Mark 1:2–3

From Textus Receptus

Mark 1:2-3 contains an error in modern translations. Mark combines two Old Testament quotes (one from Malachi and the other from Isaiah and the Textus Receptus simply attributes these quotes to τοῖς προφήταις “the prophets,” whereas the critical text and modern translations based upon it say it was written in Ἠσαἲᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ “Isaiah the prophet.” Modern critical text also omits ἔμπροσθέν σου “before thee”. These issues can be demonstrated below by comparing the KJV with the NASB.

“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, KJV).

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way (omit); The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight.'” (Mark 1:2-3, NASB).

A Greek comparison of the 1881 Textus Receptus and the NA28 shows us:

(omit)Ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, Ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. (TR)

Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ· ἰδοὺ (omit) ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου (omit)· (NA28)

Textual Variants

In the Greek texts of Mark edited by Westcott and Hort, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles and the Society of Biblical Literature, the prophecies quoted are described as being written "εν τω ησαια τω προφητη" (en tō Ēsaia tō prophētē, "in the prophet Isaiah"), as they are in manuscripts B, D, L, Δ and א, ^[1] whereas the Textus Receptus reads "εν τοις προφηταις" (en tois προφῆται, "in the prophets") in line with many other ancient manuscripts and patristic writings.^[1]

Mark 1:2

ἐν τοῖς προφήταις (in the prophets) – A, W, f¹³, Byz

ἐν τῷ Ἠσαἲᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ (in Isaiah the prophet) – א, B, L, D

ἐν Ἠσαἲᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ (in Isaiah prophet) – D, Θ, f¹

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus reading of Mark 1:1–3 [1].

Codex Sinaiticus (01, Aleph (À), has ϊα τω προφητη:

καθωϲ γε

γραπται εν τω ηϲα

ϊα τω προφητη

ϊδου εγω αποϲτε

λω τον αγγελον μου

προ προϲωπου ϲου

οϲ καταϲκευαϲει

την οδον ϲου

φωνη βοωντοϲ ε

τη ερημω ετοιμα

ϲατε την οδον κυ

ευθιαϲ ποιειτε ταϲ

τριβουϲ

Codex Washingtoniensis

Larry Hurtado describes it in his introduction to the volume The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: “In Mark 1-4 Codex W agrees more closely with Codex Bezae and other “Western” witnesses. But at some point in Mark 5, the textual affiliation shifts markedly, and throughout the rest of Mark Codex W cannot be tied to any of the major text-types. In this main part of Mark, however, W was later shown to exhibit a very interesting alignment with the Chester Beatty Gospels codex (P45).”

Codex W also has of several lines of Greek text from Isaiah 40:4-8 between Mark 1:3 and 1:4.

Codex Alexandrinus

GA 2896

Mark 1:2 ωσ γεγραπται εν τοισ προφηταισ ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου οσ κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου (GA 2896)

Codex Usserianus Primus

Old Latin Manuscript r1 (6th cent). The 'Codex Usserianus Primus' (GA label: it-r1) was named after James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh (died 1656), but misleadingly so, as there is no evidence that it was in his library. It contains the four Gospels in a pre-Vulgate text ('Old Latin'), in this order: (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark).[2]

Commentaries

The prophets” or “Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2? by KJV Today

The quotations in Mark 1:2-3 are from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Thus, the correct reading should be “the prophets.” Critics in support of the "Isaiah" reading point that it is supported by the oldest extant Greek uncial Codex Sinaiticus. However, Sinaiticus inserts “Isaiah” in Matthew 13:35, making the verse read, "that it might be fulfilled that was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things concealed from the foundation." However, the quote is from Psalm 78:2, not Isaiah. “Isaiah” in Matthew 13:35 of Sinaiticus is so obviously an error that all Bibles abandon the oldest manuscript, and follow the reading of later manuscripts. Seeing that Sinaiticus inserted “Isaiah” in Matthew 13:35, one could reasonably suspect that an Alexandrian scribe also inserted “Isaiah” in Mark 1:2. The reading, "the prophets" in Mark 1:2 is in Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century and also quoted by Iranaeus in the 2nd century (Against Heresies III 10:5). The prophets” or “Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2? by KJV Today

Will Kinney

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "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."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change "the prophets" to "Isaiah", and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.[3]

Also:

Mark 1:2-3 "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."

The quotes here come from two different prophets, and that is why the King James reading is correct. "The prophets" is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, and the ancient Syriac Harkelian version. It is also the reading of the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions and is so quoted by Iraeneus in 202 A.D. and by Tertullian in 220, long before anything we have in the Greek copies. The Nestle-Aland Greek text apparatus lists one of the Old Latin texts "r" as reading "in Isaiah and in the prophets".

It also receives Patristic citations from Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (202 AD), Photius (895 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). Irenaeus writes:

"Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way". . . Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord;" (Against Heresies, 3:10:5)

"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee" comes from Malachi 3:1, and "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord..." comes from the prophet Isaiah in chapter 40:3 - thus the correct reading of "IN THE PROPHETS". This is also the reading of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the NKJV.

However Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say "Isaiah the prophet" and so the ESV, NASB, NIV read in Mark 1:2: "As it is written IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET, Behold, I send my messenger...."

In the last part of this verse we read in the KJB: "which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE." So read the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV. The versions also disagree with each other in their footnotes. The NASB says "MANY manuscripts omit "before thee", while the ESV, NIV tell us "SOME manuscripts omit "before thee". [4]

Gavin McGrath

Mark 1:2b “in the prophets” (TR & AV) {A}

Preliminary Textual Discussion.

