Problems of Mark 1:2-3 Quotations and Distortions -

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

Mark's Problems 1:2-3

Quotations and distortions

Interpretation and textual criticism reveal

Humanity and the distortion of the book

The poor servant of God, Abu Al-Muntasir Shahin, nicknamed Al-Taeb

Translation of research by Fez Mustafa

Duty dedication

To the one who taught me the Greek language, to the one who taught me academia and scientific methodology, to the one who taught me how to express the magnificence of the verses of the Qur’an

To my father, my sheikh, my teacher, and my beloved

Mr. Muhammad Rifai ( Sheikh Arab ), may God protect and preserve him

To all who love knowledge and work to spread it

Index of topics

· Abstract of the research.

· the introduction.

· Introduction to research points.

· Differences between translations and Greek versions.

۩ Differences between translations.

۩ Differences between the received text and the critical text.

۩ Notes on translations .

· Where did the quote come from?

۩ Names of references from which the writers of the New Testament quoted. ۩ First text: Matthew 2/23. ۩ Second text: John 6/45.

۩ Text Three: Acts 7:42-43. ۩ Text Four: Acts 7:42-43. ۩ Text Five: Acts 15:15.

· Was the writer of the Gospel of Mark honest?

۩ The first part of the quote - Mark 1/2 - (Critical Text).

۩ The second part of the quote - Mark 1/3 - (Critical Text).

۩ Summary of this part .

· Which one did Mark write: the prophets or Isaiah?

۩ External evidence (concerning the sources of the text). ۩ Patristic evidence .

۩ Summary of external evidence (concerning the sources of the text).

۩ Internal evidence (interpretation of what we found in the text sources).

۩ Scholars' Sayings - "Isaiah" was changed to "the prophets."

۩ Comments and notes on the scholars’ sayings .

۩ Summary of internal evidence (interpretation of what we found in the text sources).

· Other theories and objections of scientists.

۩ The motivation behind other theories .

۩ Attributing the compound quotation to Isaiah alone means that the writer made a mistake. .

۩ The policy of questioning the authenticity of manuscripts .

Daniel Wallace 's Advice for Those Who Do Not Accept Evidence .

The first theory: Attributing the quote to a specific source . ۩ The second theory - reconciliation between the Gospels .

۩ The third theory - Isaiah only without Malachi . ۩ The fourth theory - Malachi only without Isaiah .

۩ Summary of the above .

· Conclusion.

Research summary

Many problems, serious objections, and provocative theories arise from only two texts from the Gospel of Mark! Problems that clearly demonstrate that this book was definitely not written by inspiration of God. The author of the Gospel of Mark distorted quotations he took from the Old Testament and was unable to attribute these quotations to their correct sources. In addition, we find textual problems that reveal the intentional distortion of the text of the Gospel of Mark. Perhaps the most famous of these textual problems is the problem of " the prophets " or " the prophet Isaiah ." Contrary to what we find in the Van Dyke translation, and according to the rules of textual criticism, the older form of the text of Mark 1:2 is: " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet ," not: " As it is written in the prophets ." This research will reveal, God willing, the shortcomings of the author of the Gospel of Mark in expressing the correct source of his quotation, in addition to the deliberate distortion of the word "the prophet Isaiah " and its transformation into " the prophets ," because the quotation written immediately after this phrase is not found in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah! From here, we will shed light on the specific inspiration of the Gospel of Mark , and how scholars deal with this problem. Didn't the author of this Gospel know that the quoted text wasn't found in the Book of Isaiah? How could the author commit such an error when he was inspired by the Holy Spirit? In the end, we find that two texts reveal to us the human nature and corruption of the oldest Gospels in the New Testament.

the introduction

Praise be to Allah , we praise Him, seek His aid, and ask for His forgiveness . We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our own souls and the wickedness of our deeds . Whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide , and whomsoever He misguides, none can guide . I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, without partner , and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger , the chosen one from among His creation and His intimate friend . He conveyed the message , fulfilled the trust , and advised the nation . Through him , Allah removed distress , erased darkness , and strove in Allah’s cause with the striving due to Him until certainty came to him . I bear witness that Jesus, son of Mary, is the servant and Messenger of Allah , and His Word which He bestowed upon Mary and a spirit from Him .

Then, as for what follows;

“ O Allah, Lord of Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between Your servants concerning that over which they differ. Guide me to the truth concerning that over which they differ, by Your permission. Indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path. ” ( Sahih Muslim 1847)

Allah the Almighty said in His Noble Book: { Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found within it much discrepancy. } [An-Nisa: 82]. This verse gives us a methodology that we can apply to any book, the goal of which is to discover whether this book is from Allah or not. I hope that every reader will keep this verse in mind while reading this entire section, as the number of differences we will encounter is enormous, starting with the differences between translations, then the differences between the various Greek versions, and also between the various sources of the text, in addition to the differences between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Finally, we will discuss the differences between scholars regarding the text.

And God Almighty says in the decisive revelation of the Noble Qur’an: { Indeed, those who disbelieve in the message when it comes to them - and indeed, it is a mighty Book (41) Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it: a revelation from One Full of Wisdom, Praiseworthy (42)} [Fussilat], and Imam al-Tabari interpreted these two verses, saying: [ And His statement: { and indeed, it is a mighty Book } means that God Almighty says: Indeed, this message is a mighty book, by God’s glorification of it and His protection of it from everyone who wanted to change it, distort it, or alter it , from human beings, jinn, and rebellious devils. (...) And the most correct of the sayings about that, in our view, is to say: Its meaning is: The one who has falsehood cannot, by his deceit , change it by his deceit , nor alter any of its meanings from what it is, and that is coming from before it, nor attaching what is not from it to it, and that is coming from behind it. ] ^{[ [1] ]}

This is what Muslims believe about the Holy Quran. As for the Bible, this research will address how texts have been distorted from their originals, and how texts have been changed and altered for specific purposes. The Bible has not been preserved in truth, even though its authors claim that God has pledged to preserve it.

