Mistake in the Bible? -Christian Witness Ministries Web Site

SUMMARY: I consider that Christian Witness Ministries, in 1999, committed an error in its article on "The Greek Textus Receptus" by stating that "the Critical text lists in Mark 1:2 Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi.
The Critical text uses the method of stringing together proof texts, but only mentioning one of them, called catena of testimonia. I am of the view that the CWM support for the Textus Receptus is not justified on the basis of evidence and support from a majority of evangelical Greek scholars.

The article, "The Greek Textus Receptus" (Christian Witness Ministries 1999) maintains that "the Critical text lists in Mark 1:2, Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi."

Is this statement true or in error?

I will contend that this quote in the CWM article is false and needs to be corrected.

How the summary was arrived at?
There seem to be three main issues, based on this passage from Mark 1.

1. What do the Greek manuscripts say?
2. Did Mark make a mistake by giving the wrong prophet in the Critical text?
3. How did the biblical authors document their sources?

What do the Greek manuscripts say of
Mark 1:2-3?

Up front I need to state that I am committed to an inerrant Bible in the original manuscripts, as summarised in "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" (1978) and affirmed by Scriptures such as, "It is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18 NIV; cf. Titus 1:2) and Psalm 19:7-8,
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes (NIV).

I do not support the inerrancy of any Bible translation.
Mark 1:2-3 To explain this situation in Mark 1, we need to examine both verses 2-3, noting that verse divisions did not exist in the original Greek texts. Neither were there sentence divisions as we know them in written English.
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is assumed to be based on the Textus Receptus (TR, i.e. the Received Text). [2]
For this response, I will regard the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Byzantine tradition as represented by the King James Version, even though I have a number of questions about this view that I will not address here. The KJV states: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Mark 1:2-3). The Critical Text of Westcott & Hort, as represented by the New International Version [3] states: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way." [4] -- "a voice of one calling in the desert,'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' " [5]

Did Mark Make a Mistake?

The contentious phrase
The KJV in Mark 1:2 states, "As it is written in the prophets. . ."
The NIV states, "It is written in Isaiah the prophet.”
Is the quote from the prophets (plural) or from the singular, Isaiah?
Could this be a contradiction that demonstrates the inferiority of the Critical text?

The contention, based on the CWM statement, is that "the Critical text [as in the NIV] lists in Mark 1:2 Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi." This is not what the Critical text states at all.


	The Critical text, as translated into English, states that "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" (NIV).

Nowhere does the Critical text mention Malachi.

That is an assumption based on an endeavour to locate the Old Testament references for this quote.
Since the Critical text is generally recognised as representative of earlier manuscript evidence than the Textus Receptus [6], how is it that "in Isaiah the prophet" (NIV) is changed to "in the prophets" (KJV)?
It is Bruce Metzger's (1971) view that "it is easy to see, therefore, why copyists would have altered the words 'in Isaiah the prophet' (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula 'in the prophets'" (p. 73).

Did Mark get mixed up with his prophets in the Critical text on which the NIV is based?
Is there an error here that makes the NIV's Critical text an inferior version?

Resolving the dilemma

We need to note that the Old Testament passages referred to (quoted) in Mark 1:2-3 are four.
These are:
Exodus 23:20: "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared" (NIV);
Malachi 3:1, "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.
Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty" (NIV).
Malachi 4:5: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes" (NIV). Isaiah 40:3: " A voice of one calling:"In the desert prepare the way for the LORD [7] ; make straight in the wildernessa highway for our God [8] (NIV). How, then, are we to untangle the Old Testament sources for the meaning of Mark 1:2-3?
It seems to me that the following is a reasonable way of doing this.
These four Old Testament passages have a common element that is anticipating something in the future.

The angel in Exodus is to lead the people to the Promised Land. Elijah is to prepare the people for the day of the Lord and the voice in the wilderness is to prepare a way for the coming of God (Kaiser Jr., et al. 1996, p. 403).
The angel is "my messenger" in Exodus. Elijah is "my messenger" in Malachi. Who is the voice in Isaiah? In context, if we look at the verses that follow Isa. 40:3, this voice will proclaim the valleys being elevated, the mountains and hills being brought down, the levelling of the ground and the rugged places being made a plain. In Isaiah, the whole concept is, of course, figurative, declaring in dramatic fashion that the Lord will let nothing stand in the way of the exiles' return. . . No doubt coming back often has dual significance in Isaiah, combining the physical and the spiritual . . , though the verb "to return" does not occur in our present image. John the Baptist's call to repentance does not settle the matter for the NT fulfillment of an OT passage often moves the concept from the physical to the spiritual. It seems best to consider it physical here but with possible spiritual overtones (Grogan 1986, p. 242).

