Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Risorse di studio
Commentari biblici
Sfoglia più commentari di pubblico dominio e le traduzioni coreane di scripture.how per libro e capitolo. Passa tra fonti di commentario, leggi solo la traduzione o confrontala affiancata al testo originale.
Commentario attivo
Tutti i commentari
23 fonti
Voci totali
307,288
81,431 tradotte
Licenza
Mostrata per fonte
Fonti e licenze
Ciascuna fonte di commentario mantiene separati opera originale, autore, avanzamento della traduzione e informazioni di licenza. Le traduzioni coreane e il lavoro editoriale di scripture.how sono gestiti a parte rispetto al testo di fonte.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 19,831 / 19,831
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
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.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 22,781 / 22,781
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 21,603 / 22,101
- Lingua di fonte
- en
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John Gill · 1763
John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 12,528 / 30,759
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Calvin's Commentaries
John Calvin · 1850
종교개혁 신학 원천 (영역본 PD, 대부분 — 전권 아님)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 144 / 7,385
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Matthew Poole's Annotations upon the Holy Bible
Matthew Poole · 1685
간결 절별 전권 개혁주의 주석
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 31,092
- Lingua di fonte
- en
The Pulpit Commentary
ed. H.D.M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell · 1890
전권 강해·설교·예화 풍부 (항목 대량)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 25,592
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch · 1866
구약 학술 표준 — 히브리어·문헌비평·고대근동 배경
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 2,044
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
ed. Charles J. Ellicott · 1878
학술+가독 균형 전권 주석
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 23,497
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Cambridge (다저자) · 1900
준전권 준학술 (권별 저자·연도 확인)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 27,176
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
Marvin R. Vincent · 1887
신약 헬라어 단어 연구
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 5,763
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Word Pictures in the New Testament
A.T. Robertson · 1933
헬라어 시제·문법 해설 결정판 (KR PD / US 1931+ 권별)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 6,935
- Lingua di fonte
- en
The Expositor's Greek Testament
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (다저자) · 1910
헬라어 신약 학술 (권별 저자 PD 확인 필요)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 7,010
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Heinrich A.W. Meyer · 1880
신약 학술 정밀주해 (독일 — K&D 대응)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 5,340
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
John Wesley · 1755
간결 실용 전권(NT 1755 / OT 1765) 웨슬리안
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 5,643
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments
Joseph Benson · 1815
웨슬리안 전권 주석
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 14,675
- Lingua di fonte
- en
The Treasury of David
Charles H. Spurgeon · 1885
시편 주석 고전 (설교 자료 풍부)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 2,290
- Lingua di fonte
- en
MacLaren's Expositions of Holy Scripture
Alexander Maclaren · 1910
설교형 강해 명저 (전권, 절별 가공 필요)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 1,144
- Lingua di fonte
- en
The People's New Testament
B.W. Johnson · 1891
평이 절별 신약 해설 (일반신자·모바일)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 7 / 3,477
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Thomas Coke · 1803
감리교 전권 주석
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 10,808
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Trapp's Complete Commentary
John Trapp · 1660
청교도 전권 주석 — Henry/Gill 보완
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 26,397
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Hodge's Commentary on the New Testament
Charles Hodge · 1860
프린스턴 조직신학 관점 신약 정밀 주석 (롬·고전후·엡)
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 0 / 1,011
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark 12 Introduction
The parable of the vineyard let out to wicked husbandmen, Mark 12:1-12. The Pharisees and Herodians question him about paying tribute to Caesar, Mark 12:13-17. The Sadducees question him about the resurrection, Mark 12:18-27. A scribe questions him concerning the chief commandment of the law, Mark 12:28-34. Christ asks the scribes why the Messiah is called David's son, Mark 12:35-37. He warns his disciples against the scribes, Mark 12:38-40. Of the widow that cast two mites into the treasury, Mark 12:41-44.
CHAPTER 12.
A PARABLE AND SUNDRY CAPTIOUS QUESTIONS.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Mark 12 Introduction
CHAPTER 12
Mark 12:1. λέγειν] B G L Δ א, min. Syr. Vulg. It. have λαλεῖν. So Lachm. and Tisch. The testimony of the codd. in favour of λέγειν remains doubtless strong enough, nevertheless λαλεῖν is to be preferred, because there immediately follows what Jesus said, and therefore the change into λέγειν was readily suggested. Comp. Mark 3:23.
Mark 12:3. οἱ δέ] Lachm. Tisch. have καί, following B D L Δ א, min. Copt. Cant. 12 :Verc. Vind. It is from Matthew 21:25.
