A few days later Jesus went back to Capernaum. And when the people heard that He was home,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
hēmerōn di’ Kai eiselthōn palin eis Kapharnaoum ēkousthē hoti estin en oikō
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Jesus Heals a Paralytic
Mark 2:1–12 — Jesus Heals a Paralytic. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
A few days later Jesus went back to Capernaum. And when the people heard that He was home,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
hēmerōn di’ Kai eiselthōn palin eis Kapharnaoum ēkousthē hoti estin en oikō
they gathered in such large numbers that there was no more room, not even outside the door, as Jesus spoke the word to them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai synēchthēsan polloi hōste mēketi chōrein mēde ta pros tēn thyran kai elalei ton logon autois
Then a paralytic was brought to Him, carried by four men.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai paralytikon erchontai pherontes pros auton airomenon hypo tessarōn
Since they were unable to get to Jesus through the crowd, they uncovered the roof above Him, made an opening, and lowered the paralytic on his mat.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai mē dynamenoi prosenenkai autō dia ton ochlon apestegasan tēn stegēn hopou ēn kai exoryxantes chalōsi ho paralytikos hopou katekeito ton krabatton
When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai ho Iēsous idōn autōn tēn pistin legei tō paralytikō Teknon sou hai hamartiai aphientai
But some of the scribes were sitting there and thinking in their hearts,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de tines tōn grammateōn Ēsan kathēmenoi ekei kai dialogizomenoi en autōn tais kardiais
“Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ti houtos lalei houtōs blasphēmei tis dynatai aphienai hamartias ei mē ho Theos heis
At once Jesus knew in His spirit that they were thinking this way within themselves. “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?” He asked.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai ho euthys Iēsous epignous tō autou pneumati hoti dialogizontai houtōs en heautois Ti dialogizesthe tauta en hymōn tais kardiais legei autois
“Which is easier: to say to a paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and walk’?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
ti estin eukopōteron eipein tō paralytikō sou hai hamartiai Aphientai ē eipein Egeire kai aron sou ton krabatton kai peripatei
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de hina eidēte hoti ho Huios tou anthrōpou echei exousian epi tēs gēs aphienai hamartias legei tō paralytikō
“I tell you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
legō Soi egeire aron sou ton krabatton kai hypage eis sou ton oikon
And immediately the man got up, picked up his mat, and walked out in front of them all. As a result, they were all astounded and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai euthys ēgerthē kai aras ton krabatton exēlthen enantion pantōn hōste pantas existasthai kai doxazein ton Theon legontas hoti oudepote eidomen Houtōs
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
⚙ Mark's opening sentence has one finite verb, and it is not about Jesus: ἠκούσθη, it was heard. He enters Capernaum “through days” (δι’ ἡμερῶν), an interval Barnes refuses to number and Pulpit thinks considerable, and the town hears that He is in house. Ellicott and Maclaren both note that only Mark names the town; Ellicott, JFB, Gill and Maclaren identify the house as Peter's, while Cambridge allows that it may have been His own. That disagreement is worth keeping, because it is the only claim about ownership in the passage, and Mark makes none. What Mark does supply is capacity: χωρεῖν, to have room, fails. Geneva says flatly that neither the house nor the entry could hold them; Pulpit and Barnes fill the neuter plural “the things toward the door” with courtyard and porch. And through it all the imperfect ἐλάλει runs: He was speaking the word, continuously, until interrupted. Pulpit takes this short clause for the real object of the ministry, with the miracles subordinate to it, and Benson notes that at this stage most in Capernaum still received the word with joy. The crisis of the scene is therefore a mundane one: the word has drawn more people than the word can now reach through.
