scripture.how Комментарии к Библии

Учебные материалы

Комментарии к Библии

Изучайте несколько комментариев общественного достояния с корейскими переводами scripture.how по книгам и главам. Переключайтесь между комментариями, читая перевод или оригинал рядом с переводом.

Текущий комментарий

Все комментарии

Комментариев: 23

Всего записей

307,288

Переведено: 81,431

Лицензия

По источнику

Источник и лицензия

Оригинал комментария, автор, прогресс перевода и лицензия показаны по источникам. Корейский перевод и редактура scripture.how ведутся отдельно от оригинала.

Все лицензии

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown · 1871

Общественное достояние

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871). CCEL expanded electronic edition states it is in the public domain.

Прогресс перевода
19,831 / 19,831
Язык оригинала
en
Источник оригинала Подробнее о лицензии

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Albert Barnes · 1834

Общественное достояние

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.

Прогресс перевода
22,781 / 22,781
Язык оригинала
en
Источник оригинала Подробнее о лицензии

Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Adam Clarke · 1831

Общественное достояние

Public domain English commentary by Adam Clarke, normalized from Wikisource book pages for scripture.how. Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke.

Прогресс перевода
21,603 / 22,101
Язык оригинала
en
Источник оригинала Подробнее о лицензии

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

John Gill · 1763

Общественное достояние

John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.

Прогресс перевода
12,528 / 30,759
Язык оригинала
en
Источник оригинала Подробнее о лицензии
Режим просмотра
Режим сравнения
Язык перевода
Статус перевода

Mark Глава 10 서론

Сравнение 5 комментариев

Сравнение 5 комментариев Открыть отрывок

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary

Без названия

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's dispute with the Pharisees concerning divorce, Mk 10:1-12. II. The kind entertainment he gave to the little children that were brought to him to be blessed, Mk 10:13-16. III. His trial of the rich man that enquired what he must do to get to heaven, Mk 10:17-22. IV. His discourse with his disciples, upon that occasion, concerning the peril of riches (Mk 10:23-27), and the advantage of being impoverished for his sake, Mk 10:28-31. V. The repeated notice he gave his disciples of his sufferings and death approaching, Mk 10:32-34. VI. The counsel he gave to James and John, to think of suffering with him, rather than of reigning with him, Mk 10:15-45. VII. The cure of Bartimeus, a poor blind man, Mk 10:46-52. All which passages of story we had the substance of before, Mt 19:1-20:34

Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark 10 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

The Pharisees question our Lord concerning divorce, Mark 10:1-12. Little children are brought to him, Mark 10:13-16. The person who inquired how he might inherit eternal life, Mark 10:17-22. How difficult it is for a rich man to be saved, Mark 10:23-27. What they shall receive who have left all for Christ and his Gospel, Mark 10:28-31. He foretells his death, Mark 10:32-34. James and John desire places of pre-eminence in Christ's kingdom, Mark 10:35-41. Christ shows them the necessity of humility, Mark 10:42-46. Blind Bartimeus healed, Mark 10:46-52.

The Expositor's Greek Testament

Mark 10 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

CHAPTER 10.

MARRIAGE QUESTION. LITTLE CHILDREN. QUEST AFTER ETERNAL LIFE. TWO SONS OF ZEBEDEE. BARTIMAEUS.

Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Mark 10 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

CHAPTER 10

Mark 10:1. διὰ τοῦ] is wanting in C** D G Δ, min. Syr. Pers. Aeth. Goth. Vulg. It. On the other hand, B C* L א, Copt. have καί. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. This καί was, in some cases, deleted in accordance with Matthew 19:1; in others, more precisely defined by the description contained in διὰ τοῦ.

Mark 10:4. With Lachm. and Tisch. the order ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς, following B C D L Δ, min., is to be preferred.

Mark 10:6. ὁ Θεός is wanting in B C L Δ א, Copt. Colb. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition by way of gloss, which appeared necessary here, although not at Matthew 19:4.

Mark 10:7. πρὸς τ. γυν.] Lachm. has τῇ γυναικί, following A C L N Δ, min. codd. It. Jer. From Matthew. Tisch. has now again deleted κ. προσκολλ. πρὸς τ. γυν. αὐτοῦ, nevertheless only following B א, Goth. It lies under a strong suspicion of being an addition from Matthew.