Two of these four passages do mention a "way" or "road" for preparing a person or people.

How did the biblical authors document their sources?

The Testimonia
If we investigate this information, we find that the Mark 1:2-3 passage is not just a reference to one Old Testament passage, but to four. The passages have a common theme:
The title of the person ("my messenger") comes from one Old Testament text, the general function ("I will send . . . who will prepare your way") from another, and the specific character and message ("in the desert" and "prepare the way for the Lord") from a third. When verses are brought together like this as proof texts for a particular point we refer to them as testimonia and to the fact that the verses are chained together as a catena (Latin for "chain"). Mark has probably not invented this particular catena of testimonia, for they were often used in the early church, but he has included in his Gospel testimonia known in the church (Kaiser Jr., et al., 1996, p. 404).
This seems to me to be a reasonable explanation as to why Mark does not quote the allegedly incorrect prophet. If one examines the first quote in Mark's reference, one is tempted to say that Mark is incorrect in the Critical text and that the Textus Receptus is a superior rendering with "the prophets." However, this conclusion ignores the fact that the first passage in Mark 1:2 is from the Law, Exodus 23:20, in the Septuagint. The important information is that when we look at the whole quotation of Mark 1:2-3 as a unit, we find that it is in the conclusion of this testimonia that he gives the most substantive detail about John the Baptist, "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him'" (Isa. 40:3, quoted in Mark 1:3).
We also need to note that most people in the first century after Christ and those in the Old Testament period were often illiterate and did not possess their own Scriptures. The people could possibly have recognised these quotes as from the Bible but would not have had access to Bibles to check them "Since he [Mark] does not expect people to look it up, Mark cites the longest of the two prophetic works in the testimonia chain, which is also the most important for his purposes" (Kaiser Jr., et al., 1996, p. 404).

Other Examples
There are other passages in the Bible where only one source is referenced when others are quoted. Matthew 27:9-10 reads: "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me'" (NIV)[9]. The KJV reads: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."
Both the NIV & KJV identify Jeremiah's prophecy as being fulfilled. Is this the way it was? The problem is that there is no mention of "the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel" in the Jeremiah prophecy in Jer. 19 However, in Zechariah 11:12-13 we read, "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter'-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter" (NIV).
How do we explain this? Has the author of Matthew, according to both KJV and NIV, been in error in identifying Jeremiah?

Zechariah's prophecy, taken by itself, does not fully satisfy the requirements of Matthew's fulfilment passage. One might ask, "Where in Old Testament prophecy is there mention of a plot of ground, used for burial purposes, which became known as 'the Field of Blood,' because innocent blood had been shed?" It is such a plot to which Matthew, according to the context, is clearly referring. Yet nothing of the kind is mentioned in Zechariah. It is described, however, in Jeremiah, chapter 19. . .
The solution is not complete.
That Jeremiah actually bought a potter's field (Matt. 17:10) is not stated in Jer. 19 nor anywhere else in the Old Testament.
Did Matthew derive this bit of information from oral tradition?
It is clear, however, that in many other respects Matthew's passage reflects Jer. 19.
What Matthew does, therefore is this: he combines two prophecies, one from Zechariah and one from Jeremiah. Then he mentions not the minor prophet but the major prophet as the source of the reference (Hendriksen 1973, p. 948).

Here in Matt. 27:9-10 we have another example of catena of testimonia, the stringing together of proof texts, with the mention of only one prophetic source in the text.
There's a further example of catena of testimonia from the Old Testament.
Second Chronicles 36:21 states: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah." (NIV), while the KJV reads, "To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years."
How is it that this verse in both the NIV and KJV state the quote is from Jeremiah when it is a stringing together (catena of testimonia) of Lev. 26:34-35 and Jer. 25:12 (cf. Jer 29:10)?
We should not cry foul that this is an error when only Jeremiah is quoted. This is often how the authors of Scripture cited other Scriptures.
We must not inflict modern methods of referencing quotations on the biblical authors. The biblical authors did not use Turabian, APA, or Harvard referencing styles!! The latter are for contemporary requirements in colleges and universities and not for referencing styles for biblical authors.

