Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading
As can be seen in the related Thread there is often an extreme inverse relationship between the difficulty of the reading and the amount of External evidence. With Vaticanus and Bezae supporting into we have comparable External support to other very difficult readings that are likely original.
Regarding the 3 main categories of Internal evidence:
Theme: Having God's Spirit go into Jesus is consistent with the rest of GMark:
1. In GMark the spirits are going out of people, not onto people.
2. In GMark people are possessed by spirits which is more consistent with spirits in them rather than on them.
3. Jesus is driven into the wilderness which is more more consistent with a spirit in him than on him.
Style: GMark's style is extreme.
1. "Into" is more extreme than "onto".
2. "Into" at the beginning provides a contrived extreme reversal of Jesus' character (so to speak). Before the spirit he is unremarkable. Not even worth mentioning. At the end the spirit leaves him and whatever was left of Jesus is likewise not even worth mentioning.
Language: No significant difference between "into" and "unto"/"upon".
Thus, based on the strength of the Internal evidence and the minimum quality External evidence The Skeptical Critical Commentary judges "into" as likely original to 1:10.
Joseph
| Difficult Reading | Witness | Quality Witness Against | Defense Against | Significant Difference? |
Mark 1:10 vs. upon | Vaticanus Bezae | Sinaiticus Regius Washingtonianus Alexandrinus Rossanensis Beratinus 064 Basilensis | The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant. | Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon) insignificant difference in meaning. |
As can be seen in the related Thread there is often an extreme inverse relationship between the difficulty of the reading and the amount of External evidence. With Vaticanus and Bezae supporting into we have comparable External support to other very difficult readings that are likely original.
Regarding the 3 main categories of Internal evidence:
Theme: Having God's Spirit go into Jesus is consistent with the rest of GMark:
1. In GMark the spirits are going out of people, not onto people.
2. In GMark people are possessed by spirits which is more consistent with spirits in them rather than on them.
3. Jesus is driven into the wilderness which is more more consistent with a spirit in him than on him.
Style: GMark's style is extreme.
1. "Into" is more extreme than "onto".
2. "Into" at the beginning provides a contrived extreme reversal of Jesus' character (so to speak). Before the spirit he is unremarkable. Not even worth mentioning. At the end the spirit leaves him and whatever was left of Jesus is likewise not even worth mentioning.
Language: No significant difference between "into" and "unto"/"upon".
Thus, based on the strength of the Internal evidence and the minimum quality External evidence The Skeptical Critical Commentary judges "into" as likely original to 1:10.
Joseph
Statistics: Posted by JoeWallack — Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:06 pm