Mark 10:10. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] So also Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L Δ א, min. Cant. 10 :The Recepta ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Fritzsche, Scholz) is an emendation.

αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ] On decisive evidence we must read, with Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., merely περὶ τούτου. The first αὐτοῦ is a current addition to οἱ μαθηταί; by τοῦ αὐτοῦ (D: τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου) τούτου was glossed for the purpose of more precise definition.

Mark 10:12. Tischendorf’s reading: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ (B C L א and Δ, which, however, has καί before γαμ.), is a stylistic emendation.

γαμηθῇ ἄλλῳ] Lachm. Tisch. have γαμήσῃ ἄλλον, following B C* D L Δ א, min. A mechanical repetition from Mark 10:11 (whence Δ has even ἄλλην instead of ἄλλον!).

Mark 10:14. Before μή Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. have καί, which is wanting in witnesses deserving consideration, and is added from the parallels.

Mark 10:16. Instead of ηὐλόγει Lachm. (as also Scholz) has εὐλόγει. But B C Δ א, min. Vict, have κατευλόγει (L N: κατηυλ.). It is to be adopted, with Tisch.; this compound, which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., was unfamiliar to the transcribers. Its position before τιθείς (omitting the last αὐτά) is attested by B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Syr. p. ms. Vict. (Fritzsche, Tisch.). But it was precisely the threefold αὐτά that gave occasion to error and correction.

Mark 10:19. The arrangement μὴ φον., μὴ μοιχ. (Lachm. Tisch.), is found in B C Δ א** min. Copt. Ar. Colb.; but it is from Matthew 19:18.

Mark 10:21. The article before πτωχοῖς is wanting in witnesses of such preponderating character (condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm.) that it appears (as also in Matthew 19:21) as an addition.

ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν] is wanting in B C D Δ א, 406, Copt. Vulg. It. Clem. Hilar. Aug. Ambr. Other witnesses have it before δεῦρο. Bracketed by Lachm. But how easily the words were passed over, as the parallels have nothing of the kind!

Mark 10:24. τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμ.] is not found in B Δ א, Copt. ms. Deleted by Tisch. But if it had been added, the addition would have been made in accordance with the text of Matt. or Luke, or according to Mark 10:23. The omission was meant in the interest of stricter morality, which regarded the πεποιθότας, etc., as quite excluded.

Mark 10:25. διελθεῖν] The εἰσελθεῖν, commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch., has indeed considerable attestation, but it is from Matthew 9:24, and in this case the significant change of the verbs in Mark was not observed.

Mark 10:28. ἠκολουθήσαμεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολουθήκαμεν, following B C D. A mechanical similarity of formation with ἀφήκαμεν, occurring also in some witnesses in Matthew and Luke.

Mark 10:29. Only B Δ א (ἐ. αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ.), Copt. have the simple ἔφη ὁ Ἰησ. (Tisch.) instead of ἀποκρ. ὁ Ἰ. εἶπεν, but they are correct. Comp. on Mark 9:12; Mark 9:38.

ἢ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα] The reverse order is found in B C Δ 106, Copt. Goth. Colb. Brix. Lachm. and Tisch. It is to be preferred, ἢ πατέρα was in some cases placed first, in accordance with the natural relation; in some cases also, in consideration of Mark 10:30, it was altogether omitted (D, Cant. Verc. Corb Harl.). On account of Mark 10:30 ἢ γυναῖκα has also been omitted (B D Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.).

After καί the second ἕνεκεν is added by Griesb. and Tisch., following preponderating evidence. The omission is explained from Mark 8:35.

Mark 10:30. μητέρας] Lachm. has μητέρα, following A C D, Verss.; the plural was objectionable.

Mark 10:31. The article before the second ἔσχατοι is indeed deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.; but following Matthew 19:30 it dropped out so easily, and, moreover, it is found still in such important testimonies, that it must be restored.

Mark 10:32. καὶ ἀκολουθ.] B C* L Δ א, 1, Copt. have οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθ. This is rightly followed by Ewald, and is now adopted by Tisch. The οἱ δὲ not being understood was set aside by καί. But the attestation is to be the more regarded as sufficient, that D K, min. Verc. 10 :Chrys. are not to be reckoned in favour of the Recepta, because they altogether omit κ. ἀκολ. ἐφοβ., of which omission the homoioteleuton was manifestly the cause.

