Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 13
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_13:2. ὯΔΕ IS ADOPTED BEFORE ΛΊΘΟς BY GRIESB. FRITZSCHE, SCHOLZ, LACHM., IN ACCORDANCE DOUBTLESS WITH B D G L U Δ à , MIN. VSS., BUT IT IS AN ADDITION FROM Mat_24:2. IT IS GENUINE IN MATTHEW ALONE, WHERE, MOREOVER, IT IS NOT WANTING IN ANY OF THE CODICES.
Mar_13:4. ΕἸΠΈ ] B D L à , MIN. HAVE ΕἸΠΌΝ . SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. THIS RARER FORM IS TO BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SO CONSIDERABLE TESTIMONY; ΕἸΠΈ IS FROM MATTHEW.
WITH TISCH., FOLLOWING B L à , WE MUST WRITE ΤΑῦΤΑ ΣΥΝΤΕΛ . ΠΆΝΤΑ ; DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS TO RECTIFY THE ORDER PRODUCED THE VARIATIONS.
Mar_13:8. BEFORE THE SECOND ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ WE MUST, WITH TISCH., DELETE ΚΑΊ , IN ACCORDANCE WITH B L à **.
ΚΑῚ ΤΑΡΑΧΑΊ ] SUSPECTED BY GRIESB., STRUCK OUT BY LACHM. AND TISCH., IN ACCORDANCE WITH B D L à , COPT. AETH. ERP. VULG. IT. VICT. BUT WHEREFORE AND WHENCE WAS IT TO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED? ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS VERY EASILY LOST IN THE FOLLOWING ἈΡΧΑΊ .
Mar_13:9. ἈΡΧΑΊ ] B D K L U Δ à , MIN. VSS. VULG. IT. ALSO HAVE ἈΡΧΉ , WHICH IS COMMENDED BY GRIESB., ADOPTED BY FRITZSCHE, SCHOLZ, LACHM. TISCH.; FROM Mat_24:8.
Mar_13:11. INSTEAD OF ἌΓΩΣΙΝ ELZ. HAS ἈΓΆΓΩΣΙΝ , IN OPPOSITION TO DECISIVE EVIDENCE.
ΜΗΔῈ ΜΕΛΕΤᾶΤΕ ] IS WANTING IN B D L à , MIN. COPT. AETH. AR. P. ERP. VULG. IT. VIGIL. CONDEMNED BY GRIESB., BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH. BUT THE HOMOIOTELEUTON THE MORE EASILY OCCASIONED THE OMISSION OF THE WORDS, SINCE THEY FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER ΤΊ ΛΑΛΉΣΗΤΕ . Luk_21:14, MOREOVER, TESTIFIES IN FAVOUR OF THEIR GENUINENESS.
Mar_13:14. AFTER ἘΡΗΜΏΣΕΩς ELZ. SCHOLZ, FRITZSCHE (LACHM. IN BRACKETS) HAVE: ΤῸ ῬΗΘῈΝ ὙΠῸ ΔΑΝΙῊΛ ΤΟῦ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΟΥ , WHICH WORDS ARE NOT FOUND IN B D L à , COPT. ARM. IT. VULG. SAX. AUG. THEY ARE FROM MATTHEW.
ἘΣΤΏς ] LACHM. HAS ἙΣΤΗΚΌς , FOLLOWING D 28; TISCH. HAS ἙΣΤΗΚΌΤΑ , FOLLOWING B L à . FRITZSCHE: ἙΣΤΌς , ACCORDING TO A E F G H V Δ , MIN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RECEPTA HAS PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE AGAINST IT; IT IS FROM Mat_24:15. OF THE OTHER READINGS ἙΣΤΗΚΌς IS TO BE ADOPTED, BECAUSE B L à ALSO TESTIFY IN ITS FAVOUR BY ἙΣΤΗΚΌΤΑ ;[153] WHILE ἙΣΤΌς LIKEWISE BETRAYS ITS ORIGIN FROM MATTHEW (VAR.; SEE THE CRITICAL REMARKS ON Mat_24:15).
Mar_13:16. ὪΝ ] IS WANTING IN B D L Δ À , MIN. LACHM. TISCH. BUT HOW EASILY IT DROPT OUT AFTER ἈΓΡΟΝ ! THE MORE EASILY, BECAUSE ὪΝ STOOD ALSO IN Mar_13:15.
Mar_13:18. Ἡ ΦΥΓῊ ὙΜῶΝ ] IS WANTING IN B D L Δ À * MIN. ARM. VULG. IT., AND IN OTHER WITNESSES IS REPRESENTED BY ΤΑῦΤΑ . CONDEMNED BY GRIESB. AND RINCK, DELETED BY FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. RIGHTLY SO; IT IS FROM Mat_24:20, FROM WHICH PLACE ALSO CODD. AND VSS. HAVE AFTER ΧΕΙΜῶΝΟς ADDED: ΜΗΔῈ ΣΑΒΒΆΤῼ , OR ΜΗΔῈ ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΥ , OR Ἢ ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΥ , AND THE LIKE.
Mar_13:19. Ἧς ] LACHM. TISCH. HAVE ἭΝ , FOLLOWING B C* L À , 28. A CORRECTION. THE OMISSION OF Ἧς ἜΚΤ . Ὁ ΘΕΌς IN D 27, ARM. CODD. IT. IS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPERFLUOUSNESS OF THE WORDS.
