corner graphic   Hi,    
Finding the new version too difficult to understand? Go to

Bible Commentaries

Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Mark 11





Mark 11:1. Lachm. and Tisch. read (instead of εἰς βηθφ. κ. βηθ.) merely καὶ εἰς βηθανίαν; but the evidence is not sufficient (D, Vulg. codd. It. Or. (twice) Jer.) to entitle us to derive the Recepta from Luke 19:29. An old clerical error, occasioned by the similar beginnings of the two local names; and καί was inserted to connect them. C א have εἰς βηθφ. κ. εἰς βηθ. If this were the original form, the omission would occur still more easily.

The form ἱεροσόλυμα is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L δ א, min. Sahid. Or. ἱερουσαλήμ does not occur elsewhere in Mark, and only in Matthew at Matthew 23:37 (see in loc.); in Luke it is the usual form.

ἀποστέλλει] Lachm. reads ἀπέστειλεν, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from the parallels.

Mark 11:2. οὐδείς] Lachm. has οὐδεὶς οὔπω; Fritzsche: οὐδέπω οὐδείς. The latter is much too weakly attested. The former has considerable attestation, but with a different position of the οὔπω (Tisch. οὐδ. ἀνθρ. οὔπω), instead of which A has πώποτε (from Luke). The Recepta is to be defended; the idea expressed in adhuc was very variously brought in.

λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε] B C L δ א, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. have λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. (Lachm. has λύσατε αὐτ. κ. ἀγάγετε). Rightly; the Recepta is from Luke 19:30; comp. Matthew 21:2, whence also originated the reading of Lachm.

Mark 11:3. ἀποστέλλει] Elz. Fritzsche have ἀποστελεῖ, in opposition to decisive evidence. Comp. on Matthew 21:3.

πάλιν, which B C* D L δ א, min. Verc. Colb. Or. (twice) read, although it is adopted by Tisch., is an addition from misunderstanding; the reader probably being misled by ὧδε, and taking the words as being still a portion of what was to be said by the disciples.

Mark 11:4. The article before πῶλον (Elz.) is, in accordance with decisive evidence, deleted.

Mark 11:6. Instead of εἶπεν (so also Lachm. and Tisch.) Elz. Scholz have ἐνετείλατο. But εἶπεν is so weightily attested by B C L δ א, min. Or. Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm. Or. that ἐνετείλατο appears a gloss. D has εἰρήκει, which likewise tells in favour of εἶπεν, and is only a change into the pluperfect.

Mark 11:7. ἤγαγον] B L δ א** Or. have φέρουσιν; approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallel passages.

ἐπέβαλον] B C D L δ א, min. Vulg. Cant. 11 :Corb. Vind. Or. have ἐπιβάλλουσιν. Adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta was derived from the reading ἤγαγον.

ἐπʼ αὐτῷ] B C D L δ א, min. have ἐπʼ αὐτόν, which Griesb. approved, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. adopted. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition of the previous αὐτῷ.

Mark 11:8. δένδρων] B C L δ א, Syr. p. (in the margin) Or. Sahid. have ἀγρῶν, which Fritzsche and Tisch. have rightly adopted. With Tisch., however, instead of the whole passage ἔκοπτονὁδόν we must read briefly and simply: κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν. The Recepta is an expansion from Matthew, whence also came λέγοντες; in Mark 11:9. This is wanting in B C L δ א, min. Copt. Sahid. Colb. Corb. Or., is regarded as suspicious by Griesb. and Lachm., and is deleted by Tisch.

Mark 11:10. After βασιλεία Elz. has ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, against preponderating evidence. An awkward repetition from Mark 11:9.

Mark 11:11. καὶ εἰς τ. ἱερόν] καί is wanting in B C L M δ א, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Perss. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.; inserted by way of connection.

Mark 11:13. To μακρόθεν, with Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., there is to be added ἀπό, upon preponderating evidence. Comp. Mark 5:6.

Mark 11:14. The arrangement εἰς τ. αἰ. ἐκ. σ., as well as μηδείς (instead of οὐδείς in Elz.), is decisively attested.

Mark 11:17. λέγων αὐτοῖς] B C L δ א, min. Copt. have καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς. So Tisch. The Recepta is from Luke.