⚙ Mark's verbs turn vivid and present: ἔρχονται, they come, bearing (φέροντες) a man who is being carried (αἰρόμενον) by four. Ellicott, JFB, Barnes and Cambridge all mark the four as Mark's own detail; Benson puts one at each corner; Maclaren treats the number as the fingerprint of an eyewitness and reads the difficulty itself as the lesson, since “we cannot” is the coward's word. Then a verb found nowhere else in the New Testament: ἀπεστέγασαν τὴν στέγην, they unroofed the roof, and a rare violent one, ἐξορύξαντες, having gouged it out. Ellicott observes that the strong language of damage is peculiar to Mark. How it was physically done, nobody knows: Benson canvasses a fastened trap door and then Shaw's account of a veil over an inner court; Cambridge and Pulpit prefer broken tiling above an upper chamber; Gill builds an argument from rabbinic references to upper rooms; JFB concedes that without the plan of the house the method cannot be settled, and rests only on the conviction that both accounts come from an eyewitness. Geneva is content to say they could come before Christ in no other way. Into this hole Jesus looks and, Mark says, sees πίστιν αὐτῶν, their faith, plural. JFB notes that all three evangelists say “their,” and calls it a faith not to be defeated; Cambridge includes the bearers with the man; Pulpit reports that Jerome and Ambrose confined the faith to the bearers and sides with Chrysostom for both. Then the word that starts the trouble, and it is tender before it is forensic: Τέκνον, child, which Pulpit and Cambridge both note Mark preserves where Luke has “man,” and which Barnes calls an endearment meant to inspire confidence. Cambridge settles the grammar that the English versions blurred: ἀφίενταί is indicative, not optative, thy sins are, or have been, forgiven. JFB draws the necessary conclusion, that such a saying can only be a royal proclamation of pardon and is justifiable on no lower supposition.
⚙ Everyone else in the house moves; the scribes sit. Mark's periphrastic imperfect ἦσαν καθήμενοι holds them there, διαλογιζόμενοι in their hearts, a verb Geneva glosses as disputing the matter and arguing both sides. Ellicott, JFB and Cambridge import Luke 5:17 to explain their presence, and Cambridge goes further, casting them as emissaries of a party at Jerusalem that had already decreed His death (John 5:18): a reconstruction Mark does not license, and JFB pointedly declines, saying their murderous feeling had not yet shown itself. Their verdict is one word, and the better manuscripts make it a verb: βλασφημεῖ, he blasphemes (so Ellicott and Pulpit on the text). Their premise is not wrong. Cambridge says the claim implied equality with God in one of His most incommunicable attributes; JFB calls their second question a great truth and points to Isaiah 43:25, Micah 7:18 and Exodus 34:6 and 7; Gill grants the maxim in full, that sin is against God only, and that no riches, repentance, faith or works can procure its pardon, while denying their inference; Benson, citing Macknight, defines blasphemy exactly as ascribing to men the perfections and operations of God. Note what answers them. Before any miracle, ἐπιγνοὺς: He knew upon the mark, in His own spirit, and quoted their verb back at them with a second-person ending. Poole, commenting on the whole block, had already seen that this is the hinge: if none but God can forgive sins, none but God can tell men their thoughts either (1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Jeremiah 17:10), so their own axiom convicts them twice. Pulpit records that the Fathers used this verse against the Arians for that reason. Ellicott and Cambridge then divide over the dative τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ, Ellicott reading it as evidence for the completeness of His human nature, Cambridge and Gill for His divine faculty; Mark gives the phrase and not the psychology. The question of v9 is about speech, as Cambridge insists and Gill agrees: both sayings are easy to utter, neither is easy to effect, and only one can be audited. So the claim is stated in the vocabulary of right rather than strength, ἐξουσίαν, answering their δύναται, and it is claimed for “the Son of the Man” ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Cambridge notes this is the title's first appearance in Mark, that it is never used of Him by anyone but Himself in the Gospels, and points to Daniel 7:13; Gill grounds it in Psalm 80:17 and insists that humiliation stripped Him of no prerogative; JFB puts it most concretely, that forgiving power dwells in the person of this man, going out and in with them.
⚙ The sentence that answers a council lands on one man: Σοὶ λέγω, to thee I say, the pronoun first and singular after the plural “that ye may know.” Three bare imperatives follow, and the last, ὕπαγε, is a dismissal: take yourself away, into your own house, the very noun that opened the unit at v1. Then Mark's passive: ἠγέρθη, he was raised. The active imperative of v11 becomes a passive indicative in v12, and Mark's word for the rising of Jesus is the word for the rising of this man. The mat completes the same reversal: in v3 he was αἰρόμενον, being lifted; in v12 he is ἄρας, lifting. JFB hands on Bengel's line that the bed had borne the man and now the man bore the bed; Cambridge notes that the cure's suddenness and completeness outruns even Elijah's and Elisha's, and that the crowd which blocked the way now yields. The reaction is not applause but dislocation, ἐξίστασθαι, which Geneva renders as past themselves, out of their wit, and their confession has no object at all: “thus never did we see.” Ellicott records the older rendering and Luke's alternative, that they had seen strange things that day. Gill argues that these are the multitude and not the scribes, since Mark nowhere shows the scribes glorifying God; Pulpit concedes that we are simply not told what the scribes concluded. The unit therefore ends with an unfinished sentence and an unrecorded verdict, and JFB names the precise edge of the wonder: at forgiving power they did not marvel, only that a man apparently like themselves should hold it.
