Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 6
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_6:2. After αὐτῷ (instead of which B C L Δ à , as before, read τούτῳ ; so Tisch.) Elz. has ὅτι , which Fritzsche defends. But the evidence on the other side so preponderates, that ὅτι must be regarded as an inserted connective addition, instead of which C* D K, min. give ἵνα (and then γίνωνται ), while B L Δ à have changed γίνονται into γινόμεναι , which is only another attempt to help the construction, although it is adopted (with αἱ before διά upon too weak evidence) by Tisch.
Mar_6:3. ὁ τέκτων ] The reading ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός (and then merely καὶ Μαρίας ), although adopted by Fritzsche, is much too weakly attested, and is from Mat_13:35.
Ἰωσῆ ] The form Ἰωσῆτος (Lachm. Tisch.) has in its favour B D L Δ , min. vss. Ἰωσήφ ( à , 121, Aeth. Vulg. codd. of the It.) is here too weakly attested, and is from Mat_13:55.
Mar_6:9. The Recepta, defended by Rinck, Fritzsche, is ἐνδύσασθαι . But ἐνδύσησθε (so Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) has decisive attestation; it was altered on account of the construction.
Mar_6:11. ὅσοι ἄν ] Tisch. has ὃς ἂν τόπος (and afterwards δέξηται ), following B L Δ à , min. Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin). A peculiar and original reading, which became altered partly by the omission of τόπος (C*? min.), partly by ὅσοι , in accordance with the parallels.
After αὐτοῖς Elz. Matth. Fritzsche, Scholz, have: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν , ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται Σοδόμοις ἢ Γομόῤῥοις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως , ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ , which is not found in B C D L Δ à , min. vss. An addition in accordance with Mat_10:15.
Mar_6:12. ἐκήρυξαν (Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ἐκήρυσσον , is still more strongly attested than μετανοῶσιν (Lachm. Tisch.). The former is to be adopted from B C D L Δ à ; the latter has in its favour B D L, but easily originated as the shorter form from the Recepta μετανοήσωσι .
Mar_6:14. ἔλεγεν ] Fritzsche, Lachm. have ἔλεγον only, following B D, 6, 271, Cant. 6 :Verc. Mart. Corb. Aug. Beda (D has ἐλέγοσαν ). An alteration in accordance with Mar_6:15; comp. Mar_6:16.
ἐκ νεκρ . ἠγέρθη ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρ ., following B D L Δ à , min.; but A K, min. Theophyl. have ἐκ νεκρ . ἀνέστη . The latter is right; ἀνέστη became supplanted by means of the parallel passages and Mar_6:16.
Mar_6:15. δέ after the first ἄλλοι is wanting in Elz. Fritzsche, but is guaranteed by decisive evidence. Decisive evidence condemns the ἤ read before ὡς in Elz. and Fritzsche.
Mar_6:16. οὗτός ἐστιν , αὐτὸς ἠγ .] B D L Δ , min. Vulg. Cant. Colb. Corb. Germ. 1, 2, Mm. Or. have merely οὗτος ἠγ . So Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed ἐστ . αὐτ .). Certainly the Recepta might have arisen out of Mat_14:2. But, if merely οὗτος ἠγ . were original, it would not be at all easy to see why it should have been altered and added to. On the other hand, the transcribers might easily pass over from ουΤΟΣ at once to αυΤΟΣ . Therefore the Recepta is to be maintained, and to be regarded as made use of by Matthew.
ἐκ νεκρῶν ] is, in accordance with Tisch., to be deleted as an addition, since in B L Δ à , vss. it is altogether wanting; in D it stands before ἠγ .; and in C, Or. it is exchanged for ἀπὸ τ . νεκρ .
Mar_6:17. The article before φυλακῇ is deleted, in accordance with decisive evidence.
Mar_6:19. ἤθελεν ] Lachm. has ἐζήτει , although only following C* Cant. 6 :Verc. Vind. Colb. An interpretation.
Mar_6:21. ἐποίει ] B C D L Δ à , min. have ἐποίησεν . So Lachm. But the reading of Tisch. is to be preferred: ἠπόρει ; see the exegetical remarks.
Mar_6:22. αὐτῆς ] B D L Δ à , min. have αὐτοῦ . A wrong emendation.
καὶ ἀρεσάσ .] B C* L Δ à have ἤρεσεν . So Lachm. and Tisch., the latter then, upon like attestation, having ὁ δὲ βασ . εἶπεν (Lachm., following A, has εἶπε δὲ ὁ βασ .). Rightly; the Recepta is a mechanical continuation of the participles, which was then followed by the omission of δέ (Elz. has: εἶπεν ὁ βασ .).
Mar_6:24. αἰτήσομαι ] αἰτήσωμαι is decisively attested; commended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.
Mar_6:30. πάντα καί ] This καί has evidence so considerable against it that it is condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. But how easily might the quite superfluous and even disturbing word come to be passed over!
