[Note: Readers are encouraged to explore the
embedded links in this four-part essay, many of which lead to
digital images of Mark 1:2 in manuscripts.]
Part 1: Reviewing the Greek Manuscript Evidence
Did Mark
1:2 originally say “in the prophets”
(ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) or “in Isaiah the
prophet” (ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ)?
As we embark on a multi-part exploration of this question, let’s
thoroughly describe the external evidence, beginning with the
manuscript-evidence for each rival variant:
● ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, according to the
UBS
apparatus, is supported by
Codex
Alexandrinus (A, 02),
Codex
Washingtoniensis (W, 032),
f13, 28, 180, 579, 597,
1006, 1010, 1292, 1342,
1424,
1505, and Byz.
“Byz”
represents not only hundreds of Greek Gospels-manuscripts that are less than 900 years old, but also the following manuscripts:
Codex Basiliensis (E,
07),
Codex
Boreelianus (F, 09), Codex Seidelianus II (H, 013),
Codex Cyprius (K, 017),
Codex
Campianus (M, 021, which has
“Isaiah”
in the margin),
Codex
Guelferbytanus A (P
e, 024),
Codex Vaticanus 354
(S, 028), Codex Nanianus (U, 030), Codex Mosquensis II (V, 031),
Codex Monacensis (X,
033),
Codex
Macedonianus (Y, 034),
Codex Petropolitanus
(Π, 041),
Codex
Rossanensis (Σ, 042, from the 500’s), Codex Beratinus (Φ, 043),
Codex Athous Dionysiou
(Ω, 045),
047,
0133,
and minuscules 24,
27,
29, 34, 67, 100, 106,
123,
134, 135, 144,
150, 161, 175, 259,
262, 274, 299, 300, 338, 344, 348, 364, 371, 376, 399, 405, 411, 420,
422,
478,
481,
564, 566 (paired with Λ, 039), 568, 652,
669,
771,
773,
785, 875, 942, 1055,
1073, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1110, 1120, 1172,
1187,
1203,
1223,
1225,
1266, 1281,
1346,
1347,
1357, 1379, 1392, 1422, 1426, 1444, 1458, 1507, 1662, 1663, 1701, 1816, 2142,
2172, 2193, 2290, 2324, 2368,
2369,
2370,
2373, 2414,
2474,
2509, 2545, 2722, 2790, 2800, 2811,
2812,
2854,
2907, and
2929.
● ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ is supported by
Oxyrhynchus
Papyri LXXVI 5073,
Codex
Sinaiticus (01, Aleph (
À),
Codex Vaticanus (B,
03),
Codex
Regius (L, 019, “Isaiah” is spelled Ϊσαϊα),
Codex Sangellensis (Δ,
037, Greek-Latin), 33,
151,
892,
1241, about 10 other minuscules, and the
D’Hendecourt
Scroll (
from
the 1300’s). (Minuscule 151’s
retention of this reading may have something to do with the inclusion of
Eusebius’ apologetical composition
Ad
Marinum in the same volume.)
● ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ is supported by
Codex Bezae (D,
05, Greek-Latin), Codex Koridethi (Θ, 038), the core members of
f1,
565, and 205 (from the mid-1400’s), plus
700,
1243, and 1071. (Only these last three lack close affiliation
with either the Western or Caesarean Text.)
A few other minuscules support ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ but were not listed
in the
UBS apparatus; these include
22. Minuscule 22 shares some readings with
f1
and 205, and also shares a note about the ending of Mark; in 22 the note
is shorter (failing to claim that the Eusebian Canons omit Mk. 16:9-20, very
probably because where and where 22 was made, the Canons had been adjusted to
include those verses) but it is recognizably the same note. (Minuscules 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210 all have the note about Mark
16:9-20.) Also included:
61 (Codex
Montfortianus, on 55r; this manuscript is famous for its inclusion of the
Comma Johanneum), 372 (assigned to the
1500’s, with some Latin notes in the margins), and 391 (produced in 1055).
The
Armenian version was listed in
UBS2 as support
for ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, but in
UBS4 the Armenian
version was listed as support for ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ.
The
older Armenian manuscripts tend to not have
“Son of God” in Mark 1:1, and to read
“in Isaiah the prophet” in 1:2 – following the Caesarean form. However, a competition of influences upon the
Armenian tradition began very early in its history, in addition to later
influence from the Vulgate.