ἐποιήσατε] B L δ, Or. have πεποιήκατε. Adopted by Tisch. The aorist, in itself more familiar, came from Luke. Comp. on Matthew 21:13.

Mark 11:18. The arrangement οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ. οἱ γραμμ. is decisively attested (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), as is also the subjunctive ἀπολέσωσιν (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) instead of ἀπολέσουσιν.

Mark 11:19. ὅτε] B C K L δ א, min. have ὅταν. Wrongly adopted by Tisch. Comp. his Proleg. p. lvii. Unsuitable (otherwise at Mark 3:11), and to be regarded as an ancient clerical error.

ἐξεπορεύετο] A B K M δ, min. vss. have ἐξεπορεύοντο. So Fritzsche, Lachm. But how natural it was here to bring in the same number, as in the case of παραπορ., Mark 11:20!

Mark 11:20. The order πρωῒ παραπορ. is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), but suggested itself most naturally after Mark 11:19, on which account, however, παραπορ. πρωΐ (B C D L δ א, min. 11 :Cant.) is precisely to be preferred, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Mark 11:23. γάρ] is wanting in B D U א, min. VSS. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective addition.

λέγει] Lachm. and Tisch. have λαλεῖ, following B L N δ א, min.; the more familiar λέγ. slipped in involuntarily.

ἐὰν εἴπῃ] is wanting in B C D L δ א, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., condemned also by Griesb. A confusing gloss, following the foregoing ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ.

Mark 11:24. ἄν] is wanting in B C D L δ א, min. An addition from Matthew 21:22.

προσευχόμενοι] B C D L δ א, Cant. Verc. Colb. Corb. Cypr. have προσεύχεσθε καί. So Lachm. and Tisch. The participle is an emendation, because it was thought necessary (comp. Matthew 21:22) to make ὅσα dependent on αἰτεῖσθε.

λαμβάνετε] B C L δ א, Copt. have ἐλάβετε. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the aorist was not understood, and was changed partly into the present, partly into the future (D).

Mark 11:25. στήκητε] A C D H L M, min. have στήκετε. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is an emendation introduced from ignorance.

Mark 11:26.(140)] is wanting in B L S δ א, min. Copt. Arm. codd. It. Suspected by Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. But the evidence in favour of omission is the less sufficient for its condemnation, that the words do not closely agree with Matthew 6:15, from which place they are said to have come in, but present deviations which are in no wise to be attributed to the mechanical transcribers. The omission is explained from the homoeoteleuton of Mark 11:25-26. But what M., min. further add after Mark 11:26 is an interpolation from Matthew 7:7-8.

Mark 11:28. Instead of καὶ τίς read, with Tisch., τίς, which is considerably attested and is supplanted by καὶ τίς in Matthew.

Mark 11:29. κἀγώ] Tisch. has deleted this, in accordance with B C? L δ; and Lachm., following A K, min. Arm. Germ. 2, Goth., has placed it before ὑμᾶς. It has come in from the parallels.

Mark 11:30. Before ἰωάνν. here, as in Matthew 21:25, τό is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with important testimony. It was passed over as superfluous; in Luke it is too weakly attested.

Mark 11:31. ἐλογίζοντο] B C D G K L M δ א** min. read: διελογίζοντο, which Griesb. has commended, Schulz has approved, Fritzsche, Lachm. have adopted. With this preponderance of evidence it is the less to be derived from Matthew 21:25, in proportion to the facility with which the syllable δ l might be lost in the two last letters of the preceding και. א* has the manifest clerical error προσελογίζοντο, which, however, does not presuppose the simple form.

οὖν] is wanting in A C* L M X δ, min. vss. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. It is from the parallels.

Elz. and Fritzsche have afterwards at Mark 11:32 : ἀλλʼ ἐὰν εἴπωμεν. But ἐάν has against it decisive evidence, and is an addition easily misunderstood,

ὅτι ὄντως] Tisch. has ὄντως ὅτι, following B C L א** min. The Recepta is a transposition for the sake of facility.

Verses 1-11

Mark 11:1-11. See on Matthew 21:1-11. Comp. Luke 19:29-44. Mark narrates with greater freshness and particularity than Matthew, who partly abridges, but partly also already comments (Mark 11:4-5) and completes (Mark 11:10 f.).

