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 11 서론

Сравнение 5 комментариев

Сравнение 5 комментариев Открыть отрывок

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary

Без названия

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

We are now come to the Passion-Week, the week in which Christ died, and the great occurrences of that week. I. Christ's riding in triumph into Jerusalem, Mk 11:1-11. II. His cursing the barren fig-tree, Mk 11:12-14. III. His driving those out of the temple that turned it into an exchange, Mk 11:15-19. IV. His discourse with his disciples concerning the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer, on occasion of the withering of the fig-tree he cursed, Mk 11:20-26. V. His reply to those who questioned his authority, Mk 11:27-33.

Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark 11 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

Christ rides triumphantly into Jerusalem, Mark 11:1-11. The barren fig tree cursed, Mark 11:12-14. He cleanses the temple, Mark 11:15-17. The scribes and chief priests are enraged, Mark 11:18. Reflections on the withered fig tree, Mark 11:19-23. Directions concerning prayer and forgiveness, Mark 11:24-26. The chief priests, etc., question him by what authority he did his works, Mark 11:27, Mark 11:28. He answers, and confounds them, Mark 11:29-33.

The Expositor's Greek Testament

Mark 11 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

CHAPTER 11.

ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. OTHER INCIDENTS.

Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Mark 11 Introduction

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

CHAPTER 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 ἔκοπτον … ὁδόν 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.

ὃ 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., Ἢ 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.

[140] Ver. 26 is wanting in all the original editions of Luther’s translation.

The People's New Testament

Без названия

Только оригинал Открыть отрывок
Перевода пока нет.

Mark Глава 11 1

Сравнение 3 комментариев

Сравнение 3 комментариев Открыть отрывок

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

Mr 11:1-11.

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

Mr 11:1-11.

CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM, ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. ( =

Mt 21:1-9; Lu 19:29-40; Joh 12:12, 19).

See on

Lu 19:29-40.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Mark 11:1

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

See this passage illustrated in the notes at Matthew 21:1-16.

Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark 11:1

Есть перевод Открыть отрывок

He sendeth - two of his disciples - This was done but a few days before the passover. See our Lord's entry into Jerusalem illustrated, on Matthew 21:1-17 (note).