Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 4
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Instead of πολύς , according to the same evidence, πλεῖστος is to be adopted, with Tisch.
Mar_4:3. τοῦ σπεῖραι ] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely σπεῖραι , following only B à * 102.
Mar_4:4. After πετεινά Elz. has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ , in opposition to decisive evidence. It is taken from Luk_8:5.
Mar_4:5. Instead of ἄλλο δέ read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καὶ ἄλλο , according to B C L M** Δ à , min. vss. The Recepta is from Mat_13:5.
Mar_4:6. ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος ] Lachm. and Tisch. read συνάγεται , following B C D L Δ à , Copt. Vulg. Cant. Vind. Corb. 2, Rd. The Recepta is from Mat_13:6.
Mar_4:8. ἄλλο ] B C L à , min. have the reading ἀλλά (Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch.). It is from Matt., and was favoured by the tripartite division that follows.
αὐξάνοντα ] A B C D L Δ à , 238 have αὐξανόμενον . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, because the intransitive αὐξάνειν is the prevailing form in the N. T.
Instead of the threefold repetition of ἔν , Tisch. εἰς three times, following B C* L Δ , min. Yet B L have ΕΙΣ once and ΕΝ twice. The reading of Tisch. is to be regarded as original; the ἐν , which is likewise strongly attested, was a gloss upon it, and that reading then became easily taken and interpreted, in comparison with Mat_13:8, as the numeral ἕν . In Mar_4:20 also the ἕν is not to be written three times, but with all the uncials, which have breathings and accents: ἐν , as also Tisch. has it.
Mar_4:9. ὁ ἔχων ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅς ἔχει , following B C* D Δ à *. The Recepta is from Mat_13:9; Luk_8:8.
Mar_4:10. ἠρώτησαν ] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠρώτων [80] on preponderant evidence (D has ἐπηρώτων ). To be adopted. If the imperfect had been introduced from Luk_8:9, ἐπηρώτων would be more diffused.
τὴν ταραβολήν ] Tisch. has τὰς παραβολάς , following B C L Δ à , vss. The singular is a correction; comp. Luke.
Mar_4:11. γνῶναι ] is wanting in A B C* K L à , min. Copt. Corb. 1. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from Mat_13:11; Luk_8:10. With Tischendorf the words are to be arranged thus: τ . μυστ . δέδ . τ . βασ .
Mar_4:12. τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ] is wanting in B C L à , min. Copt. Arm. Cr. (twice); condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. An addition, instead of which is found also τὰ παραπτώματα (min.).
Mar_4:15. ἐν ταῖς καρδ . αὐτῶν ] C L Δ à , Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Colb.: ἐν αὐτοῖς (so Tisch.), and in favour of this B and min. testify by the reading εἰς αὐτούς . The Recepta is explanatory after Mat_13:19, comp. Luk_8:12, but at the same time its testimony is in favour of ἘΝ ΑὐΤΟῖς , not of ΕἸς ΑὐΤΟΎς .
Mar_4:18. ΚΑῚ ΟὟΤΟΙ ΕἸΣΙΝ ] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. read ΚΑῚ ἌΛΛΟΊ ΕἸΣΙΝ , following B C* D L Δ à , Copt. Vulg. Cant. 4 :Colb. Vind. Germ. Corb. Rightly; the Recepta originated by mechanical process after Mar_4:15-16, comp. Mar_4:20. When this οὗτοι came in, there emerged at once an incompatibility with the subsequent οὗτοί εἰσιν , therefore this latter was omitted (A C** E G H K M S U V Π , min., Copt. Syr. p. Goth. Slav. Brix. Theophyl. Matth. and Fritzsche), while others removed the first οὗτοί εἰσιν (min. Arm.).
Mar_4:19. τούτου after αἰῶνος is rightly deleted by Griesb., Fritzsche, Lach. and Tisch. in conformity with very considerable testimony. A current addition.
Mar_4:20. οὗτοι ] Tisch. has ἐκεῖνοι , following B C L Δ à ; οὗτοι is a mechanical repetition, and comp. Matt. and Luke.
Mar_4:21. The order ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., according to B C D L Δ à , min. vss.
ἐπιτεθῇ ] τεθῇ is attested by B C L Δ à , min. (so also Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; recommended, moreover, by Griesb.). The compound word is more precise in definition, and came in here and at Luk_8:16.
Mar_4:22. The τι (which Lachm. brackets) was easily omitted after ἐστι as being superfluous.
ὃ ἐὰν μή ] many variations, among which ἐὰν μή has the strong attestation of A C K L, min. It is commended by Griesb., and is to be adopted. The apparent absurdity of the sense[81] suggested partly the addition of ὅ , partly, in conformity with what follows, readings with ἽΝΑ , namely, ἈΛΛʼ (D, vss.) and ἘᾺΝ ΜῊ ἽΝΑ (so Lachm. Tisch., following B D à ), ΕἸ ΜῊ ἽΝΑ (min.).