Imam Al-Qurtubi also said : “ Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or from behind it , ” meaning that nothing that God revealed before it can contradict it, and no book will be revealed after it to invalidate or abrogate it. ] ^[^[2]^] And Imam Al-Razi adds , saying: [ He said: { And indeed, it is a mighty Book }. Mighty has two meanings, one of them: the victorious, the overwhelming, and the second: that which has no equal. As for the Qur’an being mighty in the sense of being victorious, this is the case because by the strength of its argument it has overcome everything else. As for it being mighty in the sense of having no equal, this is the case because the first and the last were unable to oppose it. Then he said: { Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or from behind it }. There are aspects to this: The first: It is not contradicted by the previous books such as the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms. ] ^[^[3]^]

There is no doubt that the Quran is unparalleled, for it contains the entire truth, and there is absolutely no falsehood in it. There is no book before or after the Quran that can prove that the Quran contains an error. The Quran always agrees with the truth and reality, and every book that contradicts it, evidence and proofs have shown us that whoever contradicts the Quran is false, and that the Quran is the clear truth. However, the Bible is not like the Quran, for the books of the Bible contradict each other. Thus, we will see in this research that the Old Testament proves the falsehood of what was written in the New Testament, and that the Bible does not agree with the truth, but rather contradicts it, and we can touch the contradiction with our own hands and see it with our own eyes.

I know that there are many who may not be able to read the entire research, so I have indexed the research topics, so that anyone can reach the part they want without having to go through the trouble of reading the entire research, but know, my brother, may Allah have mercy on you, that I did not prolong the research for the sake of prolonging it, but rather so that I would not deprive anyone of information that may have increased their faith if they were Muslim, or may have led to their guidance if they were not. And know, my brother in Allah, that our noble predecessors never withheld knowledge from us, and they wrote for us huge volumes, and all we have to do is draw from their knowledge, so I wanted to follow in their footsteps and write down all the information I know regarding the research topic. I ask Allah to accept it from me, and to benefit from the research everyone who reads it.

Abu Al-Muntasir Shahin

9 Ramadan 1431

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Introduction to research points

This research revolves around two texts from the Gospel of Mark:

۩ Gospel of Mark 1/2-3:

(Al-Fandik) 2 As it is written in the prophets: “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”

We find a quotation in both texts, part of which is mentioned in verse 2, and the other part in verse 3. This quotation is attributed - according to the Van Dyke translation - to " the prophets ." We will first look at the various translations and Greek texts, then shed light on the source of the quotation " the prophets ." Then we will study the quotation itself and the accuracy of the quotation from the reference mentioned in the text. We will find that the quotation is composed of more than one source, and there are many problems in translating from the source and in attributing the quotation to the reference " the prophets ."

The second part of the research will examine the differences we find between the translations and the Greek texts. If we examine the other Arabic translations, we will find that the quotation is attributed to " the Prophet Isaiah " and not " the prophets ." In light of this information, we will address the problems that would arise from attributing the compound quotation to " the Prophet Isaiah " alone.

Finally, we will conduct a critical textual study of Mark 1:2, which contains many textual problems due to differences between manuscripts. We will focus on the disagreement surrounding the source of the quotation: according to the rules of textual criticism, did Mark write as it is written in the " Prophets " or " Isaiah the Prophet ?" In this section, we will uncover a deliberate crime of distortion, highlight the reasons for the distortion, and shed light on the scholars' opinions on this problem.

۩ Research points:

· Textual problems in the two texts. (Differences between the translations and the Greek versions.)

· Source of the quote: The Prophets. (Is it permissible to attribute the compound quote to "The Prophets" only?)

· Source of the quote: Isaiah. (Is it permissible to attribute the compound quote to "Isaiah" only?)

· Compound quotation and accurate quotation from sources. (Problems in quoting the Gospel author from quotation sources.)

· The textual problem: The Prophets or Isaiah? (Which reading is the original? Why was the text distorted?)

· Scientists' theories and their discussions of problems. (Discussion of different scientists' theories and the solutions offered to the problems.)

Ultimately, God willing, we will discover through this research that the author of the Gospel of Mark distorted the quotations and did not faithfully transmit them from the sources. He also made a mistake in attributing the quotations to their correct sources. All of this demonstrates the human nature of the book and negates its divine inspiration. Above all, we will find the deliberate distortion of the text to conceal theological issues. However, the truth prevails and nothing can be overcome.

Differences between translations and Greek versions

Before we begin comparing the quotation in Mark with its counterpart in the Old Testament, we must first know what exactly the text in Mark is. It will not be enough for us to simply compare an Arabic translation of the New Testament with an Arabic translation of the Old Testament. Rather, we must return to the Greek text of Mark, and then look for its counterpart in the Old Testament, whether from the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint.

We will begin by comparing the various Arabic translations of the two texts of Mark 1:2-3. This comparison will reflect the apparent differences between the manuscripts, as the differences between the translations are merely a reflection of the differences in the manuscripts. By "differences between translations," I do not mean wording differences, as we will overcome wording differences by referring to the Greek text. Rather, I mean textual differences regarding words or phrases present in one translation but omitted in the other, and so on.

Comparing the various Arabic translations, we find that the third verse has no textual differences between the translations, but all the differences are present in the second verse. A quick look at the various Arabic translations reveals several differences:

· (Al-Fandik) As it is written in the prophets : “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you .

· (Common Arabic) It began as the prophet Isaiah wrote : “Behold, I send my messenger before you to prepare your way.

· (The Jesuit Fathers) wrote in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah : “Behold, I send my messenger before you to prepare your way.

· (The Book of Life) As it was written in the Book of Isaiah : “Behold, I send my messenger before you , who will prepare your way;

· (The Holy Bible) God said in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah : “I send my messenger before you to prepare the way for you,

· (Simplified Arabic) As it is written in the book of the Prophet Isaiah : Behold, I send my messenger before you , to prepare the way.