εἰς βηθφ. κ. βηθ.] a more precise local definition to εἰς ἱεροσ.: when they come into the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, (namely) into the neighbourhood of Bethphage and Bethany, which places are situated on the Mount of Olives. Comp. the double εἰς, Mark 11:11.

Mark 11:2. εἰς τὴν κώμην κ. τ. λ.] Bethphage, which was first named as the nearest to them. See also Matthew 21:1 f., where Bethany as explanatory is omitted.

πῶλον] without more precise definition, but, as is obvious of itself, the foal of an ass. Judges 10:4; Judges 12:14; Zechariah 9:9; Genesis 49:11.

ἐφʼ ὃν οὐδεὶς κ. τ. λ.] This notice, which in Matthew is not adopted(141) into the narrative, is an addition supplied by reflective tradition, arising out of the sacred destination of the animal (for to a sacred purpose creatures as yet unused were applied, Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 6:7; Wetstein in loc.). Comp. Strauss, II. p. 276 f.

On φέρετε (see the critical remarks), comp. Genesis 47:16 : φέρετε τὰ κτήνη ὑ΄ῶν, Hom. Od. iii. 117. Therefore it is not unsuitable (Fritzsche); even the change of the tenses ( λύσατεφέρετε) has nothing objectionable in it. See Kühner, II. p. 80.

Mark 11:3. τί] wherefore; to this corresponds the subsequent ὅτι, because.

καὶ εὐθέως κ. τ. λ.] this Jesus says; it is not the disciples who are to say it (Origen; comp. the critical remarks), whereby a paltry trait would be introduced into the commission.

ὧδε, hither, Plato, Prot. p. 328 D Soph. Trach. 496; O. T. 7; El. 1149. Not yet so used in Homer.

Mark 11:4. εὗρονἀμφόδου] a description characteristic of Mark; τὸ ἄ΄φοδον and ἄ΄φοδος (comp. ἀ΄φόδιον in Lucian, Rhet. praec. 24, 25) is not simply the way, but the way that leads round (winding way). Jeremiah 17:27; Jeremiah 47:2; Jeremiah 47:7; Aristot. de part. ani. III. 2, p. 663, 36 (codd., see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 248), and the examples in Wetstein, also Koenig and Schaefer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 505.

Mark 11:5. τί ποιεῖτε κ. τ. λ.] Comp. Acts 21:13.

Mark 11:8. On the only correct form στιβάς, not στοιβάς, see Fritzsche. The meaning is: litter, ἀπὸ ῥάβδων καὶ χλωρῶν χόρτων στρῶσις καὶ φύλλων, Hesychius. Very frequent in the classical writers. Litter (branches and leaves) was cut from the fields that were near ( ἀγρῶν, see the critical remarks).

Mark 11:10. ἐρχο΄ένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρ. ἡ΄. δ.] i.e. the coming kingdom of the Messiah. Its approaching manifestation, on the eve of occurring with the entry of the Messiah, was seen in the riding of Jesus into Jerusalem. And it is called the kingdom of David, so far as it is the fulfilment of the type given in the kingdom of David, as David himself is a type of the Messiah, who is even called David among the Rabbins (Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 10 f.). Mark did not avoid mention of the “Son of David” (in opposition to Hilgenfeld; comp. Mark 10:47, Mark 12:35), but Matthew added it; in both cases without special aim. The personal expression, however (comp. Luke: βασιλεύς, which Weizsäcker regards as the most original), easily came into the tradition.

Mark 11:11. εἰς ἱεροσ. εἰς τὸ ἱερόν] After the rejection of καί (see the critical remarks) the second εἰς is to be understood as a more precise specification, similar to that in Mark 11:1.

ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς ὥρας] as the hour was already late. ὀψίας is here an adjective. Taken as a substantive, τῆς ὥρας (evening of the day-time) would not be applicable to it; expressions with ὀψέ (as Dem. 541, ult. ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας ἐγίγνετο, Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 14, al.) are different. On the adjective ὄψιος, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 51. It was already the time of day, which in the classical writers is called ὀψία δειλη (Herod. viii. 6; Thuc. viii. 26; Polyb. vii. 16. 4; Ruhnken, Tim. p. 75). According to Matthew and Luke, it was immediately after His entry, and not on the next day (Mark, Mark 11:12; Mark 11:15 ff.) that Jesus purified the temple. A real difference; Matthew has not only narrated the cleansing of the temple as occurring at once along with the entry, but assumed it so (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange, and many others); Mark, however, is original; the day’s work is completed with the Messianic entry itself, and only a visit to the temple and the significant look round about it forms the close. What the Messiah has still further to do, follows on the morrow. This at the same time in opposition to Baur (Markusevang. p. 89), who sees in the narrative of Mark only the later work of sober reflection adjusting the course of events; and in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who accuses Mark of an essential impropriety.

περιβλεψάμ. πάντα is a preparatory significant statement in view of the measure of cleansing purposed on the morrow. The look around was itself deeply serious, sorrowful, judicial (comp. Mark 3:5; Mark 3:34), not as though He Himself had now for the first time beheld the temple and thus had never previously come to the feast (Schenkel).

Verses 12-14

Mark 11:12-14. Comp. on Matthew 21:18-20, whose more compressed narrative represents a later form taken by the tradition.

εἰ ἄρα] whether under these circumstances (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 178 f.)—namely, since the tree had leaves, which in fact in the case of fig-trees come after the fruits. Comp. on Matthew 21:19.

οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων] not inappropriate (Köstlin), but rightly giving information whence it happened that Jesus found nothing but leaves only.(142) If it had been the time for figs (June, when the Boccôre ripens, comp. Matthew 24:32) He would have found fruits also as well as the leaves, and would not have been deceived by the abnormal foliage of the tree. The objections against this logical connection—on the one hand, that figs of the previous year that had hung through the winter might still have been on the tree; on the other, that from οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρ. σύκ. the fruitlessness of the tree would appear quite natural, and therefore not be justified as an occasion for cursing it (comp. de Wette, Strauss, Schenkel; according to Bruno Bauer, Mark made the remark on account of Hosea 9:10)—are quite irrelevant; for (1) Figs that have hung through the winter were not at all associated with a tree’s being in leaf, but might also be found on trees without leaves; the leafy tree promised summer figs, but had none,(143) because in the month Nisan it was not the time for figs, so that thus the presence of foliage which, in spite of the earliness of the time of year, justified the conclusion from the nature of the fig-tree that there would be fruit upon it, was only a deceptive anomaly. (2) The tree presents itself as deserving a curse, because, having leaves it ought also to have had fruit; the οὐ γὰρ ἦν κ. σ. would only make it appear as blameless if it had had no leaves; hence even with our simply literal apprehension of the words there in no wise results an over-hasty judicial sentence. It is almost incredible how the simple and logically appropriate meaning of the words has been distorted, in order to avoid representing Jesus as seeking figs out of the fig-season. Such explanations, however, deserve no refutation; e.g. that of Hammond, Clericus, Homberg, Paulus, Olshausen, Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 321: for it was not a good fig-year (see, on the other hand, Strauss, II. p. 220 f.); that of Abresch, Lect. Arist. p. 16, and Triller, ad Thom. M. p. 490: for it was not a place suitable for figs; the interrogative view of Majus, Obss. I. p. 7 : “nonne enim tempus erat ficuum?;” that of Heinsius and Knatchbull: “ubi enim fuit, tempus erat ficuum” (so that οὗ would have to be read); the notion of Mill, that Jesus only feigned as if He were seeking figs, in order merely to do a miracle (Victor Antiochenus and Euthymius Zigabenus had already taken even His hunger as simulated; compare recently again Hofmann, p. 374); the view of Kuinoel (comp. Dahme in Henke’s Magaz. I. 2, p. 252): for it was not yet ( οὐ = οὔπω) fig-harvest; compare also Baumgarten-Crusius. Fritzsche has the correct view, although he reproaches Mark with having subjoined the notice “non elegantissime,” whereas it very correctly states why Jesus, notwithstanding the leaves of the tree, found no fruits. Toup (Emendatt. in Suid. II. p. 218 f.), Tittmann (Opusc. p. 509), and Wassenbergh (in Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 18) have even declared themselves against the genuineness of the words in spite of all the critical evidence! Bornemann (in opposition to Wassenbergh) in the Schol. in Luc. p. xlix. f., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 131 ff., comes back again essentially to the interpretation of Hammond, and explains: “for it was not favourable weather for figs.” But καιρός could only acquire the meaning of “favourable weather” by more precise definition in the context, as in the passage quoted by Bornemann, Eur. Hec. 587, by θεόθεν, and hence this interpretation is not even favoured by the reading γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων (B C* L δ א, Copt. Syr.; so Tischendorf), for the time was not fig-time, which reading easily originated from an καιρός written on the margin by way of supplement, whence also is to be derived the reading of Lachmann (following D, Or.): οὐ γ. ἦν καιρὸς σ. De Wette finds the words “absolutely incomprehensible.”(144) Comp. also Baur, Markusev. p. 90, according to whom, however, Mark here only betrays his poverty in any resources of his own, as he is alleged by Hilgenfeld only to make the case worse involuntarily.