⚙ Offered as our own fallible reading, to be tested against the text. The scribes ask the right question in Mark 2:7 and get the right answer, which is why the passage is so hard to domesticate. Nobody in this house is told that sin is a small thing, that pardon is cheap, or that God shares His court. The axiom stands: the remission of sins is God's, and God's alone. What moves is not the doctrine but the location. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the earth, in a house too full to enter, over a man who never asked for anything and is not even reported speaking, the divine prerogative is exercised by lips the scribes could see moving. Two things in this unit are treated as proofs of the same thing, and only one of them is usually noticed: Jesus reads the unspoken argument in their hearts (v8) before He heals the body (v12), and Poole is right that on their own premises the first sign was as decisive as the second. It is also worth saying plainly what Mark does not say. He does not say the paralytic believed, only that Jesus saw “their” faith, which reached Him as a hole in a ceiling and four men on ropes. He does not say the man's sin caused his paralysis; Cambridge and Bede, as Pulpit reports, suspect it, and the text leaves it alone, healing the deeper thing first without explaining the link. He does not tell us what the scribes decided, and the silence is honest. Mark's one word for the crowd's response is ἐξίστασθαι, to stand outside oneself, and their sentence never finds its object: thus never did we see. That unfinished sentence is the right ending. Everything the passage claims has been demonstrated, and the demonstration has still not been assimilated, because the thing seen has no category yet. The category arrives only where the same verb does: ἠγέρθη, he was raised. Our reading, and it may be wrong, is that Mark is training his readers' eyes early. What authority on earth to forgive costs, and how it will finally be vindicated, is written in the passive voice of a paralytic's rising.
The door was blocked, so faith dug through the roof, and pardon came down through the hole it made.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
⚙ This is the closest link in the unit and the least mysterious: Matthew 9:2 to 9:6 and Luke 5:17 to 5:26 narrate the same event in the same Greek, and the Verifier's shared lexemes are the same words. Matthew 9:2 and 9:6 share the rare adjective παραλυτικός with Mark (only 9 verses in the New Testament, all in Matthew and Mark), plus προσφέρω and αἴρω; Matthew 9:5 and Luke 5:23 share ἁμαρτία and ἀφίημι in the identical test question. The commentators use the parallels constantly and openly: Barnes, Poole and Gill simply refer the reader to Matthew 9, JFB supplies from Luke 5:17 the Pharisees and doctors of the law gathered from every village, and Ellicott, Pulpit and Cambridge draw on Luke's “through the tiles” and his “Man” for Mark's “Child.” What is Mark's alone, as they all note, is the four bearers, the unroofing, the mat called κράβαττος and the mention of His spirit.
Matthew 9:2 · Matthew 9:5 · Matthew 9:6 · Luke 5:23
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G3885 παραλυτικός (rare, in 9 vv), G4374 προσφέρω (45 vv), G142 αἴρω (97 vv) at Matthew 9:2 and 9:6, and G266 ἁμαρτία with G863 ἀφίημι at Matthew 9:5 and Luke 5:23. Greek to Greek throughout. This is parallel narration of one event in shared wording, not one text quoting another
⚙ John 5:8 to 5:11 gives the only other place in the Gospels where the three words rise, lift your κράββατος, and walk stand together. The Verifier records the shared lexemes: κράββατος (11 verses) with αἴρω at John 5:8, 5:9, 5:10 and 5:11. Ellicott notes that this distinctive word for the poor man's pallet occurs in Mark, in John 5 and in Acts, and never in Matthew or Luke; Cambridge explicitly cross-refers Mark 2:9 to John 5:8. The two scenes differ where it matters, and the difference is instructive rather than embarrassing: at Bethesda no faith is mentioned and the sin is addressed afterward (John 5:14), while in Capernaum faith is seen first and pardon precedes the cure. We claim shared vocabulary and a shared command, not a literary source.