Mark 12:4. λιθοβολήσ.] is wanting in B D L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Almost all the above witnesses have afterwards instead of ἀπέστ. ἠτιμωμ.: ἠτίμησαν. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have followed the former omission and this reading, and rightly; λιθοβολ. is a gloss on ἐκεφαλ. from Matthew 21:35, and ἀπέστ. ἠτιμωμένον is a reading conformed to the conclusion of Mark 12:3.
Mark 12:5. καὶ ἄλλον] Elz. Scholz have καὶ πάλιν ἄλλ., in opposition to preponderating evidence; πάλιν is a mechanical repetition from Mark 12:4.
Instead of τούς is to be written οὕς both times, following B L Δ א, min. with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.
The Aeolic form ἀποκτέννοντες is on decisive evidence to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Comp. the critical remarks on Matthew 10:28.
Mark 12:6. The arrangement ἕνα ἔχων υἱόν is required by decisive evidence (Fritzsche, Lachm., comp. Tisch.), of which, however, B C** L Δ א, 33 have εἶχεν instead of ἔχων (so Tisch. rightly, as ἔχων is an emendation of the construction). Almost the same witnesses omit the οὖν after ἔτι; it is, with Tisch., to be deleted as a connective addition, as, moreover, αὐτοῦ after ἀγαπ. is a decidedly condemned mechanical addition.
Mark 12:8. Such preponderating evidence is in favour of the superfluous αὐτόν after ἐξέβαλ., that it is to be adopted with Lachm. and Tisch.
Mark 12:14. οἱ δέ] B C D L Δ א, 33, Copt. codd. of the It. have καί. So Fritzsche, Lachm. From Luke 20:21, whence also many variations with ἐπηρώτων have come into our passage.
Mark 12:17. The arrangement τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδ. Καίσαρι (Tisch.) is to be preferred, in accordance with B C L Δ א, 28, Syr. Copt. The placing of ἀπόδοτε first (Elz. Lachm.) is from the parallels.
ἐθαύμασαν] Lachm. has ἐθαύμαζον. But among the codd. which read the imperfect (B D L Δ א), B א have ἐξεθαύμαζον (D* has ἐξεθαυμάζοντο). This ἐξεθαύμαζον (Tisch.) is to be preferred. The simple form and the aorist are from the parallels.
Mark 12:18. ἐπηρώτησαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐπηρώτων, following B C D L Δ א, 33; the aorist is from the parallels.
Mark 12:19. τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ] αὐτοῦ is wanting in B C L Δ א, min. Copt., and is from Matthew.
Mark 12:20. After ἑπτά Elz. Fritzsche have οὖν, against decisive evidence; it is from Luke 20:29; instead of which some other witnesses have δέ (from Matthew).
Mark 12:21. καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε] B C L Δ א, 33, Copt. have μὴ καταλιπών. Approved by Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 133, adopted by Tisch. But if the Recepta had originated from what precedes and follows, it would have run simply καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκε; the καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός does not look like the result of a gloss, and might even become offensive on account of its emphasis.
Mark 12:22. ἔλβον αὐτήν] is wanting in B M, min. Colb., also C L Δ א, min. Copt., which, moreover, omit καί before οὐκ. Fritzsche has deleted ἔλαβον αὐτ., Lachm. has merely bracketed it; Tisch. has struck out, besides ἔλαβ. αὐτ., the καί also before οὐκ. Rightly; the short reading: καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐκ ἀφῆκαν σπέρμα, was completed in conformity with Mark 12:21.
ἐσχάτη] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἔσχατον, certainly on considerable attestation; but it is an emendation (comp. Matthew and Luke: ὕστερον), on account of the difference of the genders (ἐσχ. feminine, πάντ. masculine).
The order καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθ. is, with Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepta is from the parallels.
Mark 12:23. After ἐν τῇ Elz. Lachm. Scholz have οὖν, which important witnesses omit, others place after ἀναστ. From the parallels.
ὅταν ἀναστῶσι] is wanting in B C D L Δ א, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. It is to be maintained, for there was no occasion for any gloss; its absolute superfluousness, however, the absence of any such addition in the parallels, and the similarity of ἀναστάσει and ἀναστῶσι, occasioned the omission.
Mark 12:25. γαμίσκονται] A F H, min. have ἐκγαμίσκονται. B C G L U Δ א, min. have γαμίζονται. Consequently the testimonies in favour of the Recepta are left so weak (even D falls away, having γαμίζουσιν), and γαμίζονται has so much the preponderance, that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted. Comp. on Matthew 22:30.
