Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 15
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Instead of ποιήσ . Tisch. has ἑτοιμάσ ., following only C L à , without min. vss. and Fathers. But it is worthy of consideration, as ποιήσ . might easily come from Mar_3:6.
Mar_15:4. καταμαρτ .] B C D à , Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. have κατηγοροῦσιν . So Lachm. and Tisch.; the Recepta is from Mat_27:13.
Mar_15:7. συοτασιαστῶν ] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have στασιαστῶν , following B C D K à , min. Sahid. But how easily the syllable ΣΥ dropped away before ΣΤ , even although no scruple might be felt at the unusual συστασ .! ΣΥ has scarcely been added to make it undoubted that Barabbas was himself an insurgent with the others (Fritzsche), which assuredly apart from this every transcriber found in the words.
Mar_15:8. ἀναβοήσας ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀναβάς , following B D à * Copt. Sahid. Goth. Vulg. It. Approved also by Schulz and Rinck. The ἀναβάς was not understood, and, in accordance with what follows (Mar_15:13-14), it was awkwardly changed into the ἀναβοήσας , which was as yet in this place premature.
Mar_15:12. ὃν λέγετε ] Lachm. has deleted this, on too slight evidence. If it had been added, it would have taken the form τὸν λεγόμενον from Mat_27:22. But τόν is to be adopted before βασιλ . (with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), according to A B C Δ à , min., to which also D may be added as reading τῷ βασιλ . Out of the swerving from ὅν to τόν is explained the omission of ὃν λέγετε , which happened the more easily after Mar_15:9.
Mar_15:14. The reading περισσῶς (Lachm.), instead of the Recepta περισσοτέρως , is so decisively attested that it may not be derived from Mat_27:23. Somewhat more weakly, but still so considerably, is ἔκρο ζον (Lachm.) in the sequel attested (A D G K M, min.; Δ : ἔκραζαν ), that this also is to be adopted, and ἔκραζαν is to be regarded as a repetition from Mar_15:13.
Mar_15:17. ἐνδύουσιν ] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐνδιδύσκουσιν , which Griesb. also recommended, and Schulz approved, following B C D F Δ à , min. Rightly; the familiar verb supplanted the unusual one.
Mar_15:18. The Recepta βασιλεῦ is to be maintained; ὁ βασιλεύς (Griesb. Scholz) is from Matthew and John. The evidence is divided.
Mar_15:20. σταυρώσιν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have σταυρώσουσιν , following A C D L P Δ , min. (B has not got ἵνα σταυρ . αὐτ . at all). With this preponderant attestation, and as the subjunctive so easily intruded itself, the future is to be adopted.
Mar_15:22. Before Γολγ . Fritzsche and Tisch. have τόν , following B C** F L Δ à , min. Rightly; the article, superfluous in itself, was left out in accordance with Matthew.
Mar_15:23. πιεῖν ] is with Tisch., following B C* L Δ à , Copt. Arm., to be struck out as being an addition from Mat_27:34.
Mar_15:24. Instead of διαμερίζονται Elz. has διεμέριζον , in opposition to all the uncials.
Mar_15:28. The whole of this verse is wanting in A B C D X à , min. Cant. Sahid. Condemned by Griesb., Schulz, and Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. It is an ancient, but in the case of Mark a foreign, interpolation from a recollection of Luk_22:37 (comp. Joh_19:24).
Mar_15:29. ἐν τρισὶν ἡμ . οἰκοδ .] Lachm. and Tisch. have οἰκ . τρ . ἡμ . As well the omission of ἐν as the putting of οἰκ , first, is sufficiently well attested to make the Recepta appear as an alteration in accordance with Mat_27:40.
Mar_15:30. καὶ κατάβα ] Lachm. Tisch. have καταβάς , following B D L Δ à , Copt. Vulg. codd. It. The Recepta is a resolution of the participle; comp. P, min.: καὶ κατάβηθι (in accordance with Matthew).
Mar_15:33. καὶ γενομ . (Lachm. and Tisch.) is to be adopted instead of γενομ . δέ on preponderating evidence; but in Mar_15:34 the Recepta τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἐνάτῃ is, following A C E G, etc., to be maintained.
Lachm. Tisch. read τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ , which suggested itself in accordance with Mat_27:46.
Mar_15:34. The words ἐλωΐ κ . τ . λ . are very variously written in codd. and vss. The Recepta λαμμᾶ is in any case rejected by the evidence; between the forms λιμά (Lachm.), λαμά (Tisch.), and λεμά , (Fritzsche), in the equal division of the evidence, there is no coming to a decision.
Mar_15:36. τε ] has important but not preponderating evidence against it; it is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But if it had been added, καὶ περιθ . would have been written (Mat_27:48), which, however, is only found in a few cursives. On the other hand, previously instead of εἷς , τις is to be read with Tisch., and the following καί to be deleted with Lachm. The Recepta is moulded after Matthew.
Mar_15:39. κράξας ] is wanting only in B L à Copt. Ar. (deleted by Tisch.), and easily became objectionable.
The arrangement οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπ . in Lachm. and Tisch. is attested by B D L Δ à , min. The Recepta is from Luk_23:47.
Mar_15:41. αἳ καί ] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely αἵ . So also Rinck. But the collocation of the two almost similar syllables was the occasion of the dropping away partly of αἵ (A C L Δ , min. vss.), partly of καί (B à , min. vss.).
Mar_15:42. The reading πρὸς σάββατον in Lachm. (instead of προσάββατον ) is nothing but a clerical error.
Mar_15:43. ἦλθεν ] Decisive evidence gives ἐλθών . So Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., approved also by Griesb. ἐλθὼν … τολμ . εἰσῆλθε was resolved into ἦλθεν … καὶ τ . ἐ . This καί before τολμ . occurs still in min. Syr. utr. Vulg. Euthym.
Mar_15:44. πάλαι ] Lachm. has ἤδη , in accordance with B D, Syr. hier. Arm. Copt. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. A repetition of the previous ἤδη .
Mar_15:45. σῶμα ] B D L à : πτῶμα . So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; σῶμα appeared more worthy.
Mar_15:46. καί before καθελ . is wanting in B D L à , Copt. Lachm. Tisch. A connective addition.
κατέθηκεν ] B C** D L à , min. have ἔθηκεν . So Fritzsche, Lachm. But how easily the syllable κατ dropped out after καί , especially since Matthew and Luke also only have the simple form!
Mar_15:47. τίθεται ] In accordance with decisive evidence read, with Lachm. and Tisch., τέθειται .