The Mark 1:2-3 problem

[Sleeping in EQ]

From Bruce Metzger, “Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators”:

“The older manuscripts of Mark 1:2-3 attribute to the prophet Isaiah the evangelist’s composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read ‘As it is written in the prophets,’ an obvious amelioration of the earlier text.”

It looks to me like Mark probably wasn’t drawing on any manuscript sources for his quotes, but rather on oral tradition. He’s doing something similar to that guy (many of us know him) in EQ who said, “Joseph Fielding Smith said yadda, yadda, yadda,” but who wasn’t actually quoting JFS and had things a bit mixed up.

Matthew apparently recognized that Mark was in error and so cut the non-Isaiah material when he cited it for Matt. 3:3.

But, never fear, some well meaning scribe(s) came along later and CORRELATED the passage. We’re going to be more accurate than earlier accounts of Mark! To Hell with Mark!

Why am I thinking of Bruce R. McConkie’s idea to reprint the Journal of Discourses, but without the material he didn’t want people to know?

All this reminds me of what I like about Luke 1:1-4

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”

Luke tells us what he’s doing. He’s looking over accounts that have been handed down to him and is doing his best to be accurate. There’s no urim and thummin and there’s no claim to divine, word-for-word inerrancy.