Most of the
Greek lectionaries, such as
Lect 123 (an
illustrated lectionary from the 900’s),
Lect 379 (from the
800’s),
Lect
1599 (from the 900’s),
Lect
71 (from 1066),
Lect
183 (from the 800’s or 900’s), and the illustrated
Lect 120 (from the
1100’s) support ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, but there are some exceptions, such as
Lect 562 (from A.D.
991), which supports ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ.
● One more variant seems to be attested by the Old Latin Codex
Usserianus Primus (VL 14); the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings are combined,
so as to read,
“in Isaiah and in the
prophets.” However the text is
difficult to read due to damage to the parchment
(See fol. 150r at
the
page-views at the Trinity College Dublin website .)
In this
essay, the reading “in the prophets”
will be defended as original, and I will argue that its Alexandrian and Western
rivals originated in the following way:
In the
100’s, some copyists were mildly averse to non-specific references to Old
Testament books, and added specific names in place of the original non-specific
references. Mark 1:2 is one of the
passages affected by this tendency toward specificity. Some copyists, understanding the paraphrastic
opening phrase – which could be understood as a reference to Exodus 23:20 (in
the Law, rather than the Prophets) – as merely an introduction to Isaiah’s
words, adjusted the text so as to identify the prophet being cited.
This
happened independently in Alexandrian and Western transmission-streams, which
is why the Alexandrian witnesses consistently have τῷ before Ἠσαίᾳ, while the
major Western and Caesarean witnesses do not.
When (and where) copyists and commentators were confident that Mark was
using Malachi rather than Exodus, Christian scholars whose manuscripts read “in Isaiah the prophet” developed
inventive explanations about how Mark could appear to identify Malachi’s words
as if they had been written by Isaiah.
These explanations were sufficiently convincing to allow the reading to
remain in the Alexandrian and Western transmission-lines.
The
insertion of specific names, where the original text has no specific name, is a
recurring scribal practice, and one which is observable in some of our very
earliest New Testament manuscripts. For
example, in the early Alexandrian transmission-stream, in Luke 16:19, in the
story about the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was given a name: he was named
Nineveh. This reading is found in Luke 16:19 in Sahidic
copies, and in the manuscript known as
Codex
Sinaiticus Arabicus, or
CSA, one of the
documents discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1975. (A collation of
CSA
by Hikmat Kachouh was released in 2008 in the journal
Novum Testamentum.) But there
is much earlier evidence for that reading.
Papyrus
75 reads named Neuhs in the same
passage (ονοματι νευης), and this is the same name,
Nineveh,
disfigured by a parableptic error in which the copyist skipped the first
syllable. (Two Greek manuscripts,
minuscules 36 and 37, have margin-notes which also identify the rich man as
Nineveh.)
When a
character in the Gospels plays a prominent role, but has no name, frequently a name
is provided. Bruce Metzger documented
this phenomenon in his essay,
Names for the
Nameless in the New Testament, which serves as chapter 2 of
New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic.
The scribal
tendency to provide names for unnamed individuals comes into play repeatedly in
passages where the text refers to the fulfillment of prophecies. The non-specific attribution “through the prophet” is often turned
into a specific attribution. Usually the
attribution is correct, but sometimes it is incorrect.
The Old
Latin Codex Colbertinus (VL 6) displays this tendency. Its text of Mark 15:27 provides names for the
two robbers who were crucified with Jesus – Zoathan and Chammatha. VL 6, like practically all Latin manuscripts
of Mark, also reads “in Isaiah the
prophet” in Mark 1:2. In Matthew 1:22 – where Matthew quoted Isaiah without
naming him (simply saying that “what was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet” was fulfilled) – Codex
Colbertinus states specifically that the prophecy was given by Isaiah.
This
phenomenon is not limited to one medieval Old Latin copy. Codex Bezae, which D. C. Parker has assigned
to c. 400, also includes Isaiah’s name in the text of Matthew 1:22, both in its
Latin text and in its corresponding Greek text.
Old Latin Codex Veronensis (VL 4, from the 400’s) also has Isaiah’s name
in Matthew 1:22. So do the Old Latin
codices Brixianus (VL 10, from the 500’s) and Sangermanensis (VL 7, c. 810) and
Vercellensis (VL 3, probably from the 370’s).
(Metzger expressed some uncertainty about Codex Vercellensis’ reading in
his Textual Commentary, but “ESEIAM
PROPHETAM” is shown clearly in Irici’s 1748 presentation of Codex
Vercellensis.) “Isaiah” is practically
the normal Old Latin reading in Matthew 1:22.
