Ben C Smith

I was sure wondering about that. I was even toying with the idea of asking Vork directly where he had critiqued the Masoretic text. Thought that would probably be a good read.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Well. it is certainly flattering to be confused with Apikorus!

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

A little rest for the weary. Apologies for the mis-naming. I meant "the brother of Vork". With long threads going on with you two, I just threw out a name

ynquirer

I’ve read Leland Haines’ article and paid especial attention to his surveying Robinson’s argument on Mark 1:2. My assessment is as follows.

Robinson’s argument is fine scholarship but all together far from convincing IMHO. The argument that “in the prophets� might have been changed into “in Isaiah the prophet� due to the purpose to harmonize Mark – who usually does not cite Isaiah by name – with Matthew and Luke – who usually do – is cogent and would be conclusive if ever verses 2 and 3 were merged into:

2: As it is written in the prophets, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.�

In that case, it would be only too natural that a scribe would have try to improve Mark and harmonize it with Matthew by substituting “in Isaiah the prophet� for “in the prophets.� But verses are not like that in the beginning of Mark. Actually, the KJV wording is:

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.

The text in bold type is not Isaiah’s. It is universally regarded to be quoting Malachi 3:1, and some attentive modern readers have discovered an underlying text – more faithfully quoted than Malachi’s – in Exodus 23:20. Most scribes of the second century must probably have known this; in all likelihood, Irenaeus did know it. Therefore, the corruption, as conjectured by Robinson, must have been performed by an ignorant scribe and it would not have endured.

The converse transmission, that is, the substitution of “in the prophets� for “in Isaiah the prophet� is more plausible. The original “in Isaiah the prophet� was a seeming mistake and/or omission – of both Moses and Malachi – by Mark. Then, a general temptation for scribes was to substitute “in the prophets� for the original text.

There was, however, a resistance by other section of the scribes, who supported the original text however mistaken it seemed to be. Thus, Iranaeus knew about both wordings and was hesitant, so that he sometimes quoted one wording and sometimes the other. (Maybe he thought that both were original, that is, that Mark might have written more than one version of his gospel, or else edited the first one, much like Haines argues.)

In any event, I agree, the issue is far from being settled.