Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Прогресс перевода
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Язык оригинала
- en
Учебные материалы
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
Оригинал комментария, автор, прогресс перевода и лицензия показаны по источникам. Корейский перевод и редактура scripture.how ведутся отдельно от оригинала.
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 parable of the sower, Mark 4:1-9. Its interpretation, Mark 4:10-20. The use we should make of the instructions we receive, Mark 4:21-26. The parable of the progressively growing seed, Mark 4:26-29. Of the mustard seed, Mark 4:30-34. Christ and his disciples are overtaken by a storm, Mark 4:35-38. He rebukes the wind and the sea, and produces fair weather, Mark 4:39-41.
CHAPTER 4.
PARABOLIC TEACHING.
In common with Mt., Mk. recognises that teaching in parables became at a given date a special feature of Christ’s didactic ministry. He gives, however, fewer samples of that type than the first evangelist. Two out of the seven in Mt., with one peculiar to himself, three in all; in this respect probably truer to the actual history of the particular day. Teaching in parables did not make an absolutely new beginning on the day on which the Parable of the Sower was spoken. Jesus doubtless used similitudes in all His synagogue discourses, of which a few samples may have been preserved in the Mustard Seed, the Treasure, and the Pearl.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
CHAPTER 4
Mark 4:1. συνήχθη] Lachm. and Tisch. read συνάγεται, following B C L Δ א, min. Rightly; the alteration was made from Matthew 13:2, partly to συνήχθησαν (so A, min.), partly to συνήχθη.
Instead of πολύς, according to the same evidence, πλεῖστος is to be adopted, with Tisch.
Mark 4:3. τοῦ σπεῖραι] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely σπεῖραι, following only B א* 102.
Mark 4:4. After πετεινά Elz. has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is taken from Luke 8:5.
Mark 4:5. Instead of ἄλλο δέ read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καὶ ἄλλο, according to B C L M** Δ א, min. vss. The Recepta is from Matthew 13:5.
Mark 4:6. ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος] Lachm. and Tisch. read συνάγεται, following B C D L Δ א, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Vind. Corb. 2, Rd. The Recepta is from Matthew 13:6.
Mark 4:8. ἄλλο] B C L א, min. have the reading ἀλλά (Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch.). It is from Matt., and was favoured by the tripartite division that follows.
αὐξάνοντα] A B C D L Δ א, 238 have αὐξανόμενον. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, because the intransitive αὐξάνειν is the prevailing form in the N. T.
Instead of the threefold repetition of ἔν, Tisch. εἰς three times, following B C* L Δ, min. Yet B L have ΕΙΣ once and ΕΝ twice. The reading of Tisch. is to be regarded as original; the ἐν, which is likewise strongly attested, was a gloss upon it, and that reading then became easily taken and interpreted, in comparison with Matthew 13:8, as the numeral ἕν. In Mark 4:20 also the ἕν is not to be written three times, but with all the uncials, which have breathings and accents: ἐν, as also Tisch. has it.
Mark 4:9. ὁ ἔχων] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅς ἔχει, following B C* D Δ א*. The Recepta is from Matthew 13:9; Luke 8:8.
Mark 4:10. ἠρώτησαν] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠρώτων[80] on preponderant evidence (D has ἐπηρώτων). To be adopted. If the imperfect had been introduced from Luke 8:9, ἐπηρώτων would be more diffused.
τὴν ταραβολήν] Tisch. has τὰς παραβολάς, following B C L Δ א, vss. The singular is a correction; comp. Luke.
Mark 4:11. γνῶναι] is wanting in A B C* K L א, min. Copt. Corb. 1. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from Matthew 13:11; Luke 8:10. With Tischendorf the words are to be arranged thus: τ. μυστ. δέδ. τ. βασ.
Mark 4:12. τὰ ἁμαρτήματα] is wanting in B C L א, min. Copt. Arm. Cr. (twice); condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. An addition, instead of which is found also τὰ παραπτώματα (min.).
Mark 4:15. ἐν ταῖς καρδ. αὐτῶν] C L Δ א, Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Colb.: ἐν αὐτοῖς (so Tisch.), and in favour of this B and min. testify by the reading εἰς αὐτούς. The Recepta is explanatory after Matthew 13:19, comp. Luke 8:12, but at the same time its testimony is in favour of ἘΝ ΑὐΤΟῖς, not of ΕἸς ΑὐΤΟΎς.