John 5:8 · John 5:9 · John 5:11
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G2895 κράββατος (distinctive, in 11 vv) and G142 αἴρω at John 5:8, 5:9, 5:10 and 5:11. Greek to Greek. A genuine verbal link in the wording of the command; no quotation or dependence is claimed in either direction
⚙ The scribes' question in v7 is not an innovation but a citation of Israel's own confession, and the commentators name the texts. JFB says the second question expresses a great truth and refers it to Isaiah 43:25, Micah 7:18 and Exodus 34:6 and 7; Gill quotes Micah 7:18 and Isaiah 43:25 as God's challenged and exclusive prerogative, and adds the Chaldee paraphrase of Job 14:4 and the rabbinic denial that even the angel of Exodus 23:20 may pardon; Benson traces their charge to Isaiah 43:25 as an incommunicable prerogative. The link is real and load-bearing for the argument of the whole unit, but it cannot be a verbal one here: Mark's Greek and Isaiah's Hebrew share no Strong's number, and Mark records no formal quotation, only a premise held in common.
Exodus 34:6 · Exodus 34:7 · Isaiah 43:25 · Isaiah 44:22 · Micah 7:18
basis: Cross-Testament, so no shared Strong's lexeme is possible (Greek to Hebrew): tiered structural, not verbal. The recorded basis is the commentators' own citation of these texts as the scribes' premise, JFB at Mark 2:7 (Isaiah 43:25, Micah 7:18, Exodus 34:6 and 7) and Gill at Mark 2:7 (Micah 7:18, Isaiah 43:25). No formal quotation appears in the Gospel text
⚙ Cambridge, on the first occurrence of the title in Mark, sends the reader to Daniel 7:13, and the connection is more than titular: what Daniel 7:13 and 14 describe being given to one like a son of man is precisely ἐξουσία, dominion and authority, which is the noun Jesus uses in v10 to answer the scribes' “who is able.” Gill, reading the title as a plain designation of true humanity, grounds it instead in Psalm 80:17, and both readings can stand: the phrase names a man, and in Daniel a man is the one to whom the authority is handed. This is the strongest Old Testament link in the unit, and it is still not a verbal one. Mark's Greek and Daniel's Aramaic and Hebrew cannot share a Strong's number, and Jesus quotes nothing here; the tie is the pattern of authority conferred on a human figure, which Mark's Gospel will make explicit only later.
Daniel 7:13 · Daniel 7:14 · Psalm 80:17
basis: Cross-Testament refs, so shared Strong's numbers are impossible and a verbal tier is excluded on principle, not for lack of evidence. Recorded basis: Cambridge at Mark 2:10 cites Daniel 7:13 for the title, Gill at Mark 2:10 cites Psalm 80:17; the shared structure is authority (ἐξουσία, G1849) held by a human figure
⚙ The order of events in this unit, pardon first and healing second as its evidence, is the order of Psalm 103:3, where forgiving and healing are named in one breath as the same God's benefits, and of Psalm 32:1 to 5, where an unconfessed sin wastes the body and confession brings remission. Matthew Henry reads Mark 2 in exactly these terms: sin is the cause of all our pains and sicknesses, the way to remove the effect is to take away the cause, and pardon of sin strikes at the root of all diseases. Pulpit reports Bede making the same inference from the order of Jesus' words. We record this as a shared pattern in the Psalter's own theology, not as a citation, and we note the limit: Mark never says this man's paralysis was punishment for his sin, and Cambridge's suggestion that his sufferings may have been due to sinful excesses is a guess.
Psalm 32:1 · Psalm 32:5 · Psalm 103:3 · Psalm 130:3 · Psalm 130:4
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's lexeme is available and verbal is excluded. Basis is a shared pattern, forgiveness joined to healing and pardon as the ground of standing, with Henry at Mark 2:1 to 12 as the commentator who reads the Gospel scene this way
⚙ The noun στέγη, roof, occurs in only three verses in the New Testament, and two of them are these: Mark 2:4, where friends tear a roof open to get a man under the same roof as Jesus, and Luke 7:6, where a centurion sends word that he is not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof. The Verifier records the shared lexeme along with εἰσέρχομαι and ὑπό; Matthew 8:8 gives the parallel of the centurion's message. Read together they set two faiths side by side that Jesus commends for opposite reasons, one that will break a roof to reach Him and one that will not trouble Him to cross a threshold. We tier this structural rather than verbal deliberately: the word is genuinely rare and genuinely shared, but the connection we are drawing is thematic, and no text here quotes another.
