DD1-5: “Malachisaiah”?

Two Prophecies, Two Readings

Please let me share Mark 1:1-3 from two translations, the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible:

As we can see, Mark introduces “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” by immediately introducing his readers to John the Baptist by way of two prophecies:

• “Behold, I send My messenger” from Malachi 3:1; and,
• “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” from Isaiah 40:3.

Then Mark launches into the story of Jesus by emphasizing the plowshare-preaching of John’s ministry (Mark 1:4-8).

In verse 2 above, Mark says he is quoting from… well, it depends on which English translation you use. Older translations rely on Greek New Testament manuscripts (comprising the Textus Receptus²) that read, “As it is written in the prophets” and then continue on with the quotations. Newer translations, relying on what is known as the Majority Text,³ read, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.”

The translation variation between the two text-groups bothers some people. Why? Well, as an example in Mark 1:3, we see the prophecy we studied in depth in chapter 2, namely Isaiah 40:3. If we accept the “Isaiah the prophet” reading of verse 2, what happens when we discover that the prophecy cited in the rest of verse 2 comes from Malachi, not Isaiah? Is this one of those alleged “discrepancies in the Bible”? Does this “undermine the inerrancy of the Bible”? Are we reading from some Siamese-twin book called “Malachisaiah”?

Nonsense. Whichever variation is “correct” is irrelevant, because ancient writers, even inspired New Testament writers, given the norms of ancient culture, didn’t feel compelled to operate based on our modern level of citation accuracy. Let’s think of some examples readily available to us elsewhere in the New Testament.

Brother Anonymous Quotes Anonymously

Think of the anonymous human author of the epistle to the Hebrews (whoever he was). Twice he didn’t even bother to give the name of an Old Testament book, even though it was obvious:

• Hebrews 2:6-8 —
  ⁶But one has testified somewhere, saying,
  

  “What is man, that You remember him,
  or the son of Man, that You are concerned about him?
  ⁷You have made him for a little while
  lower than the angels;
  You have crowned him with glory and honor,
  and have appointed him over the works of Your hands;
  ⁸You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”

  Now, this is a quotation from the Psalms, specifically Psalm 8:4-6, as we artificially chapter-and-verse divide the Scriptures. If you’re like me, sometimes a Bible passage comes to mind, but you can’t remember exactly where it is. Certainly the majority of my readers would say, “Hmm, that looks like it comes from the Psalms.” But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t feel under compunction to specify even the book providing the citation; he merely says, “One has testified somewhere”! He assumes that his scripture-memorizing Jewish audience will know.

• Then he does it again in Hebrews 4:4—

  For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.”

  Actually, this important phrase appears in several key passages, not the least of which are the Creation account in Genesis 2:1-2 and the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11). Again, the assumption seems to be that his readers are familiar with the quote and its locations. He is more concerned with the fact that God said it, not the where or through whom it was written.

• Considered from the “30,000 foot view,” the writer to the Hebrews is remarkable for his indifference about his biblical sources. No, that’s not actually true; say, rather, seeming indifference. Instead of being concerned for “verse” or “chapter” or even “book,” he pushes his passages back to the ultimate source — God Himself. This writer (who never names himself) starts this great general epistle with the words “God… spoke.”⁴ Then follow many of His scriptural (but unattributed) “speakings,” all of them the Father’s words to the Son. (See Hebrews 1:5-13.) He quotes from at least six separate psalms without bothering to note his source, but he treats the specific reference with indifference for the best of reasons — he is more concerned about the authority of the Author than any of the Old Testament books or writers which the Author inspired.

  But note where there is specific men­tion: “The Holy Spirit says” (Hebrews 3:7-11, 15) and “the Holy Spirit also testifies to us… saying” (Hebrews 10:15-17), as well as “saying through David” (Hebrews 4:7 — note how the word through once again pushes the source beyond human authorship); swearing by Himself (Hebrews 6:14); and Messiah Himself (Hebrews 10:5-9).

A critic might say, “That’s all well and good. But the lack of attribution in the book of Hebrews doesn’t explain the misattribution of Mark 1:2. Malachi is quoted in Mark 1:2, not Isaiah. Don’t change the subject.”