Variant 2 from old Latin r1 comes from a damaged manuscript that reads Latin, “...aie (?) et (and) in (in) prophetis (the prophets).” The UBS 4th revised edition (1993) takes the view that it supports a reconstructed Greek reading of, “en (in) Hsaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) kai (and) en (in) tois (the) prophetais (prophets),” i.e., a conflation of the TR’s reading and Variant 1, infra.

If so, this would normatively read in Latin, either “in (‘in,’ preposition with accusative) Esaiam / Eseiam (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah,’ masculine singular accusative, 1st declension noun, from Esaias / Eseias),” or “in (‘in,’ preposition with ablative) Esaia / Eseia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah,’ masculine singular ablative, 1st declension noun, from Esaias / Eseias);” although here it is to be then added to the further ablative, “et (and) in (‘in,’ preposition with ablative) prophetis (‘the prophets,’ masculine plural ablative noun, from prophetes).” Therefore, the UBS evidently regard this missing word ending with “...aie” as “Esaie” i.e., a masculine singular accusative, 3rd declension noun.

If so, this is at best very unusual, and poses the question, What type of noun is this conjectured “Esaie”? In answer to which I shall now consider two speculations that I shall call Speculation 1 and Speculation 2 respectively.

Speculation 1: “Esaie” is a 3rd declension noun¹³. Since Eseias / Esaias / Isaias is normatively a 1st declension noun (Stelten and Lewis & Short¹⁴), I know of no grammatical usage of it as a 3rd declension noun; although a usage was made of “Isaeus” as a masculine second declension noun¹⁵. While I am open to being shown that it had some such usage in an unusual local dialect as a 3rd declension noun, at this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, this as an argument from silence. Moreover, I find in Julicher that old Latin r1 uses “Eseias” as a normative 1st declension noun both as the masculine singular nominative noun, “Eseias” (Mark 7:6; John 1:23; 12:39), and also as a masculine singular genitive noun, “Eseiae” (Luke 3:4; 4:17).

Therefore, for the UBS conjectured reconstruction to be correct on Speculation 1 requires a chain-of-logic entailing a triple speculation. Firstly, it must be conjectured that the missing word is “Isaiah,” which it must be said is a reasonable prima facie possibility given the strength in the Latin tradition of the Variant 1 (masculine singular ablative) 1st declension noun forms, “Esaia,” “Eseia,” and “Ysaia,” and (masculine singular accusative) 1st declension noun forms, “Esaiam” and “Eseiam,” infra. Secondly, it must be speculated that there was a local dialect of Latin that regarded this name as a third declension noun, rather than a first declension noun, for which, to the best of my knowledge, we have no specific proof. Thirdly, it must be conjectured that the scribe who used this form was adopting a form that was unusual even among his peers, since he must not have worked on any of the other sections of old Latin r1 which treats Esaias / Isaiah as a Latin a first declension noun, Eseias (nominative) – ae (genitive).

To my mind, the combination of the second and third speculations are far too strained to be “safe,” especially when one further takes into account the fact that this is all based on an initial conjecture that the missing word is (in English,) “Esaias” / “Isaiah” preceded by “in.” Speculation 2: “Esaie” is “Esaia” in which the final “a” has been revowelled to Rather, it is sufficient for my purposes to say that Variant 2 is evidently a conflation of the TR’s reading with something else, and what that something else is, does not really matter. That is because, Variant 2 here gives a perverse witness to the presence of the TR’s reading in the Latin textual tradition, and that is the salient point! Principal Textual Discussion.

At Mark 1:2b the TR’s Greek, “en (in) tois (the) prophetais (prophets),” i.e., “in the prophets,” in the wider words, “as it is written in the prophets” (AV), is supported by the majority Byzantine text e.g., Codices A 02 (5th century, Byzantine in Gospels, Matt. 25:6b-28:20, Mark, Luke, John 1:1-6:50a; 8:52b-21:25), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), and F 09 (9th century); Minuscules 1006 (11th century, Byzantine other than in Revelation), 1505 (11th century, Byzantine in the Gospels), 2 (12th century), 180 (12th century, Byzantine other than in Acts), 1010 (12th century), 597 (13th century), 1242 (13th century), 1292 (13th century, Byzantine outside of the General Epistles); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century), 340 (13th century; & 15th century, for instance Mark 1:1-818), and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writer, Asterius the Sophist (d. after 342); the ancient church Greek writer, Irenaeus (2nd century) in a Latin translation (c. 395); and the mediaeval church Greek writers, Photius (d. c. 895) and Theophylact of Ochrida (d. 1109). Variant 1a reading Greek, “en (in) Hsaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) to (the) prophete (prophet),” i.e., “in Isaiah the prophet,” is a minority Byzantine reading found in Lectionary 253 (1020 A.D.). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writers, Irenaeus (2nd century), Origen (d. 254), Serapion (d. after 362), Epiphanius (d. 403), Severian (d. 408), and Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. after 450). Variant 1b reading Greek, “en (in) to (-) Hsaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) to (the) prophete (prophet),” i.e., “in Isaiah the prophet,” is a minority Byzantine reading found in Minuscule 924 (12th century). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writer, Origen (d. 254). Variant 1 i.e., Variant 1a and / or Variant 1b is further found as Latin, “in (in) Esaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) propheta (the prophet),” in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions f (6th century), aur (7th century), and 1 (7th / 8th century); or as Latin, “in (in) Esaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) profeta (the prophet),” in old Latin Version q (6th / 7th century); or as Latin, “in (in) Isaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) profeta (the prophet),” in the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.); or as Latin, “in (in) Eseia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) propheta (the prophet),” in old Latin Versions b (5th century) and ff2 (5th century); or as Latin, “in (in) Ysaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) propheta (the prophet),” in old Latin Version c (12th / 13th century); or as Latin, “in (in) Esaiam (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) prophetam (the prophet),” in old Latin Version d (5th century); or as Latin, “in (in) Eseiam (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) prophetam (the prophet),” in old Latin Version a (4th century). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the ClementineVulgate (1592) as, “in (in) Isaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) propheta (the prophet).” It is also found in the ancient church Greek writers, Irenaeus (2nd century) and Origen (d. 254) in Latin translations; and the ancient church Latin writers, Pseudo-Ambrose (d. after 384) and Augustine (d. 430). Variant 2 reads Latin, “...aie (? manuscript damaged, supra) et (‘and’ / ‘also’ / ‘even’) in (in) prophetis (the prophets)” i.e., after the manuscript resumes from the damaged word ending in “...aie (?)” followed by “et (‘and’ / ‘also’ / ‘even’),” then come the words, “in the prophets.” This is found in old Latin Version r1 (7th century).