The
earliest evidence for the reading “in
Isaiah the prophet” in Matthew 1:22, however, may be even earlier than the
earliest Old Latin manuscript: in the
Latin text of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies
3:21:4 (composed in Greek c. 184), Irenaeus quotes Matthew 1:22: “et
quoniam Angelus in somnis dixit ad Joseph:
Hoc autem factum est, ut adimpleretur quod dictum est ab Esaia Propheta: Ecce virgo it utero concipiet.” It is possible that the form of this quotation
was altered by the Latin translator of Irenaeus’ work, but that too would be
early testimony.
In the Syriac
tradition, the same scribal tendency is on display. In Matthew 1:22, the inclusion of the name “Isaiah” is attested by the Sinaitic
Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Harklean Syriac, and the Palestinian
Aramaic.
Another
Western witness that displays the tendency to fill the vacuum when a prophet’s
statements are cited without specifying his name is the Middle Egyptian Glazier
Codex of Acts (G67, from the 400’s).
Instead of “in the prophets”
in Acts 13:30, G67 reads, “in Habakkuk the prophet.”
The scribal
tendency toward specificity is also displayed by the core members of family-1. Although these manuscripts are medieval, they
are generally thought to represent a text of the Gospels similar to a text used
by Origen at Caesarea in the 200’s; this is indicated by their support for the reading
“Jesus Barabbas” in Matthew 27:17; according
to a Latin translation of Origen’s
Commentary
on Matthew, Origen stated that some of his copies had this reading.
The text of
f1
indicates that copyists of the manuscripts used by Origen were not exempt from
the tendency toward specificity, and that occasionally the scribal attempt to
make the text more specific was poorly executed. In Matthew 13:35,
where most manuscripts simply read “by
the prophet,” without naming the prophet being quoted, the text in f1
includes a specific name: Isaiah.
That is not
a correct reference; Matthew’s quotation clearly comes from Psalm 78:2, which
was composed by Asaph, not by Isaiah.
Yet an early copyist’s need for specificity was greater than his grasp
of the contents of the Old Testament, and the name “Isaiah” was perpetuated in
various manuscripts, including minuscules 1, 543, 788, 230, 983, and 1582 (and
some others), and Codex Θ.
Eusebius of
Caesarea, in his Commentary on the Psalms,
mentioned that some copies read “in
Isaiah the prophet” in Matthew 13:35,
but not the accurate copies.
Jerome, in
his
Homily 11 on Psalm 77 (our Psalm
78), cited Matthew 13:35 and claimed that the reading
“through the prophet Asaph” is supported by “all the ancient
copies” –
“in omnibus ueteribus
codicibus” – but it was changed by ignorant individuals (see Amy Donaldson’s
Explicit References to New
Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers, Vol. 2, pages 369-370). In addition, Jerome wrote that
Porphyry
(an anti-Christian author who wrote c. 270) made an accusation against Matthew
that can only be accounted for by Porphyry’s use of a copy of Matthew with the
reading
“in Isaiah the prophet” in
Matthew
13:35:
“Porphyry, that unbeliever . . . says, ‘Your
evangelist, Matthew, was so ignorant that he said, “What is written in Isaiah
the prophet: I will open my mouth in
parables, I will utter mysteries from of old.”’ . . . Now, just as this was the scribes’ error, it
was, likewise, their error to write ‘Isaiah’ instead of ‘Asaph.’”
Jerome
proceeded to offer a theory that some early copyist, reading “Asaph the prophet” in his exemplar, did
not recognize the name “Asaph,” and
replaced it with “Isaiah.” He offered the same line of reasoning in his Commentary on Matthew. On the premise that Jerome was not being
altogether deceptive, it would appear that the text of Matthew 13:35 in copies that he considered ancient had
been expanded to include Asaph’s name.
(We shall take a closer look at Jerome’s testimony later.)
The tendency
to make non-specific quotations of Old Testament prophets more specific – via
the insertion of a prophet’s proper name rather than “through the prophet” or “by
the prophet” – was so strong that copyists in the Western and Caesarean
transmission-streams inserted prophets’ names in various passages – and, in the
case of Matthew 13:35 in the Caesarean transmission-stream, perpetuated a specific
name even
when it was the wrong name.
The scribal
tendency toward specificity was so strong in the Old Latin transmission-line
that in Old Latin Codex Vercellensis (VL 3) a copyist felt that it was
necessary to identify the prophet being quoted in Matthew 2:5. Four copies of the Harklean Syriac display
the same tendency, but their copyists exercised restraint by only putting
Micah’s name in the margin of this passage.