· (Paulianism) According to what is written in the Prophet Isaiah : “Behold, I send my messenger before your face , to prepare your way.

۩ Differences between translations:

· Al-Fandyk: It is written in " The Prophets ." Other translations: It is written in " Isaiah the Prophet ."

· Van Dyke: I send " before your face ." Other translations: delete the phrase " before your face ." (Except Pauline)

· Van Dyke: " My angel ." Other translations: " My apostle ." (Except Pauline)

Note: It is possible that other translations (except the Pauline) replaced the phrase " before your face " with " before you ," thus deleting the word " before you " that the Van Dyke translation placed at the end of the text. Or we can consider that other translations introduced the word " before you, " which the Van Dyke translation places at the end of the text, thus deleting the phrase " before your face ." Whatever the case, there is a clear difference.

These are the differences we can notice by comparing the Arabic translations, but by comparing the different Greek versions we will find more differences! We will come up with a Greek version of the received text ( GNT-TR), which represents the original from which the Vandyke was translated, and we compare it with a modern critical Greek version.(UBS4RE), which is considered the original from which all modern versions of the New Testament have been translated.

(GNT-TR) 2 As it is written in the prophets , Behold , I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee ; ^[[4]^]

(UBS4RE) 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way; ^[[5]^]

۩ Differences between the received text and the critical text:

· Recipient : (῾Ως) ^{[ [6] ]} "As." Critical : ( Kαθὼς) ^{[ [7] ]} "according to".

· The recipient : ( the prophets)) "The Prophets". Critical : ( Isaiah the prophet"Isaiah the Prophet."

· Recipient : ( ἐγὼ) "I". Critical : deleted.

· Recipient : ( in front of you) ^{[ [8] ]} “In front of you.” Critical : deleted.

These are the differences we find between the Received Text, which represents the Van Dyck, and the Critical Text, which represents other modern translations. It is known that the Critical Greek version is the most scientifically accurate, and is based primarily on ancient manuscripts that are closest to the original in time. However, we will postpone the investigation into which of the two texts is more accurate (the Received or the Critical) to a later stage of our research. For now, we will translate the Received Greek Text and the Critical Greek Text to discover the truth about the differences in translations of this text, and which is the more accurate and closest to the truth.

New Testament, Interlinear Greek-Arabic Translation (Mark 1/2) ^{[ [9] ]}

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way.

۩ Literal translation of the critical text and the received text:

· Critical: As (or: according to what ) is written in the prophet Isaiah : Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way .

· Recipient: As it is written in the prophets : Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you .

۩ Notes on translations:

Translation ( my angel)): The Van Dyck and Pauline translate it as “ my angel ” with the definite article ( τὸν) dropped.), while other Arabic translations translate it as “ my messenger ,” knowing that the most accurate translation according to Greek dictionaries ^{[ [10] ]} is “ my angel ” and not “ my messenger .” We will shed more light on this point when we discuss the source from which it was quoted.

Translation ( in front of you)): The Vandyke and the Pauline translate it as “ before your face ,” while the other Arabic translations translate it as “ in front of you .” After seeing the critical Greek text, we cannot consider that the other translations introduced the word “ in front of you ” that the Vandyke places at the end of the text, since the critical Greek text omits it originally, as it is present in the received Greek text ( ἔμπροσθέν σου) .).

Translation ( in front of you)): The word ( πρὸ) means ( before )) or “ before ,” and it gives the meaning of priority and precedence ^{[ [11] ]} . The word ( προσώπου) It is often translated as “ face ” ^{[ [12] ]} , but it also takes on the meaning of “ person ” or “ soul ” ^{[ [13] ]} , so the phrase could be translated as “ before your face ” as Van Dyck and Pauline did, or it could be translated as “ in front of you ,” but the first and most correct translation is “ before your face .” We will shed more light on this point when we consider the source from which it is quoted.

It is strange and surprising that all modern translations put the word “ I ” ( behold, I send, I send, I send , behold , I send ) , although the Greek equivalent of it ( ἐγὼ) is only found in the received text! I repeat: We will highlight all these points again when we address the source from which the quotation is made. All these differences between the various Greek translations and texts have many meanings, and their causes and motivations will only become clear to us when we study and discuss the sources of the quotations.

Where did the quote come from?

The Van Dyke translation says that the quotation is written in " The Prophets ," while other translations say that it is written in " The Prophet Isaiah "! So what are " The Prophets "? And what is " The Prophet Isaiah "? Is there a difference between them, or are they two names for the same thing? They are names of Jewish holy books. Athanasius the Apostolic , who defined the canon of the Old and New Testaments, detailed the Jewish books that Christians can consider divinely inspired. So what are these books? Athanasius says the following in his Paschal Epistle No. 39:

There is then the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number —for, as you have heard, it is taken for granted that this is the number of the Epistles among the Hebrews; the order of the writings and their names being as follows: First, Genesis, then Exodus, then Leviticus, then Numbers, then Deuteronomy; next Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth; and again, after these books, four books of Kings, the first and second being considered as one book, and likewise, the third and fourth as one book; and again, the first and second Chronicles as one book; and Ezra also, the first and second as one book; after these there is the book of Psalms, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; after them the book of Job, then the Prophets , the twelve as one book ; then Isaiah as one book; then Jeremiah with Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle as one book; after these, Ezekiel and Daniel as each a book. Thus was the Old Testament formed. ^{[ [14] ]}

There is a book called " The Prophets " which includes the writings of the twelve prophets, and there is another book called " Isaiah " which includes the writings of the prophet Isaiah. Who are the prophets whose writings are included in the book " The Prophets "? If we learn from Athanasius that the five books of Moses are each in a book, and Joshua bin Nun , Judges , Ruth , Psalms , Proverbs , Ecclesiastes , the Song of Songs , Job , Isaiah , Ezekiel , and Daniel are each in a book, and Jeremiah with Baruch , Lamentations and the Epistle are in a book, and 1 and 2 Chronicles are in a book. Thus, we will only have " The Prophets ", four books of Kings , and 1 and 2 Ezra . As for the four books of Kings, they are 1 and 2 Kings in one book, and 1 and 2 Samuel are in one book. As for 1 and 2 Ezra, they are Ezra and Nehemiah . Thus, we have nothing left but: ( Hosea , Joel , Amos , Obadiah , Jonah , Micah , Nahum , Habakkuk , Zephaniah , Haggai , Zechariah , and Malachi ). These are the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in one book called “ The Prophets .”