Mark 11:14. ἀποκριθείς] Appropriately Bengel adds: “arbori fructum neganti.”

φάγοι] According to Mark (it is otherwise in Matthew 21:19) the cursing is expressed in the form of a wish, as imprecation, Acts 8:20.

καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθ. αὐτοῦ] a preparation for Mark 11:20.

Verses 15-19

Mark 11:15-19. See on Matthew 21:12-17. Comp. Luke 19:45-48. Matthew deals with this partly by abbreviating, partly also by adding what is peculiar and certainly original (Mark 11:14-16).

ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν] but afterwards: κατέστρεψε, so that thus the latter occurred after the beginning and before the ending of the expulsion.

Mark 11:16. ἵνα] The object of the permission is conceived as its purpose. The form ἤφιε, as Mark 1:34.

διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ] In the estimation also of the Rabbins it was accounted a desecration of the temple, if anybody carried the implements of common life ( σκεῦος, household furniture, pots, and the like) through the temple-enclosure, διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (not ναοῦ), in order to save himself a circuit; they extended this even to the synagogues. See Lightfoot, p. 632 f.; Wetstein in loc. Olshausen is mistaken in explaining διαφέρειν as to carry to and fro; and Kuinoel and Olshausen, following Beza and Grotius, arbitrarily limit σκεῦος to implements used for the purpose of gain.

Mark 11:17. ἐδίδασκε] on what subject? What follows leaves no doubt as to the principal theme of this teaching.

πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] Dativus commodi: (destined) for all nations,—which has reference in Isaiah 56:7 to the fact that even the strangers dwelling among the Israelites were to return with them to the Holy Land (Ezra 2:43 ff; Ezra 7:7; Nehemiah 3:26; Nehemiah 11:21), where they were to present their offerings in the temple (according to the Israelitish command, Leviticus 17:8 ff; Leviticus 22:19 ff.; Numbers 15:14 ff.). Only Mark (not Matthew and Luke) has taken up the πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν from Isaiah, which probably has its reason not only in more careful quotation (Fritzsche, de Wette, Holtzmann, Bleek), but, inasmuch as it is an honourable mention of the Gentiles, in the Gentile-Christian interest, without, however, thereby indicating that Jesus had desired to announce the new spiritual temple of His church (Schenkel), which point of the action does not emerge in any of the evangelists, since they had failed to perceive it, or had suppressed it.

Mark 11:18. ἀπολέσωσιν] (see the critical remarks): how they were to destroy Him, deliberative. The future of the Recepta (how they should destroy Him) would designate the realization as indubitable (the question only still remaining as to the kind and manner of the destruction). See Kühner, II. p. 489 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 225 C.

ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν] The reason why they sought to destroy Him.

ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ, αὐτοῦ] which He, namely, had just set forth, Mark 11:17, after the cleansing of the temple. Baur arbitrarily suggests that Mark has dexterously inwoven the διδάσκειν from Luke.

ὅτε ὀψὲ ἐγένετο] on that day, Mark 11:12; hence not ὅταν (see the critical remarks).

