Skeptic: the Bible misquoting itself?

[nwink]

Mark 1:1-3 (ESV) "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”

Mark 1:1-3 (NKJV) "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’” "

Malachi 3:1 (ESV) "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts."
Isaiah 40:3 (ESV) "A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God."


A skeptic friend of mine recently brought this issue to my attention, saying Mark misquotes Malachi by saying the whole quotation was written in Isaiah. Looking into the issue a bit, the oldest texts say "Isaiah" whereas the texts used for the KJV read "in the prophets." What's the best way to deal with this issue? Just explain the textual differences? (This also makes me curious how hard-core Critical Text advocates would respond to this type of issue.)

Thoughts? Thanks!


Another example related to this is Matthew 27:9-10:
Matt 27:9-10 (ESV) "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.”"
Matt 27:9-10 (NKJV) "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced"
Zechariah 11:12-13 (ESV) "Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them."

Thoughts on the Matthew 27 passage?

 

[KeithW]

On pages 213-215 and 316 in the 2nd edition of The King James Only Controversy, James White gives an explanation of the citation problems contained in both Mark 1:2-3 and Matthew 27:9. The problem is not that there is a single citation where a mistake was made, but that there is a dual citation. White claims the original writers in both cases cited the major or more important prophet instead of both prophets. Scribes later tried to "help" by changing the reference from the name of the major prophet to "the prophets".

Some ESV Bibles include a footnote for Mark 1:2.

Mark 1:2,3 (ESV) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, [fn] "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'"

[fn] (1:2) Some manuscripts in the prophets

White says that in Matthew 27:9, Matthew is quoting both Jeremiah and Zechariah. I had to go to my old Scofield reference Bible to find this footnote.

"(27:9) There may be an allusion to Jer. 18:1-4 and 19:1-3, but the reference is distinctly to Zech. 11:12-13. A Talmudic tradition states that the prophetic writings were placed in the canon in this order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Many Hebrew manuscripts follow this order. Thus Matthew cited the passage as from the roll of the prophets and by the name of the first book."

So this appears to not be an issue of "the Bible misquoting itself", but an issue of not using complete references. The author of the book of Hebrews typically makes no attempt to provide the reader with the Old Testament book he is quoting from.

 

[nwink]

Very helpful. Thank you, Keith!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Mark passage contains a textual variant--pretty obvious, given the English alternates; but some amateur critics (even ones who think they're kinda smart) show zero acquaintance with the actual issues of ancient manuscript transmission.

So, in the first place we have a case of scribal "improvement;" and setting aside text-family preference issues, let us just say that from a naturalistic standpoint it could have happened in either direction. How it could have happened is also variable. For example, marginalia has often migrated into an original text. Did the original say, "prophets," and in the margin someone annotate one or two names? Did the original say "Isaiah," and someone wrote "and Malachi" in the margin, from which a plural "prophets" entered? Are there other plausible explanations? Probably. Even without marginalia, a scribe (from a hundred years later) might know that this is a "mixed" quote, and think/wish that was the original, and "correct" the text.

Now, the question of attribution. Really, what you're dealing with in the case of the skeptic is that he has preconceived notions about how ancient authors *should* make quotes, and reference sources. When he should be asking, "What would have been acceptable in days gone by, and why?"

The OT was ancient (by varying degrees) when the NT was penned. And the product of many contributors (as is the NT). So, the Bible is both one book, and many books. Divine inspiration means that the whole is treated as one essential authority. Isaiah is a prominent author; Malachi not so much. In fact, Malachi is a subset of a single Hebrew "book," The Twelve, a group which we today call the minor prophets, and denominate individually.

So, the pre-modern writer, Mark, is quoting/referencing his sacred Scriptures. It is more likely that he knows he is conflating two passages in the OT than that he does not. But, assuming that the CT position is correct, he makes reference to only one name of a prophet, Isaiah's. Not only does this save space on a parchment with a fixed number of columns and lines; its also sufficient for his purpose of pointing to divinely inspired expectation for Christ's coming.

Here's the question for the skeptic: by what standard *should* Mark have definitely included Malachi's name? Who is *grading* Mark on the "accuracy" of his reference? What are the curious hearers of his own day likely to wonder? Perhaps, "Was this man/event really predicted in the OT?" If they discovered that Mark not only referenced the more prominent Isaiah, but also drew from elsewhere and a more obscure (corroborating) writer, will that make them more or less impressed with the evidence?

See, the "standard" by which the modern skeptic is judging Scripture's accuracy has nothing to do with whether or not Mark has a point or not. Instead, it is a nit-picking, pedantic sort of complaint that Mark and others didn't consult a modern research standards manual when doing their work, inserting footnotes where appropriate.

******************************

The question of Mt.27 is similar. It is even harder for a modern reader to appreciate, because the quotation is almost all taken from Zechariah, yet another of the Twelve, the minor prophets. The figure of a "potter," however, is found in a comparatively longer passage in Jeremiah, chs.18-19. The Jews of old (not unreasonably) habitually compared Scripture with Scripture (rule of faith), and related passages that used similar words or carried similar themes. So, it would be natural to correlate the Zech.11 passage and the Jeremiah 18-19 passage. (Jeremiah also bought a field, ch.32, although for a different purpose).