There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine reading which thus must stand. (Cf. Mark 6:15; 8:28; 9:12,13; 11:17; 14:21,27.) The origins of the variants are speculative. However, Variant 2 is evidently some kind of conflation with the TR’s reading (Preliminary Textual Discussion, supra).

Which came first, Variant 1a or Variant 1b? We cannot be sure. But given that the issue I refer to, infra, of Matthean Greek sometimes inserting a parenthetical reference to another prophecy before the nominated prophecy (see Textual Commentary, Vol. 1, at Matt. 13:35; Vol. 3, at Matt. 21:5b, “Preliminary Remarks;” Vol. 4, at Matt. 27:10, “Meditation”) appears to account for this variant, I think the form at Matt. 27:19 which lacks a definite article before “Ieremiou (Jeremy)” was probably followed. Hence I shall conjecture in terms of Variant 1a preceding in time Variant 1b, infra.

Was Variant 1 an accidental alteration? With “en (in) tois (the) prophetais (prophets)” written over two lines, and with the first line ending, “en tois” and the next line starting, “prophetais,” was a substance, e.g., ink from a ink bottle, accidentally spilt over a given manuscript so that the first line came to look something like “en XXXXXXX” and the second line something like, “prophetXXX”? Did a scribe, seeking to “reconstruct” this “from context,” and aware of the fact that Matthean Greek sometimes inserts a parenthetical reference to another prophecy before the nominated prophecy, inaccurately seek to duplicate this technique here in Mark 1:2 with the reading, “en (in) Hsaia (Esaias) to (the) prophete (prophet)” (Variant 1a)? Did a later scribe again, then see a stylistic paper space before the “Hsaia (Esaias),” and think that a “to (-)” before the “Hsaia (Esaias)” “must have been left out” (Variant 1b)?