Before ἐν Elz. has οἱ. The weight of the evidence is divided. But since this οἱ after ἄγγελΟΙ was more easily dropped out than brought in (by being written twice over), and is wanting also in Matthew, it is to be maintained.
Mark 12:26. Instead of τοῦ βάτου Elz. has τῆς βάτου, in opposition to decisive evidence.
Decisive evidence condemns in Mark 12:27 the article before Θεός, and then Θεός before ζώντων; just as also ὑμεῖς οὖν before πολὺ πλανᾶσθε is, following B C L Δ א, Copt., to be struck out, with Tisch., as being an addition to these short pithy words.
Mark 12:28. εἰδώς] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἰδών (Fritzsche: καὶ ἰδών). So, with or without καί (which is a connective interpolation), in C D L א* min. vss., including Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Aug. But these witnesses are not preponderating, and εἰδώς might easily seem unsuitable and give way to the more usual ἰδών; comp. Mark 12:34.
The order ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς has been preferred by Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (following Gersd. p. 526), in accordance with B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Theophylact. But it was just the customary placing of the pronoun after the verb that occasioned the inversion of the words, in which the intention with which αὐτοῖς was prefixed was not observed. It is otherwise at Mark 14:40.
Instead of πάντων Elz. has πασῶν, contrary to decisive evidence.
Mark 12:29. The Recepta is ὅτι πρώτη πασῶν τῶν ἐντολῶν. Very many variations. Griesb. and Fritzsche have ὅτι πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή, following A, min. Scholz reads ὅτι πρ. πάντων τῶν ἐντολῶν, following E F G H S, min. Lachm. has ὅτι πρ. πάντων [ἐντολή ἐστιν]. Tisch. has ὅτι πρώτη ἐστιν, following B L Δ א, Copt. The latter is the original form, which, according to the question of Mark 12:28 and its various readings, was variously amplified, and in the process ἐστίν was partly dropped.
Mark 12:30. αὕτη πρώτη ἐντολή] is wanting in B E L Δ א, Copt. Deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Matthew, with variations in details, following Mark 12:28-29.
Mark 12:31. Instead of καὶ δευτ. read, with Tisch., merely δευτ.
Elz. Griesb. Scholz have ὁμοία αὕτη; Fritzsche, Lachm. have ὁμ. αὐτῇ; Tisch. merely αὕτη. The last is attested by B L Δ א, Copt., and is to be preferred, since ὁμοία very readily suggested itself to be written on the margin from Matthew.
Mark 12:32. After εἷς ἔστι Elz. has Θεός; a supplement in opposition to preponderant evidence.
Mark 12:33. καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχ.] is wanting in B L Δ א, min. Copt. Verc. Marcell. in Eus. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if it were an addition, it would have been inserted after καρδίας (comp. Mark 12:30). On the other hand, the arrangement different from Mark 12:30 might easily draw after it the omission.
The article before θυσιῶν (in Elz.) is decisively condemned.
Mark 12:36. γάρ] is wanting in B L Δ א, min. Copt. Verc., while D, Arm. read καὶ αὐτός, and Colb. Corb. have autem. Lachm. has bracketed γάρ, and Tisch. has deleted it. The latter is right. The connection was variously supplied.
Mark 12:37. οὖν] is wanting in B D L Δ א, min. copt. Syr. p. codd. It. Hil. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from the parallels.
Mark 12:43. εἶπεν] instead of the Recepta λέγει (which Scholz, Rinck, Tisch. defend), is decisively attested, as also is ἔβαλε (Lachm.) instead of the Recepta βέβληκε. In place of βαλόντ. (Elz.), βαλλόντ. must be written on decisive attestation.
Ancora nessuna traduzione.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Mr 12:1-12.
Mr 12:1-12.
PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. ( =
Mt 21:33-46; Lu 20:9-18).
See on
Mt 21:33-46.
See this parable explained in the notes at Matthew 21:33-46.
See this parable explained in the notes at Matthew 21:33-46.
A certain man planted a vineyard - See this parable explained, Matthew 21:33-41 (note).
In this chapter, we have, I. The parable of the vineyard let out to unthankful husbandmen, representing the sin and ruin of the Jewish church, Mk 12:1-12. II. Christ's silencing those who thought to ensnare him with a question about paying tribute Cæsar, Mk 12:13-17. III. His silencing the Sadducees, who attempted to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection, Mk 12:18-27. IV. His conference with a scribe about the first and great command of the law, Mk 12:28-34. V. His puzzling the scribes with a question about Christ's being the Son of David, Mk 12:35-37. VI. The caution he gave the people, to take heed of the scribes, Mk 12:38-40. VII. His commendation of the poor widow that cast her two mites into the treasury, Mk 12:41-44.