Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 9
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mar_9:3. ἐγένετο ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐγένοντο , following a considerable amount of evidence. The singular is a correction in recollection of Mat_17:2.
ὡς χιών ] is wanting in B C L Δ 1, Sahid. Arm Aeth. Cant. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. But had it been interpolated, it would not have been ὡς χιών (comp. Mat_28:3), but ὡς τὸ φῶς , that would have been supplied from Mat_17:2, as Or. min. actually have.
Before λευκᾶναι , B C L Δ à , min. vss. Or. have οὕτως , which Tisch. has adopted. Rightly; as it was found to be superfluous and cumbrous, it was omitted.
Mar_9:6. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. have λαλήσῃ . But a preponderance of evidence favours λαλήσει , which, with Matth., is the more to be preferred, as the future seemed objectionable to copyists lacking nice discernment; hence also in à , Or. the reading ἀπεκρίθη (according to Mar_9:5), whence again proceeded, as an emendation, ἀποκριθῇ (Tisch., following B C* L Δ , min. Copt.).
ἦ σαν γὰρ ἔκφοβοι ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L Δ à 33, Copt. Sahid. It. Chrys., to be changed into ἔκφ . γ . ἐγένοντο .
Mar_9:7. ἦλθε ] B C L Δ à , Syr. in the margin, Copt. Arm. have ἐγένετο . Recommended by Griesb. It is from Luk_9:35.
After νεφέλης Elz. Lachm. have λέγουσα , in opposition to very considerable witnesses (yet not to A D L Δ ; the latter has λέγων ). From Mat_17:5.
αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀκ . αὐτ . The Recepta is from the parallels.
Mar_9:8. ἀλλά ] B D à , min. vss. have εἰ μή , which Lachm. has adopted. From Mat_17:8.
Mar_9:10. τὸ ἐκ υεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι ] D, min. Syr. Perss. Vulg. Jer. have ὅταν ἐκ ν . ἀναστῇ . So Fritzsche (retaining τό ); already recommended by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel. A gloss, for the sake of more accurate definition.
Mar_9:11. Before οἱ γραμμ . Tisch. has οἱ Φαρισ . καί , only following L à , Vulg. codd. It. It would, with stronger attestation, require to be adopted on account of Mat_17:10.
Mar_9:12. ἀποκρ . εἶπεν ] B C L Δ à , Syr. Perss. p. Copt. have ἔφη . Commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly; the more prevalent expression crept in from Matth.; ἔφη is only further found in the Text. rec. of Mark at Mar_14:29.
ἀποκαθιστᾷ ] on decisive evidence read, with Lachm. Tisch., ἀποκαθιστάνει .
Mar_9:15. ἰδὼν αὐτ . ἐξεθαμβήθη ] B C D I L Δ à , min. VSS. have ἰδόντες αὐτ . ἐξεθαμβήθησαν . Rightly approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Not the plural, but the singular had its origin in correction.
Mar_9:16. Instead of ἐπηρ . αὐτούς Elz. Scholz have ἐπηρ . τοὺς γραμματεῖς , which Lachm. has in the margin. But B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. It. have αὐτούς ; τοὺς γραμματεῖς is plainly an interpretation in accordance with Mar_9:14.
Mar_9:17. Following B C D L Δ à , 33, Copt. Cant. 9 :Verc. read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καὶ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ . τ . ὄχλ .
Mar_9:18. After ὀδόντας Elz. Scholz have αὐτοῦ ; it is wanting in B C* D L Δ à , min. Vulg. It. By Lachm. it is only bracketed, by Tisch. deleted. A familiar addition.
Mar_9:19. Instead of αὐτοῖς Elz. has αὐτῷ , which Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 300, defends. But αὐτοῖς has preponderant attestation, and was changed, as the Father has just spoken, into the singular.
Mar_9:20. ἐσπάραξεν ] B C L Δ à , 33 have συνεσπάραξεν . So Lachm. Tisch. It is from Luk_9:42. The reading ἐτάραξεν in D also tells in favour of the Recepta.
Mar_9:21. ἐκ παιδιόθεν (Lachm. Tisch.) is found in B C G I L Δ à , min., and is, moreover, supported by D, Chrys., which have ἐκ παιδός . The pleonastic ἐκ was passed over.
Mar_9:22. πῦρ ] Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz have τὸ πῦρ , following A E F G K M V Γ , min. From Matth.
δύνασαι ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δύνῃ here and at Mar_9:23, following B D I L Δ à , min. To be adopted; the usual form was substituted.
Mar_9:23. πιστεῦσαι ] is, with Tisch. (comp. Ewald), following B C* L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Arr., to be deleted. An addition to the simple εἰ δύνῃ , which was not understood.
Mar_9:24. μετὰ δακρ .] is wanting in A* B C* L Δ à , 28, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is a gloss on κράξας .
After πιστεύω Elz. Fritzsche have κύριε , in opposition to preponderant evidence.
Mar_9:26. κράξαν … σπαράξαν ] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have κράξας … σπαράξας , following B C* D L à , min. ( Δ has κράξας … σπαράξαν ); the neuter is a correction.
αὐτόν ] is, in accordance with nearly the same witnesses and vss., to be deleted, with Griesb. and Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it).
πολλούς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have τοὺς πολλούς , following A B L Δ à , 33. The article, in itself superfluous, was more easily omitted than added.