So, according to Alvandyke, the quote is from the Book of the Prophets , and according to other translations, the quote is from the Book of Isaiah , and these are two different books! Is it possible that the quote is from both books?! Or does one of the two books not contain the quote, making Mark's attribution incorrect?! Or perhaps the two books do not contain the quote, making it seem as if Mark made a mistake in attributing the quote to a specific source?! All these questions require studying the quote itself.

Regarding Mark 1:2-3, Father Tadros Yacoub Malti says the following: [ In some versions it says “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet …” and Saint Mark quoted two prophecies about “the forerunner of the Lord,” one from Malachi the prophet (3:1), and the other from Isaiah (40:3). ] ^{[ [15] ]} It is known that Father Al-Fandik interprets the text of Al-Fandik, but he points out that there are some “ versions ” that attribute the quotation to “ Isaiah the prophet ,” and perhaps by the word “ versions ” he means the ancient manuscripts, or other translations, or both together.

Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty declares that Mark quoted two prophecies, one from Malachi and the other from Isaiah , and Father Matta El Meskeen confirms the same statement, saying: [ Thus it becomes clear that Mark combined the prophecy of the Prophet Malachi from the Hebrew original (1:3) with the prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah because they actually complete what actually happened at the hands of the Baptist. ] ^{[ [16] ]} , taking into consideration Father Tadros’ information regarding the fact that there are versions that attribute the quote to “ the Prophet Isaiah .”

Now we must pause for a moment to think. If Mark quotes two prophecies, one from Malachi and the other from Isaiah , how can he attribute both quotations to only one source?! The first quotation is from Malachi , and Malachi is one of the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in one book called " The Prophets ." The second quotation is from Isaiah , and Isaiah's writings and prophecies are collected in one book, different from " The Prophets ." So there is a problem. According to the translations we have, the writer of the Gospel of Mark attributes a quotation made up of two references to only one source. If the attribution is to " The Prophets ," then " The Prophets " does not contain Isaiah's prophecy. If the attribution is to " The Prophet Isaiah ," then " Isaiah " does not contain Malachi's prophecy! What is this problem? Does this mean that Mark made a mistake in attributing his compound quotation to its correct sources?

Dr. William Eddy offers a solution to this problem in his interpretation: [ What is meant by the prophets here is the book of their prophecies , because the testimony of two of them, namely Malachi and Isaiah , Kings 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, so he combined the testimonies of these two into one testimony, even though one of them was before the other by about 360 years, and the reason for that is the unity of the subject. ] ^{[ [17] ]} Here we feel as if Dr. William wants to tell us that the phrase “ written in the prophets ” does not refer to a specific book called “ the prophets ,” but rather what is meant by the phrase is “ the book of their prophecies ,” that is, the book that contains the prophecy of Malachi, and the book that contains the prophecy of Isaiah, and he does not mean one specific book. Is this interpretation correct?

To determine the validity of the doctor's statement, we must search the New Testament for the various ways in which the Jewish scriptures are quoted. Through this research, we will better understand the author of the Gospel of Mark's intent in using the term " prophets ." Did he mean the book containing the writings of the twelve prophets, or did he mean the book of prophecy in general, in which this prophecy will be found, regardless of the book?

۩ Names of references from which the writers of the New Testament quoted:

· The Law . For example: [Luke 2:23, John 8:17, John 10:34, 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Corinthians 14:21].

· The Prophet . Such as: [Matthew 1:22, Matthew 2:5-6, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 13:35, Matthew 21:4, Matthew 27:35].

· Prophets . Such as: [Matthew 2:23, Mark 1:2, John 6:45, Acts 7:42, Acts 13:40, Acts 15:15].

· Isaiah the Prophet . Such as: [Matthew 4:14, Matthew 8:17, Matthew 12:17, Mark 7:6, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:17].

· Jeremiah the Prophet . For example: [Matthew 2:17, Matthew 27:9].

· The Prophet Joel . Example: [Acts 2/16].

· Book of Psalms . Such as: [Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20, Acts 13:33].

The New Testament writers attributed their quotations to these authorities. The reference “ Prophets ” was used six times. We must examine these texts to determine the intention of the writers in attributing their quotations to “ Prophets .” Did they mean a specific book by this name, or is it a general name for any book that contains prophecies?

۩ The first text: Matthew 2/23

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , saying , “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

(UBS4RE) And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , that he would be called a Nazarene.

To begin analyzing this text, we must return to the Greek text and compare it with the Greek text of Mark 1:2. In this text we find the Greek phrase that says: ( τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν) That is: “ what was said by the prophets ,” so the word ( διὰ)) means “ by ” or “ through ” ^{[ [18] ]} , and the word “ prophets ” ( τῶν προφητῶν) It came in the genitive case), so the translation of the Greek phrase should not be: “ what was said by the prophets ” but rather: “ what was said by the prophets .” The word “ by the prophets ” gives the impression that if you go to “ the prophets ” you will find this saying, but this meaning is incorrect. As for the phrase “ by the prophets ,” it gives a more comprehensive meaning in that the following phrase is from the sayings of the prophets, but it is not necessary to find it recorded in a book of the prophets or specifically in the book of “ the prophets .”

