Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 15:42 - 15:47
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_15:42-47. See on Mat_27:57-61. Comp. Luk_23:50-56.
ἐπεί as far as προσάββ . gives the reason why Joseph, when the even had come, etc. With the commencement of the Sabbath (on Friday after sunset) the business of the taking away, etc., would not have been allowable.[177] Hence the words are not to be put in parenthesis. Mark has not ἐπεί elsewhere, and it is noteworthy that John also, Joh_19:31, has it here precisely at the mention of the ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΉ , and in his Gospel the word only occurs elsewhere in Mar_13:29. Certainly this is no accidental agreement; perhaps it arose through a common primitive evangelic document, which John, however, worked up differently.
Ὅ ἘΣΤΙ ΠΡΟΣΆΒΒ .] which—namely, the expression παρασκευή —is as much as Sabbath-eve, the day before the Sabbath. On προσάββ ., comp. Jdt_8:6.
Mar_15:43. The breaking of the legs, Joh_19:31 ff., preceded this request for the dead body, and it is to be supposed that Joseph at the same time communicated to Pilate how in the case of Jesus, because He was already dead, the breaking of the legs was not applied.
Ὁ ἈΠῸ ἈΡΙΜΑΘ .] The article designates the well-known man. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 5, iv. 6. 20.
εὐσχήμων βουλευτ .] is usually explained: a counsellor of rank. See on the later use of εὐσχήμ ., in contrast with the plebeians, Wetstein in loc.; Phryn. p. 333 and Lobeck thereupon; Act_13:50; Act_17:12. But, as the characteristic of rank is already involved in βουλευτής , there is the less reason to depart from the old classical meaning of the word. Hence: a seemly, stately counsellor, so that the nobleness (the σεμνότης ) of his external appearance and deportment is brought into prominence.
That by ΒΟΥΛΕΥΤΉς is meant a member of the Sanhedrim,[178] may be rightly concluded from Luk_23:51. This is in opposition to Erasmus, Casaubon, Hammond, Michaelis, and many others, who conceive of him as a member of a council at Arimathea.
καὶ αὐτός ] on his part also, like other adherents of Jesus. Comp. Joh_19:38.
προσδεχόμ .] comp. Luk_2:25; Luk_2:38; Act_23:21; Act_24:15.
ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛ . ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ] the kingdom of the Messiah, whose near manifestation—that subject-matter of fervent expectation for the devout ones of Israel
Jesus had announced. The idea of the kingdom is not Petrine (Lange), but one belonging to primitive Christianity generally.
τολμήσας ] having emboldened himself, absolutely; see Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 173. Comp. Rom_10:20.
Mar_15:44. εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε ] he wondered if He were already dead (perfect; on the other hand, afterwards the historic aorist: had died). It is plain that Pilate had had experience, how slowly those who were crucified were accustomed to die. εἰ after ΘΑΥΜΆΖΩ denotes that the matter is not as yet assumed to be beyond a doubt. See Boissonade, ad Philostr. Her. p. 424; Kühner, II. p. 480 f.; Frotscher, Hier. i. 6; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195.
πάλαι ] the opposite of ἌΡΤΙ . Whether He had died (not just only now, but) already earlier. He wished, namely, to be sure that he was giving away the body as actually dead. See on πάλαι , dudum, as a relative antithesis to the present time, Wolf, ad Plat. Symp. p. 20; Stallbaum, ad Apol. Socr. p. 18 B.
Mar_15:45. ἐδωρήσατο ] he bestowed as a gift, without therefore requiring money for it. Instances of the opposite (as Cic. Verr. v. 46; Justin, ix. 4. 6) may be seen in Wetstein.
Mar_15:46. καθαιρεῖν ] the proper word for the taking away from the cross, Latin: detrahere, refigere. Comp. Mar_15:36. See Raphel, Polyb. p. 157; Kypke and Loesner in loc.
λελατ . ἐκ πέτρας ] hewn out of a rock. Comp. Mat_27:60. The same fact is expressed in Mark according to the conception from whence; and in Matthew, according to the conception wherein. Of the fact that the grave belonged to Joseph, Mark gives no hint, neither do Luke and John; see on Mat_27:60.
ποῦ τέθειται ] The perfect (see the critical remarks) indicates that the women, after the burial had taken place, went thither and beheld where He has been laid, where He lies. The present would indicate that they looked on at the burial.
[177] Here, therefore, is no trace that that Friday itself was already a festal day, although it was really so according to the narrative otherwise of the Synoptics—also a remnant of the original (Johannine) conception of the day of the death of Jesus. Comp. on ver. 21. Bleek, Beitr. p. 115 ff.
[178] The participation of Nicodemus in the action (Joh_19:39) forms one of the special facts which John alone offers us from his recollection. But the attempt to identify Joseph with Nicodemus (Krenkel in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 438 ff.) can only be made, if the fourth Gospel be regarded as non-apostolic, and even then not without great arbitrariness.
REMARK.
In Mar_15:47, instead of Ἰωσῆ Lachmann and Tischendorf have adopted ἡ Ἰωσῆτος , following B Δ (L has merely Ἰωσῆτος ) à **, as they also at Mar_15:40 have Ἰωσῆτος , following B D L Δ à ** (in which case, however, B prefixes ἡ ). This is simply a Greek form of the Hebrew name (comp. the critical remarks on Mar_6:3), and probably, on the strength of this considerable attestation, original, as also is the article ἡ , which is found in A B C G Δ à **. Another reading is ἡ Ἰωσήφ , which occurs in A, 258, Vulg. Gat. Prag. Rd., and is preferred by Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 427 f., who here understands the daughter or wife of the counsellor Joseph of Arimathea, and so quite a different Mary from the Mary of James. But (1) this reading has the very great preponderance of evidence opposed to it; (2) it is easily explained whence it originated, namely, out of the correct reading of Mat_13:55 ( Ἰωσήφ , see in loc.), from which place the name of Joseph found its way into many of the witnesses (including Vulg. and codd. It.), not only at Mar_6:3, but also at Mar_15:40 (Aeth. Vulg. It. Aug.) and Mar_15:47; while the underlying motive for conforming the name of Joses to that of Joseph the brother of Jesus, Mat_13:55, might be found as well in the assumption of the identity of the brethren of Jesus with the sons of Alphaeus, as in the error, which likewise was already ancient (see Theophylact), that the mother of Jesus is meant and is designated as the stepmother of James and Joses. (3) A Mary of Joseph is never named among the women of the Gospel history. But (4) if Joseph had been the counsellor just previously mentioned, Mark would have written not merely M. ἡ Ἰωσήφ , but M. ἡ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ ., and would, moreover, assuming only some accuracy on his part, have indicated the relation of kinship, which he has not omitted even at Mar_15:40, where, withal, the relation of Mary to James and Joses was well enough known. Finally, (5) the association of Mary of Magdala in the passage before us of itself entitles us to suppose that Mary would also have been one of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee (Mar_15:41), as indeed at Mar_16:1 these two friends are again named. On the whole we must abide by the Maria Josis at the passage before us. Mark, in the passage where he mentions her for the first time, Mar_15:40, names her completely according to her two sons (comp. Mat_27:56), and then—because she was wont to be designated both as Maria Jacobi (comp. Luk_24:10) and as Maria Josis—at Mar_15:47 in the latter, and at Mar_16:1 in the former manner, both of which differing modes of designation (Mar_15:47; Mar_16:1) either occurred so accidentally and involuntarily, or perhaps were occasioned by different sources of which Mark made use.