Tool Alpha
The Contradiction Desk
Claimed Bible contradictions, stated the way they circulate, each with one diagnosis and the evidence for it: the Hebrew, the Greek, the manuscripts.
In Isaiah the prophet, or in the prophets?
Mark opens with a quotation he credits to Isaiah, but the first line of it is from Malachi. The King James reads in the prophets, which removes the problem. The critical editions read Isaiah.
Mark 1:2, in every translation this tool compares.
The real question: did Mark name the wrong prophet, or did someone tidy him up? The concert program credits a medley to the composer of its longest song. Is that a mistake, or a way of labelling a medley?
Mark 1:2-3 says as it is written in Isaiah the prophet and then quotes two lines. The first is Malachi 3:1, the second Isaiah 40:3. Mark credited Isaiah with Malachi's words.
The Greek editions divide. Bible Hub's page of Greek texts shows the SBL Greek New Testament, Nestle 1904, Westcott and Hort and Tischendorf reading en to Esaia to prophete, in Isaiah the prophet, and the Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550, Scrivener's of 1894 and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text reading en tois prophetais, in the prophets. The ESV footnote says some manuscripts read in the prophets; the CSB's textual note says the same. Peter Gurry, in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, lists Mark 1:2 among the Gospel variants that combine importance and difficulty. The CSB Study Bible and MacArthur both say the mixed quotation probably explains why some manuscripts read the prophets. The tension depends on which Greek text a Bible prints.
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
No source read for this build states this one, so it is given as it circulates: Mark misattributes Malachi to Isaiah, which shows he was working from memory or from a collection of proof texts, and scribes noticed and changed it. At full strength the variant is evidence for the skeptic, not against: it shows early copyists thought the attribution was a problem.
The ESV Study Bible says Isaiah is named because he was the more prominent prophet and more of the quoted material is his, and that Mark goes on to expound only the Isaiah line. The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible adds that ancient interpreters treated Scripture as a seamless whole and joined texts on a shared phrase, here prepare the way. The CSB Study Bible names a third source in the mix, Exodus 23:20.
This variant runs the other way from most on the desk. It does not make the tension go away. If Isaiah is original, the tension was in Mark and later copyists eased it. The diagnosis explains why King James readers never met the problem. It does not show that naming one prophet for a mixed quotation was accepted practice; the harmonizing case asserts that, and the sources read here do not give ancient examples.
Not a claim that modern versions introduced an error. The reading Isaiah is printed in the critical editions; the reading in the prophets is the smoother one.
- Bible Hub, Mark 1:2 Greek texts, https://biblehub.com/texts/mark/1-2.htm
- ESV Study Bible, footnote and note on Mark 1:2-3
- CSB Study Bible, textual note and note on Mark 1:2-3
- NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, note on Mark 1:2-3
- The MacArthur Study Bible (ESV), note on Mark 1:2
- Peter J. Gurry, Myths About Variants, ch. 10 in Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (IVP Academic, 2019)
- King James Version, Mark 1:2