This is what Dr. Maurice Tawadros explains when he says: [ It is noted here that the Evangelist did not attribute the saying to a specific prophecy, but rather to a group of prophetic sayings . Therefore, he did not say: “In order for what was said by the prophet to be fulfilled,” but rather said what was said by the prophets. So how do we interpret this prophecy, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament? ] ^{[ [19] ]} We also find in the applied interpretation of the Holy Bible: [ The Old Testament does not specifically record this phrase: “He will be called a Nazarene.” However, many scholars believe that Matthew was referring to a prophecy not recorded in the book. ] ^{[ [20] ]}

This is regarding the text of Matthew 2/23. However, if we go back to Mark 1/2, we will find that the phrase according to the received Greek text is ( γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), and a word ( written(from the original) ( write)) It is clear that we are talking about something written ^{[ [21] ]} , and this writing we find ( ἐν" In ", in what? " In the prophets " ( τοῖς προφήταις), and here the word “ prophets ” comes in the grammatical case “ capable ” ( Dative).), which among its uses is to refer to a specific place that we can go to or return to ^{[ [22] ]} , and it is also used to refer to a specific reference ^{[ [23] ]} , so when we find - according to the Greek text - “ it was written in the prophets ” then the reference to writing, in addition to the occurrence of the word “ prophets ” in the accusative case, makes us certain that the writer is referring to a written reference that we can return to.

So, there is a big difference between “ prophets ” ( τῶν προφητῶν) mentioned in Matthew 2:23, and “ the prophets ” ( τοῖς προφήταις) mentioned in Mark 1:2. The Greek text reveals to us what we cannot discover through the Arabic translation. This is why many Christian scholars have declared that the text of Matthew 2:23 does not refer to a written reference we can refer to. Let us examine some of these sayings:

· Modern Commentary on the Bible : [ Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament , or any other contemporary Jewish writings, and the phrase “he will be called a Nazarene” is not found in the Old Testament (...) It should be noted that the formula that introduces the quotation differs from the usual pattern, see the introduction, in two respects: it does not refer to a specific prophet but rather to the phrase “that he” ( hoti), and this indicates that it was not intended to be a quote from a specific paragraph , but rather a summary of the topic of prophetic aspirations and hopes. ] ^{[ [24] ]}

· The Old Christian Commentary on the Bible : [ Jerome: If this verse were found in the Bible, he would not have said, “For it was spoken by the prophets,” but would have said more explicitly, “For it was spoken by a prophet.” Now, by speaking generally of the prophets in general, he showed that he did not take the words literally , but used the general meaning of the Bible. ( CCL 77:16)]^[[25]]

· William Barclay's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew : [ Matthew also concludes this section by referring to a prophecy that says, "He will be called a Nazarene." This prophecy presents commentators with great difficulty, because there is no verse in the Old Testament to this effect - and even the city of Nazareth itself is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament. No adequate solution to this problem has been found. Some believe that it refers to the belief of some Jews in the intertestamental period that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. ] ^{[ [26] ]}

So, based on all of the above, we can say with confidence that the wording of the writer of the Gospel of Mark makes us certain that he means a written reference, and if he wanted to make his words general, he would have used a different style as the writer of the Gospel of Matthew did. Thus, the problem still remains: How does the writer of the Gospel of Mark attribute a complex quotation to a reference that contains only one part of the quotation?

۩ The second text: John 6/45

Joh 6:45 For it is written in the prophets : “And all shall be taught of God.” So everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

(UBS4RE) It is written in the prophets , And they are all taught by God: every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

This text seems very close to the text of Mark 1:2, where we find the word ( γεγραμμένον) which means “ written ,” in addition to the phrase “ in the prophets ” in the same grammatical form that we find in Mark 1:2 ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), so will we really find the quote " and all will be taught by God " in the Book of the Prophets? In fact, we do not find this quote " literally " in any book of the Old Testament! But the quote is similar to a text found in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, so we find that scholars claim that the text is taken from Isaiah.

But we have a question: If the quote was taken from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, why wasn't the quote attributed directly to him? For example: (Matthew 4:14, Matthew 8:17, Matthew 12:17, Mark 7:6, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:17), or do scholars search for any text similar to the quote and then say that Christ meant this text from this book just to address the problem? Look at what Burnand said in his scholarly commentary: [ The quote is taken freely from Isaiah 54:13, and does not agree literally with either the Hebrew or the Septuagint text. ] ^{[ [27] ]}

The existing quote does not agree literally with either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint text of Isaiah 54/13! But just because the quote resembles the text of Isaiah, we find Christians claiming that the quote is taken from it! But we find in the NIV commentary :) The quotation has many similar texts in the writings of other prophets: [ The Old Testament text that seems to have been on Jesus' mind is Isaiah 54:13, “The Lord will teach all your children,” but the meaning of the quotation is found elsewhere in the Old Testament , for example: Psalms 25:4-5 and 94:12, Isaiah 2:3, Jeremiah 16:21, Micah 4:2 , Zephaniah 3:9 , Malachi 1:11 . ] ^{[ [28] ]}

Consider the phrase " Jesus was thinking of "! It gives the impression of inaccuracy and randomness, but what concerns us now is the following: as long as we do not find the literal quote anywhere in the Old Testament, and the text has correspondence with it in the writings of the minor prophets ( Micah , Zephaniah , and Malachi ), and the text does not agree literally with the Hebrew or Greek text of Isaiah 54:13, then we cannot attribute the quote to Isaiah, but rather it is better to attribute the text to the book of " the prophets " as it appears from the text.

۩ The third text: Acts 7/42-43

Act 7:42Then God turned and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets : “O house of Israel, have you offered me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness? 43 But you have taken up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan, the carved images you made to worship them. Therefore I will transfer you beyond Babylon.”

