Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
κατηγορήσουσιν , instead of κατηγορήσωσιν , is not sufficiently attested by C D (Lachm.).
Mar_3:3. Lachm. has τῷ τὴν χεῖρα ἔχοντι ξηράν , following B L 102, Verc. In favour of ξηράν C also tells, which has τῷ τ . ξηρὰν ἔχ . χ ., and Δ à , which have τῷ τ . ξηρὰν χ . ἔχ . So Tisch. ed. 8. The Recepta τῷ ἐξηραμμένην ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα is from Mar_3:1.
Mar_3:5. At the end Elz. has ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη . This is indeed defended by Matthiae, but in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Mat_12:13.
Mar_3:7. The order of the words: μετὰ τῶν μαθητ . αὐτοῦ ἀνεχώρ . (Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ἀνεχώρ . μ . τ . μαθ . αὐτ ., has in its favour B C D L Δ à , min. vss., and is on this evidence to be adopted, the more especially as the Recepta easily presented itself from the connection, according to which the important element for the progress of the narrative lies in ἀνεχώρ .
Instead of πρός (Elz. Scholz), Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have εἰς , which is attested, indeed, only by D H P, min. Theophyl., but was explained by πρός (in some min. by παρά ) as a gloss.
ἠκολούθησαν ] ἠκολούθησεν , in favour of which D, min. also concur by ἠκολούθει , is considerably attested, partly with, and partly without αὐτῷ (which Lachm. brackets). Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche and Lachm. The plural flowed mechanically from the conception of the multitude; αὐτῷ is supplied, and is with Tisch. to be deleted.
Mar_3:8. ἀκούσαντες ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀκούοντες , following only B Δ à , min.
Mar_3:11. Instead of ἐθεώρωι , προσέπιπτεν , and ἔκραζε , Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have the plurals, which also Griesb. approved. The evidence preponderates in favour of the latter, and the singulars are a grammatical but inappropriate correction.
Mar_3:15. θεραπεύειν τὰς νόσους καί ] is wanting in B C* L Δ à ,102, Copt. Deleted by Tisch. An addition, in recollection of Mat_10:1.
Mar_3:16. Fritzsche has πρῶτον Σιμῶνα before καὶ ἐπέθηκε , following only 13, 39,124, 346. An addition from Mat_10:2, with a view to supply a construction.[70]
Mar_3:18. Here, too (comp. on Mat_10:4), must be read in conformity to decisive evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch., not Κανανίτην , but Καναναῖον .
Mar_3:20. μήτε ] Read with Fritzsche and Lachm. μηδέ , which is sufficiently attested and necessary as respects the sense.
Mar_3:27. The Recepta is: Οὐ ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ ΟὐΔΕΊς . So also Fritzsche and Tisch., the latter having, in accordance with B C (?) L Δ à , min. vss., adopted ἈΛΛʼ previously (a connective addition). But ΟὐΔΕῚς ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm.) is the more to be retained, since the mechanical repetition of the Οὐ ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ was so readily suggested from what precedes.
Mar_3:28. The verbal order: ΤΟῖς ΥἹΟῖς ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ΤᾺ ἉΜΑΡΤΉΜΑΤΑ (sanctioned by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has, with A B C D L Δ à , min. vss., the balance of evidence in its favour, and is also to be accounted genuine, as being the more unusual.
The article before βλασφ . is adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. on decisive evidence; it became absorbed through the preceding καί .
ὅσας ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ὅσα , following B D E* G H Δ Π * à , min. The Recepta is a correction.
Mar_3:29. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have ΚΡΊΣΕΩς (A C** E F G, etc. Syr.), instead of which Griesb. approved ἈΜΑΡΤΉΜΑΤΟς (B L Δ à ; D has ἈΜΑΡΤΊΑς ), and this Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. ΚΡΊΣΕΩς (al. κολάσεως ) is a gloss.
Mar_3:31. The reading καὶ ἔρχονται (Lachm.) certainly has preponderant evidence (D G à , Tisch. ed. 8, have καὶ ἔρχεται ), but is a mechanical alteration, in which the retrospective reference of the οὖν was not attended to.
The Recepta is ΟἹ ἈΔΕΛΦΟῚ ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΜΉΤΗΡ ΑὐΤΟῦ . But B C D G L Δ à , min. vss. have Ἡ ΜΉΤΗΡ ΑὐΤΟῦ Κ . ΟἹ ἈΔΕΛΦΟῚ ΑὐΤΟῦ (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. ed. 8), with which also the reading ἜΡΧΕΤΑΙ is connected. Still the Recepta (and that with αὐτοῦ repeated) is to be sustained, for it became changed in consideration of the rank of the mother, of Mar_3:32, and of the parallel passages.
φωνοῦντες ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καλοῦντες , following B C L à , min. (A: ζητοῦντες ). Rightly; the meaning of καλοῦντες was more precisely defined by φωνοῦντες .
Mar_3:32. The verbal order περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος (Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderantly attested, as also is καὶ λέγουσιν (Lachm. Tisch.) instead of εἶπον δέ .
The addition καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου is rightly adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. It certainly has important evidence against it (B C G K L Δ Π à , Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Syr. utr.), and is rejected by Fritzsche: but the words were omitted, because neither in Mar_3:31 nor in Mar_3:34 nor in the parallel passages are the sisters mentioned. Had it been interpolated, the addition would have been found already in Mar_3:31.
Mar_3:33. Instead of ἤ , Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 8 have καί , following B C L V Δ à , min. vss. A mechanical repetition from Mar_3:32; and comp. Matt.
Mar_3:34. The verbal order: τοὺς περὶ αὐτ . κύκλῳ (Lachm. Tisch.), which is found in B C L Δ à , min. Copt., arose from the fact, that the κύκλῳ , which with περιβλεψ . was superfluous, was omitted (so still in min. vss.), and then restored in the place that appeared fitting.
Mar_3:35. The omission of γάρ (Lachm. Tisch.) is too weakly attested. On the other hand, μου after ἀδεφή is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B D L Δ à , min. vss., to be deleted.
[70] From the same design, moreover, we may explain the placing of καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα at the beginning of the verse. So B C* Δ à . Defended by Hitzig and Ewald; adopted by Tisch. In such awkwardly constructed passages “correctio parit correctionem: alter enim alteram cupit antecellere ingenio” (Matthiae, ed. min. ad h. l.).