Jesus got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own town.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai embas eis ploion dieperasen kai ēlthen eis tēn idian polin
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Jesus Heals a Paralytic
Matthew 9:1–8 — 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.
Jesus got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own town.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai embas eis ploion dieperasen kai ēlthen eis tēn idian polin
Just then some men brought to Him a paralytic lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai idou prosepheron autō paralytikon beblēmenon epi klinēs kai ho Iēsous idōn tēn autōn pistin eipen tō paralytikō Tharsei teknon sou hai hamartiai aphientai
On seeing this, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai idou tines tōn grammateōn eipan en heautois Houtos blasphēmei
But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, “Why do you harbor evil in your hearts?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai ho Iēsous eidōs tas autōn enthymēseis eipen Hina ti enthymeisthe ponēra en tais hymōn kardiais
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gar ti estin eukopōteron eipein sou hai hamartiai Aphientai ē eipein Egeire kai peripatei
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de hina eidēte hoti ho Huios tou anthrōpou echei exousian epi tēs gēs aphienai hamartias tote legei tō paralytikō Egertheis aron sou tēn klinēn kai hypage eis ton sou oikon
And the man got up and went home.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai egertheis apēlthen eis ton autou oikon
When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de hoi ochloi Idontes ephobēthēsan kai edoxasan ton Theon ton donta toiautēn exousian tois anthrōpois
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.
⚙ Matthew spends one verse on a boat, a crossing and an arrival, and every word of it is a contrast with what precedes. Pulpit notes that ἐμβὰς and διεπέρασεν are not the First Evangelist's own idiom but reminiscences of the source just used (compare Mark 5:21), and draws the sharp point: "So completely did he grant the request of the Gadarenes." A whole city has asked him to leave its borders (Matthew 8:34); he leaves. He then comes εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν, into the own city. Pulpit hears John 1:11 in that phrase and immediately sets the two cities against each other: there all the city rejected him, here the leaders will reject him while the crowds fear and glorify God. Ellicott, Barnes, Benson, Gill, Geneva and Cambridge all name the city Capernaum, and all of them do so on the authority of Mark 2:1, not of Matthew; JFB alone leaves Nazareth standing as a possibility. Ellicott adds the poignancy: Nazareth, "though the home of His childhood, is never so described." Gill, characteristically, turns to Jewish civil law and finds in the Mishnah the twelve-month residence that made a man a citizen liable to the town's charges, so that the adjective ἰδίαν carries a legal weight. Ellicott's opening warning governs the whole unit: the three Gospels order these events so differently that "the labours of the harmonist are baffled."
⚙ The Greek of v. 2 is built of two participles that fix a man in place and three words that move him. βεβλημένον is a perfect participle of βάλλω, to throw: he has been flung down on a mat and there he stays; Cambridge notes it is the same word and tense rendered "laid" at Matthew 8:6. προσέφερον is imperfect, a sustained bringing. Pulpit observes that Matthew has omitted the difficulty of the approach, the crowd and the roof, "yet this alone accounts for the special commendation of their faith," and dismisses Bengel's attempt to hear the sacrificial sense of προσφέρω as beautiful but "hardly exegesis." On τὴν αὐτῶν πίστιν the voices genuinely differ and the difference should be preserved. Cambridge says "The faith of those who brought him, as well as his own." Benson says both, "that of the paralytic, and of them that brought him." Poole says both, and adds that Christ saw it twice over, in their hearts and in their fruits. Gill grants the bearers first and then adds the sick man. Pulpit argues it from the obedience the man later shows. Henry, alone among them, praises only "the faith of the friends of the paralytic." The pronoun αὐτῶν is simply plural and settles nothing by itself. What follows is not a prayer: ἀφίενταί is present indicative, middle or passive, and Pulpit insists with the Revised Version that it states "a fact, not merely the expression of a command," while Cambridge renders it "have been forgiven thee." And the address is τέκνον, child, not son; Pulpit shows that as direct address this word elsewhere implies real relationship, "both sympathy and much common ground," and calls Luke's ἄνθρωπε "much more colourless." Ellicott and Gill each go further than the text, Ellicott suggesting the paralysis may have come as a direct consequence of sin, Gill hearing adoption in the vocative. Those are readings, offered as such.
