(Fwd) Re: EIS = into in Mark 1.10?
- Forwarded for Jeffrey Gibson whose attempt to post this
to Synoptic-L did not work. Jeffrey is currently using his
alternative address: jgibson000@...
On Wed, 6 May 1998, in response to Mark Goodacre's question re:
> >Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >What do others think? Are there any good grounds for going for
> >'upon' instead of 'into' here?
> Well, I think that there are at least AS GOOD grounds: I'dI offer three other considerations in favour of "onto" rather than
> understand it as "onto"--just as one boards a ship, EISBAINEI EIS TO
> PLOION. You may say that implies "to the inside of the boundaries
> of"--yes, but it doesn't necessarily imply "below the surface of."
> I'd still be inclined to think we have an echo here of OT usage of
> the RUACH-YHWH coming "upon" a person, be it a judge or a prophet.
1. In Mk. 1:11 we have the second of the two revelatory events that
Mark reports as occuring at Jesus' baptism, the famous voice from
heaven, which apparantly is an interpretation of the significance of
the Spirit's descent. Now if, as many note, the voice contains an echo
Is. 42:1, then there would seem to be evidence that in Mk 1:10 Mark
uses EIS with the sense of EPI. For the Isaian text speaks of God
putting his spirit "upon" his elect.
2. In vs 12 we have a notice which speaks of the same Spirit which has
descended EIS Jesus then "driving" (EKBALLW) Jesus into the
wilderness. Since EKBALLW is used elsewhere by Mark to describe not
complusion from within, but a force acting externally upon some person
or object, then, in 1:12 this Spirit is external to Jesus. And if
external to Jesus, then the the preupposition in vs. 10 is that the
Spirit has only come upon Jesus.
3. there is the testimony of T. Levi 18:6-7.
The heavens will be opened
and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him,
with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac.
And the glory of the most high shall burst forth *upon* him.
And the spirit of understanding and sanctification
shall rest *upon* him [in the water]
The parallels are too close to be coincidental. If Mark is referring
to this text in his Baptismal story, then, though he writes EIS, he is
obviously thinking EPI. If T. Levi is dependent upon Mark, then we
have an independent witness to how Mk 1:10 was understood.