In VL 3 (probably produced in the 370’s), the copyist (or his exemplar’s
copyist) embedded the prophet’s name directly into the text – and, making
matters worse – the identification is incorrect: VL3 reads there, “per Eseiam propheta,” that is, “through Isaiah the prophet.”
What about
Alexandrian witnesses? Yes; although not
as heavily as elsewhere, the tendency toward specificity impacted Alexandrian
manuscripts too: “Isaiah the prophet” is the reading of Codex ﬡ at Matthew 13:35.
In the
margin of Matthew 2:15 in
Codex
Sinaiticus, we see how precarious it would be to assume that copyists knew the
Old Testament too well to attribute to Isaiah a passage from a different Old
Testament book. Matthew
2:15 contains a quotation of Hosea 11:1 –
“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ‘Out of Egypt I called My Son.’” Someone did not recognize that the passage
being quoted was Hosea 11:1 (because in the Septuagint, Hosea 11:1 reads
differently, as “
When Israel was a child
then I loved him, and called his sons out of Egypt”) and thought instead
that Matthew was referring to a passage in Numbers – maybe 15:41 or 20:16 – and
for that reason, he wrote in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus, in small
vertically stacked lettering,
“In
Numbers.”
However
reasonable it might seem to assume that copyists knew the Old Testament so well
that they would not have risked giving the impression that they attributed a
passage to Isaiah that did not originate with Isaiah, there is evidence against
such an assumption. Not only does the
text of VL3 attribute Micah 5:2 to Isaiah in Matthew 2:5, but in Matthew 21:4
(according to Metzger in
Textual
Commentary, page 54), a few
Vulgate
copies, Bohairic copies, and Ethiopic copies add Isaiah’s name, although the
quotation is from Zechariah.
Not all
copyists were familiar with the Old Testament text, and for most of those who did know the Old Testament well, the
text they knew was the Septuagint. Consequently there was a risk that copyists
would imagine that their exemplars contained an error when a Gospels-manuscript
contained a form of an Old Testament passage that did not match up with the
form in which it was found in the Septuagint.
Mark’s use
of Malachi 3:1 is one such case. His
utilization of Malachi 3:1 closes with the phrase,
“who shall prepare your way” (ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου)
in the Alexandrian text, or, in the
Byzantine Text,
“who shall prepare your
way before you” (ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου).
Neither
is an exact match with
the text of Malachi
3:1 in the Septuagint, which ends with the phrase “καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδόν πρὸ
προσώπου μου” –
“and he shall carefully
look for a way before me.” (See
Maurice Robinson’s article
Two Passages
in Mark in
Faith & Mission,
13/2 (Spring 1996), pp. 66-111.) An
additional factor to consider is that the Septuagint’s text of Exodus 23:20
a reads Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν
ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου –
“And
behold, I send my messenger before your face” – which might have caused
some copyists to wonder if the readers of their copies would suppose that Mark
was using a passage in the Law, rather than in the Prophets.
So if
anyone wonders, “If the reading ‘in
Isaiah the prophet’ in Mark 1:2 is not original, where did it originate?”, let
the copyists of ﬡ, D, Θ, the Old Latin copies, and the main manuscripts of f1
reply: from the same place that their
readings “in Isaiah the prophet” in
Matthew 1:22, Matthew 2:5, and Matthew 13:35 originated: from the propensity of some early scribes to
make non-specific references more specific.
A faint
echo of the kind of scribal confusion that led to the insertion of Isaiah’s
name in Mark 1:2 (or an independent repetition of it) may be seen in two
medieval
Bohairic manuscripts. Boh-E
1
(a Coptic-Arabic manuscript produced in 1208), has the Bohairic words for
“Exodus” and for “Malachi” in the margin near Mark 1:2. An Arabic note says, “A copy has, ‘the
prophets.’” Boh-O
1 (a Coptic
manuscript produced in the 1300’s) has an Arabic note that says, “Isaiah
prophesied with the voice of one crying, and Moses and Malachi prophesied with
the sending of the messenger.” The notes
in both copies show that to some copyists, Mark 1:2 was understood to refer not
just to the Prophets, but to a passage in Exodus.
To be continued in Part
Two: Mark 1:2, Origen, and Jerome
In addition, the British Library’s website offers several
essays on subjects relevant in one way or another to the field of New Testament
textual criticism, including the following:
