“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face.” —
Two prophetic voices stand behind Mark’s opening. “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” draws on , with language related to ; “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” comes from . The received introduction, “in the prophets,” describes the composite unit. The critical reading names Isaiah alone.
Naming Isaiah is not necessarily an error. Ancient writers could cite a combined testimony under the major or concluding prophet. The New Testament sometimes handles composite quotations with literary freedom that does not resemble a modern footnote. Even so, that possible explanation does not settle which words Mark wrote.
Which direction explains the copies?
Critics argue that “Isaiah” is the harder reading. A copyist who noticed Malachi first could replace the specific name with the safer “prophets.” The change would remove an apparent problem and produce a factually transparent formula. The reading is early and widely distributed enough that it cannot be dismissed as a recent critical invention.
There is pressure in the other direction as well. Once Isaiah 40 became the controlling text for John’s ministry, a marginal identification of Isaiah could enter the line or displace a plural formula. The church’s lectionary and homiletical memory naturally associated the whole opening with Isaiah’s wilderness voice. Proper names also attract scribal clarification.
The received wording has an advantage that is literary rather than evasive. Mark does not quote two unrelated fragments. He joins the promised messenger with the wilderness herald, then presents John as the fulfillment of both. “In the prophets” gives the unit its true breadth. It permits Malachi and Isaiah to speak together without requiring the reader to defend an attribution convention before the narrative begins.
Ancient citation practice supplies a useful limit on the argument. A writer could name Isaiah because the longer and climactic quotation came from Isaiah, just as a modern speaker may name the best-known source in a composite allusion. That possibility defends inerrancy under the shorter reading, but it cannot be used to prove that reading. Interpretation answers the alleged contradiction; textual evidence still decides whether Mark wrote the singular name or the plural category.
The reading should be retained without caricaturing the rival. “Isaiah the prophet” can be interpreted responsibly, and its antiquity deserves respect. Yet the plural formula explains the actual composition on the page, has deep ecclesiastical transmission, and need not have arisen as a nervous repair. Mark opens with the prophetic chorus before he singles out the voice in the wilderness.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- ; ; ; .