(UBS4RE) 42 But God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets , Ye offered me no slain nor sacrifice forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel: 43 And ye took up the tabernacle of Molech, and the star of your god Aphiphan, the figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

In this text we find a phrase with utmost precision ( as it is written in the book of the prophets)), which we can translate as: “ according to what is written in the book of the prophets .” The difference between this phrase and the phrase in Mark 1:2 is the word “ book ,” which also occurs in the accusative case. Is there a real difference between a writer attributing a quotation to “ the book of the prophets ” or to “ the prophets ”? The answer will be found in studying the next verse, which we also find in the Acts of the Apostles.

The quote is found in the Book of Amos , one of the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in one book called “ The Prophets ”!

Amo 5:25-27“O house of Israel, have you offered me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness for forty years? 26 But you have carried the tent of your kings and the image of your idols, the star of your God, which you made for yourselves. 27 Therefore I will lead you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.

۩ Text Four: Acts 7/42-43

Act 13:40-41Beware, lest what is spoken of in the prophets come upon you : 41 “Beware, you fools, and marvel and perish, for I am doing a work in your days, a work you would not believe if someone told you about it.”

(UBS4RE) You see then that what was spoken in the prophets shall not come to pass , 41 Behold, ye scoffers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though it be told you.

In this text we find the phrase “ in the prophets ” ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ).) As we find it written in Mark 1:2, the word “ prophets ” came in the accusative case, which we mentioned previously indicates a place or a reference that we can go to. So where do we find the quote that the writer of Acts attributed to “ the prophets ”? It is in the Book of Habakkuk , one of the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in a book called “ The Prophets ”!

Antonius Fikry says in his interpretation: [ Here Paul the Apostle uses the prophecy of Habakkuk 5:1, which Habakkuk said as a warning against disobedience. Habakkuk’s prophecy was that the most powerful military force in existence, which was the power of Babylon at the time, would destroy Jerusalem and the temple for disobedience. ] ^{[ [29] ]}

So, when the writer of Acts attributed the quotation to “ the prophets ” ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταιςWe find it in the Book of Habakkuk , who is one of the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in a book called “ The Prophets .” When the writer of the Acts of the Apostles attributed the quotation to “ The Book of the Prophets ” ( ἐν βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶνWe found it in the Book of Amos , who was one of the twelve prophets whose writings were collected in a book called “ The Prophets .” From here we realized that there was no difference for the writer of Acts between attributing the quotation to “ The Book of the Prophets ” or to “ The Prophets ” only.

۩ Text Five: Acts 15/15

Act 15:15-17And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written : 16 After this I will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins and set it up again, 17 so that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is called, says the Lord who does all these things.

(UBS4RE) 17 And with this agree the words of the prophets , as it is written , 16 After these things I will return and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 That the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord that doeth these things.

In this text we find the phrase “ the sayings of the prophets ” ( ἱ λόγοι προφητῶν), this is a different phrase from “ the book of the prophets ” or “ the prophets ,” but the writer of Acts in this text says that these “ sayings of the prophets ” are written, so he used the phrase “ according to what was written ” ( καθὼς γέγραπται).) This is the same phrase used in Mark 1:2. If we look for the written reference that contains “ the sayings of the prophets ,” we find that it is written in Amos 9:11-12. Amos is one of the twelve prophets whose writings are collected in a book called “ The Prophets ”! Is this just a coincidence? That whenever a New Testament writer says that this quote is written in “ The Prophets ,” we find the quote in one of the books of the twelve prophets, whose writings are collected in one book called “ The Prophets ”? I don’t think it is a coincidence in any way.

According to what the writer of the Gospel of Mark wrote: “ It is written in the prophets ” ( γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), and according to the use of the word " prophets " by the New Testament writers in connection with quotations, the author of the Gospel of Mark is referring to the book that collects the writings of the twelve prophets, which the Jews call " the prophets ." Therefore, he erred in attributing his two-part quotation to " the prophets " alone, since the second part of the quotation is taken from the book of " Isaiah the prophet ." This is if the Van Dyke translation is correct. But what if the other translations are correct, in which the author of the Gospel of Mark attributes his quotation to " Isaiah the prophet "? This is what we will now examine.

Now we move to another stage of the discussion of the sources of the quotation. After we have raised the problem of the author of the Gospel of Mark attributing his complex quotation to the " prophets " only, we must examine the possibility of attributing the quotation to " the Prophet Isaiah " only. I think it is very clear that attributing a two-part quotation to only one source, especially since the first part of the quotation is not found in this source, seems completely incorrect. Imagine with me: the phrase says " as it is written in the Prophet Isaiah " or as we find in the Jesuit Fathers' translation " it is written in the book of the Prophet Isaiah ", and the quotation that comes immediately after this phrase is not found in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah! Can you imagine the extent of the shock?!

The proponents of the applied interpretation of the Bible have an explanation for this strange attribution: [ We see here a double quotation taken from (Malachi 3/1) and then from (Isaiah 40/3), but only the name Isaiah is mentioned because it was the custom of the writers of the divine books to mention the prominent prophets . The oldest manuscripts mention “Isaiah,” while the more recent manuscripts mention “the prophets.” ] ^{[ [30] ]}

So, there is a claim that the habit of the writers of the divine books is to mention the prominent prophets. I think that this statement is not convincing at all, but we will prove with evidence and proof that this statement is just to escape the problem. Rather, later on we will shed light on this problem that made the copyists of the New Testament distort the text from “ the Prophet Isaiah ” to “ the prophets .” Remember what is written in the applied interpretation: ( The oldest manuscripts mention “Isaiah,” while the newer manuscripts mention “the prophets” ).