Mar_13:21. THE OMISSION OF Ἤ , WHICH GRIESB., FOLLOWING MILL, COMMENDED, AND FRITZSCHE AND TISCH. HAVE CARRIED OUT, IS TOO WEAKLY ATTESTED. IN ITSELF IT MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN ADDED FROM MATTHEW AS OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LUKE.
INSTEAD OF ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΤΕ ELZ. HAS ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΗΤΕ , IN OPPOSITION TO PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE; IT IS FROM Mat_24:23.
Mar_13:22. ALTHOUGH ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE OF D, MIN. CODD. IT., ΨΕΥΔΌΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ ΚΑΊ IS TO BE DELETED, AND ΠΟΙΉΣΟΥΣΙΝ IS TO BE WRITTEN INSTEAD OF ΔΏΣΟΥΣΙ . MOREOVER (WITH TISCH.), ΚΑΊ IS TO BE OMITTED BEFORE ΤΟῪς ἘΚΛ . (B D À ). THE RECEPTA IS A FILLING UP FROM MATTHEW.
Mar_13:23. ἸΔΟῦ ] IS WANTING IN B L 28, COPT AETH. VERC. BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH. AN ADDITION FROM MATTHEW.
Mar_13:25. ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ] A B C À , MIN. VSS. HAVE ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ . SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. INSTEAD OF ἘΚΠΊΠΤ . B C D L À , MIN. CODD. IT. HAVE ΠΊΠΤΟΝΤΕς (SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH.). THUS THE MOST IMPORTANT CODICES ARE AGAINST THE RECEPTA (D HAS ΟἹ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΠΊΠΤΟΝΤΕς ), IN PLACE OF WHICH THE BEST ATTESTED OF THESE READINGS ARE TO BE ADOPTED. INTERNAL GROUNDS ARE WANTING; BUT IF IT HAD BEEN ALTERED FROM MATTHEW, ἈΠΌ WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND INSTEAD OF ἘΚ .
Mar_13:27. ΑὐΤΟῦ ] AFTER ἈΓΓΈΛ . IS WANTING IN B D L, COPT. CANT. VERC. VIND. CORB. BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH.; IT IS FROM MATTHEW.
Mar_13:28. THE VERBAL ORDER ἬΔΗ Ὁ ΚΛΆΔΟς ΑὐΤῆς (FRITZSCHE, LACHM.) HAS PREPONDERATING EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS FROM MATTHEW. THE MANIFOLD TRANSPOSITIONS IN THE CODICES WOULD HAVE NO MOTIVE, IF THE READING OF LACHM. HAD BEEN THE ORIGINAL, AS IN THE CASE OF MATTHEW NO VARIATION IS FOUND.
ΓΙΝΏΣΚΕΤΕ ] A B** D L Δ , MIN. HAVE ΓΙΝΏΣΚΕΤΑΙ , WHICH IS APPROVED BY SCHULZ AND ADOPTED BY FRITZSCHE AND TISCH. THE RECEPTA IS FROM THE PARALLELS.
Mar_13:31. INSTEAD OF ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ , ELZ. LACHM. TISCH. HAVE ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ . THE PLURAL (B D K U Γ À ) IS TO BE MAINTAINED HERE AND AT Luk_21:33; THE REMEMBRANCE OF THE WELL-KNOWN SAYING FROM MATTH. SUGGESTED ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ IN THE SINGULAR. MOREOVER, IT TELLS IN FAVOUR OF THE PLURAL, THAT B L À , MIN. (TISCH.) HAVE ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ AGAIN AFTERWARDS INSTEAD OF ΠΑΡΈΛΘΩΣΙ , ALTHOUGH THIS IS A MECHANICAL REPETITION.
Mar_13:32. INSTEAD OF Ἤ ELZ. HAS ΚΑΊ , IN OPPOSITION TO DECISIVE EVIDENCE.
Mar_13:33. ΚΑΊ ΠΡΟΣΕΎΧΕΣΘΕ ] IS WANTING IN B D 122, CANT. VERC. COLB. TOLET. DELETED BY LACHM. RIGHTLY; AN ADDITION THAT EASILY OCCURRED (COMP. Mat_24:41 AND THE PARALLELS).
Mar_13:34. ΚΑΊ IS TO BE DELETED BEFORE ἙΚΆΣΤῼ (WITH LACHM. AND TISCH.), IN CONFORMITY WITH B C* D L À , MIN. CODD. IT.
Mar_13:37. BETWEEN Ἅ IN ELZ. SCHOLZ, AND Ὅ WHICH GRIESB. HAS APPROVED, AND FRITZSCHE, LACHM. HAVE ADOPTED, THE EVIDENCE IS VERY MUCH DIVIDED. BUT Ὅ IS AN UNNECESSARY EMENDATION, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW PREFERRED BY TISCH. (B C À , ETC.). D, CODD. IT. HAVE ἘΓῺ ΔῈ Λ . ὙΜ . ΓΡΗΓ .
[153] The masculine was introduced by the reference, frequent in the Fathers, to the statue ( τὸν ἀνδριάντα ) of the conqueror.