Mark 4:18. ΚΑῚ ΟὟΤΟΙ ΕἸΣΙΝ] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. read ΚΑῚ ἌΛΛΟΊ ΕἸΣΙΝ, following B C* D L Δ א, Copt. Vulg. Cant. 4 :Colb. Vind. Germ. Corb. Rightly; the Recepta originated by mechanical process after Mark 4:15-16, comp. Mark 4:20. When this οὗτοι came in, there emerged at once an incompatibility with the subsequent οὗτοί εἰσιν, therefore this latter was omitted (A C** E G H K M S U V Π, min., Copt. Syr. p. Goth. Slav. Brix. Theophyl. Matth. and Fritzsche), while others removed the first οὗτοί εἰσιν (min. Arm.).
Mark 4:19. τούτου after αἰῶνος is rightly deleted by Griesb., Fritzsche, Lach. and Tisch. in conformity with very considerable testimony. A current addition.
Mark 4:20. οὗτοι] Tisch. has ἐκεῖνοι, following B C L Δ א; οὗτοι is a mechanical repetition, and comp. Matt. and Luke.
Mark 4:21. The order ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., according to B C D L Δ א, min. vss.
ἐπιτεθῇ] τεθῇ is attested by B C L Δ א, min. (so also Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; recommended, moreover, by Griesb.). The compound word is more precise in definition, and came in here and at Luke 8:16.
Mark 4:22. The τι (which Lachm. brackets) was easily omitted after ἐστι as being superfluous.
ὃ ἐὰν μή] many variations, among which ἐὰν μή has the strong attestation of A C K L, min. It is commended by Griesb., and is to be adopted. The apparent absurdity of the sense[81] suggested partly the addition of ὅ, partly, in conformity with what follows, readings with ἽΝΑ, namely, ἈΛΛʼ (D, vss.) and ἘᾺΝ ΜῊ ἽΝΑ (so Lachm. Tisch., following B D א), ΕἸ ΜῊ ἽΝΑ (min.).
Mark 4:24. After the second ὙΜῖΝ, Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have ΤΟῖς ἈΚΟΎΟΥΣΙΝ, which also Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence have deleted (it is a gloss), while Griesb. strikes out the whole ΚΑῚ ΠΡΟΣΤΕΘ. ὙΜῖΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΚ. (only in accordance with D G, Codd. It.), and Fritzsche places these words after ἈΚΟΎΕΤΕ (according to Arm.). The course followed by Griesb. and Fritzsche must be rejected on account of the very weakness of the evidence; the reading of Griesb. arose from the fact that the eye of the transcriber passed from the first ὙΜῖΝ directly to the second.
Mark 4:25. Ὅς ΓᾺΡ ἊΝ ἜΧῌ] Lachm. and Tisch. have Ὅς ΓᾺΡ ἜΧΕΙ, following B C L Δ א, min., to which, moreover, D E* F, al. are added with the reading ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἒχει. According to this, ἒχει alone is to be read; ἄν was added probably in recollection of Luke 8:18, and then ἔχει was transmuted into ἔχῃ.
Mark 4:28. γάρ is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important authorities. A connective addition, instead of which D has ὅτι αὐτ.
πλήρη σῖτον] Lachm. and Tisch. read πλήρης σῖτος, following B, to which D falls to be added with the reading πλήρης ὁ σῖτος. πλήρης σῖτος is the original, which it was thought necessary subsequently to help by a structural emendation.
Mark 4:30. τίνι] B C L Δ א, min. 4 :have πῶς, which Griesb. has recommended, Fritzsche and Tisch. have adopted. τίνι is from Luke 13:18.
ἐν ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν αὐτήν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν, following B C* L Δ א, min. 4 :Or. Rightly; ποίᾳ came in as a gloss upon τίνι, after the analogy of the preceding πῶς; and the more difficult θῶμεν was explained by παραβαλώμεν.
Mark 4:31. κόκκον] Elz. Fritzsche, Tisch. read κόκκῳ, following B D Δ Π א. As after the second half of Mark 4:30 the accusative (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.) more readily suggested itself (in connection with θῶμεν or παραβάλωμεν), the dative is to be preferred as the more difficult reading, which was the more easily supplanted by comparison of the different connections in Matthew 13:31; Luke 13:19.