⚙ The scribes are right about God and wrong about the man, and the commentators are unanimous that the first half of that must be conceded before the second half can be argued. Barnes: "In this they reasoned correctly," citing Isaiah 43:25 and 44:22 and observing that none of the prophets had this power. Poole states the principle in its general form, that for a man "to arrogate to himself such a power as belonged to God alone was no less than blasphemy, as all ascribings of Divine perfections to creatures must be," and then applies it polemically against Rome. Pulpit quotes Kubel for the decisive Old Testament point: "No passage of the Old Testament affirms that the Messiah himself will forgive sins," so that Jesus takes to himself what even Jeremiah 31:34 and Isaiah 43:25 reserved to God. Geneva supplies the word's range, that among the divines βλασφημέω means to speak wickedly and among the Greeks to slander. Gill gives the paradox its shortest form: "so he did, and yet did not blaspheme; because he himself was God." Then the answer comes before the words do. εἰδὼς is a perfect participle, settled knowledge, and Matthew has placed it directly against ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, in themselves, of v. 3. Barnes gathers the canonical claim, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Jeremiah 17:10, Romans 8:27, Revelation 2:23. Benson counts this the first of two demonstrations of divinity here, since searching hearts "is not in the power either of men or angels, but is the prerogative of God only." Gill notes that the Rabbis themselves used discernment without external proof as a test of a messianic claimant. Matthew then does something the parallels do not: he puts the noun ἐνθυμήσεις and the verb ἐνθυμεῖσθε in one sentence, a rare root (four verses and three verses respectively) that also stands at Hebrews 4:12, where the word of God discerns the deliberations of the heart.
⚙ Here the commentators divide most interestingly, and the Greek comparative εὐκοπώτερον ("better for toil") does not adjudicate. Ellicott reads an argument a fortiori: the forgiveness word was easier to say because it "could not be put to any outward test," while the command to walk "challenged an immediate and visible fulfilment," and Jesus chose the testable one "without fear of the result." Barnes denies the asymmetry: "One is as easy as the other," since both require God, and to be able to do the one involves the right to do the other. Cambridge takes a third road, that as Jesus speaks the words they are not easier at all, "for to say them implied the cure of soul and of body too," and that he adds the visible command only so that the scribes may infer the invisible work. Pulpit generalises it: the two alternatives "cover the two realms of influence, the spiritual and the physical," and men will not believe a claim in the first realm unaccompanied by results in the second. Gill's version is the most practical: healing the body in such a manner was "a very sensible proof of his power to heal the maladies of the soul." Note also the small untranslated word: BSB drops γάρ, and with it the fact that v. 5 is not a new topic but the ground of the rebuke in v. 4.
⚙ Every emphatic word of v. 6 is placed against the scribes' premise, which is never denied. Pulpit names the two stressed elements exactly: "hath authority" and "on earth." Ellicott corrects "power" to ἐξουσία, authority, as at John 5:27, and argues that the two passages are so close that the words were meant to recall what some hearers had heard at Jerusalem; he then concludes that the answer rests on the higher ground, Sonship to God, and not only on the lower, the representative Son of Man. On the title itself the voices part. Ellicott takes it as the representative of mankind exercising delegated power. Poole takes it as irony aimed at men who think him "no more than the Son of man." Pulpit takes it as a deliberate pointer to Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man receives an everlasting authority, with the claim that this authority includes forgiving sins and is exercised now and here rather than in the clouds. Gill takes it as a statement of the two natures, authority "as mediator, even whilst he was on earth, in a state of humiliation." These are four readings of one title, and the Greek supplies the title only. Then the grammar performs the argument: ἀφιέναι in v. 6 is an active infinitive where v. 2 had a passive indicative with no agent named. And the man's rising is itself passive, Ἐγερθείς, "having been raised," repeated word for word as the first word of v. 7. Only the lifting and the going are commanded of him. Henry sees the proof in the mat: "Not only he had no more need to be carried upon his bed, but he had strength to carry it." Barnes and Cambridge both reduce the "bed" to the rolled mat of an eastern morning, which is what makes the command performable at all.
