Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 14
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_14:3. καί before συντρ . is, with Tisch., following B L à , Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition.
τὸ ἀλάβ .] Fritzsche, Lachm. read τὸν ἀλάβ ., which is attested by A D E F H K S U V X Γ , min. Tisch., following B C L Δ à **, has τὴν ἀλάβ ., and this is to be preferred. The ignorance of the transcribers brought in τό and τόν .
κατά ] is wanting in B C L Δ à , min. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has ἐπί .
Mar_14:4. καὶ λέγοντες ] is with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L à , Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss after Matthew, instead of which D reads καὶ ἔλεγον .
Mar_14:5. τὸ μύρον ] is wanting in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Mat_26:9 (where τοῦτο alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids the supposition that it is an interpolation from Joh_12:5. D, min. have it before τοῦτο , and in à τοῦτο is wanting.
Mar_14:6. Instead of ἐν ἐμοί Elz. has εἰς ἐμέ , in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew.
Mar_14:8. αὓτη ] is only wanting, indeed, in B L à , min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after ἐποίησεν in Δ . Comp. Mat_26:12.
Mar_14:9. After ἀμήν very considerable evidence supports δέ , which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has adopted. It is to be adopted; the omission occurred conformably to the usual expression of Mark, in accordance with Mat_26:13.
τοῦτο ] is wanting in B D L à , min. Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from Mat_26:13.
Mar_14:14. After κατάλυμα Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read μου , following B C D L Δ à , min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As μου has this strong attestation and yet is superfluous, and as it does not occur at Luk_22:11, it is to be held as genuine.
Mar_14:15. The form ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον ) is decisively attested.
Before ἐκεῖ is to be read with Tisch. καί , in accordance with B C D L à , 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luk_22:12.
Mar_14:19. καὶ ἄλλως · μήτι ἐγώ ] is wanting in B C L P Δ à , min. vss., including Syr., utr. Vulg. After the example of earlier editors, suspected by Griesb., rejected by Schulz, struck out by Fritzsche and Tisch. But the omission might just as easily have been brought about by means of the preceding μήτι ἐγώ as by reason of the startling and even offensive superfluousness of the words, which, moreover, are not found in Matthew, whereas no reason for their being added can at all be conceived of without arbitrary hypotheses.
After λάβετε , Mar_14:22, Elz. has φἀγετε , in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew.
Mar_14:23. The article before ποτήριον (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place even stronger evidence against it than in Mat_26:27, and is, as there, to be struck out.
Mar_14:24. τὸ τῆς ] This τό is, as in Mat_26:28, to be deleted on considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it).
καινῆς ] is wanting in B C D L à , Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Mat_26:28.
περί ] B C D L Δ à , min.: ὑπέρ . So Lachm. and Tisch. Περί is from Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ .
Mar_14:27. ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ ] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., read after σκανδαλ . Yet Mill and Griesb. condemned the words. They are decisively to be rejected as an addition from Mat_26:31, as they are wholly wanting in preponderant witnesses, while others merely omit ἐν ἐμοί , and others still ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ . Lachm. has the latter in brackets.
διασκορπισθήσεται is an emendation (comp. on Mat_26:31), instead of which, with Lachm. and Tisch., διασκορπισθήσονται is to be read, and that with Tisch., after πρόβατα (B C D L à , min.).
Mar_14:29. καὶ εἰ ] Fritzsche, Tisch. read εἰ καί . Either is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be arrived at, even if εἰ καί was introduced in Matthew.
Mar_14:30. σύ after ὁτι is wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence.
ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ ] B C D L à , min. Lachm. Tisch. have ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί . Rightly; if this order of words were from Mat_26:34, the ἐν also would not be left out in it.
In what follows τρίς με ἀπ . is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order is from Matthew.
Mar_14:31. ἐκ περισσοῦ ] B C D à , min. have ἐκπερισσῶς . So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the simple περισσῶς (L, min.), partly glossed by ἐκ περισσοῦ .
ἔλεγε ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐλάλει , following B D L à . The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on Mar_11:23.
μᾶλλον ] is wanting in B C D L à , vss., including Vulg., It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on ἐκ περισσοῦ ; hence min. have it also before these words (comp. Mar_7:36), and this course Fritzsche has followed.
Mar_14:35. As at Mat_26:39, so here also προσελθών is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected.
Mar_14:36. τὸ ποτήρ . ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τοῦτο ] D, Hil.: τοῦτο τ . π . ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ ; K M: ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τ . π . τ .; A B C G L U X Δ à , min. Or. vss., including Vulg.: τ . π . τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ . In this variety of readings the last is so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted.
Mar_14:40. ὑποστρέψας ] Lachm. has πάλιν ἐλθών , following B L à , Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (D and cod. It. have merely ἐλθών ). πάλιν ἐλθών is the more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word πάλιν , and that he nowhere has the word ὑποστρέφω . But transcribers referred and joined the πάλιν to εὗρ . αὐτοὺς καθεύδ ., in accordance with which ἐλθών then became glossed and supplanted by ὑποστρέψ . Accordingly the subsequent πάλιν , which by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. is read after αὐτούς , and is not found in B D L à , min. vss., is, with Lachm., to be deleted.
