Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_5:2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ] is here more strongly attested (B C L Δ à , min. 5 :Brix., to which D also with ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν falls to be added) than in Mat_8:28. To be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch.; ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ (Elz.) is from the parallel passages.
εὐθέως ] which Lachm. has deleted, is only wanting in B, Syr. Arm. 5 :Brix. Vind. Colb. Corb. 2. The omission is explained from the parallels, from which also has arisen the reading ὑπήντησεν (B C D L Δ à , min. Lachm.).
Mar_5:3. οὔτε ] B C D L Δ à 33 have οὐδέ . So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.; and of necessity rightly.
ἁλύσεσιν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἁλύσει , following B C L 33, Colb.; the Recepta is from what follows.
οὐδείς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐκέτι οὐδείς , following B C * D L Δ à , min. Vulg. It. Arm. Looking to the peculiarity of this notice and the accumulation of the negatives, we must recognise this as correct.
Mar_5:7. εἶπε ] λέγει has preponderating evidence; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; εἶπε is from Luk_8:28. But Mark is fond of the historical present. In Mar_5:9 also the simple λέγει αὐτῷ (instead of ἀπεκρίθη λέγων in Elz.) is rightly adopted by Griesb. on preponderant evidence.
Mar_5:9. Λεγεών ] B* C D L Δ à * 69, Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. have Λεγιών , and this Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is from Luke.
Mar_5:11. Instead of πρὸς τῷ ὄρει , Elz. has πρὸς τὰ ὄρη , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Mar_5:12. After αὐτόν Elz. Matt. have πάντες , which Lachm. brackets and Tisch. deletes. It is wanting in B C D K L M Δ à , min. vss. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. have οἱ δαίμονες , which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch. have deleted, following B C L Δ à , min. Copt. Aeth. The Recepta πάντες οἱ δαίμονες is to be maintained; these words were omitted in accordance with the parallels; but they are quite in keeping with Mark’s graphic manner.
Mar_5:13. ἦσαν δέ ] is on considerable evidence to be deleted as supplied (Tisch.).
Mar_5:14. Instead of ἀπήγγ . Elz. has ἀνήγγ . But the former is decisively attested.
ἐξῆλθον ] has come in from Matt. and Luke instead of the genuine ἦλθον (A B K L M U à ** min. vss.), which Griesb. approved, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted.
Mar_5:15. The omission of the καί before ἱματ . (Tisch.) proceeded from Luke.
Mar_5:18. ἐμβάντος ] A B C D K L M Δ à , min. Vulg. It. have ἐμβαίνοντος . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Luk_8:37.
Mar_5:19. Instead of καὶ οὐκ , Elz. has ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ , against decisive evidence.
ἀνάγγειλον ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀπάγγειλον , following B C Δ à 50, 258. A mechanical change in conformity to Mar_5:14.
Instead of πεποίηκε , Elz. has ἐποίησε , contrary to decisive evidence.
Mar_5:22. ἰδού ] before ἔρχ . is wanting in B D L Δ à 102, vss. (also Vulg. It.). Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. From Luk_8:41, contrary to the usage of Mark.
Mar_5:23. παρεκάλει ] A C L à , min. have παρεκαλεῖ . Recommended by Griesb. and Scholz, adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. The imperfect is from Luk_8:41; the present is in keeping with Mark’s manner.
The reading ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ has preponderant attestation by B C D L Δ à , min. (adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.); ὅπως (Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz) instead of ἵνα may be suspected of being an amendment of style, and the more current ζήσεται flowed easily from Mat_9:18.
Mar_5:25. τις ] is wanting in A B C L Δ à , min. Vulg. 5 :Vind. Colb. Corb. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Lachm., and justly so; the weight of evidence is too strong against it, to admit of the omission of a word so indifferent for the sense being explained from the parallels.
Mar_5:26. Instead of αὐτῆς , Elz. Tisch. have ἑαυτῆς , against so preponderant evidence that it is manifestly the result of a gloss, as also is the omission of παρʼ (D, min. Syr. utr. Vulg. It.).
Instead of περί , Tisch. has τὰ περί . So B C* Δ à . τά , being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables.
Mar_5:33. ἐπʼ αὐτῇ ] ἐπʼ is wanting in B C D L à , min. Syr. Copt. Verc. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. That ΑΥΤΗ is not the nominative belonging to the following verb (as it is understood in Cant. Corb. Vind.) was noted in the form of gloss, sometimes by ἐπʼ , sometimes by ἐν (F Δ ).
Mar_5:36. εὐθέως ] deleted by Tisch. following B D L Δ à , min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. But regarded as superfluous, nay, as disturbing and incompatible with the following reading παρακούσας , it became omitted the more easily in accordance with Luk_8:50.
ἀκούσας ] B L Δ à have παρακούσας . So Tisch. and Ewald also. Rightly; although the attestation of the vss. is wanting (only one Cod. of the It. has neglexit). The difficulty of the not understood compound occasioned the substitution for it of the current simple form.
Mar_5:38. ἔρχεται ] A B C D F Δ à , min. vss. have ἔρχονται . So Lachm. and Tisch. The plural might just as well have been introduced from what precedes, as the singular from what follows and Mat_9:23. But the preponderance of the witnesses is decisive in favour of the plural.
After θόρυβον Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderant evidence, added καί . Being superfluous, it was the more easily absorbed by the first syllable of κλαίοντας .
Mar_5:40. ὁ δέ ] Lachm. has αὐτὸς δέ , on evidence considerable doubtless, but not decisive. From Luk_8:54.
After παιδίον Elz. and Scholz have ἀνακείμενον , which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has deleted. It is wanting in B D L Δ à , min. vss. An addition by way of gloss, instead of which are also found κείμενον , κατακείμενον , and other readings.