圣经注释书

本章开始，这位福音书作者记述我们主耶稣的死和受苦——我们都有责任不仅熟悉其历史，更熟悉其奥秘。这里有：一、祭司长和文士谋害基督的诡计（可14:1-2）。二、基督死前两日在伯大尼的筵席上，他的头受膏抹（可14:3-9）。三、犹大与祭司长所立的、要出卖他的契约（可14:10-11）。四、基督与门徒同吃逾越节的筵席，他设立主的晚餐，以及他在席上和席后与门徒的谈话（可14:12-31）。五、基督在园中的痛苦挣扎（可14:32-42）。六、犹大出卖他，祭司长的人捉拿他（可14:43-52）。七、他在大祭司面前受审、被定罪，以及他在那法庭上所受的凌辱（可14:53-65）。八、彼得否认他（可14:66-72）。这些事迹大部分我们先前已有（太26:1-75）。

The Jews conspire against Christ, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:2. He is anointed in the house of Simon the Leper, Mark 14:3-9. Judas Iscariot sells him to the chief priests for thirty pieces of money, Mark 14:10, Mark 14:11. He orders his disciples to prepare the passover, Mark 14:12-16. Predicts his approaching death, Mark 14:17-21. Institutes the holy eucharist, Mark 14:22-26. Foretells the unfaithfulness of his disciples in general, Mark 14:27, Mark 14:28, and Peter's denial, Mark 14:29-31. His agony in the garden, Mark 14:32-36. The disciples overcome by sleep, Mark 14:37-42. Judas comes with a mob from the chief priests, and betrays him with a kiss; they seize him, Mark 14:43-49. The disciples flee, Mark 14:50. A young man following, and about to be apprehended, makes his escape, Mark 14:51, Mark 14:52. Jesus is brought before the chief priests, and Peter follows at a distance, Mark 14:53, Mark 14:54. He is examined, insulted, and abused, and condemned on false evidence, Mark 14:55-65. Peter thrice denies him, reflects on his wickedness, and repents of his sin, Mark 14:66-72.

CHAPTER 14.

THE PASSION HISTORY.

CHAPTER 14

Mark 14:2. δέ] B C* D L א, vss. have γάρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Matthew 26:5.

Mark 14:3. καί before συντρ. is, with Tisch., following B L א, Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition.

τὸ ἀλάβ.] Fritzsche, Lachm. read τὸν ἀλάβ., which is attested by A D E F H K S U V X Γ, min. Tisch., following B C L Δ א**, has τὴν ἀλάβ., and this is to be preferred. The ignorance of the transcribers brought in τό and τόν.

κατά] is wanting in B C L Δ א, min. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has ἐπί.

Mark 14:4. καὶ λέγοντες] is with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L א, Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss after Matthew, instead of which D reads καὶ ἔλεγον.

Mark 14:5. τὸ μύρον] is wanting in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Matthew 26:9 (where τοῦτο alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids the supposition that it is an interpolation from John 12:5. D, min. have it before τοῦτο, and in א τοῦτο is wanting.

Mark 14:6. Instead of ἐν ἐμοί Elz. has εἰς ἐμέ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew.

Mark 14:8. αὓτη] is only wanting, indeed, in B L א, min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after ἐποίησεν in Δ. Comp. Matthew 26:12.

Mark 14:9. After ἀμήν very considerable evidence supports δέ, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has adopted. It is to be adopted; the omission occurred conformably to the usual expression of Mark, in accordance with Matthew 26:13.

τοῦτο] is wanting in B D L א, min. Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from Matthew 26:13.

Mark 14:14. After κατάλυμα Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read μου, following B C D L Δ א, min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As μου has this strong attestation and yet is superfluous, and as it does not occur at Luke 22:11, it is to be held as genuine.

Mark 14:15. The form ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested.

Before ἐκεῖ is to be read with Tisch. καί, in accordance with B C D L א, 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luke 22:12.

Mark 14:19. καὶ ἄλλως· μήτι ἐγώ] is wanting in B C L P Δ א, min. vss., including Syr., utr. Vulg. After the example of earlier editors, suspected by Griesb., rejected by Schulz, struck out by Fritzsche and Tisch. But the omission might just as easily have been brought about by means of the preceding μήτι ἐγώ as by reason of the startling and even offensive superfluousness of the words, which, moreover, are not found in Matthew, whereas no reason for their being added can at all be conceived of without arbitrary hypotheses.

After λάβετε, Mark 14:22, Elz. has φἀγετε, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew.

Mark 14:23. The article before ποτήριον (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place even stronger evidence against it than in Matthew 26:27, and is, as there, to be struck out.

Mark 14:24. τὸ τῆς] This τό is, as in Matthew 26:28, to be deleted on considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it).

καινῆς] is wanting in B C D L א, Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Matthew 26:28.

περί] B C D L Δ א, min.: ὑπέρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. Περί is from Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ.