I’m not changing the subject. Indeed, our little foray into Hebrews was meant to introduce a principle: Quotations from the Old Testament are meant to share with New Testament readers the inspired revelation of God. However, careful attribution, such as we require in this day of academic plagiarism, and such as we desperately need in our era of fake news and false teaching, was of minor import for Holy-Spirit-inspired New Testament authors. What mattered was Divine Authorship. Let’s consider two more examples.⁵

Paul’s Quotation in Romans 9:27

First, let’s examine the prophet-quoting quirks of that wonderfully Scripture-soaked apostle, Paul, to whom were given such amazing unfoldings from God’s First Testament (what we call the Old Testament). In the latter third of what we designate as “Romans 9,” Paul writes of how the prophets declared the gathering in of the Gentiles and the temporary (though lengthy) remnant-izing of His people Israel. The apostle to the Gentiles has his mind full of prophetic words from Hosea and Isaiah. We’ll ratchet up our attention a bit so as not to miss anything in Romans 9:25-26 —

Let’s compare that with the source of Paul’s quotation, Hosea 2:23 —

²³“I will sow her for Myself in the land.
I will also have compassion
on her who had not obtained compassion,
And I will say to those who were not My people,
‘You are My people!’
And they will say, ‘You are my God!’ ”

The words in bold correspond to Paul’s first line above, whereas his second line is not so much a quote, but a summary, of God’s message through Hosea.⁶ Thinking of Hosea’s book in its entirety, Paul then moves backwards just a bit through Hosea’s words, and writes:

²⁶“And it shall be that in the place
where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called
sons of the living God.”

In writing this, Paul has turned back to Hosea’s words which we find in Hosea 1:10—

¹⁰Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered;
And in the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,”
It will be said to them,
“You are the sons of the living God.”

I have bolded the words Paul quoted in Romans, that is, the last five lines of the stanza. I have also bolded the second line, to help you find it quickly when you have to turn back to this page in just a minute. Meanwhile, let’s continue with Paul’s ongoing Old Testament exposition by moving ahead to his next verses, Romans 9:27-28, where he quotes from Isaiah—

Here’s the Isaiah passage Paul is citing, Isaiah 10:22-23—

²²For though your people, O Israel,
may be like the sand of the sea,
Only a remnant within them will return;
A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.

²³For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord God of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land.

Now here’s the point of this exploration. Paul moves between two prophetic passages with the common theme of this contrast: God’s people as a remnant, and yet as numerous as “the sand of the sea.” And as Paul moves from Hosea to Isaiah, there is a common phrase, a point where the two passages “intersect,” as it were. Did you catch it? Both Hosea 1:10 and Isaiah 10:22 share the phrase like the sand of the sea. It’s as though this mutually shared line acts as a “bridge” from one passage to the other. Such linking was a common technique among the rabbis, indeed, among many schools of “higher learning,” where large portions of written material had to be memorized.

You might think, “So they share a common theme and phrase. So what?” Did you see what Paul brought with him over that “bridge”? He brought Hosea’s preceding line, which he attributes to Isaiah: Though the number of the sons of Israel. Look back at our passages and you’ll see that Paul writes that “Isaiah cries out… ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea….” That bolded phrase doesn’t belong to Isaiah, but to Hosea.

Oh, no! Does Biblical inerrancy crash in flames, the sovereignty of God evaporate (along with the Lord Himself), and all Creation unravel at the subatomic level? Let’s get a grip! Has Paul misquoted scripture or erred away from infallibility? No, not at all; he just employed what for his time was a common teaching and memorization technique. In his mind, the Hosea and Isaiah passages are inextricably linked by common theme and shared phrase. And by Paul’s methodology, the Holy Spirit of inspiration has bridged these two prophetic passages together forever. Like the writer to the Hebrews, Paul’s primary focus is the message of the Divine Author, not quibbling about a slight concatenation of two passages.

Matthew’s Quotation in Matthew 21:5

Now that we know what to look for, we can see Matthew employing this same “shared-theme / common-phrase bridge” in one of his quotations from the prophets. Right after Jesus gives His disciples their instructions concerning the “transportation arrangements” for the “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-3), Matthew explains in the next two verses why this specific arrangement was necessary:

Matthew doesn’t use the generic term “the prophets” for the source of his quotation, nor does he name the prophet from which he quotes. Mostly. Here is the celebrated prophetic word as it appears in the main source, Zechariah 9:9 —

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Looks pretty good, right? Yes, it does, but there’s more. We find another verse which, albeit donkey-less, speaks to the arrival of Messiah. Look what we find when we read Isaiah 62:11—

Behold, the Lord has proclaimed to the end of the earth,
Say to the daughter of Zion, “Lo, your salvation comes;
Behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.”