⚙ The unit ends on one lexeme moved from singular to plural. In v. 6 it was ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; in v. 8 it is τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, which Pulpit glosses "i.e. the human race." Pulpit also notes what the crowd left out: "there is here no mention of forgiving sins: the multitudes appear to have thought only of authority to perform the miracle," and that they did not hear the phrase as messianic at all. Poole is severe, holding that they glorified God "but not aright" and citing 1 Corinthians 12:3 to the effect that no man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost. Gill agrees that they were "still looking upon Christ as a mere man, by whom God did these things." Ellicott is gentler and, we think, more exact: it was natural that a delegated authority should be the impression made, and the failure was in not "passing on to the deeper truth of the union of the manhood with God." Barnes supplies the necessary restraint on all three: the sentence "expresses no sentiment of the evangelist about the nature of Christ, but is a record of their feelings and their praise." Text-critically, Ellicott and Pulpit both prefer ἐφοβήθησαν, "they were afraid," over the received "they marvelled" which Poole and Gill are expounding, so that on the better reading the unit closes with fear and glory in one aorist pair.
⚙ Read under Sola Scriptura, and offered to be tested: this passage is not primarily about a healing, and Matthew's own grammar says so. The healing occupies no verb of its own. In v. 7 there is not even a subject noun, only a passive participle, one aorist of departure and a house. What Matthew does spend his verbs on is knowing: Jesus sees a faith that is invisible (v. 2), he knows thoughts that were never spoken aloud (v. 4), and the stated purpose of the miracle is that the objectors may know (v. 6, perfect subjunctive). The miracle is evidence tendered to hostile witnesses, and the scribes are the intended audience of a sign that lands on a paralytic. Notice also the direction of the passives. The sins are forgiven with no agent named in v. 2; the man is raised, not self-risen, in v. 6 and v. 7; the crowds are made afraid in v. 8. The only things this man is commanded to do himself are to take courage, to lift the mat he was thrown onto, and to go home. That is a very small share of the action, and it may be the pattern of all Christian obedience: everything decisive is done to us, and what is left to us is to take up the evidence of what we were and to walk with it. And then Matthew lets the crowd end the chapter wrong. They repeat his exact word, ἐξουσία, and hand it to the wrong subject, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Barnes is right that the evangelist does not endorse them. We think Matthew records the mistake because it is a mistake the church keeps making: to praise God for what power he has given to men, when the whole point of the sentence was which Man has it. This is our reading, not the text's plain statement, and it should be weighed against Ellicott's gentler verdict on the crowd and Poole's harsher one.
Everything decisive in this scene is done to the man in the passive voice; what is left to him is to pick up the evidence of what he was and carry it home. (This line is our synthesis, not Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The Verifier returns Mark 2:5, 2:9 and 2:10 as the nearest candidates in the canon, and the overlap is not thematic but word for word: ἀφίημι, παραλυτικός, ἁμαρτία, πίστις, with κλίνη tying in Luke 5:18. Every commentator in this unit treats the three accounts as one history: Ellicott, Barnes, Benson, JFB, Gill, Cambridge, Pulpit and Poole all cite Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:18-26, and Poole states flatly, "All interpreters agree it to be the same history." The differences are real and Matthew is the shortest: he omits the crowd, the roof, the four bearers, the carrying of the mat and the man's own glorifying of God. Pulpit notes that this omission costs Matthew the very thing that justifies the commendation of their faith, and reports Professor Marshall's 1891 proposal that some of the divergences are different renderings of one Aramaic sentence.
Mark 2:5 · Mark 2:9 · Mark 2:10 · Luke 5:18
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G863 ἀφίημι (in 131 vv), G3885 παραλυτικός (in 9 vv, rare), G266 ἁμαρτία (in 150 vv), G4102 πίστις (in 227 vv), and G2825 κλίνη (in 9 vv, rare) with Luke 5:18. New Testament to New Testament, synoptic parallel of the same pericope; the rare lexemes παραλυτικός and κλίνη carry the link
παραλυτικός stands in only nine verses of the New Testament, and Matthew uses it three times in this unit alone. The Verifier ties 9:1-8 to Matthew 4:24, where paralytics are named in the summary of the Galilean ministry, and to Matthew 8:6, the centurion's servant, where Cambridge notes that the added phrase "grievously tormented" marks a more severe case than this one. Gill makes the argument from the sequence explicit at v. 5: since Christ "had already healed many that were sick of the palsy, and particularly the centurion's servant, by a word speaking," the power at issue in Matthew 9 is already demonstrated, and only the authority is in dispute. This is a shared motif carried by a rare lexeme, not a quotation, so we tier it structural.