Instead of καταβαρυνόμενοι , Elz. Scholz have βεβαρημένοι , in opposition to preponderant evidence. It is from Matthew.
Mar_14:41. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have τὸ λοιπόν . But the article has come in from Matthew, in opposition to considerable evidence.
Mar_14:43. After Ἰούδας Fritzsche has Ἰσκαριώτης , Lachm. and Tisch. ὁ Ἰσκαρ .; and this addition, sometimes with, sometimes without the article, is found in witnesses of weight (but not in B à ). Rightly; the omission is explained from the parallels.
ὤν ] after εἷς has against it such decisive evidence that it cannot be maintained by means of the parallels, nor even by Mar_14:10. It is to be deleted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.
πολύς ] is wanting in B L à , min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew.
Mar_14:45. Lachm. only reads ῥαββί once, following B C* D L M Δ à , min. vss., including Vulg., codd. It. But this reading is from Mat_26:49, whence also χαῖρε has intruded into codd. and vss.
Mar_14:46. ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τ . χεῖρας αὐτῶν ] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has τ . χεῖρας ἐπʼ αὐτ .; Tisch.: τ . χεῖρας αὐτῷ . The latter is attested by B D L à ** min. vss., and is to be preferred as the less usual (see on Act_12:1, the exegetical remarks), which was altered in accordance with Mat_26:50.
Mar_14:47. τις ] has, it is true, important evidence against it; but, as being superfluous, and, moreover, as not occurring in Mat_26:51, it might have been so easily passed over, that it may not be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.
Instead of ὠτίον read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D à , 1, ὠτάριον . The former is from Matthew.
Mar_14:48. The form ἐξήλθατε (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.
Mar_14:51. εἷς τις νεανίσκ .] Lachm. Tisch. read νεανίσκ . τις , following B C L à , Copt. Syr. It. Vulg. (D: νεανίσκ . δέ τις , without καί ). The Recepta is to be maintained; νεανίσλος τις is the most prevalent mode of expression.
Instead of ἠκολούθει , read, in accordance with B C L à , συνηκολούθει (so Lachm. and Tisch.). The current simple form has crept in also at 37.
οἱ νεανίσκοι ] is wanting in B C* D L Δ à , Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Vulg. Theophylact, Rightly condemned by Griesb. (but see his Comm. crit. p. 179) and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. It came in by means of the gloss τὸν νεανίσκον , which was written in the margin beside αὐτόν , as Slav, still renders τὸν νεανίσκον instead of αὐτὸν οἱ νεανίσκοι . The τὸν νεανίσκον written in the margin was easily changed into οἱ νεανίσκοι , since the absence of a fitting subject for κρατοῦσιν might be felt.
Mar_14:52. ἀπʼ αὐτῶν ] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony against it; yet, as being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than added.
Mar_14:53. αὐτῷ after συνέρχ . is wanting in D L Δ à , Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. An omission from misunderstanding.
Mar_14:65. ἔβαλλον ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔλαβον on decisive evidence. ἔλαβον not being understood, was variously altered.
Mar_14:67. Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα ] B C L à have ἦσθε τοῦ Ἰησοῦ . So Lachm. and Tisch. D Δ , min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It., have τοῦ Ἰησ . before τοῦ Ναζ . The latter is in accordance with the usual mode of expression, and with Mat_26:69. ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ is to be adopted; this τοῦ Ἰησοῦ following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and was then variously restored.
Mar_14:68. οὐκ … οὐδέ ] Lachm. has οὔτε … οὔτε , following B D L à , Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew.
τί σὺ λέγεις ] Lachm. and Tisch. have σὺ τί λέγεις , following B C L Δ à , min. Rightly; σὺ was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the place that first presented itself after τί .
καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε ] is wanting, indeed, in B L à , Copt. Colb. (bracketed by Lachm.); but the omission is manifestly caused by comparison with Matthew.
Mar_14:70. καὶ ἡ λαλία σου ὁμοιάζει ] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Γαλιλ . εἶ . But the words are wanting in B C D L à , min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Aug. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation from Mat_26:73, in accordance with the very old reading in that place (D, codd. It.), ὁμοιάζει . If the words were genuine, they would hardly have been passed over, containing, as they do, so familiar and noteworthy a particular of the history; the appeal to the homoeoteleuton is not sufficient.
Mar_14:71. Instead of ὀμνύειν (comp. Matthew), ὀμνύναι is sufficiently vouched for by B E H L S U V X Γ , min.
Mar_14:72. εὐθέως after καί is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G L à (which, with L, has not ἐκ δευτ .), min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. codd. It. Eus., and adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Nevertheless it was far easier for it to be introduced from Mat_26:74 than for it, with its prevalent use and appropriateness, to be omitted. Hence, on the important evidence for its omission (including A C), it is, with Tisch., to be struck out.
Instead of τὸ ῥῆμα ὅ , the Recepta has τοῦ ῥήματος οὗ , in opposition to decisive witnesses, among which, however, A B C L Δ à , min. Copt. Sahid. read τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς . Lachm. and Tisch. have the latter; and with this preponderant attestation, it is to be regarded as original (followed also by Luk_22:61).