Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 7
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After ἄρτους Elz. and Fritzsche have ἐμέμψαντο , which, however, is absent from witnesses so important, that it must be regarded as an addition; instead of it D has κατέγνωσαν .
Mar_7:5. ἔπειτα ] B D L à , min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It. have καί ( Δ has ἔπειτα καί ). Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; ἔπειτα was written on the margin on account of the construction, and then displaced the καί .
κοιναῖς ] Elz. Scholz have ἀνίπτοις , in opposition to B D à , min. vss. An interpretation.
Mar_7:8. γάρ ] is wanting in B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. It. Goth. Lachm. Tisch. A connecting addition.
βαπτισμοὺς … ποιεῖτε is wanting in B L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. There are many variations in detail. Bracketed by Lachm. ed. min., deleted by Fritzsche, and now also by Tisch. Rightly restored again by Lachm. ed. maj. For, if it were an interpolation from Mar_7:4; Mar_7:13, there would be inserted, as at Mar_7:4, ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν , and, as in Mar_7:13, not ἄλλα ; moreover, an interpolator would certainly not have forgotten the washing of hands. The explanatory comment of Mark, Mar_7:3-4, tells precisely in favour of the genuineness, for the joint-mention of the ποτηρίων κ . ξεστῶν in that place has its reason in these words of Jesus, Mar_7:8. And why should there have been an interpolation, since the reproach of the Pharisees did not at all concern the pitchers and cups? This apparent inappropriateness of the words, however, as well as in general their descriptive character, strikingly contrasting with the conciseness of the context, might have occasioned their omission, which was furthered and rendered more widespread by the circumstance that a church-lesson concluded with ἀνθρώπων .
Mar_7:12. καί ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D à , min. Copt. Cant. 7 :Verc. Corb. Vind. Colb. Omitted as confusing, because the apodosis was found here.
Mar_7:14. πάντα ] B D L Δ à , Syr. p. (in the margin) Copt. Aeth. Sax. Vulg. It. have πάλιν . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Rightly; πάντα . was written in the margin on account of the following πάντες , and the more easily supplanted the πάλιν , because the latter finds no definite reference in what has preceded.
Instead of ἀκούετε and συνίετε , Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀκούσατε and σύνετε , following B D H L Δ , The Recepta is from Mat_15:10.
Mar_7:15. The reading τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόσατε (Lachm. Tisch.) has in its favour B D L Δ à , 33, Copt. Goth. Aeth. Pers. p. Vulg. It. The Recepta τὰ ἐκπορ . ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ appears to have originated from the copyist, in the case of the above reading, passing over from the first ἐκ to the second ( ἐκπορ ). Thus came the reading τὰ ἐκπορευόμενα , which is still found in min. Then, after the analogy of the preceding εἰς αὐτόν , in some cases ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ , in others ἐξ αὐτοῦ (min. Fritzsche) was supplied.
Mar_7:16 is wanting in B L à , min. Copt. Suspected by Mill and Fritzsche as an interpolation at the conclusion of the church-lesson; deleted by Tisch. But the witnesses on behalf of the omission, in the absence of internal reasons which might occasion an interpolation (in accordance with Mar_4:23; comp., on the other hand, Mat_15:11), are too weak.
Mar_7:17. περὶ τῆς παραβ .] B D L Δ à , min. It. Vulg. have τὴν παραβολήν . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is a gloss.
Mar_7:19. καθαρίζον ] A B E F G H L S X Δ à , min. Or. Chrys. have καθαρίζων (D: καταρίζει ). So Lachm. and Tisch. Not a transcriber’s error, but correct (see the exegetical remarks), and needlessly emended by the neuter.
Mar_7:24. μεθόρια ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅρια , following B D L Δ à , min. Or. But μεθόρια , does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and was supplanted by the current ὅρια (comp. Mat_15:22).
καὶ Σιδῶνος ] is wanting in D L Δ 28, Cant. 7 :Verc. Corb. Vind. Or. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., comp. Ewald. Rightly; the familiarity of the collocation “Tyre and Sidon” and Mat_15:21 have introduced the καὶ Σιδῶνος , which also came in at Mar_7:31, and there supplanted the original reading ἦλθε διὰ Σιδῶνος (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in conformity with B D L Δ à , 33, Arr. Copt. Aeth. Syr. hier. Vulg. Sax. It.), and changed it into the Recepta καί Σιδῶνος ἦλθεν .
Mar_7:25. ἀκούσασα γὰρ γυνή ] Tisch. has ἀλλʼ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνή , following B L Δ à , 33, vss. The witnesses are very much divided (D: γυνὴ δὲ εὐθέως ὡς ἀκούσασα ); but the reading of Tisch. is, considering this division, sufficiently attested, and in keeping with the character of Mark; it is therefore to be preferred.
Mar_7:26. Instead of ἐκβάλῃ (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) Elz. has ἐκβάλλῃ . The evidence for the aorist is not decisive, and the present is in keeping with Mark’s manner.
Mar_7:27. Instead of ὁ δὲ Ιησοῦς εἶπεν Lachm. and Tisch. have καὶ ἔλεγεν , following B L Δ à , 33, Copt. Cant. (D has καὶ λέγει ; Vulg.: qui dixit). The Recepta is an alteration arising from comparison of Mat_15:26.
Mar_7:28. ἐσθίει ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐσθίουσιν , following B D L Δ à , min. The Recepta is from Matthew.
Mar_7:30. Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted the transposition: τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον (instead of τὴν θυγατ . βεβλημένην ) following B D L Δ à , min. vss. (yet with variations in detail). The Recepta is to be retained; the above transposition is to be explained by the fact that the transcriber passed over from the καί after ἐξεληλυθός immediately to the καί in Mar_7:31. Thus καὶ τὴν θυγατ . down to κλίνης was omitted, and afterwards restored at the wrong, but apparently more suitable place. From the circumstance that θυγ … κλίνης , and not τὸ δαιμόν . ἐξεληλ ., is the clause omitted and restored, may be explained the fact that all the variations in detail are found not in the latter, but in the former words.
Mar_7:31. See on Mar_7:24.
As in Mar_3:7, so also here, instead of πρός we must read, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm., following evidence of considerable weight, εἰς .
Mar_7:32. After κωφόν Lachm. and Tisch. have καί , following B D Δ à , vss. A connecting addition.
Mar_7:35. εὐθέως ] is wanting in B D à , min. vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the more frequent in Mark, and the more appropriate it is in this place, the more difficult it was of omission, and the easier of addition; here also in a different order.
Instead of διηνοίχθησαν Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠνοίγησαν , following B D Δ à , 1 (L has ἠνοίχθησαν ). The Recepta arose from the previous διανοίχθητι .
Mar_7:36. αὐτός ] is wanting in A B L X Δ à , min. Vulg. Lachm. Tisch.; but superfluous as it is in itself, how easily it was absorbed by the following αὐτοῖς !
Before μᾶλλον Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτοί , following B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Goth. Syr. Arm. To be adopted; correlative to the αὐτός , but passed over, as not being recognised in this reference and so regarded as superfluous.