Matthew 4:24 · Matthew 8:6 · Mark 2:3
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G3885 παραλυτικός (in 9 vv, rare) at all three refs, plus G4374 προσφέρω (in 45 vv) at Matthew 4:24 and G906 βάλλω (in 107 vv) at Matthew 8:6. Rare lexeme, but no quotation is claimed: the link is a repeated motif within one Gospel and its parallel
Matthew 9:4 uses both a very rare noun and a very rare verb: ἐνθύμησις stands in four verses, ἐνθυμέομαι in three. The Verifier's candidate list is therefore almost a complete concordance of the root. Hebrews 4:12 places the noun beside καρδία, exactly as Matthew does, in the claim that the word of God discerns the deliberations of the heart; Acts 17:29 uses it of the deliberating that produces idols; Matthew 1:20 and Acts 10:19 use the verb of Joseph and of Peter pondering, both times with an angel or the Spirit answering an unspoken thought. Barnes independently collects the canonical claim that heart-searching is God's alone (1 Chronicles 28:9, Jeremiah 17:10, Romans 8:27, Revelation 2:23), and Benson makes it the first of the two demonstrations of divinity in this unit. We tier this structural rather than verbal: the lexeme is genuinely rare, but nobody here is quoting anybody.
Hebrews 4:12 · Matthew 1:20 · Acts 10:19 · Acts 17:29
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1761 ἐνθύμησις (in 4 vv, rare) at Hebrews 4:12 and Acts 17:29, G1760 ἐνθυμέομαι (in 3 vv, rare) at Matthew 1:20 and Acts 10:19, with G2588 καρδία (in 149 vv) also shared at Hebrews 4:12. Rare shared vocabulary under one motif, unspoken thought made known; no citation claimed in either direction
The scribes' premise is not invented by them. Barnes anchors it in Isaiah 43:25 and Isaiah 44:22, and Pulpit, quoting Kubel, sharpens the point into an argument: "No passage of the Old Testament affirms that the Messiah himself will forgive sins," so that Jesus here claims what even Jeremiah 31:34 and Isaiah 43:25 had reserved to God alone. This is the load-bearing Old Testament ground of the whole controversy, and it is what makes the charge of blasphemy intelligible rather than malicious. No verbal tier is possible: the link runs between Greek and Hebrew, so no shared Strong's number can exist, and Matthew quotes no formula.
Isaiah 43:25 · Isaiah 44:22 · Jeremiah 31:34
basis: Cross-Testament, so shared Strong's lexemes are impossible (Greek text against Hebrew text) and a verbal tier is excluded. The recorded basis is a shared doctrinal pattern named by two independent commentators in this brief: Barnes cites Isaiah 43:25 and 44:22, and Pulpit quotes Kubel for Jeremiah 31:34 and Isaiah 43:25. No New Testament citation formula is present in Matthew 9:3
Pulpit supplies the closest ancient parallel to the logic of this scene, and it is a Jewish one. Citing Talm. Bab., Nedarim 41a, it reports R. Hija bar Abba: "The sick doth not recover from his sickness until all his sins be forgiven him," the proof text being the psalm that pairs pardoning all iniquities with healing all diseases. Pulpit adds Qimhi on Psalm 41:4, "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee," with the comment that the psalmist does not ask for the body to be healed, and points also to James 5:15. Benson, Poole and Gill all reach the same conclusion from the text itself, that sin is named as the root and the bodily distemper as the branch. The link is real and pre-Christian, but it is a pattern of thought, not a quotation, and it crosses the Testaments.