Luke 7:6 · Matthew 8:8
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G4721 στέγη (rare, in only 3 vv) at Luke 7:6, with G1525 εἰσέρχομαι and G5259 ὑπό; Matthew 8:8 shares G1525, G3056 and G5259. Greek to Greek, so a verbal tier would be permitted by the rarity, but the link asserted here is a contrast of motifs, not a quotation, so it is under-claimed as structural
⚙ Mark's distinctive word for the mat reappears in the apostolic mission. Acts 9:33 finds Aeneas at Lydda lying paralysed on his κράββατος for eight years, sharing with Mark 2 both that noun and κατάκειμαι, the verb Mark uses of the paralytic lying on his mat; Acts 5:15 has the sick carried out on their mats into the streets. The Verifier gives the lexemes. The theological point is not in the vocabulary but in the difference of agency: in Acts the healing is announced in the name of Jesus Christ, whereas in Mark 2:11 the authority is exercised in the first person, “to thee I say.” That is the distinction the whole unit exists to establish, and Gill draws it out at v7, that ministers may remit sins only ministerially and declaratively.
Acts 9:33 · Acts 5:15
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G2895 κράββατος (in 11 vv) and G2621 κατάκειμαι (in 12 vv) at Acts 9:33, and G2895 with G5620 ὥστε at Acts 5:15. Greek to Greek, so the lexical basis is real; the claim made here is about a contrast in agency, a thematic connection rather than a quotation
⚙ Cambridge tells the scene as a stage in a campaign: emissaries from a hostile party at Jerusalem where the Lord's death had already been decreed, citing John 5:18, carrying out a settled plan of collecting charges. Ellicott and JFB more modestly supply Luke 5:17, that Pharisees and doctors of the law had come from every village of Galilee and Judaea and from Jerusalem, and JFB expressly says their venomous and murderous feeling had not yet shown itself. We flag this because the reconstruction depends on placing John 5 before Mark 2, a question of Gospel chronology that is disputed and that no text in this unit settles. Mark himself reports only that some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts.
Luke 5:17 · John 5:18
basis: Provenance contested: the link rests on Cambridge's harmonisation at Mark 2:6 of Luke 5:17 with John 5:18 and on a disputed relative chronology of John 5 and Mark 2. No shared lexeme is recorded by the Verifier, and JFB at Mark 2:6 reads the same scene as not yet hostile in intent
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The redemptive centre of the unit is a preposition. The scribes place the remission of sins in heaven, with the one God, and they are not corrected; Jesus places its exercise ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the earth, in the hands of the Son of Man, and proves the placement. Cambridge states the antithesis exactly, that this power is not exercised only in heaven by God but also by the Son of Man on earth. JFB makes it concrete: forgiving power dwells in the person of this man and goes out and in with them. Gill presses the christological point that humiliation did not strip Him of His perfections, power and prerogative as God, and that if He had this authority on earth there can be no doubt of it now He is in heaven. Pulpit, following the Fathers against the Arians, argues from His reading of hearts in v8 that the prerogative claimed is truly divine, and insists that His word here is absolution and not a conditional announcement, because He alone can read the heart He absolves. This is the apostolic and catholic reading, recorded here by Ellicott, JFB, Gill, Geneva, Cambridge and Pulpit alike, and the scribes' own axiom is what makes it inescapable: if only God forgives, and this man forgave, the question of who He is has been put beyond the reach of a compliment.
Mark 2:7 · Mark 2:10 · Isaiah 43:25 · Micah 7:18
⚙ Jesus stakes an unverifiable claim on a verifiable one, and the commentators read the method uniformly. JFB compresses it: if I do the one which you can see, know that I have done the other, which you cannot. Cambridge frames the question precisely, that what is contrasted is not two deeds but two claims, and that by doing what can be put to proof He vindicates His right to do what in its nature cannot be proved. Henry draws the figure out to its root, that curing diseases was a figure of pardoning sin, since sin is the disease of the soul and when it is pardoned it is healed. Gill weighs the two and judges pardon the greater blessing though the cure the more sensible proof. The order matters and is deliberate: pardon first, healing second, the lesser thing serving as evidence for the greater. Pulpit reports Bede's inference that by forgiving first the Lord showed the man his suffering was ultimately due to sin, and here we would go more slowly than Bede, because Mark never says so of this man.