Mar_9:27. αὐτὸν τῆς χειρός ] Lachm. Tisch. have τῆς χειρ . αὐτοῦ , following B D L Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Vict. A gloss (comp. Mar_1:31, Mar_5:41, Mar_8:23; Mat_9:25; Luk_8:54). Mar_9:28. The genitives εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ (Lachm. Tisch.) are found in B C D L Δ à , min.; they are, however, to be regarded as an emendation (it is otherwise at Mar_9:2) on account of the double αὐτόν .
Mar_9:29. The omission of κ . νηστείᾳ (Tisch.) is sufficiently attested by B à * and one codex of the It., since the addition from Matthew so very easily suggested itself.
Mar_9:30. παρεπορεύοντο ] Lachm. has ἐπορεύοντο , following only B* D, Verc. Brix. Colb. The compound, not being understood, was set aside.
Mar_9:31. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ] B C * D L Δ à , vss. have μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From Mar_8:31. If τ . τρίτῃ ἡμ . had been introduced from the parallel (in this case, Luke), this would rather have been done at Mar_8:31 (from Matt. and Luke), where it has but very weak attestation.
Mar_9:33. ἦλθεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἦλθον , following B D à , min. Syr. Pers. W, Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.). Not sufficiently attested for adoption, since at any rate the plural, after Mar_9:30, occurred more readily to the transcribers.
Before διελογ . Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have πρὸς ἑαυτούς , which Griesb. condemned, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted. It is wanting in B C D L Δ à , vss., also in Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), while several cursives place it after διελογ ., and it is to be regarded as added for more precise definition.
Mar_9:34. ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ] is wanting in A D Δ , Goth. Cant. 9 :Verc. Brix. Vind. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche. But, if it had been added from Mar_9:33, it would appear before διελέχθ . Understood of itself, it was easily overlooked.
Mar_9:38. ἀπεκρίθη δέ ] B L Δ à , Syr. Copt. Tisch. have merely ἔφη . Rightly; comp. on Mar_9:12.
The Recepta, Lachm. Tisch. read: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ . σου . Griesb. Scholz have deleted ἐν . The witnesses on both sides are strong. The simple dative was more precisely defined partly, in accordance with the usual conception “in the name,” by ἐν , partly, in accordance with Mar_9:37; Mar_9:39, by ἐπί (so Fritzsche, although following only U, min.).
After δαιμόνια Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have: ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν . But this is wanting in B C L Δ à , min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Aeth. Copt. Brix., while D X, min. vss., including Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), omit the following ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολ . ἡμῖν (so Schulz, Fritzsche, Rinck). Accordingly Griesb. regards both as an addition from Luke. But both are to be retained. The former dropped out, because Luke has it not; witnesses, which had the former reading, left out the latter as superfluous and cumbrous. If it had been a gloss from Luke, μεθʼ ἡμῶν would have been written instead of ἡμῖν ; but this only occurs in L.
ἐκωλύσαμεν ] B D L Δ à , min. have ἐκωλύομεν . So Rinck and Tisch. The aorist is from Luke. Mar_9:40. Elz. Fritzsche, Tisch. have both times ἡμῶν . But A D E F G H K M SV Γ , min. and most of the vss., including Vulg. and It., read ὑμῶν ; ἡμῶν is an emendation, as it is also in Luk_9:50.
Mar_9:41. Elz. has: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ . μου . But τῷ and μου are wanting in very considerable witnesses, which condemn, although not unanimously, both readings as additions.
Before οὐ μή , ὅτι is to be adopted, following B C* D L Δ à , min., with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.
Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀπολέσει , following only B D E, min.
Mar_9:42. After μικρῶν Fritzsche, Lachm. have τούτων , in accordance, doubtless, with A B C** D L N Δ à , min. vss., including Vulg. It.; but from Mat_18:6, whence also has come the reading μύλος ὀνικός (Lachm. Tisch., following B C D L Δ à , min. vss., including Vulg. and It.).
Mar_9:43. καλόν σοί ἐστι ] Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read: καλόν ἐστίν σε , following B C L Δ à , min. Verc. The Recepta is from Mat_18:8; but to derive thence the order εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ . ζ . (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is forbidden by its decisive attestation.
Mar_9:45. σοι ] σε is still more strongly attested here than at Mar_9:43, and is likewise to be adopted (with Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch.).
εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἂσβεστον ] is wanting in B C L Δ à , min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. Even in Mar_9:43 the words are wanting in some, although far weaker witnesses. They are to be retained in Mar_9:43 (had there been an interpolation, we should have expected εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον , in accordance with Mat_18:8), but in Mar_9:45 they are to be struck out as a mechanical repetition from Mar_9:43.
The words ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται are only found in all witnesses at Mar_9:48, whereas in Mar_9:44; Mar_9:46 they are wanting in B C Δ à , min. Copt. Arm. They are, with Tisch., to be deleted in Mar_9:44; Mar_9:46. They were written on the margin from Mar_9:48.
Mar_9:47. τοῦ πυρός ] falls, according to B D L Δ à , min. Arr. Copt. Arm. Slav. Cant. Verc. Colb. Corb., with Lachm. and Tisch., to be struck out. From Mat_18:9.
Mar_9:50. Instead of the third ἅλας there is to be adopted ἅλα , with Lachm. and Tisch., following A* B D L Δ à , 1, 28, 209. ἅλας is a mechanical repetition.