Verses 20-24

Mark 11:20-24. Comp. on Matthew 21:20-22. But according to Matthew the tree withered away forthwith after the cursing, so that the following conversation immediately attached itself thereto. A later form moulded in accordance with the immediate result in other miracles. If Mark had separated the miracle into two acts in order to give to it the more importance (see Köstlin, p. 335) he would have reckoned erroneously, as the immediate result is the greater and therefore the more in keeping with a “later reflection” (Hilgenfeld). But this variation of the tradition has nothing to do with the view that the entire history is only a legendary formation from Luke 13 (in opposition to Schenkel).

παραπορευόμενοι πρωΐ] Fritzsche is wrong in rejecting this order, because “ πρωΐ is opposed to the preceding ὀψέ.” In fact παραπορ. is the leading idea (and passing by in the morning), pointing out the modal definition to the following εἶδον κ. τ. λ.

Mark 11:22. πίστιν θεοῦ] confidence in God; genitive of the object. Comp. Acts 3:16; Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 3:8; Dem. 300, 10; Eur. Med. 414.

Mark 11:24. διὰ τοῦτο] because the confidence has so great effect.

ὅτι ἐλάβετε] (see the critical remarks): The praeterite is not “ineptum” (Fritzsche), but the having received, which one believes has its ground in the counsel of God. Comp. Mark 13:20. The real de facto bestowal is future ( ἔσται ὑμῖν).

Verse 25-26

Mark 11:25-26. Comp. Matthew 6:14 f. To the exhortation to confidence in prayer, according to Mark, Jesus links on another principal requisite of being heard—namely, the necessity of forgiving in order to obtain forgiveness. And how appropriate is this to guard against a false conclusion from the occurrence with the fig-tree! Nevertheless (in opposition to Holtzmann) it is hardly here original, but introduced(145) into this connection by Mark from the collection of Logia in the way of thoughtful redaction, not of unadjusted insertion (Hilgenfeld).

στήκετε] Comp. on ἑστῶτες, Matthew 6:5. The indication is not incorrect, but ἄν has its relation merely to the particle ὅτε, and does not affect the verb; see on Mark 3:11.

Mark 11:26. Observe the antithesis, in which οὐκ (not μή, as in Matthew) is closely associated with ἀφίετε and constitutes with it one idea (Hermann, ad Vig. p. 831; Winer, p. 423 f. [E. T. 597 f.]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 297 [E. T. 346]).

Verses 27-33

Mark 11:27-33. See on Matthew 21:23-27. Comp. Luke 20:1-8. Matthew abridges little, but yet remains not so directly vivid.

περιπατοῦντος] According to Matthew and Luke Jesus taught, which, however, is not excluded by Mark’s statement.

Mark 11:28. ταῦτα] the cleansing of the temple, comp. on Matthew 21:23.

ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς] not a paraphrase of the infinitive, but: in order that thou mayest do these things, purpose of τὴν ἐξουσίαν τ. ἔδωκεν.

Mark 11:29. ἐπερωτήσω] not: post interrogabo (Fritzsche), but, as always in the N. T.: to inquire of, so that ἐπί expresses the direction. Comp. Plat. Soph. p. 249 E: δικαίως ἂν ἐπερωτηθεῖμεν ἅπερ αὐτοὶ τότε ἠρωτῶμεν (be inquired of, as we ourselves asked questions).

Mark 11:31. οὖν] therefore, since it comes from heaven.

Mark 11:32. ἀλλʼ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων] Here is to be placed a note of interrogation (Complutensian, Lachmann, Tischendorf); but are we to say: of men? a question of doubtful reflection! Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 306, aptly remarks on what follows: “Respondet Marcus suo nomine, idque elegantissime fecisse videtur, quoniam haud facile quisquam sibi ipse aperte timorem adscribere consuevit.” Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 330 [E. T. 385].

εἶχον τὸν ἰωάννην ὄντως, ὅτι προφ. ἦν] (see the critical remarks): they really perceived (perspectum habebant, see Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 873) that John (in his lifetime) was a prophet. ἰωάννηνὅτι is to be taken according to the well-known attraction; see Winer, p. 551 [E. T. 781]; Buttmann, p. 322 [E. T. 376].


Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.

Bibliography Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Mark 11:4". Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 1832.

Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, June 16th, 2019
Trinity Sunday
Commentary Navigator
Search This Commentary
Enter query in the box below
To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use our convenient contact form
Powered by Lightspeed Technology