Do you see how Matthew leads off his quotation? Say to the daughter of Zion. Once again, we find these passages share a common theme — God as Savior / King returning to His people — linked by a shared phrase — “daughter of Zion.”⁷ Based on the Mnemonic Trigger Principle,⁸ Matthew, by his overlap of these two passages, could point out the literal fulfillment of Zechariah’s royal, triumphal-entry prophecy, while evoking the meaning of it all by linking to the Isaiah passage: Your Salvation comes, bringing with Him reward and punishments. By including that phrase from Isaiah, the Holy Spirit could imbue this quotation with even deeper nuance and substance. What was important was the overall integration of the ideas and their Divine Authorship, not some sterile, mechanical parsing of who-said-what.

Evaluating Our Mark 1:2-3 Quotation

So let’s take what we’ve learned back to the tempest-in-a-teapot controversy with which we started: If Malachi’s prophecy is credited by Mark (and Peter) to Isaiah, does the foundation of Biblical inerrancy get swallowed into the earth like the tents of Dathan and Abiram?⁹

Hardly. Consider what we’ve learned:

• The writer to the Hebrews quotes scripture with citation-less abandon, so fixed on the Divine Authorship and the Divine message of the passages cited that he is totally indifferent about their respective human authors, or even the books from which these texts are taken. For him, Divine Authorship is what matters: God is the Author of his epistle (Hebrews 1:1) and the Source of all the Old Testament clauses which he brings to bear on his subject.
• Both Paul and Matthew employ various rabbinical techniques in their quotations. One prophet (in Paul’s case Isaiah, in Matthew’s case the unnamed Zechariah) might be cited as the primary source of overlapping passages if:
  1. They share a common theme;
  2. They share a linking phrase; and,
  3. The bulk of the augmented quotation belongs to the named or implied prophet.
  4. Like the focus of the writer to the Hebrews, the main point is Divine Authorship.

So, does Mark’s (Peter’s) Gospel-launching quotation pass muster on these points? Let’s read Mark 1:2-3 again and see:

²As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way;
[Remember, that’s quote #1, from Malachi 3:1.]
³The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
make His paths straight.’ ”
[And there’s quote #2, from Isaiah 40:3.]

1. Do the quotes in this passage share a common theme? Yes, of course — God’s messenger who prepares the way before Messiah. We can check that box.
2. Do they share a linking phrase? Again, yes — “prepare Your way” and “make ready the way of the Lord” (“prepare the way of the Lord” in some translations). Another check-mark. We’re on course.
3. Does the bulk of the augmented quotation belong to the prophet cited? Yes, the majority of words and lines are those of Isaiah; and his prophecy is the more ancient of the two (even “ancient” in the day of Mark’s writing) by around 300 years.¹⁰ Plus, Isaiah’s writings generally had their own separate scroll (being a “major” prophet), whereas Malachi’s writings were contained in the scroll shared by the other eleven “minor” prophets.¹¹ That’s a “tick” in the third checkbox.
4. Is the main point of the augmented or blended quotation the message of the Divine Author? Why do you even ask?

So, there it is. Whether the Greek texts used by your New Testament translation say, “As it is written in the prophets” or “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet” is largely an issue for scholars focused on the jots and tittles of comparing the many texts and textual fragments of the Greek New Testament that have survived.

More power to them and their laborious research, because our understanding of the Scriptures has been enhanced by their diligent labors of love. But for us, now that we see how three other New Testament writers processed and quoted such prophetic material, even our more “problematic” reading of this Mark 1:2-3 passage — As it is written in Isaiah the prophet — shows a consistency with the other inspired writers of that era.

Oh, one other note before closing this “Deeper Dive” section: All four Gospel writers quote the Isaiah 40 passage about John the Baptist. When it comes to the Malachi 3:1 passage, Matthew and Luke clearly relate how Jesus quoted it.¹² The Apostle John doesn’t quote the verse exactly, but he alludes to it in chapter 1 verse 6 of his Gospel.¹³ Peter (through Mark)¹⁴ didn’t include the story of John’s disciples visiting Jesus, nor the follow-on story of Jesus quoting Malachi 3:1 to explain John’s ministry. But he considered that prophecy so pivotal that he must have said to Mark, “Mark, you really should lead off with that quotation.” And Mark did.

---

Endnotes:

Series Navigation

<< DD1-4: Peter as “Mr. Euthus-iasm”DD1-6: Verb Voices and Violent Versions >>