Psalm 103:3 · Psalm 41:4 · James 5:15
basis: Cross-Testament for the two Psalms, so no shared Strong's lexeme can be computed and a verbal tier is excluded. Basis recorded: Pulpit on Matthew 9:2 cites the Psalm pairing of forgiveness and healing through Nedarim 41a and Qimhi on Psalm 41, and names James 5:15 as a New Testament parallel. Matthew makes no citation
Pulpit argues that the emphatic words of v. 6 point to Daniel 7:13-14: one like a son of man is brought near and receives an authority described as everlasting, and Jesus, by saying "the Son of Man" rather than "I," directs his hearers to a phrase "which they already knew, but did not rightly understand," adding that the authority includes forgiving sins and is exercised now and on earth rather than in the clouds. Pulpit offers this as "seems to," and goes further with a suggestion it marks as speculative, that if the phrase was understood to symbolise the nation, Jesus presents himself as the means by which the nation reaches its ideal. Ellicott reads the title differently, as the representative of mankind exercising a delegated power, and rests the final answer instead on John 5. Poole reads it as irony. We record the Daniel reading as a figural claim about who this title designates, held widely in the tradition but stated here as one commentator's inference.
Daniel 7:13 · Daniel 7:14
basis: Cross-Testament figural reading of the title ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, so no shared Strong's lexeme is available and no verbal tier is possible. Attested in this brief by Pulpit on Matthew 9:6, which proposes it as an inference ("He seems to point them to Daniel 7:13"); Ellicott and Poole read the title along different lines, which we record rather than harmonise
Ellicott makes a specific claim about v. 6: as Mark gives the command, "we have the very syllables that had been spoken to the impotent man at Bethesda" (John 5:8), and the natural inference is that Jesus meant to recall what the scribes from Jerusalem had seen and heard there. He supports this by a second link, that the charge of blasphemy in v. 3 "were but an echo" of John 5:18, that he made himself equal with God, and that some of the same objectors may be present; Luke 5:17 does place teachers of the law from Jerusalem in the room. We flag this rather than confirm it. The connection is Ellicott's, not the Verifier's; the exact-syllable claim is made of Mark's wording, not Matthew's; and the reconstruction of an unrecorded Jerusalem ministry behind the Synoptics is an inference from a handful of traces, as Ellicott himself acknowledges in calling it "one of the few traces in the first three Gospels."
John 5:8 · John 5:18 · John 5:27
basis: Not a Verifier candidate: no computed shared-lexeme basis was returned for these refs. The only basis is Ellicott's own assertion on Matthew 9:3 and 9:6 that the wording and the charge echo John 5, and his exact-syllable claim concerns Mark's text rather than Matthew's. John 5:27 (ἐξουσία given to the Son of Man) is the firmest of the three and is cited by Ellicott for the translation "authority"; the historical reconstruction behind the rest is contested and should be checked before it is relied on
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The redemptive-historical weight of this unit hangs on two words Pulpit correctly identifies as the emphatic ones: ἔχει and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The scribes granted that God forgives; Isaiah 43:25 and Jeremiah 31:34 had said so, and Pulpit's citation of Kubel establishes that no Old Testament text had transferred that act to the Messiah. What is new is not the forgiveness but the address: it is spoken on earth, in a crowded house in Capernaum, by a man who can be seen and contradicted, and it is spoken before the healing rather than after it, which is the order Benson and Poole both enumerate. Barnes draws the inference the passage was built to force: Jesus was understood to affirm that he was divine, and proved it by a miracle expressly designed to confirm the claim, "it follows that he is divine, or equal with the Father." Ellicott rests the answer on the higher ground rather than the lower, Sonship to God rather than representative manhood alone. Gill holds both natures together in one sentence. This is the common apostolic reading, recorded here by Ellicott, Barnes, Benson, Poole, Gill and Pulpit alike.
Isaiah 43:25 · Jeremiah 31:34 · John 5:27 · Daniel 7:13
⚙ The order of the two sentences is the gospel in miniature, and the commentators of this brief press it hard. Benson lists what the order teaches: that sin is the source of our evils; that, sin being forgiven, bodily distempers can do no lasting harm; that "the primary end of his coming into the world was to save his people from their sins"; and that remission follows faith in Christ. Poole gives nearly the same six points independently, adding that in the hour remission is granted the soul becomes God's son. Henry sets the necessary guard against cheap comfort: to bring sins to Christ as a malady to be cured of is well, but to come with them "as thy darlings and delight, thinking still to retain them and receive him, is a gross mistake, a miserable delusion," since "the great intention of the blessed Jesus in the redemption he wrought, is to separate our hearts from sin." Pulpit adds the pastoral order of the words themselves, courage, sympathy, forgiveness, and only then the naming of sins. Gill marvels at the freeness of it: a blessing bestowed unasked, "and that of the greatest moment and importance." No one asked for pardon; four men asked, wordlessly and by their labour, for legs.