As for the custom of the writers of the alleged books, the reality is completely contrary to that claim, as there are very many texts that mention that a certain phrase was said by Isaiah or that it is written in Isaiah or something similar, and in all of these references we find that the speech is always in the book of the Prophet Isaiah, such as: Matthew 3/3 (Isaiah 40/3), Matthew 4/14 (Isaiah 9/1-2), Matthew 8/17 (Isaiah 53/4), Matthew 12/17-21 (Isaiah 42/1-4), Matthew 13/14-15 (Isaiah 6/9-10), Matthew 15/7 (Isaiah 29/13), Mark 7/6 (Isaiah 29/13), Luke 3/4 (Isaiah 40/3-5), Luke 4/17 (Isaiah 61/1-2), John 12/38 (Isaiah 53/1), Romans 9/29 (Isaiah 1/9), Romans 10/16 (Isaiah 53/1), Romans 10/20 (Isaiah 65/1), Romans 15/12 (Isaiah 69/9).

Why is there an exception in Mark 1:2? How can the writer say, " It is written in Isaiah the prophet ," when the quotation immediately following this phrase is not found in Isaiah the prophet? Claiming that this is the custom of the writers of divine scriptures is an escape from the problem of misattribution of a complex quotation. Here we have found fourteen texts that contain references to Isaiah the prophet, and we always find the same words there. It is shameful to lie to the writers of divine scriptures in order to escape a problem we face. Rather, it is better and more appropriate to acknowledge the problem and confront it, then search for the book that: { Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or from behind it. It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of Praise. } [Fussilat: 42]

My Muslim brother and Christian friend, ponder the words of Allah the Almighty in the Holy Quran: { And who is more truthful than Allah in statement ?}, { And who is more truthful than Allah in statement? } [An-Nisa’: 87-122]. His Eminence Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said, while explaining the words of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) about Allah the Almighty: {And more truthful in statement and better in statement than those of His creation.} Sheikh al-Uthaymeen said : [ The evidence for the second description - truthfulness - is the words of Allah the Almighty: { And who is more truthful than Allah in statement ?}, meaning: no one is more truthful than Him. Truthfulness is the conformity of speech to reality . No statement conforms to reality as the words of Allah the Almighty do . So everything that Allah has informed us is true, in fact it is more truthful than any statement. The evidence for the third description - clarity and eloquence - is the Almighty’s saying: { And who is more truthful than God in statement ?} And the beauty of His statement includes verbal and semantic beauty. [ ^{[ 31] ]}

If we put the words of the writer of the Gospel of Mark to the test, whether he wrote: " As it is written in the prophets " or " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet ," do his words correspond to reality? Evidenced and proven, the words of the writer of the Gospel of Mark do not correspond to reality. The first part of the quotation is taken from Malachi , and the second part is taken from Isaiah . It is not permissible to attribute both parts to Isaiah alone, because the first part is not found in it. It is not permissible to attribute both parts to the prophets alone, because the second part is not found in it. O people, if the writer of the Gospel had been diligent, he would have been able to attribute his quotation to the correct source. So what about those who say that these words were written by divine inspiration, or that the writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit! I fear that the matter does not end here, but rather that the writer of the Gospel did not copy faithfully from the sources, and this is what we will now explain.

Was the writer of the Gospel of Mark honest?

In this part of the research, we will return to the books of the Old Testament and examine the quotations written by the writer of the Gospel of Mark. By comparing the quotation with the source, we will discover the extent of the fidelity of one of the writers of the " divine books ." Did he transmit the " words of God " - according to the Jewish and Christian belief - literally and completely faithfully? Or did he distort and change the texts to achieve specific interests?

۩ The first part of the quote - Mark 1/2 - (Critical Text) :

Behold, I send my angel before thy face.	Behold, I send my angel before your face.
who will pave your way	who builds your path

As we read earlier, Christian scholars say that this quote is taken from Malachi 3:1. The text of Malachi, according to the Van Dyke translation, says: “ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me .” A simple comparison will reveal that the phrase “ before your face ” is not found in Malachi, and that the text says “ before me ” in the first person.), but in the Gospel of Mark we find it in the second person.). With more careful comparison, we will discover other differences. Let us take a look at the Hebrew text ^{[ [32] ]} :

Hebrew to Arabic translation - Malachi 3/1

Paul Elfeghali's translation of the Hebrew text: ( Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ). The phrase " the way before me " was transformed by the writer of the Gospel of Mark, according to the Van Dyck translation and the Greek Received Text, into: " Your way before you " or " Your way is ahead of you ." However, the Critical Greek text ends with the word " your way ," changing the first person pronoun to "the addressee." We also note that the text in Malachi contains the word " I, " which we do not find its equivalent in the Critical Greek text, but we do find it in Van Dyck and the Greek Received Text. Therefore, we can say that there were additions made by the copyists to make the ancient Greek text more similar to the text in Malachi. Let's take a look at the Greek Septuagint text of Malachi to perhaps discover more differences:

Mark 1:2 (Critical Greek Text)	Malachi 3:1 (Greek Septuagint)
Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way.	Behold , I will send my angel, and he will prepare the way before me.
Behold, I send my angel before thy face, which shall prepare thy way.	Behold, I will send my angel, and he shall prepare a way before me.

The order of the text is completely different! In Malachi we find the phrase ( πρὸ προσώπου μου) which may be translated as " my face " or " in front of me ", but it is not yet the phrase ( τὸν ἄγγελόν μου) " my angel " directly, as we find in the Gospel of Mark. There is also a slight difference between the verb used by the Gospel writer ( ἀποστέλλω) And what we find in Malachi ( ἐξ αποστέλλω), then the addition ( ἐξ) It refers to departure and departure, or removal and separation, or sending ^{[ [33] ]} . In addition, the text in Malachi says “ a way ,” while in Mark there is a definite article.

