You Asked: Did Mark Fumble His Opening Quotation?

Editors’ Note: Send your theological, biblical, and practical ministry questions to along with your full name, city, and state. We’ll pass them along to The Gospel Coalition’s Council members and other friends for an answer we can share.

Dave L. from Dunbar, Virginia, asks:

The Gospel of Mark begins, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way.'” Only problem: that quote is from Malachi, not Isaiah. Did Mark just fumble the ball here? How do we make sense of this apparent error in Scripture?

We posed this question to Rikk E. Watts, professor of New Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver.


This apparent discrepancy was noted as far back as the fourth century by Jerome, who respectfully observed: ”O Apostle Peter, your son Mark, not in the flesh but in the Spirit, has made a mistake.” He was not alone. Two early manuscripts and all the later Byzantine ones also saw the problem, rescuing (presumably) Mark’s credibility by changing “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets.” Interestingly, the most reliable and earliest manuscripts and their earliest translations did not make that adjustment. Although it is possible that no one else saw the difficulty, it seems more likely that they left “Isaiah” unchanged because they either felt it inappropriate to tamper with the text or did not in fact see a problem. And if the latter, why not?

As is most often the case, awareness of first-century culture helps. First, Mark is accustomed to composite citations and includes several of Jesus’ own making in his Gospel (e.g., Mark 11:17; 13:24-25; 14:62). In such cases, following common practice, two separate texts are brought together to mutually inform and interpret one another. What makes the instance in view more significant, of course, is that it belongs to Mark’s own editorial introduction. According to ancient literary conventions, opening sentences played a vital role in introducing a book’s content and the greatness of its theme. Mark’s Gospel, then, concerns the good news about Jesus, particularly as it relates to what Isaiah and Malachi had to say about God’s return to his people.

Second, as Robert Gundry noted some time ago, it was common practice when dealing with composite quotations, if a source was to be cited, to name only the most important author (The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 125). Mark is simply informing the reader that his primary interpretative horizon is Isaiah. And as is well recognized, Isaiah and in particular his vision of new exodus salvation do indeed play a fundamental role in his Gospel (see my Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark).

So why put Malachi first? Dick France suggests that it would be odd to have Malachi’s “See!” (idou) halfway through the citation, and the idea of a “messenger” is more explicit in his citation than in Isaiah 40:3, which instead offers an appropriate comment on the messenger’s role (The Gospel of Mark, 63). Another suggestion is that the resulting Isaiah-Malachi-Isaiah pattern reflects something of Mark’s well-known sandwiching technique (e.g. Mark 3:20-35; 11:12-25; Watts, Exodus, 89-90). In such structures the central element, in this case Malachi, provides the key to the theological purpose of the sandwich (see J. R. Edwards’s “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives,” NovT 31 [1989], 196).

Mark inserts Malachi as the middle term to alert the reader to the fact that Isaiah’s message of salvation was not a foregone conclusion. As Malachi’s Elijah, John was to prepare for God’s coming by purifying Israel’s worship (Mal. 3:3) lest the land be cursed (Mal 4:5-6). Tragically, Israel’s authorities did not listen to John (Mark 1:14; 9:13; 11:27-33) and, unprepared for God’s coming in Jesus to redeem his people in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies, they rejected him and so came under the covenantal curse (Mark 3:28-30; 4:12; 7:6-13; 11:12-24; 13:1-37).

So what initially looks like an error turns out, when viewed in the light of ancient literary practice, to be a highly informative summary of Mark’s Gospel.

  • Steve, Winnipeg, Canada

    First seminary course I ever took (albeit through long distance ed)?

    New Testament Foundations, taught by Rikk E Watts.

    It set me on a life long path.

  • Pingback: Bits & Pieces (6/28/12) | Better Things Ahead()

  • Pingback: Did Mark Make a Mistake in His Opening Quotation? – Justin Taylor()

  • Alan

    For a good source that covers this and the sundry implications of the authority, inerrancy, and inspiration of Scripture, check out Dr. Michael Kruger’s Canon Revisited:

  • Scott D. Andersen

    Or the most ancient and reliable witnesses are authentic when we read in them prophetais, προφηταις.

    God’s word is always true, we just don’t always understand. And I appreciate the explanation in this article. It may be though that the simpler explanation is the correct explanation. That being that the traditional text was always right and the supposed most reliable mss mentioned in the article are actually the ones in error. Thus instead of presuming that the traditional text corrects what was anciently perceived as a mistake illus by the Jerome quote, the Trad Text was the authentic all along and later MSS now perceived to be the most ancient and most reliable are not.

    • James S

      Exactly, Scott. This is basic common sense for any believer.
      That anyone would think otherwise only shows that unbelief is all too common among many who present themselves as christians.

  • Pingback: Why did Mark Make a Mistake in Mark 1:2? « memoirandremains()

  • Thomas Larsen

    Matthew 27.9-10 is more difficult to address, I think:

    Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

    On this passage, John Calvin wrote:

    9. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet. How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, (11:13;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it.

  • Pingback: Trevin’s Seven – Trevin Wax()

  • Vince

    In both the cases, there may be a common solution to this discrepancy. The books of the prophets were arranged in scrolls. In the case of Matthew 27:9-10, the scroll was probably called the scroll of Jeremiah even though it also contained Zechariah, because the entire scroll was named after either the first book or the most important book of the series in the scroll, namely the book of Jeremiah. In Mark’s case, perhaps there was a scroll of Isaiah that contained Malachi. Or, if that was not the case, the variant of Mark 1:2 that says” As it is written in the prophets” may actually be the correct one. Or, as is mentioned in Rikk Watt’s excellent response above, the more important author of the two juxtaposed quotes may be used as the reference.
    In other words, there seems to be better explanations than simply charging Mark or Matthew with an “error”.

  • Bode

    Most troubling is the need to change “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets”.

  • Pingback: Links from Last Week | Sunday July 1, 2012 « Tree of Life Community Church()

  • Pingback: Gleanings 7 3 2012 | Cornerstone Worship Center()

  • Pingback: Wednesday Link List « Thinking Out Loud()

  • Pingback: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ: Mark’s Gospel as th()

  • Pingback: Rikk watts | Gnboard()