κ . προσκολλ . πρὸς τ . γυν . αὐτοῦ , nevertheless only following B à , Goth. It lies under a strong suspicion of being an addition from Matthew.
Mar_10:10. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ] So also Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L Δ à , min. Cant. 10 :The Recepta ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Fritzsche, Scholz) is an emendation.
αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ] On decisive evidence we must read, with Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., merely περὶ τούτου . The first αὐτοῦ is a current addition to οἱ μαθηταί ; by τοῦ αὐτοῦ (D: τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου ) τούτου was glossed for the purpose of more precise definition.
Mar_10:12. Tischendorf’s reading: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ (B C L à and Δ , which, however, has καί before γαμ .), is a stylistic emendation.
γαμηθῇ ἄλλῳ ] Lachm. Tisch. have γαμήσῃ ἄλλον , following B C* D L Δ à , min. A mechanical repetition from Mar_10:11 (whence Δ has even ἄλλην instead of ἄλλον !).
Mar_10:14. Before μή Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. have καί , which is wanting in witnesses deserving consideration, and is added from the parallels.
Mar_10:16. Instead of ηὐλόγει Lachm. (as also Scholz) has εὐλόγει . But B C Δ à , min. Vict, have κατευλόγει (L N: κατηυλ .). It is to be adopted, with Tisch.; this compound, which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., was unfamiliar to the transcribers. Its position before τιθείς (omitting the last αὐτά ) is attested by B C L Δ à , min. Copt. Syr. p. ms. Vict. (Fritzsche, Tisch.). But it was precisely the threefold αὐτά that gave occasion to error and correction.
Mar_10:19. The arrangement μὴ φον ., μὴ μοιχ . (Lachm. Tisch.), is found in B C Δ à ** min. Copt. Ar. Colb.; but it is from Mat_19:18.
Mar_10:21. The article before πτωχοῖς is wanting in witnesses of such preponderating character (condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm.) that it appears (as also in Mat_19:21) as an addition.
ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν ] is wanting in B C D Δ à , 406, Copt. Vulg. It. Clem. Hilar. Aug. Ambr. Other witnesses have it before δεῦρο . Bracketed by Lachm. But how easily the words were passed over, as the parallels have nothing of the kind!
Mar_10:24. τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμ .] is not found in B Δ à , Copt. ms. Deleted by Tisch. But if it had been added, the addition would have been made in accordance with the text of Matt. or Luke, or according to Mar_10:23. The omission was meant in the interest of stricter morality, which regarded the πεποιθότας , etc., as quite excluded.
Mar_10:25. διελθεῖν ] The εἰσελθεῖν , commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch., has indeed considerable attestation, but it is from Mat_9:24, and in this case the significant change of the verbs in Mark was not observed.
Mar_10:28. ἠκολουθήσαμεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολουθήκαμεν , following B C D. A mechanical similarity of formation with ἀφήκαμεν , occurring also in some witnesses in Matthew and Luke.
Mar_10:29. Only B Δ à ( ἐ . αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ .), Copt. have the simple ἔφη ὁ Ἰησ . (Tisch.) instead of ἀποκρ . ὁ Ἰ . εἶπεν , but they are correct. Comp. on Mar_9:12; Mar_9:38.
ἢ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ] The reverse order is found in B C Δ 106, Copt. Goth. Colb. Brix. Lachm. and Tisch. It is to be preferred, ἢ πατέρα was in some cases placed first, in accordance with the natural relation; in some cases also, in consideration of Mar_10:30, it was altogether omitted (D, Cant. Verc. Corb Harl.). On account of Mar_10:30 ἢ γυναῖκα has also been omitted (B D Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.).
After καί the second ἕνεκεν is added by Griesb. and Tisch., following preponderating evidence. The omission is explained from Mar_8:35.
Mar_10:30. μητέρας ] Lachm. has μητέρα , following A C D, Verss.; the plural was objectionable.
Mar_10:31. The article before the second ἔσχατοι is indeed deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.; but following Mat_19:30 it dropped out so easily, and, moreover, it is found still in such important testimonies, that it must be restored.