Mar_4:24. After the second ὙΜῖΝ , Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have ΤΟῖς ἈΚΟΎΟΥΣΙΝ , which also Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence have deleted (it is a gloss), while Griesb. strikes out the whole ΚΑῚ ΠΡΟΣΤΕΘ . ὙΜῖΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΚ . (only in accordance with D G, Codd. It.), and Fritzsche places these words after ἈΚΟΎΕΤΕ (according to Arm.). The course followed by Griesb. and Fritzsche must be rejected on account of the very weakness of the evidence; the reading of Griesb. arose from the fact that the eye of the transcriber passed from the first ὙΜῖΝ directly to the second.
Mar_4:25. Ὅς ΓᾺΡ ἊΝ ἜΧῌ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have Ὅς ΓᾺΡ ἜΧΕΙ , following B C L Δ à , min., to which, moreover, D E* F, al. are added with the reading ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἒχει . According to this, ἒχει alone is to be read; ἄν was added probably in recollection of Luk_8:18, and then ἔχει was transmuted into ἔχῃ .
Mar_4:28. γάρ is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important authorities. A connective addition, instead of which D has ὅτι αὐτ .
πλήρη σῖτον ] Lachm. and Tisch. read πλήρης σῖτος , following B, to which D falls to be added with the reading πλήρης ὁ σῖτος . πλήρης σῖτος is the original, which it was thought necessary subsequently to help by a structural emendation.
Mar_4:30. τίνι ] B C L Δ à , min. 4 :have πῶς , which Griesb. has recommended, Fritzsche and Tisch. have adopted. τίνι is from Luk_13:18.
ἐν ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν αὐτήν ] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν , following B C* L Δ à , min. 4 :Or. Rightly; ποίᾳ came in as a gloss upon τίνι , after the analogy of the preceding πῶς ; and the more difficult θῶμεν was explained by παραβαλώμεν .
Mar_4:31. κόκκον ] Elz. Fritzsche, Tisch. read κόκκῳ , following B D Δ Π à . As after the second half of Mar_4:30 the accusative (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.) more readily suggested itself (in connection with θῶμεν or παραβάλωμεν ), the dative is to be preferred as the more difficult reading, which was the more easily supplanted by comparison of the different connections in Mat_13:31; Luk_13:19.
μικρότερος ] Lachm. reads μικρότερον , following B D L M Δ à , min. He adds, moreover, ὄν according to B L Δ à , omitting the subsequent ἐστί , and encloses τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς , which is wanting in C, Ver., in brackets. Tisch. also has μικρότερον ὄν , omitting ἐστί . The Recepta is to be retained; ΜΙΚΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ is a grammatical correction[82] that has originated from a comparison with Matt., and the added ὌΝ , having arisen from the writing twice over of the ΟΝ which had gone before, or from the marginal writing of ΟΝ over the final syllable of ΜΙΚΡΌΤΕΡΟΣ , dislodged the subsequent ἘΣΤΊ , whereupon, doubtless, the connection was lost.
Mar_4:34. Τ . ΜΑΘ . ΑὐΤΟῦ ] Tisch. reads Τ . ἸΔΊΟΙς ΜΑΘ ., following B C L Δ à . Rightly; the Recepta is the usual expression.
Mar_4:36. The reading ΠΛΟῖΑ instead of ΠΛΟΙΆΡΙΑ (as Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have it) is so decisively attested, that but for that circumstance the more rare ΠΛΟΙΆΡΙΑ would have to be defended.
Mar_4:37. Instead of ΑὐΤῸ ἬΔΗ ΓΕΜΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ , Griesb. approved, and Lachm. and Tisch. read, ἬΔΗ ΓΕΜΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ ΤῸ ΠΛΟῖΟΝ , following B C D L Δ à ** Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. It. This latter is to be preferred; the simple mode of expression was smoothed.
Mar_4:38. Instead of ἘΠΙ before Τ . ΠΡ ., Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ἘΝ on decisive evidence.
Mar_4:40. ΟὝΤΩ ] is deleted by Lachm., following B D L Δ à , Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., and subsequently, instead of Πῶς ΟὐΚ , he has, with Griesb., ΟὔΠΩ according to the same and other authorities. But the Recepta is, with Tisch., to be maintained. For in accordance with Mat_8:26 οὕτω was very easily dropped, while οὔπω just as easily crept in as a modifying expression, which at the same time dislodged the πῶς .
[80] In ed. 8 Tisch., following C à , has the form ἠρώτουν , which probably is only a transcriber’s error, as with still stronger evidence in its favour is the case in Mat_15:23. The Ionic form of the verb in εω is entirely foreign to the N. T.
[81] The reading ἐὰν μή is in no wise absurd (Fritzsche, de Wette), but it gives the same logical analysis as Mar_10:30. See in loc.
[82] μείζων , too, ver. 32, became changed in codd. into μεῖζον . So A C E L V à , min. Tisch.