Mark 14:27. ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., read after σκανδαλ. Yet Mill and Griesb. condemned the words. They are decisively to be rejected as an addition from Matthew 26:31, as they are wholly wanting in preponderant witnesses, while others merely omit ἐν ἐμοί, and others still ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ. Lachm. has the latter in brackets.

διασκορπισθήσεται is an emendation (comp. on Matthew 26:31), instead of which, with Lachm. and Tisch., διασκορπισθήσονται is to be read, and that with Tisch., after πρόβατα (B C D L א, min.).

Mark 14:29. καὶ εἰ] Fritzsche, Tisch. read εἰ καί. Either is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be arrived at, even if εἰ καί was introduced in Matthew.

Mark 14:30. σύ after ὁτι is wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence.

ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] B C D L א, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. Rightly; if this order of words were from Matthew 26:34, the ἐν also would not be left out in it.

In what follows τρίς με ἀπ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order is from Matthew.

Mark 14:31. ἐκ περισσοῦ] B C D א, min. have ἐκπερισσῶς. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the simple περισσῶς (L, min.), partly glossed by ἐκ περισσοῦ.

ἔλεγε] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐλάλει, following B D L א. The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on Mark 11:23.

μᾶλλον] is wanting in B C D L א, vss., including Vulg., It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on ἐκ περισσοῦ; hence min. have it also before these words (comp. Mark 7:36), and this course Fritzsche has followed.

Mark 14:35. As at Matthew 26:39, so here also προσελθών is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected.

Mark 14:36. τὸ ποτήρ. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τοῦτο] D, Hil.: τοῦτο τ. π. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ; K M: ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τ. π. τ.; A B C G L U X Δ א, min. Or. vss., including Vulg.: τ. π. τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. In this variety of readings the last is so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted.

Mark 14:40. ὑποστρέψας] Lachm. has πάλιν ἐλθών, following B L א, Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (D and cod. It. have merely ἐλθών). πάλιν ἐλθών is the more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word πάλιν, and that he nowhere has the word ὑποστρέφω. But transcribers referred and joined the πάλιν to εὗρ. αὐτοὺς καθεύδ., in accordance with which ἐλθών then became glossed and supplanted by ὑποστρέψ. Accordingly the subsequent πάλιν, which by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. is read after αὐτούς, and is not found in B D L א, min. vss., is, with Lachm., to be deleted.

Instead of καταβαρυνόμενοι, Elz. Scholz have βεβαρημένοι, in opposition to preponderant evidence. It is from Matthew.

Mark 14:41. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have τὸ λοιπόν. But the article has come in from Matthew, in opposition to considerable evidence.

Mark 14:43. After Ἰούδας Fritzsche has Ἰσκαριώτης, Lachm. and Tisch. ὁ Ἰσκαρ.; and this addition, sometimes with, sometimes without the article, is found in witnesses of weight (but not in B א). Rightly; the omission is explained from the parallels.

ὤν] after εἷς has against it such decisive evidence that it cannot be maintained by means of the parallels, nor even by Mark 14:10. It is to be deleted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.

πολύς] is wanting in B L א, min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew.

Mark 14:45. Lachm. only reads ῥαββί once, following B C* D L M Δ א, min. vss., including Vulg., codd. It. But this reading is from Matthew 26:49, whence also χαῖρε has intruded into codd. and vss.

Mark 14:46. ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τ. χεῖρας αὐτῶν] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has τ. χεῖρας ἐπʼ αὐτ.; Tisch.: τ. χεῖρας αὐτῷ. The latter is attested by B D L א** min. vss., and is to be preferred as the less usual (see on Acts 12:1, the exegetical remarks), which was altered in accordance with Matthew 26:50.

Mark 14:47. τις] has, it is true, important evidence against it; but, as being superfluous, and, moreover, as not occurring in Matthew 26:51, it might have been so easily passed over, that it may not be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Instead of ὠτίον read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D א, 1, ὠτάριον. The former is from Matthew.

Mark 14:48. The form ἐξήλθατε (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.

Mark 14:51. εἷς τις νεανίσκ.] Lachm. Tisch. read νεανίσκ. τις, following B C L א, Copt. Syr. It. Vulg. (D: νεανίσκ. δέ τις, without καί). The Recepta is to be maintained; νεανίσλος τις is the most prevalent mode of expression.

Instead of ἠκολούθει, read, in accordance with B C L א, συνηκολούθει (so Lachm. and Tisch.). The current simple form has crept in also at 37.

οἱ νεανίσκοι] is wanting in B C* D L Δ א, Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Vulg. Theophylact, Rightly condemned by Griesb. (but see his Comm. crit. p. 179) and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. It came in by means of the gloss τὸν νεανίσκον, which was written in the margin beside αὐτόν, as Slav, still renders τὸν νεανίσκον instead of αὐτὸν οἱ νεανίσκοι. The τὸν νεανίσκον written in the margin was easily changed into οἱ νεανίσκοι, since the absence of a fitting subject for κρατοῦσιν might be felt.

