Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
εἰς οἶκον Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν οἴκῳ , following B D L à , min. An interpretation.
Mar_2:4. ἐφʼ ᾧ ] Lachm.: ὅπου , according to B D L à . So now also Tisch. Mechanical repetition from the foregoing.
Mar_2:5. ἀφέωνται ] B 28, 33 have ἀφίενται . So Lachm. and Tisch. here and at Mar_2:9 (where also à has the same reading). But B has the same form at Mat_9:2. An emendation.
Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have σοὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου , the latter bracketing σου . But B D G L Δ à , min. have σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (Griesb. Fritzsche, Tisch.). This reading is in Mat_9:2 exposed to the suspicion of having been taken up from Mar_2:5, where the Recepta has but very weak attestation, and from Matthew it passed easily over into our passage. There is the same diversity of reading also at Mar_2:9, but with the authorities so divided that in Mar_2:5 and Mar_2:9 only the like reading is warranted.
Mar_2:7. λαλελ βλασρημίας ] Lachm. Tisch. read λαλεῖ ; βλασφημεῖ , following B D L à , Vulg. It. Rightly; the Recepta has smoothed the expression in accordance with Luke.
Mar_2:8. οὕτως ] is deleted by Lachm. upon too weak evidence.
αὐτοί is adopted after αὕτως by Bengel, Matt. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz on very considerable evidence (A C Γ Δ , etc.). Being unnecessary and not understood, it was passed over.
Mar_2:9. ἔγειρε ] Elz. Rinck have ἔγειραι (1st aorist middle). The former is here quite decisively attested, and, indeed, in all places ἔγειρε is to be written, the active form of which the transcribers did not understand (see on Mat_9:5), and converted it into the middle forms ἔγειραι and ἐγείρου (B L 28 have here the latter form). The middle form ἐγείρεσθε is in stated use only in the plural (Mat_26:46; Mar_14:42; Joh_14:31), which affords no criterion for the singular.
After ἔγειρε Elz. Lachm. Tisch, have καί , which C D L, min. vss. omit. An addition in accordance with Mat_9:5; Luk_5:23.
Instead of σου τὸν κραββ . we must read, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., in accordance with decisive testimony, τὸν κρ . σου .
παριπάτει ] Tisch. ed. 8 : ὕπαγε , but against such decisive weight of evidence, that περιπάτει is not to be regarded as derived from the parallel passages, but ὕπαγε is to be referred to a gloss from Mar_2:11.
Mar_2:10. Elz. has ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς after ἀφιέναι . So A E F G al. But B has ἀφ . ἀμ . ἐπὶ τ . γ .; C D L M Δ à , al. min. vss. have ἐπὶ τ . γ . ἀφ . ἀμ . So Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. ed. 8. The latter is a reading conformed to Matthew and Luke. The various readings have arisen through omission (Augustine) and diversity in the restoration of ἐπὶ τ . γ . The Recepta is to be restored, as there was no reason, either in the passage itself or from the parallel passages, for separating ἀφιέναι and ἁμαρτιας from one another by the insertion of ἐπὶ τ . γ .
Mar_2:15. The reading κ . γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι (Tisch.) is based on B L à , and is to be preferred; ἐγένετο is from Matthew, and ἐν τῷ is explanatory.
Mar_2:16. κ . οἱ γραμμ . κ . οἱ Φαρισ .] Tisch.: κ . γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων , following B L Δ à , Lachm. in the margin. Rightly; the Recepta arose from the usual expression. But we are not, with Tisch. (following the same testimony), to insert καί before ἰδόντες , as this καί owes its origin to the erroneous connection of καὶ γραμμ . with ἠκολούθ ).
The simple ὅτι (Tisch.), instead of τί ὅτι , is too feebly attested.
καὶ πίνει ] is wanting, no doubt, in B D à , min. Cant. Verc. 2 :Corb. 2 (bracketed by Lachm.), but was omitted on account of Mat_9:11, from which place, moreover, C L D à , min. vss. Fathers have added ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν .
Mar_2:17. After ἁμαρτ . Elz. has εἰς μετάνοιαν , which on decisive testimony is deleted as an addition from Luk_5:32 by Griesb. and the later editors.
Mar_2:18. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Fritzsche have rightly adopted οἱ Φαρισαῖοι instead of the Recepta οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων . The former has decisive testimony in its favour, the latter is from Luk_5:33.
οἱ τῶν ] Tisch.: οἱ μαθηταὶ τῶν , following B C* L à , 33. Rightly; the superfluous word was passed over.
Mar_2:20. Instead of the Recepta ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις (which Fritzsche maintains), ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ is received by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. according to decisive evidence. The plural is from what precedes.
Mar_2:21. The Recepta is καὶ οὐδείς , against decisive witnesses, which have not καί .
ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν , according to B C D L à , 33. Rightly; it was altered in conformity with Mat_9:16.
αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ ] Many variations. A K Δ , min. Syr. p.: αἴρει ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλ . τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλ .; B L à (yet without the first τό ), min. Goth.: αἴρει τὸ πλ . ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ (B: ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ ) τὸ καιν . τοῦ παλ . (so Lachm. and Tisch.); D, min. vss.: αἴρει τὸ πλ . τὸ καινὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ παλ . (so Rinck). The Recepta is to be rejected no less than the reading of D, etc. Both are from Matthew. Of the two readings that still remain, that of A, etc. is to be preferred, because in that of Lachm. and Tisch. the collocation of αἴρει τὸ πλ . likewise betrays its being shaped according to Matthew. Hence we read: αἴρει ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ .
Mar_2:22. ῥήσσει ] Lachm. ῥήξει , following B C D L à , 33, Vulg. codd. of It. So also Tisch. ed. 8. From Luk_5:37, whence also subsequently has come ὁ νέος , which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted.
καὶ ὁ οἶνος … βλητέον ] Instead of this there is simply to be read, with Tisch., following B L D, codd. of It.: καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (B à leave out of ἀλλὰ κ . τ . λ . only βλητέον ). The Recepta is from the parallels.
Mar_2:23. παραπορ .] Lachm.: διαπορ ., following B C D. But comp. Luk_6:1.
ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Lachm.: ὁδοποιεῖν , only after B G H.
Mar_2:24. ἐν ] is on decisive evidence condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. From Mar_2:23.
Mar_2:25. αὐτός ] after the first καί is suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. It is wanting indeed in B C D L à , min. vss., but it was very easily mistaken in its reference, and passed over as cumbrous and superfluous, the more especially as it does not appear in the parallels.
Mar_2:26. ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερ .] is wanting in D, 271, Cant. 2 :Verc. Vind. Corb. 2. Condemned, after Beza, by Gratz (neuer Versuch, d. Entst. d. drei erst. Ev. z. erkl. p. 196), and Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 23. An omission on account of the historical difficulty and the parallel passages. Only τοῦ before ἀρχ . has decisive evidence against it, and is rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.