Mark 2:5 · Mark 2:9 · Mark 2:12 · Psalm 103:3
⚙ Here is our own reading, offered as fallible and marked novel in its emphasis, though built entirely on sourced grammar. Mark tells the cure in the passive: ἠγέρθη, he was raised, answering the active imperative ἔγειρε of v11, and this is the verb Mark's Gospel uses for the rising of Jesus Himself. The narrative of the mat carries the same reversal in a single root: in v3 the man is αἰρόμενον, being lifted, and in v12 he is ἄρας, lifting, which JFB records in Bengel's aphorism that the bed had borne the man and now the man bore the bed. Read forward, the passage is a miniature of the gospel it opens: a man who contributes nothing but a body and other people's faith is pardoned by a word, raised by a word, and sent home carrying the evidence of what used to carry him. The commentators see the pattern in the pardoned sinner (Pulpit's intemperate man become sober, Gill's paralytic as the emblem of one who has neither motion nor feeling toward Christ); the extension we add is that Mark's grammar points not only from the mat to the soul but from this rising to the one that vindicates the authority claimed in v10, and we hold it loosely, since Mark 2 says nothing explicit about it.
Mark 2:3 · Mark 2:11 · Mark 2:12
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ Text and translation. The BSB text and the Berean interlinear are the base; the interlinear's word indices follow English display order, not Greek word order, so the literal renderings above restore the Greek sequence (for example v1 reads Καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ δι’ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν, while the indices begin with ἡμερῶν). Two variants are reported by our own commentators: at v7 Ellicott and Pulpit both note that the better manuscripts read the verb βλασφημεῖ where the older printed text had the noun βλασφημίας, which changes “why does this man speak blasphemies” into “why does this man speak thus? He blasphemes”; at v12 Pulpit gives ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθὺς ἄρας as the most approved reading. We have followed both.
⚙ What is uncertain. The identity of the house (Peter's, per Ellicott, JFB, Gill and Maclaren; possibly His own, per Cambridge) is not stated by Mark. The architecture of the roof is genuinely unsettled: Benson offers a fastened trap door and then Shaw's account of a veil over an inner court, Cambridge and Pulpit prefer broken tiling over an upper chamber, Gill argues from rabbinic upper-room references, and JFB frankly concedes that without the plan of the house the method cannot be determined. Whether the paralysis was itself the penalty of particular sin is suggested by Cambridge and by Bede as reported in Pulpit, and is not said by Mark. The reference of “their faith” in v5 was disputed in antiquity, Pulpit reporting Jerome and Ambrose for the bearers only and Chrysostom for the bearers with the man. Ellicott and Cambridge read the dative “in his spirit” in v8 in opposite directions, human and divine respectively; we have left the ambiguity standing rather than choosing.
⚙ Sources. Voices are verbatim public-domain commentary, cited by tag: Ellicott (1878), Maclaren (c. 1905), Benson (1810s), Henry (1706), Barnes (1834), JFB (1871), Poole (1685), Gill (1746 to 1763), Geneva (1599), Cambridge (1880s), Pulpit (1880s). Henry's note covers the whole block Mark 2:1 to 12 and is repeated by the source at each verse; Barnes's note at verses 5 to 12 is likewise one repeated block, so both are cited at a single verse only. Maclaren's exposition of the entire unit sits under v1 and is capped in our brief at about 11,000 further characters, as are long entries of Gill at v3 and v4 and v7 and Benson at v5; quotations here come only from the text before the cap, and nothing beyond it has been assumed. Poole comments on Mark 2:1 to 12 as one block under v1 and refers the reader to his notes on Matthew 9, which we have not consulted. Several commentators supply from Luke 5:17 the presence of Pharisees and lawyers; that detail is Luke's, not Mark's.
⚙ One thread deliberately not made. The Verifier flags Galatians 4:15 for the rare verb ἐξορύσσω (G1846, only 2 verses in the New Testament), where Paul says the Galatians would have dug out their own eyes for him. The lexeme is genuinely rare and genuinely shared, but no motif, quotation or literary relation joins the two passages, and building a thread on the coincidence would be an overclaim. It is recorded here instead. Mark 6:55 (κράββατος) and Matthew 4:24 and 8:6 (παραλυτικός) are likewise real lexical matches within Mark and Matthew's shared healing vocabulary rather than distinct threads. No formal Old Testament quotation occurs anywhere in this unit, so every Old Testament link above is tiered structural, never verbal.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)