Mark 14:52. ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony against it; yet, as being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than added.

Mark 14:53. αὐτῷ after συνέρχ. is wanting in D L Δ א, Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. An omission from misunderstanding.

Mark 14:65. ἔβαλλον] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔλαβον on decisive evidence. ἔλαβον not being understood, was variously altered.

Mark 14:67. Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα] B C L א have ἦσθε τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. So Lachm. and Tisch. D Δ, min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It., have τοῦ Ἰησ. before τοῦ Ναζ. The latter is in accordance with the usual mode of expression, and with Matthew 26:69. ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ is to be adopted; this τοῦ Ἰησοῦ following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and was then variously restored.

Mark 14:68. οὐκ … οὐδέ] Lachm. has οὔτε … οὔτε, following B D L א, Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew.

τί σὺ λέγεις] Lachm. and Tisch. have σὺ τί λέγεις, following B C L Δ א, min. Rightly; σὺ was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the place that first presented itself after τί.

καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε] is wanting, indeed, in B L א, Copt. Colb. (bracketed by Lachm.); but the omission is manifestly caused by comparison with Matthew.

Mark 14:70. καὶ ἡ λαλία σου ὁμοιάζει] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Γαλιλ. εἶ. But the words are wanting in B C D L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Aug. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation from Matthew 26:73, in accordance with the very old reading in that place (D, codd. It.), ὁμοιάζει. If the words were genuine, they would hardly have been passed over, containing, as they do, so familiar and noteworthy a particular of the history; the appeal to the homoeoteleuton is not sufficient.

Mark 14:71. Instead of ὀμνύειν (comp. Matthew), ὀμνύναι is sufficiently vouched for by B E H L S U V X Γ, min.

Mark 14:72. εὐθέως after καί is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G L א (which, with L, has not ἐκ δευτ.), min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. codd. It. Eus., and adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Nevertheless it was far easier for it to be introduced from Matthew 26:74 than for it, with its prevalent use and appropriateness, to be omitted. Hence, on the important evidence for its omission (including A C), it is, with Tisch., to be struck out.

Instead of τὸ ῥῆμα ὅ, the Recepta has τοῦ ῥήματος οὗ, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among which, however, A B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Sahid. read τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς. Lachm. and Tisch. have the latter; and with this preponderant attestation, it is to be regarded as original (followed also by Luke 22:61).

Mr 14:1-11.

犹太权贵谋害耶稣的阴谋——在伯大尼的筵席与膏抹——犹大与祭司长议定出卖他的主。 ( =

Mt 26:1-16; Lu 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11)。

本段所载之事,似乎发生在救赎主受难周的第四日(星期三)。

犹太权贵谋害耶稣的阴谋

(Mr 14:1, 2)。

1. 过两天是逾越节,又是除酵节——意思是,在下文所记之事两天以后,逾越节才来到;换言之,下文所发生的事是在节期之前两天。

祭司长和文士想法子怎么用诡计拿他,杀他——从马太较详尽的记载

(Mt 26:1-75)

我们知道,我们主把这事告诉十二门徒,如下所述,这也是他第一次向他们指明确切的时间:「耶稣说完了这一切的话」

(Mt 26:1)——指他在公开事奉既已结束之后,对门徒所讲的

Mt 24:1-25:46

的内容;此时他从先知职分进入祭司职分,尽管他素来亲自担当我们的软弱,背负我们的疾病——「他对门徒说,你们知道过两天是逾越节,人子将要被交给人,钉在十字架上。」在这简短的宣告里,他把那一切将要发生的事的头一步与末一步都一并说明。逾越节是一年三大节期之首,也是最大的一个,为记念神的百姓借着按神旨意被杀之羔羊之血的洒而蒙救赎出埃及;灭命的天使「看见那血,就越过去」,越过那上面显有此血的以色列人的房屋,当他来击杀埃及地一切长子的时候

(Ex 12:12, 13)——这是那伟大祭物及其所成就之救赎的明亮预表。因此,「照着神的定旨和先见,他的谋略奇妙,他的作为大哉」,事情便如此安排:正当逾越节的时节,「我们逾越节的羔羊基督已经被杀献祭了」。逾越节的次日起,便开始「除酵节」,如此称呼,是因为连续七日只可吃无酵饼

(Ex 12:18-20)。

参

1Co 5:6-8

的注释。马太又告诉我们

(Mt 26:3),

这次商议是在大祭司该亚法的院里举行的,有祭司长、〔文士〕和民间的长老在场,商议「怎样用诡计拿住耶稣,杀他」。

见 Matthew 26:1-16 注释中对本段经文的解释。

Mark 14:1

又是除酵节——如此称呼，是因为在那个节期所用的饼，都是未曾发酵、不含酵母而制成的。

用诡计——即用诡诈（马太福音的用词）；意思是借某个秘密的计划，在不激起民众反对的情况下把祂抓住。

Unleavened bread - After they began to eat unleavened bread: see on Matthew 26:2 (note).