Now we are getting to what I recently found to be one of the most interesting parts of this entire sequence. Especially if you compare it to parallel passages in Luke, which mention a human form as well. In fact the whole baptism sequence in Luke is *very* interesting to contrast with Mark.Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading
Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference? Mark 1:10 vs. uponand the Spirit as a dove descending into him:Vaticanus
BezaeSinaiticus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
BasilensisThe 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
I am woefully unlearned in Greek, sadly. But from some discussions I’ve read here and comparing the English Luke to Mark, I wonder if some parts of Luke preserve something closer to the original? Is the human form mentioned in Luke more original, for instance? Does it parallel Marks Transfiguration better? Does John see the descending Christ originally? It’s all so fascinating.
Statistics: Posted by Jair — Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:57 pm