If Matthew is following an established pattern (shouldn't we assume he is?), then his reference to Jeremiah not only admits that prophet's literary dominance, but it also compels the astute OT reader to consider the full weight of the evidence. Zechariah (the less-well-known man) supplies an exact correlation to the "price" put on Jesus' head by the authorities, or that which was actually paid over to Judas. However, the Jeremiah passage supplies a couple other relevant points.

1) the figure of God as a potter, 18:6. The sovereignty of God is emphasized by this metaphor (as it is in Isaiah). Thus, the power of those who conspire against Christ is referred under the will of God.

2) the relation to judgment for innocent blood, 19:1-15, esp. v4. Jesus is the ultimate Innocent, and he is treated cruelly and murdered. Moreover, the prophet promises utter ruin on Jerusalem and its inhabitants and leaders for the previous crimes (which was visited on them by the Babylonians). But if so in the former, typological events, how much more in the fulfillment? How much more is due for this one Crime?

Matthew, like Mark, is following his own conventions for quotes and references. He could care less what a 21st century skeptic accuses him of. If he had been misunderstood in his own early circle, wouldn't a "faux pas" such as this have been pointed out to him, and corrected?

One is left with accepting either that what we have is original and intentional; and it falls to the reader as a duty to read and understand the author on his own terms. Or else that some ignorant or malicious person much later substituted another name, but so as that all evidence of the proper reference was somehow suppressed (since if there are variants, they are inconsequential to the question of originality). The latter is far more incredible.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some say because of "gezera shewa" I have heard that when several prophets referenced a similar thing, a rabbi and hence a New Testament writer as well might refer to the more prominent (in comparison) major prophet by name about the set. If so, I think it may apply to the scriptures about John the Baptist(Isaiah major, Malachi minor) , but also the 30 pieces of silver (Jeremiah major, Zechariah minor)

This view is supported in the discussion of the Mark passage here http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ibnanwar/mark_isaiah_attribution.html where it says" It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take citations from different biblical writings – especially when such references touched on similar themes or ideas and/or used the same words – and attribute them to a single author. The rabbis even coined a term for this particular method of exegesis, namely gezera shewa."

Perhaps that view applies to the 30 pieces of silver as well.... An additional or perhaps alternative explanation for the Jeremiah/Zechariah prophesy is here Judas Iscariot: One Man & Two Prophecies in Jeremiah
Jeremiah bought a field during a seige. the field bought by Jeremiah is destined to serve foreigners since the invasion of Jerusalem is at hand:
The city is sure to fall into the hands of the Babylonians. Yet, in spite of this, you, Lord God, have said to me, “Buy that field with silver and have the transaction legally witnessed.” (Jeremiah 32:25)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think Pastor Bruce’s view is sound, particularly in the Mark example. And he is being gracious not referring to the “text-family preference issues” – though I will mention that in the Reformation text (the Textus Receptus) the reading is “in the prophets”, while the Critical Text has “in Isaiah the prophet”. Your skeptic friend, Nathan, is not using the best texts to try and make his case.

With regard to Matthew 27:9-10 I’ll post the entry from Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, by Gleason Archer (Zondervan 1982):

Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute to Jeremiah a prophecy from Zechariah?

Matthew 27:9-10 describes the purchase of Potter’s Field with Judas Iscariot’s money as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy: “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel: and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me” (NASB). The remarkable thing about this quotation is that the greater portion of it is actually from Zechariah 11:12-13 which reads as follows: “And I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wage; but if not, never mind!’ So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then Yahweh said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.’ So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of Yahweh.” There are significant differences between the Zechariah passage and the quotation in Matthew, which has the prophet paying out—or at least giving—the purchase money, and has him turning over the money for a field rather than giving it to the potter personally. Yet the whole point of the quotation in Matthew is directed toward the purchase of the field. The Zechariah passage says nothing at all about purchasing a field; indeed, it does not even mention a field at all.

But as we turn to Jeremiah 32:6-9, we find the prophet purchasing a field in Anathoth for a certain number of shekels. Jeremiah 18:2 describes the prophet as watching a potter fashioning earthenware vessels in his house. Jeremiah 19:2 indicates that there was a potter near the temple, having his workshop in the Valley of Hinnom. Jeremiah 19:11 reads: “Thus says Yahweh of hosts: ‘Even so I will break this people and this city as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again; and they shall bury them in Tophet.’ ” It would seem, therefore, that Zechariah’s casting of his purchase money to the potter dated back to the symbolic actions of Jeremiah. Yet it is only Jeremiah that mentions the “field” of the potter—which is the principal point of Matthew's quotation. Matthew is therefore combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and from Jeremiah. But since Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets he mention Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet.​

A similar procedure is followed by Mark 1:2-3 which attributes only to Isaiah a combined quotation from Malachi 3: 1 and Isaiah 40:3. In that case also, only the more famous of the two prophets is mentioned by name. Since that was the normal literary practice of the first century A.D., when the Gospels were written, the author can scarcely be faulted for not following the modern practice of precise identification and footnoting (which could never have become feasible until after the transition had been made from the scroll to the codex and the invention of the printing press). (p 345)​

 

[bookslover]

As Bruce says above, one must not think that ancient writers were required to produce the same sorts of scholarly editions that are expected and considered normal today. And, we must assume (especially since the biblical writers were writing under the Spirit's inspiration) that they knew what they were doing when they cited Scripture in the manner they did. Chronological snobbery is not the way to handle ancient texts - biblical or secular.