Mar_10:32. καὶ ἀκολουθ .] B C* L Δ à , 1, Copt. have οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθ . This is rightly followed by Ewald, and is now adopted by Tisch. The οἱ δὲ not being understood was set aside by καί . But the attestation is to be the more regarded as sufficient, that D K, min. Verc. 10 :Chrys. are not to be reckoned in favour of the Recepta, because they altogether omit κ . ἀκολ . ἐφοβ ., of which omission the homoioteleuton was manifestly the cause.
Mar_10:33. The article before γραμμ . (Elz.) is, with Scholz and Tisch. (in opposition to Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, and Lachm.), to be maintained. The testimony in favour of its omission is not preponderating, and comp. Mat_20:18.
Mar_10:34. The order ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτ . κ . μαστιγ . αὐτ . (Lachm. Tisch. Rinck) is found in B C L Δ à , min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It. But the ἐμπαίξ . and ἐμπτύσ . were considered as belonging together. Comp. Luk_18:33.
Elz. has τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ; so also Fritzsche, Scholz. But B C L Δ à , vss. have μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας . Approved by Griesb. Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is to be maintained. See on Mar_9:31.
Mar_10:35. After αἰτήσ . Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have σε , following A B C L Δ à ** min. vss. To be adopted. It was easily passed over as being superfluous. D K have it before the verb. An incorrect restoration. à * has entirely omitted ὃ ἐάν down to δὸς ἡμῖν .
Mar_10:36. ποιῆσαί με ὑμῖν ] Lachm. Tisch. have ποιήσω ὑμῖν , which was also approved by Griesb. An alteration in remembrance of passages such as Mar_10:51, Mar_14:12, Mat_20:32, in which also the bare subjunctive was sometimes completed by ἵνα ποιήσω .
Mar_10:38. Instead of καί (in Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche) read, with Rinck, Lachm. and Tisch., ἤ , which Griesb. also approved, following B C* D L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Ar. Vulg. It. Or.; καί came from Mar_10:39.
In Mar_10:40 also ἤ is to be adopted on almost the same evidence (with Rinck, Lachm., and Tisch.); καί is from Mat_20:23.
After εὐων . Elz. has μου , which is deleted on decisive evidence.
Mar_10:42. Read καὶ προσκαλ . αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς , with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L Δ à , 406, Syr. Copt. codd. It. The Recepta is from Mat_20:25.
Mar_10:43. Instead of the first ἔσται , Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐστίν , which Schulz also approved, in accordance with B C* D L Δ à , Vulg. It. The future came in from Matt., and on account of what follows.
Mar_10:44. ὑμῶν γενέσθαι ] Lachm. has ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι , following important evidence, but it is from Mat_20:27.
Mar_10:46. After τυφλός read with Tisch. προσαίτης , omitting the subsequent προσαιτῶν . So B L Δ Copt. Comp. à , τυφλὸς καὶ προσαίτης . The Recepta is from Luk_18:35.
Mar_10:47. ὁ υἱός ] Lachm. has υἱέ , following B C L Δ à , min. From Luke. Comp. Mar_10:48.
Mar_10:49. αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι ] B C L Δ à , min. Copt. have φωνήσατε αὐτόν . So Fritzsche and Tisch. And rightly; the accusative with the infinitive was introduced through the fact of ἐκέλευσεν being written instead of εἶπεν , after Luk_18:40 (so still Ev. 48, It. Vulg.), and remained, after εἶπεν was restored, the more easily because Luke has it also.
ἔγειρε ] See on Mar_2:9.
Mar_10:50. ἀναστάς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναπηδήσας , according to B D L Δ à , min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Or. The Recepta is a “scriptorum jejunitas” that mistakes the peculiarity of Mark (Tisch.).
Mar_10:51. The form ῥαββουνί (Elz. ῥαββονί ) has decisive evidence.
Mar_10:52. Instead of τῷ Ἰησοῦ (Elz., Scholz, Rinck), A B C D L Δ à have αὐτῷ (Tisch.), which attestation is decisive.