Was Variant 1 a deliberate alteration? Following, “As it is written in the prophets,” St. Mark quotes from both the prophet Malachi and the prophet Isaiah (see Textual Commentary at Mark 1:2d, infra). Therefore, did a semi-assimilationist scribe, aware of the fact that Matthean Greek sometimes inserts a parenthetical reference to another prophecy before the nominated prophecy, seek to duplicate this technique here in Marcan Greek at Mark 1:2 with the reading, “en (in) Hsaia (Esaias) to (the) prophete (prophet)” (Variant 1a)? Did then a later scribe think that a “to (-)” before the “Hsaia (Esaias)” would be “a stylistic improvement,” and so he then simply added it in (Variant 1b)? Was Variant 1 a deliberate or accidental alteration? We cannot be sure. But we can be sure that it was an alteration to the text of Scripture here preserved for us in the representative Byzantine text. Variant 1 has strong support in the Latin, but weak support in the Greek, and its Greek support splits between Variant 1a and Variant 1b. By contrast, the TR’s reading has strong support in the Greek over time, and through time, dating from ancient times. However, it has relatively weak support in the Latin. The fact that Irenaeus in the Greek follows Variant 1a and in the Latin has the TR’s reading, must raise the question as to, “Whether or not the Latin translator altered Irenaeus’s Greek reading?” But the fact that there is also an instance of Irenaeus following Variant 1 in the Latin, coupled with the fact that the Latin textual tradition so strongly follows Variant 1, makes it unlikely that that the Latin translation of Irenaeus in favour of the TR was so changed. And either way, this Latin translation of Irenaeus is still a Latin witness from ancient times of the TR’s reading. Moreover, a perverse witness to the TR’s reading is found in the early mediaeval Latin of Variant 2, which is evidentially some kind of conflation with the TR’s reading. Weighing up these factors, and bearing in mind the perpetual superiority of the master maxim, The Greek improves the Latin, on this occasion, I consider that the Latin support dating from both ancient times and early mediaeval times, is enough to just bring the TR’s reading “over the line” of a high level “B” in the range of 71-74%, and into the range of a low level 75-76% “A.” Thus on the system of rating textual variants A to E, I would give the TR’s reading at Mark 1:2b an “A” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a high level of certainty. The TR’s reading is supported by the mediaeval church Greek writers, Photius (d. c. 895), a Patriarch of Constantinople (858-867 & 877/8-886), and Theophylact of Ochrida (d. 1109), an Archbishop of Ochrida (Ohrid). The Patriarchate of Constantinople was incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church from 607 to 1054 A.D., by Decree of the Eastern or Byzantine Emperor, Phocus, who in 607 declared the Bishop of Rome “universal bishop” with a jurisdiction in the east over the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This essentially was the commencement of the Roman Papacy as we now know it (although its expansion to a temporal power from 756 is also significant), under the first Pope, Boniface III (Bishop of Rome: 607; First Pope of Rome: 607). The Decree of 607 established the Bishop of Rome’s claims to a “universal” jurisdiction in a serious way, and thus is also the establishment of the Office of Antichrist (Matt. 24:5,23,24; II Thess. 2:3-12; I Tim. 4:1-5; I John 2:18,22; 4:3; II John 7). This Office of Pope and Antichrist thus established with a serious and credible claim to be claiming a “universal” jurisdiction in the catholic church, it continued even after the later loss of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time of The Great Schism of 1054 which saw the formation and separation of the Greek Orthodox Church under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then other Eastern Orthodox Churches. Thus e.g., one of the mediaeval Greek writers who supports the TR’s reading, Theophylact (d. 1109), coming after the events of 1054, was clearly independent from the Roman Catholic Church. He was the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Ochrida, on the eastern shore of Ohrid (in modern Slavic Macedonia). Also know as Theophylact of Bulgaria (b. 1050-1055, d. c. 1107-1109), Ochrida was one of the capital cities of theFirst Bulgarian Empire but was under Byzantine control from 1018 to 1185, and thus part of the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, during the time of Theophylact. Indeed, Theophylact was very much a Byzantine culturally, e.g., before becoming Archbishop of Ochrida he was a deacon at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and though he regarded the Bulgarians as somewhat “barbarian” (cf. Rom. 1:14), he was nevertheless generally well received by them19. He is from the same general era as Sydney University Lectionary 2378, which was sent to Bulgaria from Constantinople in the 11th century. Though unlike Theophylact of Ochrida, Photius was during his time as Patriarch of Constantinople inside the Roman Catholic Church, he defended certain autonomous traditions of the Greek speaking eastern church against the Latin speaking Western Church, and he is remembered as a leading figure of a 9th century Byzantine renascence e.g., he composed his Bibliotheca, a digest of Greek prose with over 270 articles. Conflict occurred between Photius and the Pope of Rome, Nicholas I (Pope: 858-867) over issues with regard to increased converts in Moravia, Croatia, and Bulgaria. E.g., Photius organized resistance among other eastern bishops over changes by Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, and at a Council of Constantinople in 867 he excommunicated the Pope, Nicholas I, in what is known as The Photian Schism. But the matter was to some extent diffused due to the fact that in that same year, Pope Nicholas I died and Photius was then deposed because he protested against the murder of the Emperor, Michael III (Regnal Years: 842-867), by a Macedonian. Michael III’s murder was followed by the reintroduction of idolatrous icons in the eastern church. Photius was reappointed as Patriarch of Constantinople in 877/8, and he worked co-operatively with Pope John VIII (Pope: 872-882), with whom he worked against the common enemy of the Mohammedans. In a council held at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, a compromise was reached between Rome and Constantinople in which Bulgaria was under Rome’s immediate jurisdiction, but Greek Bishops continued to be present in Bulgaria so that it remained religio-culturally linked with the east, and used the Byzantine liturgy20 . For our immediate purposes here at Mark 1:2b, the importance of Photius (d. c. 895) connects to his and the wider eastern church’s promotion and usage of Greek, also evident in Theophylact of Ochrida (d. c. 1109). Among other things this means we have two mediaeval references in the Greek to the TR’s reading, one from the 9th century and one from the 11th / early 12th centuries, for which we are grateful. Of course, the western church’s promotion and usage of Latin, among other things means we here have in a Latin translation of Irenaeus and the conflation of old Latin r1, two references in the Latin to the TR’s reading, one from ancient times in the 4th century and one from early mediaeval times in the 7th century, for which we are also grateful. For the NeoByzantine School’s Textus Receptus draws upon, and thanks God for, the valuable contributions to textual transmission of the New Testament in the Christendom of both the Eastern Greek church and Western Latin church. Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses. Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading at Mark 1:2b, “in the prophets,” in the wider words, “as it is written in the prophets,” is found in Minuscules 1424 (9th / 10th century, mixed text type in Matthew and Luke, independent in Mark, Byzantine elsewhere) and 579 (13th century, mixed text); as well as the Family 13 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al. It is further found in the Syriac Harclean h Version (616); the Egyptian Coptic Middle Egyptian Version (3rd century), and a manuscript of the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version; Slavic (Slavonic) Version (9th century); and Ethiopic Versions (c. 500 & Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries). Variant 1a, Greek, “en (in) to (-) Hsaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) to (the) prophete (prophet),” i.e., “in Isaiah the prophet,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (4th century) and London Sinaiticus (4th century). It is also found in (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century) and (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century); and Minuscules 33 (9th century, mixed text type), 565 (9th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 892 (9th century, mixed text type), and 1241 (12th century, Alexandrian corruption in General Epistles, Byzantine text in Acts, independent text elsewhere i.e., independent scribal corruption elsewhere e.g., in the Gospels). Variant 1b, Greek, “en (in) Hsaia (‘Esaias’ / ‘Isaiah’) to (the) prophete (prophet),” i.e., “in Isaiah the prophet,” is found in the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century). It is also found in (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century); Minuscules 700 (11th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 1243 (11th century, independent outside of the General Epistles), 1071 (12th century, independent), and 205 (15th century, independent in the Gospels & Revelation); as well as the Family 1 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al. Variant 1 i.e., Variant 1a and / or Variant 1b, “in Isaiah the prophet,” is also found in the Syriac Pesitto Version (first half 5th century), and Syriac Harclean Version (616) in an asterisk marked out text (indicating it is not the representative reading of the Harclean Version); the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version (3rd century); Gothic Version (4th century); Armenian Version (5th century); and the Georgian Version (5th century). At Mark 1:2b the erroneous Variant 1a was adopted by the NU Text et al. Hence the ASV reads, “in Isaiah the prophet,” although a footnote says, “Some ancient authorities read ‘in the prophets’” (ASV ftn.). So too, the incorrect Variant 1 is found at Mark 1:2b in the NASB, RSV (with a footnote to the TR’s reading), ESV (with a footnote to the TR’s reading), NRSV (with a footnote to the TR’s reading), NIV, and TEV. (Cf. commentary at Matt. 13:35a.)

The old Latin Papists of pre-Vatican II Council times also followed Variant 1 in both the Clementine Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Version, the latter of which reads at Mark 1:2b, “in Isaias the prophet.” The new neo-Alexandrian Papists of post-Vatican II Council times, being well-pleased with this historic Romish attack on the neo-Byzantine Textus Receptus did likewise, and so adopted the erroneous Variant 1 in their Roman Catholic RSV, JB, and NJB. Mark 1:2d “before thee” (TR & AV) {A}

The TR’s Greek, “emprosthen (before) sou (thee),” i.e., “before thee” in the wider words, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” (AV), is supported by the majority Byzantine text e.g., Codices A 02 (5th century, Byzantine in Gospels, Matt. 25:6b-28:20, Mark, Luke, John 1:1-6:50a; 8:52b21:25), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), M 021 (9th century), and Gamma 036 (10th century); Minuscule 2 (12th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century21), 340 (13th century; & 15th century, for instance Mark 1:1-8), and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “ante (before) te (thee),” in a minority of Latin Vulgate Codices, for instance, Codex Vallicellanus (6th century, Chiesa Nuova, Rome, Italy), Codex Illyricianus (6th / 7th century, The Split, Croatia), Codex Harleianus (7th century, British Library, London, UK), and Codex Sangermanensis (9th century, Paris, France); and old Latin Versions ff2 (5th century), f (6th century), and 1 (7th / 8th century); as well as Codex Ardmachanus (Book of Armagh, 812 A.D., Dublin, southern Ireland). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). It is further supported in the ancient church Greek writer, Severian (d. after 408); the ancient church Latin writer, Jerome (d. 420); and the mediaeval church Greek writer, Photius (d. c. 895).

However, a variant omitting Greek, “emprosthen (before) sou (thee),” is a minority Byzantine reading found in e.g., Codices P 024 (6th century) and Pi 041 (9th century). It is further found in most Latin Vulgate Codices of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), t (5th / 6th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), and c (12th / 13th century). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writer, Origen (d. 254); the ancient church Greek writer, Irenaeus (2nd century) in a Latin translation (c. 395); and the ancient church Latin writer, Jerome (d. 420).

There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine reading which is therefore correct. (N.b., the contextual stylistic parallelism of Mark 1:2 in “my messenger before thy face,” and “which shall prepare thy way before thee.” Cf. such stylistic parallelism in, for instance, the very next verse of Mark 1:3, “Prepare ye the way” and “Make … paths straight.”) The origins of the variant are conjectural.

Was the variant an accidental omission? Looking at the words, “ten (the) odon (way) sou (of thee) emprosthen (before) sou (thee),” did a scribe first write down, “ten odon sou”? Did his eye then jump to the second “sou (thee),” and did he then just keep writing, thus accidentally omitting “emprosthen sou”? Was the variant a deliberate omission? The possible origins of this variant with Origen (i.e., if the Latin translation of Irenaeus does not rightly reflect his original Greek quote,) increases the likelihood of this possibility. Following, “As it is written in the prophets,” St. Mark quotes from both the prophet Malachi and the prophet Isaiah (cf. Textual Commentary at Mark 1:2b, supra). Putting in italics the relevant quotes from Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 45:2; that precede the further citation of Isa. 40:3 and Isa. 58:12 in Mark 1:3, the citations at Mark 1:2 are: “‘Behold, I send my messenger’ before thy face, ‘which shall prepare thy way’ ‘before thee’.” Here the Greek, “pro (before) prosopou (the face) sou (of thee),” are added for purposes of clarification, and also stylistically echoes and repeats in Hebraic poetical parallelism the words of Isa. 45:2 following Mal. 3:1 and preceding Isa. 40:3, which reads in the Septuagint “emprosthen (before) sou (thee)” (Isa. 45:2, LXX). Isa. 45:2 reads in the Septuagint “emprosthen (before) sou (thee)” (LXX). The Lord’s going “before thee,” that is, “before” Cyrus in Isa. 45:1,2, in order to “make the crooked places straight” (Isa. 45:2), refers to the fact that Cyrus militarily took Babylon by going through the city’s inner gates on a dry river bed that connected with a river. The citation of Isa. 45:2 here at Mark 1:2 makes the point that this was a prophetic type of St. John the Baptist going “before thee” i.e., before “Christ,” to “‘make’ his ‘paths’ ‘straight’” (Mark 1:3; citing Isa. 40:3; 58:12). Cyrus was a Divinely sent and directed deliverer of God’s people (II Chron. 36:22,23; Ezra 1:1-4), and an associated destroyer of that which held them captive, namely, Babylon; and thus this usage of Isa. 45:2 in Mark 1:2 makes the point that Cyrus was a prophetic type pointing forward to Christ who was a Divinely sent and directed deliverer of God’s people, and an associated destroyer of that which held them captive, namely, sin (Mark 2:5,9-11) and death (Mark 12:25-27; 13:26,27; 14:62; 16:1-18). (Cf. Matt. 11:7-10; Luke 7:24-27.) This citation of Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 45:2 in Mark 1:2, “‘Behold, I send my messenger’ before thy face, ‘which shall prepare thy way’ ‘before thee’;” is further connected in thought through reference to the “way” or road of Mal. 3:1 that goes from “the gates” of Isa. 45:1,2, to “the way” of Isa. 40:3 and Isa. 58:12, and hence Mark 1:3 reads, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make’his ‘paths’ ‘straight’” i.e., the prophetic “highways” of the Lord’s First Advent in Isa. 40:3 point to the further “paths” of Isa. 58:12 to be restored after the Second Advent. Thus at its commencement, St. Mark’s Gospel roars like a lion in its depiction of Christ!22