μικρότερος] Lachm. reads μικρότερον, following B D L M Δ א, min. He adds, moreover, ὄν according to B L Δ א, omitting the subsequent ἐστί, and encloses τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, which is wanting in C, Ver., in brackets. Tisch. also has μικρότερον ὄν, omitting ἐστί. The Recepta is to be retained; ΜΙΚΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ is a grammatical correction[82] that has originated from a comparison with Matt., and the added ὌΝ, having arisen from the writing twice over of the ΟΝ which had gone before, or from the marginal writing of ΟΝ over the final syllable of ΜΙΚΡΌΤΕΡΟΣ, dislodged the subsequent ἘΣΤΊ, whereupon, doubtless, the connection was lost.
Mark 4:34. Τ. ΜΑΘ. ΑὐΤΟῦ] Tisch. reads Τ. ἸΔΊΟΙς ΜΑΘ., following B C L Δ א. Rightly; the Recepta is the usual expression.
Mark 4:36. The reading ΠΛΟῖΑ instead of ΠΛΟΙΆΡΙΑ (as Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have it) is so decisively attested, that but for that circumstance the more rare ΠΛΟΙΆΡΙΑ would have to be defended.
Mark 4:37. Instead of ΑὐΤῸ ἬΔΗ ΓΕΜΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ, Griesb. approved, and Lachm. and Tisch. read, ἬΔΗ ΓΕΜΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ ΤῸ ΠΛΟῖΟΝ, following B C D L Δ א** Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. It. This latter is to be preferred; the simple mode of expression was smoothed.
Mark 4:38. Instead of ἘΠΙ before Τ. ΠΡ., Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ἘΝ on decisive evidence.
Mark 4:40. ΟὝΤΩ] is deleted by Lachm., following B D L Δ א, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., and subsequently, instead of Πῶς ΟὐΚ, he has, with Griesb., ΟὔΠΩ according to the same and other authorities. But the Recepta is, with Tisch., to be maintained. For in accordance with Matthew 8:26 οὕτω was very easily dropped, while οὔπω just as easily crept in as a modifying expression, which at the same time dislodged the πῶς.
[80] In ed. 8 Tisch., following C א, has the form ἠρώτουν, which probably is only a transcriber’s error, as with still stronger evidence in its favour is the case in Matthew 15:23. The Ionic form of the verb in εω is entirely foreign to the N. T.
[81] The reading ἐὰν μή is in no wise absurd (Fritzsche, de Wette), but it gives the same logical analysis as Mark 10:30. See in loc.
[82] μείζων, too, ver. 32, became changed in codd. into μεῖζον. So A C E L V א, min. Tisch.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Mr 4:1-34.
PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( =
Mt 13:1-23, 31, 32; Lu 8:4-18).
1. And he began again to teach by the seaside: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude--or, according to another well-supported reading, "a mighty" or "immense multitude."
so that he entered into a ship--rather, "the ship," meaning the one mentioned in
Mr 3:9.
(See on
Mt 12:15).
and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land--crowded on the seashore to listen to Him. (See on
Mt 13:1, 2.)
See the parable of the sower explained in the notes at Matthew 13:1-9.
See the parable of the sower explained in the notes at Matthew 13:1-9.
And he began again to teach by the sea side,.... He went out of the house where he was at Capernaum, the same day he had the above discourse with the Scribes and Pharisees, and on which his mother and: brethren came to speak with him; and from thence he went where he had been before, and taught the people; namely, to the sea side, the shore of the sea of Galilee, or Tiberias:
and there was gathered unto him a great multitude; which followed him from the house, and from other parts of the city, and perhaps from the adjacent places:
so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; in the ship at sea, at some little distance from the shore; the sea of Tiberias being rather a lake, and within land, had no tide, and so was still and quiet:
and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land; stood on the land, all along the sea shore; See Gill on Matthew 13:1, Matthew 13:2.
In this chapter, we have, I. The parable of the seed, and the four sorts of ground (Mk 4:1-9), with the exposition of it (Mk 4:10-20), and the application of it, Mk 4:21-25. II. The parable of the seed growing gradually, but insensibly, Mk 4:26-29. III. The parable of the grain of mustard-seed, and a general account of Christ's parables, Mk 4:30-34. IV. The miracle of Christ's sudden stilling a storm at sea, Mk 4:35-41.