Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 11
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The form Ἱεροσόλυμα is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L Δ à , min. Sahid. Or. Ἱερουσαλήμ does not occur elsewhere in Mark, and only in Matthew at Mat_23:37 (see in loc.); in Luke it is the usual form.
ἀποστέλλει ] Lachm. reads ἀπέστειλεν , in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from the parallels.
Mar_11:2. οὐδείς ] Lachm. has οὐδεὶς οὔπω ; Fritzsche: οὐδέπω οὐδείς . The latter is much too weakly attested. The former has considerable attestation, but with a different position of the οὔπω (Tisch. οὐδ . ἀνθρ . οὔπω ), instead of which A has πώποτε (from Luke). The Recepta is to be defended; the idea expressed in adhuc was very variously brought in.
λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε ] B C L Δ à , Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. have λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. (Lachm. has λύσατε αὐτ . κ . ἀγάγετε ). Rightly; the Recepta is from Luk_19:30; comp. Mat_21:2, whence also originated the reading of Lachm.
Mar_11:3. ἀποστέλλει ] Elz. Fritzsche have ἀποστελεῖ , in opposition to decisive evidence. Comp. on Mat_21:3.
πάλιν , which B C* D L Δ à , min. Verc. Colb. Or. (twice) read, although it is adopted by Tisch., is an addition from misunderstanding; the reader probably being misled by ὧδε , and taking the words as being still a portion of what was to be said by the disciples.
Mar_11:4. The article before πῶλον (Elz.) is, in accordance with decisive evidence, deleted.
Mar_11:6. Instead of εἶπεν (so also Lachm. and Tisch.) Elz. Scholz have ἐνετείλατο . But εἶπεν is so weightily attested by B C L Δ à , min. Or. Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm. Or. that ἐνετείλατο appears a gloss. D has εἰρήκει , which likewise tells in favour of εἶπεν , and is only a change into the pluperfect.
Mar_11:7. ἤγαγον ] B L Δ à ** Or. have φέρουσιν ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallel passages.
ἐπέβαλον ] B C D L Δ à , min. Vulg. Cant. 11 :Corb. Vind. Or. have ἐπιβάλλουσιν . Adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta was derived from the reading ἤγαγον .
ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ] B C D L Δ à , min. have ἐπʼ αὐτόν , which Griesb. approved, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. adopted. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition of the previous αὐτῷ .
Mar_11:8. δένδρων ] B C L Δ à , Syr. p. (in the margin) Or. Sahid. have ἀγρῶν , which Fritzsche and Tisch. have rightly adopted. With Tisch., however, instead of the whole passage ἔκοπτον … ὁδόν we must read briefly and simply: κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν . The Recepta is an expansion from Matthew, whence also came λέγοντες ; in Mar_11:9. This is wanting in B C L Δ à , min. Copt. Sahid. Colb. Corb. Or., is regarded as suspicious by Griesb. and Lachm., and is deleted by Tisch.
Mar_11:10. After βασιλεία Elz. has ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου , against preponderating evidence. An awkward repetition from Mar_11:9.
Mar_11:11. καὶ εἰς τ . ἱερόν ] καί is wanting in B C L M Δ à , min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Perss. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.; inserted by way of connection.
Mar_11:13. To μακρόθεν , with Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., there is to be added ἀπό , upon preponderating evidence. Comp. Mar_5:6.
Mar_11:14. The arrangement εἰς τ . αἰ . ἐκ . σ ., as well as μηδείς (instead of οὐδείς in Elz.), is decisively attested.
Mar_11:17. λέγων αὐτοῖς ] B C L Δ à , min. Copt. have καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς . So Tisch. The Recepta is from Luke.
ἐποιήσατε ] B L Δ , Or. have πεποιήκατε . Adopted by Tisch. The aorist, in itself more familiar, came from Luke. Comp. on Mat_21:13.
Mar_11:18. The arrangement οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ . οἱ γραμμ . is decisively attested (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), as is also the subjunctive ἀπολέσωσιν (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) instead of ἀπολέσουσιν .