Mar_6:33. After ὑπάγοντας Elz. has οἱ ὄχλοι , in opposition to decisive evidence; taken from Matt. and Luke.
After ἐπέγνωσαν (for which Lachm., following B* D, reads ἔγνωσαν ) Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν , which is not found in B D, min. Arm. Perss. Vulg. It., while A K L M U Δ à , min., vss. have αὐτούς . So Tisch. But αὐτόν and αὐτούς are additions by way of gloss.
ἐκεῖ ] Elz. Scholz have: ἐκεῖ , καὶ προῆλθον αὐτοὺς καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν . Griesb.: καὶ ἦλθον ἐκεῖ . Fritzsche: ἐκεῖ καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτόν . Lachm. Tisch.: ἐκεῖ καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς . So, too, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 298. The latter reading (B L à ) is to be regarded as the original one, and the variations are to be derived from the fact that προσῆλθον was written instead of προῆλθον . Thus arose the corruption καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτούς (so still L, min.). This corruption was then subjected to very various glosses, namely, καὶ προσῆλθον πρὸς αὐτούς (220, 225, Arr.), καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτοῖς ( Δ ), καὶ συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ (D, Ver.), καὶ συνέδραμον πρὸς αὐτόν (A), καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν (Elz.), al.; which glosses partly supplanted the original καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς (D, min. vss.), partly appeared by its side with or without restoration of the genuine προῆλθον . The reading of Griesb. has far too little attestation, and leaves the origin of the variations inexplicable. For the reading of Fritzsche there is no attestation; it is to be put on the footing of a conjecture.
Mar_6:34. After εἶδεν Elz. and Scholz have ὁ Ἰησοῦς , which in witnesses deserving of consideration is either wanting or differently placed. An addition.
ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπʼ αὐτούς , following important witnesses; the Recepta is from Mat_14:14 (where it is the original reading).
Mar_6:36. ἄρτους · τί γὰρ φάγωσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ] B L Δ , min. Copt. Cant. Verc. Corb. Vind. have merely τί φάγωσιν , which Griesb. approves and Tisch. reads. D has merely τι φαγεῖν , which Fritzsche reads, adding, however, without any evidence: οὐ γὰρ ἔχουσιν . Lachm. has [ ἄρτους ·] τί [ γὰρ ] φάγωσιν [ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ]. The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred; ἄρτους was written in the margin as a gloss, and adopted into the text. Thus arose ἄρτους , τι φάγωσιν (comp. à : βρώματα τι φάγωσιν , Vulg.: “cibos, quos manducent”). This was then filled up from Mar_8:2, Mat_15:32, in the way in which the Recepta has it. The reading of D (merely τι φαγεῖν ) would be preferable, if it were better attested.
Mar_6:37. δῶμεν ] Lachm. has δώσομεν , following A B (?) L Δ 65, It. Vulg. Comp. D à , min., which have δώσωμεν . The future is original; not being understood, it was changed into δῶμεν , and mechanically into δώσωμεν (Tisch.).
Mar_6:38. καί before ἴδετε is wanting in B D L à , min. vss., and is an addition which Griesb. has condemned, Lachm. has bracketed, and Tisch. has deleted.
Mar_6:39. ἀνακλῖναι ] Lachm. has ἀνακλιθῆναι , not sufficiently attested from Mat_14:19.
Mar_6:40. Instead of ἀνά , Lachm. and Tisch. have κατά both times, in accordance with B D à , Copt. Rightly; ἀνά is from Luk_9:14.
Mar_6:44. Elz. has after ἄρτους : ὡσεί , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Mar_6:45. ἀπολύσῃ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀπολύει , following B D L Δ à 1. The Recepta is from Mat_14:22.
Mar_6:48. εἶδεν ] B D L Δ à , min. Vulg. It. Copt. have ἰδών . So Lachm. and Tisch., omitting the subsequent καί before περί . Rightly; the participle was changed into εἶδεν , because the parenthetic nature of the following ἦν γὰρ … αὐτοῖς was not observed.
Mar_6:51. καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ] is wanting, it is true, in B L Δ à , min. Copt. Vulg. Vind. Colb. Rd., and is condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., cancelled by Tisch.; but after ἐξίσταντο it was, as the weaker expression, more easily passed over than added.
Mar_6:52. The order αὐτῶν ἡ καρδ . is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be preferred on far preponderating evidence.
Mar_6:54. After αὐτόν Lachm. has bracketed οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου , which A G Δ , min. vss. read; from Mat_14:35.
Mar_6:55. ἐκεῖ ] is not found in B L Δ à , 102, Copt. Vulg. Vind. Brix. Colb. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Passed over as superfluous.
Mar_6:56. ἥπτοντο ] Lachm. reads ἥψαντο , following B D L Δ à , min. Mat_14:36.