Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Avancement de la traduction
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Langue source
- en
Ressources d'étude
Parcours plusieurs commentaires du domaine public et leurs traductions coréennes scripture.how par livre et chapitre. Bascule entre sources, lis la traduction seule ou compare-la au texte source.
Commentaire actif
Tous les commentaires
23 sources
Total des entrées
307,288
81,431 traduits
Licence
Affiché par source
Chaque source conserve séparément texte original, auteur, avancement de la traduction et licence. Les traductions et travaux éditoriaux coréens de scripture.how sont gérés à part du texte source.
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown · 1871
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871). CCEL expanded electronic edition states it is in the public domain.
Albert Barnes · 1834
Albert Barnes' Notes on Revelation Of St. John The Divine (New Testament, English original, public domain). Sourced from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes.
Adam Clarke · 1831
Public domain English commentary by Adam Clarke, normalized from Wikisource book pages for scripture.how. Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke.
John Gill · 1763
John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.
John Calvin · 1850
종교개혁 신학 원천 (영역본 PD, 대부분 — 전권 아님)
Matthew Poole · 1685
간결 절별 전권 개혁주의 주석
ed. H.D.M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell · 1890
전권 강해·설교·예화 풍부 (항목 대량)
Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch · 1866
구약 학술 표준 — 히브리어·문헌비평·고대근동 배경
ed. Charles J. Ellicott · 1878
학술+가독 균형 전권 주석
Cambridge (다저자) · 1900
준전권 준학술 (권별 저자·연도 확인)
Marvin R. Vincent · 1887
신약 헬라어 단어 연구
A.T. Robertson · 1933
헬라어 시제·문법 해설 결정판 (KR PD / US 1931+ 권별)
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (다저자) · 1910
헬라어 신약 학술 (권별 저자 PD 확인 필요)
Heinrich A.W. Meyer · 1880
신약 학술 정밀주해 (독일 — K&D 대응)
John Wesley · 1755
간결 실용 전권(NT 1755 / OT 1765) 웨슬리안
Joseph Benson · 1815
웨슬리안 전권 주석
Charles H. Spurgeon · 1885
시편 주석 고전 (설교 자료 풍부)
Alexander Maclaren · 1910
설교형 강해 명저 (전권, 절별 가공 필요)
B.W. Johnson · 1891
평이 절별 신약 해설 (일반신자·모바일)
Thomas Coke · 1803
감리교 전권 주석
John Trapp · 1660
청교도 전권 주석 — Henry/Gill 보완
Charles Hodge · 1860
프린스턴 조직신학 관점 신약 정밀 주석 (롬·고전후·엡)
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The man possessed with a legion of demons cured, vv. 1-20. He raises Jairus's daughter to life, and cures the woman who had an issue of blood, vv. 21-43.
CHAPTER 5.
THE GERASENE DEMONIAC. THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS. THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE.
This group of incidents is given in the same order in all three synoptists, but in Matthew not in immediate sequence.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
CHAPTER 5
Mark 5:1. Γαδαρηνῶν] Here also, as in Matthew 8:28, occur the various readings Γερασηνῶν (B D א* Vulg. Sax. Nyss., so Lachm. and Tisch.) and Γεργεσηνῶν (L Δ א** min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Or.). The Recepta is to be retained, according to A C E, etc., with Fritzsche and Scholz. See on Matt.
Mark 5:2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] is here more strongly attested (B C L Δ א, min. 5 :Brix., to which D also with ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν falls to be added) than in Matthew 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 א, min. Lachm.).
Mark 5:3. οὔτε] B C D L Δ א 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 א, min. Vulg. It. Arm. Looking to the peculiarity of this notice and the accumulation of the negatives, we must recognise this as correct.
Mark 5:7. εἶπε] λέγει has preponderating evidence; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; εἶπε is from Luke 8:28. But Mark is fond of the historical present. In Mark 5:9 also the simple λέγει αὐτῷ (instead of ἀπεκρίθη λέγων in Elz.) is rightly adopted by Griesb. on preponderant evidence.
Mark 5:9. Λεγεών] B* C D L Δ א* 69, Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. have Λεγιών, and this Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is from Luke.
Mark 5:11. Instead of πρὸς τῷ ὄρει, Elz. has πρὸς τὰ ὄρη, in opposition to decisive evidence.
Mark 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 א, min. vss. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. have οἱ δαίμονες, which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch. have deleted, following B C L Δ א, 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.
Mark 5:13. ἦσαν δέ] is on considerable evidence to be deleted as supplied (Tisch.).
Mark 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 א** min. vss.), which Griesb. approved, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted.
Mark 5:15. The omission of the καί before ἱματ. (Tisch.) proceeded from Luke.
Mark 5:18. ἐμβάντος] A B C D K L M Δ א, min. Vulg. It. have ἐμβαίνοντος. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Luke 8:37.
Mark 5:19. Instead of καὶ οὐκ, Elz. has ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ, against decisive evidence.
ἀνάγγειλον] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀπάγγειλον, following B C Δ א 50, 258. A mechanical change in conformity to Mark 5:14.
Instead of πεποίηκε, Elz. has ἐποίησε, contrary to decisive evidence.
Mark 5:22. ἰδού] before ἔρχ. is wanting in B D L Δ א 102, vss. (also Vulg. It.). Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. From Luke 8:41, contrary to the usage of Mark.
Mark 5:23. παρεκάλει] A C L א, min. have παρεκαλεῖ. Recommended by Griesb. and Scholz, adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. The imperfect is from Luke 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 א, 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 Matthew 9:18.
Mark 5:25. τις] is wanting in A B C L Δ א, 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.
Mark 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 א. τά, being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables.
Mark 5:33. ἐπʼ αὐτῇ] ἐπʼ is wanting in B C D L א, 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).
Mark 5:36. εὐθέως] deleted by Tisch. following B D L Δ א, 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 Luke 8:50.
ἀκούσας] B L Δ א 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.
Mark 5:38. ἔρχεται] A B C D F Δ א, 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 Matthew 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.
Mark 5:40. ὁ δέ] Lachm. has αὐτὸς δέ, on evidence considerable doubtless, but not decisive. From Luke 8:54.
After παιδίον Elz. and Scholz have ἀνακείμενον, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has deleted. It is wanting in B D L Δ א, min. vss. An addition by way of gloss, instead of which are also found κείμενον, κατακείμενον, and other readings.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Glorious Cure of the Gadarene Demoniac
(Mr 5:1-20).
1. And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
See this account of the demoniacs fully explained in the notes at Matthew 8:28-34.
The Gadarenes - Some of the MSS. have Gergasenes, and some of them Gerasenes. Griesbach seems to prefer the latter. See the note on Matthew 8:28.
The Gadarenes were included within the limits of the Gergasenes. Dr. Lightfoot supposes that, of the two demoniacs mentioned here, one was of Gadara, and consequently a heathen, the other was a Gergesenian, and consequently a Jew; and he thinks that Mark and Luke mention the Gadarene demoniac because his case was a singular one, being the only heathen cured by our Lord, except the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman.
In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's casting the legion of devils out of the man possessed, and suffering them to enter into the swine, Mk 5:1-20. II. Christ's healing the woman with the bloody issue, in the way as he was going to raise Jairus's daughter to life, Mk 5:21-43. These three miracles we had the story of before (Mt 8:28,9:18, etc.) but more fully related here.