Conclusion

I consider that Christian Witness Ministries (1999) has committed an error in its article on "The Greek Textus Receptus" by stating that "the Critical text lists in Mark 1:2 Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi." The Critical text uses the method of stringing together proof texts, but only mentioning one of them, called catena of testimonia.
I am of the view that the CWM support for the Textus Receptus is not justified on the basis of evidence and support from a majority of evangelical Greek scholars, an example being that of D. A. Carson:
Almost universally accepted today is the contention of Westcott and Hort [supporters of the Critical text] that the Byzantine tradition [of the Textus Receptus] does not antedate the middle of the fourth century and represents a relatively late conflation. It is on this basis that Bible translations since 1881 have, as compared with the KJV, left out some things and added a few others. . . (1979, p. 41).
I endorse Carson's view on the acceptance of the Critical text which "does not rest on an inferior text" and the rejection of the text behind the KJV, which "accepts readings attested in no Greek manuscript whatsoever" (1979, p. 91).

Endnotes:
1. Spencer Gear may be contacted at: P.O. Box 2106, Bundaberg 4670, Australia. Email: sgear@iinet.net.au.
2. Evidence as to the Textus Receptus being behind the King James Version (KJV) of the English Bible has been contested. The text behind the KJV "was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550." Was there any variation between the text of Stephanus, on which the KJV was based, and the later Textus Receptus? They "differed in 287 places" [McRae & Newman, 1975]. It is Wegner's (1999) conclusion that the KJV was based upon Erasmus's Greek New Testament, which used about six manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. Later Erasmus's text was improved by comparing it with the Complutensian Polyglot, but it still was based exclusively upon medieval manuscripts. Approximately twelve passages contain readings not attested by any Greek manuscripts (e.g., Acts 9:6 reads "And he trembling and astonished said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?'" [KJV]). Erasmus's Greek text was published many times in the years to follow; in time it became known as the Textus Receptus (p. 334).
3. The Holy Bible: New International Version (NIV) 1978, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
4. The NIV has this footnote: "1:2, Malachi 3:1."
5. The NIV has this footnote: "1:3, Isaiah 40:3."
6. Geisler & Nix summarise the evidence:
The New Testament [Critical text] rests on a multitude of manuscript evidence. Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament text is preserved in some 5,366 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second through the fifteenth centuries. By way of contrast, most other books from the ancient world survive in only a few and late manuscript copies (1986, p. 385).
What is the evidence for the compilation of the Textus Receptus?
The KJV was based upon Erasmus's Greek New Testament which used about six manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century.
Approximately twelve passages containing readings not attested by any Greek manuscripts [e.g. Acts 9:6].
In time it became known as the Textus Receptus (Wegner 1999, p. 334).
Erasmus admitted that the twelfth-century manuscript of the Book of Revelation borrowed from his friend, Reuchlin, was missing the last page.
Erasmus therefore translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek for the last six verses of the book.
In other places where the Greek texts were confusing, he referred to the Latin Vulgate, occasionally adding words not found in the Greek (Wegner 1999, p. 265).

See also the description of Erasmus's work and its influence on the Textus Receptus in Carson (1979, ch. 5, "The origins of the Textus Receptus," p. 33 ff.).

7. The NIV has this footnote: "40:3 Or A voice of one calling in the desert: / "Prepare the way for the LORD."
8. The NIV has this footnote: "40:3 Hebrew; Septuagint make straight the paths of our God."
9. The NIV has this footnote: "27:10 See Zech. 11:12,13; Jer. 19:1-13; 32:6-9." References:
Carson, D. A. 1979, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, available from:http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm [28th august 2004]
Christian Witness Ministries 1999, "The Greek Textus Receptus," in Contending Earnestly for the Faith (Issue 6 – June 1999), available from http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/van1999/greek_ed99.html [28th August 2004].
Geisler, N. L. & Nix, W. E. 1986, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & expanded), Moody Press, Chicago.
Grogan, G. W. 1986, "Isaiah," in F. E. Gaebelein (gen. ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary (vol. 6), Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Hendriksen, W.1973, The Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Commentary), The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.
Kaiser Jr., K. C., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. 1996, Hard Sayings of the Bible, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
MacRae, A. A. & Newman, R. C. 1975, "Facts on the Textus Receptus and the King James Version," available from: http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm [27th August 2004].
Metzger, B. M. 1971, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (3rd ed.), United Bible Societies, London/New York.
Wegner, P. D. 1999, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

To God Be the Glory!

Footnotes:

About the Author...

[ TOP ] ... [ Part 1 ] ... [ Part 3 ] ... [ BACK ]

Found this information useful? BOOKMARK this page NOW!
Web Site by S & R Cope in association with

Appeared in Issue CETF NR 29 2004
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3

© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources