Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 12
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_12:3. οἱ δέ ] Lachm. Tisch. have καί , following B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Cant. 12 :Verc. Vind. It is from Mat_21:25.
Mar_12:4. λιθοβολήσ .] is wanting in B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Almost all the above witnesses have afterwards instead of ἀπέστ . ἠτιμωμ .: ἠτίμησαν . Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have followed the former omission and this reading, and rightly; λιθοβολ . is a gloss on ἐκεφαλ . from Mat_21:35, and ἀπέστ . ἠτιμωμένον is a reading conformed to the conclusion of Mar_12:3.
Mar_12:5. καὶ ἄλλον ] Elz. Scholz have καὶ πάλιν ἄλλ ., in opposition to preponderating evidence; πάλιν is a mechanical repetition from Mar_12:4.
Instead of τούς is to be written οὕς both times, following B L Δ à , min. with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.
The Aeolic form ἀποκτέννοντες is on decisive evidence to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Comp. the critical remarks on Mat_10:28.
Mar_12:6. The arrangement ἕνα ἔχων υἱόν is required by decisive evidence (Fritzsche, Lachm., comp. Tisch.), of which, however, B C** L Δ à , 33 have εἶχεν instead of ἔχων (so Tisch. rightly, as ἔχων is an emendation of the construction). Almost the same witnesses omit the οὖν after ἔτι ; it is, with Tisch., to be deleted as a connective addition, as, moreover, αὐτοῦ after ἀγαπ . is a decidedly condemned mechanical addition.
Mar_12:8. Such preponderating evidence is in favour of the superfluous αὐτόν after ἐξέβαλ ., that it is to be adopted with Lachm. and Tisch.
Mar_12:14. οἱ δέ ] B C D L Δ à , 33, Copt. codd. of the It. have καί . So Fritzsche, Lachm. From Luk_20:21, whence also many variations with ἐπηρώτων have come into our passage.
Mar_12:17. The arrangement τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδ . Καίσαρι (Tisch.) is to be preferred, in accordance with B C L Δ à , 28, Syr. Copt. The placing of ἀπόδοτε first (Elz. Lachm.) is from the parallels.
ἐθαύμασαν ] Lachm. has ἐθαύμαζον . But among the codd. which read the imperfect (B D L Δ à ), B à have ἐξεθαύμαζον (D* has ἐξεθαυμάζοντο ). This ἐξεθαύμαζον (Tisch.) is to be preferred. The simple form and the aorist are from the parallels.
Mar_12:18. ἐπηρώτησαν ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐπηρώτων , following B C D L Δ à , 33; the aorist is from the parallels.
Mar_12:19. τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ] αὐτοῦ is wanting in B C L Δ à , min. Copt., and is from Matthew.
Mar_12:20. After ἑπτά Elz. Fritzsche have οὖν , against decisive evidence; it is from Luk_20:29; instead of which some other witnesses have δέ (from Matthew).
Mar_12:21. καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε ] B C L Δ à , 33, Copt. have μὴ καταλιπών . Approved by Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 133, adopted by Tisch. But if the Recepta had originated from what precedes and follows, it would have run simply καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκε ; the καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός does not look like the result of a gloss, and might even become offensive on account of its emphasis.
Mar_12:22. ἔλβον αὐτήν ] is wanting in B M, min. Colb., also C L Δ à , min. Copt., which, moreover, omit καί before οὐκ . Fritzsche has deleted ἔλαβον αὐτ ., Lachm. has merely bracketed it; Tisch. has struck out, besides ἔλαβ . αὐτ ., the καί also before οὐκ . Rightly; the short reading: καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐκ ἀφῆκαν σπέρμα , was completed in conformity with Mar_12:21.
ἐσχάτη ] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἔσχατον , certainly on considerable attestation; but it is an emendation (comp. Matthew and Luke: ὕστερον ), on account of the difference of the genders ( ἐσχ . feminine, πάντ . masculine).
The order καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθ . is, with Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepta is from the parallels.
Mar_12:23. After ἐν τῇ Elz. Lachm. Scholz have οὖν , which important witnesses omit, others place after ἀναστ . From the parallels.
ὅταν ἀναστῶσι ] is wanting in B C D L Δ à , min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. It is to be maintained, for there was no occasion for any gloss; its absolute superfluousness, however, the absence of any such addition in the parallels, and the similarity of ἀναστάσει and ἀναστῶσι , occasioned the omission.
Mar_12:25. γαμίσκονται ] A F H, min. have ἐκγαμίσκονται . B C G L U Δ à , min. have γαμίζονται . Consequently the testimonies in favour of the Recepta are left so weak (even D falls away, having γαμίζουσιν ), and γαμίζονται has so much the preponderance, that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted. Comp. on Mat_22:30.
Before ἐν Elz. has οἱ . The weight of the evidence is divided. But since this οἱ after ἄγγελΟΙ was more easily dropped out than brought in (by being written twice over), and is wanting also in Matthew, it is to be maintained.
Mar_12:26. Instead of τοῦ βάτου Elz. has τῆς βάτου , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Decisive evidence condemns in Mar_12:27 the article before Θεός , and then Θεός before ζώντων ; just as also ὑμεῖς οὖν before πολὺ πλανᾶσθε is, following B C L Δ à , Copt., to be struck out, with Tisch., as being an addition to these short pithy words.
Mar_12:28. εἰδώς ] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἰδών (Fritzsche: καὶ ἰδών ). So, with or without καί (which is a connective interpolation), in C D L à * min. vss., including Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Aug. But these witnesses are not preponderating, and εἰδώς might easily seem unsuitable and give way to the more usual ἰδών ; comp. Mar_12:34.
The order ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς has been preferred by Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (following Gersd. p. 526), in accordance with B C L Δ à , min. Copt. Theophylact. But it was just the customary placing of the pronoun after the verb that occasioned the inversion of the words, in which the intention with which αὐτοῖς was prefixed was not observed. It is otherwise at Mar_14:40.
Instead of πάντων Elz. has πασῶν , contrary to decisive evidence.
Mar_12:29. The Recepta is ὅτι πρώτη πασῶν τῶν ἐντολῶν . Very many variations. Griesb. and Fritzsche have ὅτι πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή , following A, min. Scholz reads ὅτι πρ . πάντων τῶν ἐντολῶν , following E F G H S, min. Lachm. has ὅτι πρ . πάντων [ ἐντολή ἐστιν ]. Tisch. has ὅτι πρώτη ἐστιν , following B L Δ à , Copt. The latter is the original form, which, according to the question of Mar_12:28 and its various readings, was variously amplified, and in the process ἐστίν was partly dropped.
Mar_12:30. αὕτη πρώτη ἐντολή ] is wanting in B E L Δ à , Copt. Deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Matthew, with variations in details, following Mar_12:28-29.
Mar_12:31. Instead of καὶ δευτ . read, with Tisch., merely δευτ .
Elz. Griesb. Scholz have ὁμοία αὕτη ; Fritzsche, Lachm. have ὁμ . αὐτῇ ; Tisch. merely αὕτη . The last is attested by B L Δ à , Copt., and is to be preferred, since ὁμοία very readily suggested itself to be written on the margin from Matthew.
Mar_12:32. After εἷς ἔστι Elz. has Θεός ; a supplement in opposition to preponderant evidence.
Mar_12:33. καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχ .] is wanting in B L Δ à , min. Copt. Verc. Marcell. in Eus. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if it were an addition, it would have been inserted after καρδίας (comp. Mar_12:30). On the other hand, the arrangement different from Mar_12:30 might easily draw after it the omission.
The article before θυσιῶν (in Elz.) is decisively condemned.
Mar_12:36. γάρ ] is wanting in B L Δ à , min. Copt. Verc., while D, Arm. read καὶ αὐτός , and Colb. Corb. have autem. Lachm. has bracketed γάρ , and Tisch. has deleted it. The latter is right. The connection was variously supplied.
Mar_12:37. οὖν ] is wanting in B D L Δ à , min. copt. Syr. p. codd. It. Hil. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from the parallels.
Mar_12:43. εἶπεν ] instead of the Recepta λέγει (which Scholz, Rinck, Tisch. defend), is decisively attested, as also is ἔβαλε (Lachm.) instead of the Recepta βέβληκε . In place of βαλόντ . (Elz.), βαλλόντ . must be written on decisive attestation.