Now “spiritual” things are “spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14,15). Therefore, at Mark 1:2d, did a prunist scribe, lacking “the Spirit of God,” consider this Marcan quote as “foolishness” (I Cor. 2:14), because he wrongly conceptualized it as “a misquote” of Mal. 3:1 i.e., without understanding its additional reference to Isa. 45:2? Acting as some kind of “corrector scribe,” did he then take it upon himself to prune away the “emprosthen (before) sou (thee)” of Mark 1:2d (citing Isa. 45:2)? Was this variant at Mark 1:2d a deliberate or accidental omission? We cannot be sure. But we can be sure that it was an omission to the text of Scripture here Providentially preserved for us in the representative Byzantine reading.

The TR’s reading has rock solid support in the Greek as the representative Byzantine reading over time, and through time, dating from ancient times. In the Latin textual tradition, it also enjoys the support of about one-third of the old Latin Versions dating from ancient times, as well as several Vulgate Codices. It further has a couple of citations from church writers from ancient times in both Greek and Latin, including one from the church father and doctor, St. Jerome. By contrast, the variant has weak support in the Greek, but correspondingly strong support in the Latin. Weighing up these factors, and bearing in mind the perpetual superiority of the master maxim, The Greek improves the Latin, on the system of rating textual readings A to E, I would give the TR’s reading at Mark 1:2d an “A” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a high level of certainty.

Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses.

Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading at Mark 1:2d, “before thee” in the wider words, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee,” is found in (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century); and Minuscules 33 (9th century, mixed text type), 565 (9th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 1424 (9th / 10th century, mixed text type in Matthew and Luke, independent in Mark, Byzantine elsewhere), 1071 (12th century, independent), and 579 (13th century, mixed text). It is also found in the Family 1 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al; and the Family 13 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century,independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al. It is further found in the Syriac Harclean h Version (616); some manuscripts of the Egyptian Coptic Sahidic Version, and some manuscripts of the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version; Gothic Version (4th century); and Armenian Version (5th century). However, the variant which omits, “before thee” is found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (Codex B 03, 4th century) and London Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph 01, 4th century); as well as the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century). It is further found in (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century) and (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century); and Minuscule 700 (11th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text). It is also found in the Syriac Pesitto Version (first half 5th century); some manuscripts of the Egyptian Coptic Sahidic Version, and some manuscripts of the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version; and Ethiopic Version (Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries). At Mark 1:2d the variant was adopted by the NU Text et al. Hence the ASV reads simply, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way.” So too, the variant is adopted at Mark 1:2d in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, and Papists’ JB. But at Mark 1:2d the new neo-Alexandrian Papists’ NJB follows the TR’s reading. This appears to be an exercise of the non-Alexandrian text’s pincer arm. (Cf. my comments on the non-Alexandrian text pincer arm at e.g., Vol. 4, Matt. 26:17a; and in Vol. 5 at Mark 1:4; Mark 1:5; Mark 1:6c; Mark 1:9a; Mark 1:13a; Mark 1:15; Mark 1:16a; Mark 1:16b; Mark 1:18; Mark 1:25; Mark 1:28b; Mark 1:31; Mark 1:37a; Mark 1:40; Mark 1:41a; Mark 1:41b; Mark 1:42a; 2:12a; Mark 3:8c; Mark 3:19b; Mark 3:25a; Mark 3:27a; Mark 3:27d?; Mark 3:31a?; Mark 3:32c; & Mark 3:35b?) Reflecting its strength in the Latin, the old Latin Papists followed the TR’s reading in both the Clementine Vulgate and Douay-Rheims, the latter of which reads, “before thee.” It seems that the combination of e.g., the Latin, Family 1 & 13 Manuscripts, Syriac (Harclean), and perhaps “Caesarean” (Armenian Version), on this occasion swayed the Papists of the NJB to revise their decision of the earlier JB and to here include the TR’s reading. Of course, as is often the case when neo-Alexandrians so exercise their nonAlexandrian text pincer arm, they are the only ones, (or less commonly one of only one of a small number of neo-Alexandrians,) to do so.