Mark 10:33. The article before γραμμ. (Elz.) is, with Scholz and Tisch. (in opposition to Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, and Lachm.), to be maintained. The testimony in favour of its omission is not preponderating, and comp. Matthew 20:18.

Mark 10:34. The order ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτ. κ. μαστιγ. αὐτ. (Lachm. Tisch. Rinck) is found in B C L Δ א, min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It. But the ἐμπαίξ. and ἐμπτύσ. were considered as belonging together. Comp. Luke 18:33.

Elz. has τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ; so also Fritzsche, Scholz. But B C L Δ א, vss. have μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Approved by Griesb. Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is to be maintained. See on Mark 9:31.

Mark 10:35. After αἰτήσ. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have σε, following A B C L Δ א** min. vss. To be adopted. It was easily passed over as being superfluous. D K have it before the verb. An incorrect restoration. א* has entirely omitted ὃ ἐάν down to δὸς ἡμῖν.

Mark 10:36. ποιῆσαί με ὑμῖν] Lachm. Tisch. have ποιήσω ὑμῖν, which was also approved by Griesb. An alteration in remembrance of passages such as Mark 10:51, Mark 14:12, Matthew 20:32, in which also the bare subjunctive was sometimes completed by ἵνα ποιήσω.

Mark 10:38. Instead of καί (in Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche) read, with Rinck, Lachm. and Tisch., ἤ, which Griesb. also approved, following B C* D L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. Ar. Vulg. It. Or.; καί came from Mark 10:39.

In Mark 10:40 also ἤ is to be adopted on almost the same evidence (with Rinck, Lachm., and Tisch.); καί is from Matthew 20:23.

After εὐων. Elz. has μου, which is deleted on decisive evidence.

Mark 10:42. Read καὶ προσκαλ. αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L Δ א, 406, Syr. Copt. codd. It. The Recepta is from Matthew 20:25.

Mark 10:43. Instead of the first ἔσται, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐστίν, which Schulz also approved, in accordance with B C* D L Δ א, Vulg. It. The future came in from Matt., and on account of what follows.

Mark 10:44. ὑμῶν γενέσθαι] Lachm. has ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, following important evidence, but it is from Matthew 20:27.

Mark 10:46. After τυφλός read with Tisch. προσαίτης, omitting the subsequent προσαιτῶν. So B L Δ Copt. Comp. א, τυφλὸς καὶ προσαίτης. The Recepta is from Luke 18:35.

Mark 10:47. ὁ υἱός] Lachm. has υἱέ, following B C L Δ א, min. From Luke. Comp. Mark 10:48.

Mark 10:49. αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι] B C L Δ א, min. Copt. have φωνήσατε αὐτόν. So Fritzsche and Tisch. And rightly; the accusative with the infinitive was introduced through the fact of ἐκέλευσεν being written instead of εἶπεν, after Luke 18:40 (so still Ev. 48, It. Vulg.), and remained, after εἶπεν was restored, the more easily because Luke has it also.

ἔγειρε] See on Mark 2:9.

Mark 10:50. ἀναστάς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναπηδήσας, according to B D L Δ א, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Or. The Recepta is a “scriptorum jejunitas” that mistakes the peculiarity of Mark (Tisch.).

Mark 10:51. The form ῥαββουνί (Elz. ῥαββονί) has decisive evidence.

Mark 10:52. Instead of τῷ Ἰησοῦ (Elz., Scholz, Rinck), A B C D L Δ א have αὐτῷ (Tisch.), which attestation is decisive.

The People's New Testament

Без названия

Только оригинал Открыть отрывок
Перевода пока нет.

Mark Глава 10 1

Сравнение 3 комментариев

Сравнение 3 комментариев Открыть отрывок

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Mr 10:1-12.

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

Mr 10:1-12.

FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( =

Mt 19:1-12; Lu 9:51).

See on

Mt 19:1-12.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Mark 10:1

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

See this question about divorce explained in the notes at Matthew 19:1-12.

Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark 10:1

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

He arose - Κακειθεν αναϚας may be translated, he departed thence. The verb ανιϚημι has this sense in some of the purest Greek writers. See Kypke. Many transactions took place between those mentioned in the preceding chapter, and these that follow, which are omitted by Matthew and Mark; but they are related both by Luke and John. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Newcome.