Psalm 103:3 · Matthew 1:21 · James 5:15
⚙ Offered as our own reading and marked novel. The verb that carries the man out of this scene is ἐγείρω, and Matthew shifts its voice. In v. 5 it is the present active imperative Ἔγειρε; in v. 6 and again as the first word of v. 7 it is Ἐγερθείς, an aorist passive participle, "having been raised." The man is not told to raise himself and is never said to have done so: he is raised, and then told to lift and to go. That same verb is the apostolic word for resurrection, and Poole, without drawing the figure, supplies its premise when he sets the two divine prerogatives side by side: "God, by your confession, can forgive sins, and God alone can raise men from the grave." Put those together and the miracle is a small enacted parable of what forgiveness is: a man thrown down by a perfect passive in v. 2 (βεβλημένον) is raised by a passive in v. 6, and the only evidence he carries away is the mat he used to lie on. We mark this novel because none of the commentators in this brief draws the figural line; the grammar is sourced, the reading is ours, and it should be tested.
Matthew 9:6 · Matthew 9:7 · John 5:8
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:
⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. (1) Matthew names no city. Every identification of Capernaum in this brief (Ellicott, Barnes, Benson, Gill, Geneva, Cambridge) is imported from Mark 2:1; JFB leaves Nazareth open. The Greek of v. 1 says only τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν.
(2) Most of the famous detail is not in Matthew. The crowd, the roof, the tiles, the ropes, the four bearers, the carrying of the mat and the man's glorifying of God all come from Mark 2 and Luke 5. Pulpit, Poole, Ellicott, Barnes and Gill narrate them freely; readers should know they are reading a harmony at those points. Pulpit also reports Professor Marshall's 1891 proposal, and Resch's on v. 8, that several Synoptic divergences here are alternative renderings of one Semitic sentence. Those are nineteenth-century conjectures, offered as such.
(3) Two text-critical points bear on translation. At v. 4 the better manuscripts are divided between εἰδώς ("knowing") and ἰδών ("seeing"), which Ellicott prefers; the parallels read ἐπιγνούς. At v. 8 the better reading is ἐφοβήθησαν, "they were afraid," not the Textus Receptus ἐθαύμασαν, "they marvelled"; Ellicott and Pulpit both say so, while Poole and Gill are expounding the received reading. Also at v. 2 the Revised Version omits "thee" after "forgiven" in Matthew, retaining it in Luke.
(4) JFB contributes no exposition here. Its entry on every verse of this unit is a pointer, "For the exposition, see on Mr 2:1-12," so JFB is not quoted in this unit; that is an absence in the source, not an oversight.
(5) Disputed readings preserved rather than harmonised. Whose faith is seen in v. 2 (Henry says the friends only; Cambridge, Benson, Poole, Gill and Pulpit include the paralytic) and what "easier" means in v. 5 (Ellicott, Barnes and Cambridge give three different answers) are left open, because the Greek does not decide them. The force of "Son of Man" in v. 6 is likewise given four ways, from Pulpit's Daniel 7 pointer to Poole's irony to Ellicott's representative manhood to Gill's two natures.
(6) Tiering. Only the synoptic parallels are tiered verbal, on the Verifier's rare shared lexemes παραλυτικός and κλίνη (nine verses each). Every Old Testament link in this unit is tiered structural or typological, since no shared Strong's number can exist between a Greek text and a Hebrew one and Matthew quotes no formula here. The John 5 connection is flagged because its basis is a commentator's assertion, not a computed one.
(7) Rabbinic and Talmudic citations in Gill (Bava Bathra on residency, Sanhedrin on Bar Coziba, Shabbat on chastisement) and in Pulpit (Nedarim 41a) come from sources later than the Gospel and are reported as the commentators give them, without independent verification here. Poole's anti-papal application at v. 3 and his verdict at v. 8 that the crowd's praise was "not aright" are polemical judgements of their period, flagged in the voice notes.
✦ = 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)