Adam Clarke Commentary

Verse Mark 1:2. As it is written in the prophets — Rather, As it is written by Isaiah the prophet. I think this reading should be adopted, instead of that in the common text. It is the reading of the Codex Bezae, Vatican, and several other MSS. of great repute. It is found also in the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate, and Itala versions, and in several of the fathers. As this prophecy is found both in Isaiah and Malachi, probably the reading was changed to ταιςπροφηταις, the prophets, that it might comprehend both. In one of ASSEMAN'S Syriac copies, both Isaiah and Malachi are mentioned. See all the authorities in Griesbach, 2d edit.; and see the parallel place in Matthew, Matthew 3:3, where the Prophet Isaiah is mentioned, which seems fully to establish the authority of this reading. Adam Clarke Commentary, 1832

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

As it is written in the prophets - Mark mentions “prophets” here without specifying which. The places are found in Malachi 3:1, and in Isaiah 41:3. See the notes at Matthew 3:3. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, 1870

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

As it is written in the prophets,.... Malachi and Isaiah; for passages out of both follow; though the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions read, "as it is written in the prophet Isaias"; and so it is in some Greek copies: but the former seems to be the better reading, since two prophets are cited, and Isaiah is the last; to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and the greater number of Greek copies. The following citations are made to show, that according to the writings of the Old Testament, John the Baptist was to be the harbinger of Christ, to come before him, and prepare his way; and also the propriety of the method the evangelist takes, in beginning his Gospel with the account of John's ministry and baptism: the first testimony stands in Malachi 3:1, and the words are the words of the Father to the son, concerning John, pointing out his character and his work:

behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. John the Baptist is here called a messenger, and the message he was sent and came with, was of the greatest moment and importance, and required the closest attention to it; wherefore this passage is introduced with a "behold!" signifying that something momentous, and what should be strictly regarded, was about to be delivered: and indeed, the work of this messenger was no other, than to declare that the long expected Messiah was born; that he would quickly make his public appearance in Israel; that the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of the Messiah, was at hand; and that it became the Jews to repent of their sins, and believe in Christ: he is called the messenger of God, "my messenger"; because he was sent, and sanctified by him; he was called unto, and qualified for his work by him; see John 1:6, his father Zechariah says, he should be called the prophet of the Highest, Luke 1:76. The reason of his being called the messenger of God, may be observed in the text itself, "behold, I send": the words in Malachi are by us rendered, "behold, I will send", Malachi 3:1: because this was at the time of the prophet's writing a thing future, but in the times of the evangelist a thing done: and indeed, it is a more literal version of the Hebrew text, to render it "I send", or "am sending"; and it is so expressed, to denote the certainty of it, and because in a little time it would be done: the words "before thy face", are not in the original text of Malachi, nor in the Septuagint version, but are inserted by the evangelist; who might do it with authority, since Christ had done it before him, Matthew 11:10, and which, as Surenhusius c observes, is for the greater elucidation of the matter. The prophet does not say before whom he should be sent, though it is implied in the next clause, but here it is expressed: besides, this messenger had now appeared before the face of Christ, had prepared his way in the wilderness, and had baptized him in Jordan; all which is designed in the following words, "which shall prepare thy way before thee", by his doctrine and baptism: in the text in Malachi it is, "before me", Malachi 3:1; which has made it a difficulty with the interpreters, whether the words in the prophet, are the words of Christ concerning himself, or of his Father concerning him. But sending this messenger before Christ, may be called by the Father sending him before himself, and to prepare the way before him; because Christ is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and is the angel of his presence, or face; besides, Jehovah the Father was greatly concerned, and the glory of his perfections, in the work the Messiah was to do, whose way John came to prepare. That the prophecy in Malachi here cited, is a prophecy of the Messiah, is owned by several Jewish writers d; who expressly say, that those words which follow, "the Lord whom ye seek", are to be understood of the king Messiah: and though they are divided among themselves, who should be meant by this messenger, Malachi 3:1- :, yet some of them are of opinion, that Elias is intended, even Abarbinel himself: for though in his commentary he interprets the words of the prophet Malachi himself, yet elsewhere e he allows Elias may be intended: indeed he, and so most that go this way, mean Elijah the prophet, the Tishbite; who they suppose will come in person, before the Messiah appears: yet not he, but one in his Spirit and power is designed; and is no: other than John the Baptist, in whom the passage has had its full accomplishment.

c Biblos Katallages, p. 229. d Kimchi & Ben Melech in Mal. iii. 1. Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 76. 4. e Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 76. 4. John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

I. What the New Testament is--the divine testament, to which we adhere above all that is human; the new testament, which we advance above that which was old. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,Mark 1:1; Mark 1:1. 1. It is gospel; it is God's word, and is faithful and true; see Revelation 19:9; Revelation 21:5; Revelation 22:6. It is a good word, and well worthy of all acceptation; it brings us glad tidings. 2. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the anointed Saviour, the Messiah promised and expected. The foregoing gospel began with the generation of Jesus Christ--that was but preliminary, this comes immediately to the business--the gospel of Christ. It is called his, not only because he is the Author of it, and it comes from him, but because he is the Subject of it, and it treats wholly concerning him. 3. This Jesus is the Son of God. That truth is the foundation on which the gospel is built, and which it is written to demonstrate; for is Jesus be not the Son of God, our faith is vain.

II. What the reference of the New Testament is to the Old, and its coherence with it. The gospel of Jesus Christ begins, and so we shall find it goes on, just as it is written in the prophets (Mark 1:2; Mark 1:2); for it saith no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said should come (Acts 26:22), which was most proper and powerful for the conviction of the Jews, who believed the Old-Testament prophets to be sent of God and ought to have evidenced that they did so by welcoming the accomplishment of their prophecies in its season; but it is of use to us all, for the confirmation of our faith both in the Old Testament and in the New, for the exact harmony that there is between both shows that they both have the same divine original.

Quotations are here borrowed from two prophecies--that of Isaiah, which was the longest, and that of Malachi, which was the latest (and there were above three hundred years between them), both of whom spoke to the same purport concerning the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in the ministry of John.

1. Malachi, in whom we had the Old-Testament farewell, spoke very plainly (Malachi 3:1; Malachi 3:1) concerning John Baptist, who was to give the New-Testament welcome. Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,Mark 1:2; Mark 1:2. Christ himself had taken notice of this, and applied it to John (Matthew 11:10), who was God's messenger, sent to prepare Christ's way.