Mar_11:19. ὅτε ] B C K L Δ à , min. have ὅταν . Wrongly adopted by Tisch. Comp. his Proleg. p. lvii. Unsuitable (otherwise at Mar_3:11), and to be regarded as an ancient clerical error.
ἐξεπορεύετο ] A B K M Δ , min. vss. have ἐξεπορεύοντο . So Fritzsche, Lachm. But how natural it was here to bring in the same number, as in the case of παραπορ ., Mar_11:20!
Mar_11:20. The order πρωῒ παραπορ . is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), but suggested itself most naturally after Mar_11:19, on which account, however, παραπορ . πρωΐ (B C D L Δ à , min. 11 :Cant.) is precisely to be preferred, with Lachm. and Tisch.
Mar_11:23. γάρ ] is wanting in B D U à , min. VSS. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective addition.
λέγει ] Lachm. and Tisch. have λαλεῖ , following B L N Δ à , min.; the more familiar λέγ . slipped in involuntarily.
ὃ ἐὰν εἴπῃ ] is wanting in B C D L Δ à , min. Copt. Vulg. It. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., condemned also by Griesb. A confusing gloss, following the foregoing ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ .
Mar_11:24. ἄν ] is wanting in B C D L Δ à , min. An addition from Mat_21:22.
προσευχόμενοι ] B C D L Δ à , Cant. Verc. Colb. Corb. Cypr. have προσεύχεσθε καί . So Lachm. and Tisch. The participle is an emendation, because it was thought necessary (comp. Mat_21:22) to make ὅσα dependent on αἰτεῖσθε .
λαμβάνετε ] B C L Δ à , Copt. have ἐλάβετε . Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the aorist was not understood, and was changed partly into the present, partly into the future (D).
Mar_11:25. στήκητε ] A C D H L M, min. have στήκετε . So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is an emendation introduced from ignorance.
Mar_11:26.[140]] is wanting in B L S Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. codd. It. Suspected by Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. But the evidence in favour of omission is the less sufficient for its condemnation, that the words do not closely agree with Mat_6:15, from which place they are said to have come in, but present deviations which are in no wise to be attributed to the mechanical transcribers. The omission is explained from the homoeoteleuton of Mar_11:25-26. But what M., min. further add after Mar_11:26 is an interpolation from Mat_7:7-8.
Mar_11:28. Instead of ΚΑῚ ΤΊς read, with Tisch., Ἢ ΤΊς , which is considerably attested and is supplanted by ΚΑῚ ΤΊς in Matthew.
Mar_11:29. ΚἈΓΏ ] Tisch. has deleted this, in accordance with B C? L Δ ; and Lachm., following A K, min. Arm. Germ. 2, Goth., has placed it before ὑμᾶς . It has come in from the parallels.
Mar_11:30. Before Ἰωάνν . here, as in Mat_21:25, τό is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with important testimony. It was passed over as superfluous; in Luke it is too weakly attested.
Mar_11:31. ἐλογίζοντο ] B C D G K L M Δ à ** min. read: διελογίζοντο , which Griesb. has commended, Schulz has approved, Fritzsche, Lachm. have adopted. With this preponderance of evidence it is the less to be derived from Mat_21:25, in proportion to the facility with which the syllable Δ l might be lost in the two last letters of the preceding ΚΑΙ . à * has the manifest clerical error προσελογίζοντο , which, however, does not presuppose the simple form.
οὖν ] is wanting in A C* L M X Δ , min. vss. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. It is from the parallels.
Elz. and Fritzsche have afterwards at Mar_11:32 : ἀλλʼ ἐὰν εἴπωμεν . But ἐάν has against it decisive evidence, and is an addition easily misunderstood,
ὅτι ὄντως ] Tisch. has ὄντως ὅτι , following B C L à ** min. The Recepta is a transposition for the sake of facility.
[140] Ver. 26 is wanting in all the original editions of Luther’s translation.