Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 16:1 - 16:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_16:1-8. See on Mat_28:1-8. Comp. Luk_24:1-11.
διαγενομ . τοῦ σαββ .] i.e. on Saturday after sunset. See Mar_16:2. A difference from Luk_23:56, which is neither to be got rid of, with Ebrard and Lange, by a distortion of the clear narrative of Luke; nor, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmüller, and others, by taking ἠγόρασαν as a pluperfect. For examples of διαγίνεσθαι used of the lapse of an intervening time (Dem. 541. 10, 833. 14; Act_25:13; Act_27:9), see Raphel, Polyb. p. 157; Wetstein in loc.
They bought aromatic herbs ( ἀρώματα , Xen. Anab. i. 5. 1; Polyb. xiii. 9. 5) to mingle them with ointment, and so to anoint the dead body therewith ( ἀλείψ .). This is no contradiction of Joh_19:40. See on Mat_27:59.
Mar_16:2 f. πρωΐ ] with the genitive. Comp. Herod. ix. 101, and see generally, Krüger, § 47. 10. 4.
τῆς μιᾶς σαββ .] on the Sunday. See on Mat_28:1.
ἀνατειλαντ . τοῦ ἡλίου ] after sunrise; not: when the sun rose (Ebrard, Hug, following Grotius, Heupel, Wolf, Heumann, Paulus, and others), or: was about to rise (so Krebs, Hitzig), or: had begun to rise (Lange), which would be ἀνατέλλοντος , as is actually the reading of D. A difference, from Joh_20:1, and also from Luk_24:1; nor will it suit well even with the πρωΐ strengthened by λίαν ; we must conceive it so, that the sun had only just appeared above the horizon.
πρὸς ἑαυτούς ] in communication with each other. But of a Roman watch they know nothing.
ἐκ τῆς θύρας ] The stone was rolled into the entrance of the tomb, and so closed the tomb, Joh_20:1.
Mar_16:4. ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα ] Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 35, would transpose this back to Mar_16:3 after μνημείου , as has actually been done in D. Most expositors (including Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek) proceed thus as respects the meaning; holding that γάρ brings in the reason for Mar_16:3. An arbitrary view; it refers to what immediately precedes. After they had looked up (their look was previously cast down) they beheld (“contemplabantur cum animi intentione,” see Tittmann, Synon. p. 120 f.) that the stone was rolled away; for (specification of the reason how it happened that this perception could not escape them after their looking up, but the fact of its having been rolled away must of necessity meet their eyes) it was very great. Let us conceive to ourselves the very large stone lying close by the door of the tomb. Its rolling away, however, had not occurred while they were beside it, as in Matthew, but previously; so also Luk_24:2; Luk_24:23; Joh_20:1. As to σφόδρα at the end, comp. on Mat_2:10.
Mar_16:5. νεανίσκον ] Mark and Luke (who, however, differ in the number: ἄνδρες δύο ) relate the angelic appearance as it presented itself ( κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ); Matthew (who, however, places it not in the tomb, but upon the stone), as that which it actually was ( ἄγγελος κυρίου ). On the form of a young man assumed by the angel, comp. 2Ma_3:26; Joseph. Antt. v. 8. 2 f., and Gen_19:5 f.
ἐν τ . δεξ ] on the right hand in the tomb from the entrance, therefore to the left hand of the place where the body would lie.
Mar_16:6. Simple asyndeta in the lively eagerness of the discourse.
Mar_16:7. ἀλλʼ ] breaking off, before the summons which suddenly intervened, Kühner, II. p. 439; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78 f.
καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ ] to His disciples and (among these especially) to Peter. Comp. Mar_1:5; Act_1:14; and see Grotius. The special prominence of Peter is explained by the ascendancy and precedence, which by means of Jesus Himself (Mat_16:18) he possessed as primus inter pares (“dux apostolici coetus,” Grotius; comp. also Mar_9:2; Mar_14:33), not by the denial of Peter, to whom the announcement is held to have given the assurance of forgiveness (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Victor Antiochenus, Calovius, Heumann, Kuinoel, Lange, and others), which is assumed with all the greater arbitrariness without any indication in the text, seeing that possibly Peter might have concluded just the contrary.
ὅτι ] recitative, so that ὑμᾶς and ὑμῖν apply to the disciples as in Matthew.
καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν ] Mar_14:28. It relates to the whole of what precedes: προάγει ὑμᾶς κ . τ . λ . and ἐκεῖ αὐτ . ὄψ . The latter was indirectly contained in Mar_14:28.
The circumstance that here preparation is made for a narrative of a meeting together in Galilee, but no such account subsequently follows, is an argument justly brought to bear against the genuineness of Mar_16:9 ff. That the women did not execute the angel’s charge (Mar_16:8), does not alter the course of the matter as it had been indicated by the angel; and to explain that inconsistency by the fact that the ascension does not well agree with the Galilean meeting, is inadmissible, because Mark, according to our passage and Mar_14:28, must of necessity have assumed such a meeting,[183] consequently there was nothing to hinder him from representing Jesus as journeying to Galilee, and then again returning to Judaea for the ascension (in opposition to de Wette).
Mar_16:8. δέ ] explicative, hence also γάρ has found its way into codd. and vss. (Lachmann, Tischendorf).
οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον ] The suggestion that we should, with Grotius, Heupel, Kuinoel, and many more, mentally supply: on the way, is devised for the sake of Luk_24:9; rather is it implied, that from fear and amazement they left the bidding of the angel at Mar_16:7 unfulfilled. It is otherwise in Mat_28:8. That subsequently they told the commission given to them by the angel, is self-evident; but they did not execute it.
εἶχε δὲ αὐτὰς κ . τ . λ .] Hom Il. vi. 137; Herod. iv. 15; Soph. Phil. 681; also in the LXX.
[183] It is characteristic of Schenkel that he assumes the Gospel to have really closed with ver. 8, and that it is “mere unproved conjecture” (p. 319) that the conclusion is lost. Such a supposition doubtless lay in his interest as opposed to the bodily resurrection; but even ver. 7 and Mar_14:28 ought to have made him too prudent not to see (p. 333) in the absence of any appearances of the risen Lord in Mark the weightiest evidence in favour of the early composition of his Gospel, whereas he comes to the unhistorical conclusion that Peter did not touch on these appearances in his discourses. See Act_10:40 f., and previously Act_2:32, Act_3:15.