2. Isaiah, the most evangelical of all the prophets, begins the evangelical part of his prophecy with this, which points to the beginning of the gospel of Christ (Isaiah 40:3); The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,Mark 1:3; Mark 1:3. Matthew had taken notice of this, and applied it to John, Matthew 3:3; Matthew 3:3. But from these two put together here, we may observe, (1.) That Christ, in his gospel, comes among us, bringing with him a treasure of grace, and a sceptre of government. (2.) Such is the corruption of the world, that there is something to do to make room for him, and to remove that which gives not only obstruction, but opposition to his progress. (3.) When God sent his Son into the world, he took care, and when he sends him into the heart, he takes care, effectual care, to prepare his way before him; for the designs of his grace shall not be frustrated; nor may any expect the comforts of that grace, but such as, by conviction of sin and humiliation for it, are prepared for those comforts, and disposed to receive them. (4.) When the paths that were crooked, are made straight (the mistakes of the judgment rectified, and the crooked ways of the affections), then way is made for Christ's comforts. (5.) It is in a wilderness, for such this world is, that Christ's way is prepared, and theirs that follow him, like that which Israel passed through to Canaan. (6.) The messengers of conviction and terror, that come to prepare Christ's way, are God's messengers, whom he sends and will own, and must be received as such. (7.) They that are sent to prepare the way of the Lord, in such a vast howling wilderness as this is, have need to cry aloud, and not spare, and to lift up their voice like a trumpet.

III. What the beginning of the New Testament was. The gospel began in John Baptist; for the law and the prophets were, until John, the only divine revelation, but then the kingdom of God began to be preached,Luke 16:16. Peter begins from the baptism of John,Acts 1:22. The gospel did not begin so soon as the birth of Christ, for he took time to increase in wisdom and stature, not so late as his entering upon his public ministry, but half a year before, when John began to preach the same doctrine that Christ afterward preached. His baptism was the dawning of the gospel day; for,

1. In John's way of living there was the beginning of a gospel spirit; for it bespoke great self-denial, mortification of the flesh, a holy contempt of the world, and nonconformity to it, which may truly be called the beginning of the gospel of Christ in any soul, Mark 1:6; Mark 1:6. He was clothed with camels' hair, not with soft raiment; was girt, not with a golden, but with a leathern girdle; and, in contempt of dainties and delicate things, his meat was locusts and wild honey. Note, The more we sit loose to the body, and live above the world, the better we are prepared for Jesus Christ.

2. In John's preaching and baptizing there was the beginning of the gospel doctrines and ordinances, and the first fruits of them. (1.) He preached the remission of sins, which is the great gospel privilege; showed people their need of it, that they were undone without it, and that it might be obtained. (2.) He preached repentance, in order to it; he told people that there must be a renovation of their hearts and a reformation of their lives, that they must forsake their sins and turn to God, and upon those terms and no other, their sins should be forgiven. Repentance for the remission of sins, was what the apostles were commissioned to preach to all nations,Luke 24:27. (3.) He preached Christ, and directed his hearers to expect him speedily to appear, and to expect great things from him. The preaching of Christ is pure gospel, and that was John Baptist's preaching, Mark 1:7; Mark 1:8. Like a true gospel minister, he preaches, [1.] The great pre-eminence Christ is advanced to; so high, so great, is Christ, that John, though one of the greatest that was born of women, thinks himself unworthy to be employed in the meanest office about him, even to stoop down, and untie his shoes. Thus industrious is he to give honour to him, and to bring others to do so too. [2.] The great power Christ is invested with; He comes after me in time, but he is mightier than I, mightier than the mighty ones of the earth, for he is able to baptize with the Holy Ghost; he can give the Spirit of God, and by him govern the spirits of men. [3.] The great promise Christ makes in his gospel to those who have repented, and have had their sins forgiven them; They shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, shall be purified by his graces, and refreshed by his comforts. And, lastly, All those who received his doctrine, and submitted to his institution, he baptized with water, as the manner of the Jews was to admit proselytes, in token of their cleansing themselves by repentance and reformation (which were the duties required), and of God's cleansing them both by remission and by sanctification, which were the blessings promised. Now this was afterward to be advanced into a gospel ordinance, which John's using it was a preface to.

3. In the success of John's preaching, and the disciples he admitted by baptism, there was the beginning of a gospel church. He baptized in the wilderness, and declined going into the cities; but there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, inhabitants both of city and country, families of them, and were all baptized of him. They entered themselves his disciples, and bound themselves to his discipline; in token of which, they confessed their sins; he admitted them his disciples, in token of which, he baptized them. Here were the stamina of the gospel church, the dew of its youth from the womb of the morning, Psalms 110:3. Many of these afterward became followers of Christ, and preachers of his gospel, and this grain of mustard-seed became a tree. Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1706

Versions

Textus Receptus Based

New King James Version

As it is written in ^[a]the Prophets: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.” NKJV

[a] NU Isaiah the prophet

Modern English Version

As it is written in the Prophets: “Look, I am sending My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.” MEV

² Ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, Ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. ³ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου· εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.

(Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, Theodore Beza, 5th major edition. Geneva. 1598)

² As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. ³ The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

² As it is written in the prophets: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way way before You.” ³ “The voice of one shouting in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; make His paths straight.’”

(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016) - buy the revised and updated printed 2023 Edition New Testament here

References

1. Meyer's NT Commentary on Mark 1, accessed 9 November 2017

External links

Supportive

Critical

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

List of New Testament Papyri

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·