But there is a more fundamental difference. The word the Gospel writer uses to express the angel’s action is: ( κατασκευάσει), but this word is different from the one we find in the Book of Malachi: ( ἐπιβλέψετα). Word ( supervised)) from the original ( ἐπιβλέπω) ^{[ [34] ]} means “ look carefully at ” or “ peek into ” ^{[ [35] ]} , which gives the impression that the angel will watch the road for security, protection, or something else. The word used by the Gospel writer ( κατασκευάσει(from the original) ( I manufacture)) It means “ prepares ” or “ makes ” ^{[ [36] ]} , and this is a meaning other than the one we find in the Book of Malachi.

Some scholars believe that the Gospel writer was influenced by the Hebrew text of Malachi in the second part of the text, and through it he wrote, " who prepares your way ." The Septuagint uses the word ( ἐπιβλέπω) which we explained a little while ago, but the Hebrew text uses the word ( ופנה ), which came from the root ( פּנה ), which refers to someone who walks in front of you ^{[ [37] ]} , and thus the English Jewish version translates it as “ paves the way before me ” ^{[ [38] ]} .

All these differences have left scholars perplexed! Did the Gospel writer distort Malachi's text to this degree when he quoted it? And is Malachi the only reference for the Gospel writer's quote? In fact, scholars have found another Old Testament text that is closer, or at least close to the wording found in the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, we find scholars stating that the quote found in the Gospel of Mark 1:2-3 is composed or taken from three sources!

The famous textual critic Philippe Convert says: [ In Mark 1:2, the writer quotes from Exodus 23:20 , and then from Malachi 3:1 ( Hebrew text ), and in Mark 1:3, he quotes from Isaiah 40:3 ( Septuagint ), or perhaps Mark used a group of Jewish texts that relate to the Messiah ( Cole 1961, 57 ). Whatever Mark's source for this, he attributed the text to Isaiah alone. ] ^{[ [39] ]} , and David Palmer says: [ The first quotation appears to be a combination of Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1, and the second quotation from Isaiah 40:3. ] ^{[ [40] ]}

Father Jack Mason, the Jesuit, also says: [ Some manuscripts mention “the prophets” in the plural, not the singular, because the text cited by Saint Mark consists of three verses : from Exodus 23:20, from the Prophet Malachi 3:1 , and from the Prophet Isaiah 40:3 , as if Saint Mark wanted to confirm that the good news of the forerunner is not limited to one reference, but rather includes the entire Holy Bible. ] ^{[ [41] ]}

Regardless of mentioning the prophets in the plural and not in the singular, we have already refuted this matter at length. There is a book among the Jews called " The Prophets " because it collects the writings of the twelve prophets. We have mentioned the use of this term by the New Testament writers, and we have established that when referring to " the prophets ," the quotation is always from one of the twelve minor prophets. When the New Testament writers used the term " the prophets " in Acts 15:15, Acts 13:40-41, and elsewhere, was the quotation taken from more than one source? No, but it is an invention of the commentators in order to get the writer of the Gospel of Mark out of the dilemma he found himself in.

In another reference, entitled “ Commentary on the Greek Text,” we find the following: “ This quotation is essentially a mixture of Malachi 3:1 —with some elements taken from Exodus 23:20 —and Isaiah 40:3 . Perhaps all of this was attributed to Isaiah because he is the most famous, and although it (i.e., the quotation actually taken from Isaiah) came in the second part, it was the basic idea linking the two parts. ” ^[⁴²^]

In the previous reference we also find an admission that the quotation was taken from three sources, with an illogical justification for the misattribution to one source! Couldn't the Gospel writer have used a phrase like " what was said by the prophets " ( τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν) which was used by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew?! Or the repeated phrase in the New Testament “ as it is written ,” without stating that this quote “ was written ” ( γέγραπται" In the Prophets " ), which came in the case of the receiver, meaning that we can actually return to it!

So, we have learned a useful piece of information, which is that the quote is made up of three texts: Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Exodus 23:20 says: ( Behold , I send an angel before your face to guard you on the way ). When we compare Exodus with what is in the Gospel of Mark, we find agreement in the phrase “ before your face ,” and the pronoun is also for the addressee, so perhaps the Gospel writer actually quoted from Exodus! Let us take a look at the Hebrew text ^[^[43]^] :

Hebrew to Arabic translation - Exodus 23:20

Paul Al-Feghali's translation of the Hebrew text: ( Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way ). In the text of Exodus we find the word " I " again. Whether the Christian believes that the writer of the Gospel of Mark quoted from Exodus or from Malachi, he omitted the word " I. " This confirms its addition later in the manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, and its appearance in the Greek Received Text. However, there is a note, which is that the text in Exodus says " an angel , " but in Malachi it says " my angel ," and this is how we find it in the Gospel of Mark. Let us take a look at the text of the Septuagint translation:

Mark 1:2 (Critical Greek Text)	Exodus 23:20 (Greek Septuagint)
Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way.	And behold , I send my angel before your face, to keep you on the way.
Behold, I send my angel before thy face, which shall prepare thy way.	Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee on the way.

A simple comparison between the Greek text of Exodus and the critical text of Mark, with the omission of the conjunction ( Καὶ) at the beginning of the Exodus text, and ignore the word “ I ” ( ἐγὼ).) which the writer of the Gospel of Mark omitted, whether accidentally or intentionally, we will find that there is a near-identical match in the first part, “ Behold, I send (my) angel before your face ,” but the whole problem lies in the second part, where did the writer of the Gospel get “ who prepares your way ”? Scholars believe that it is inspired by the Hebrew text of Malachi 3:1, while acknowledging that there is no “identical” counterpart to it in the Old Testament!

The commentator James Edwards says in his commentary: [ The quotation in 1:2-3 is identified as being taken from the prophet Isaiah, although it is in fact a fabric of three Old Testament passages . The reference to the sending of a messenger in verse 2 is taken from the first half of Exodus 23:20 , and Malachi 3:1 , although there is no corresponding Old Testament counterpart to the second half of verse 2, “who will prepare your way.” The bulk of the fabric is found in verse 3, which quotes Isaiah 40:3 almost verbatim. ] ^{[ [44] ]}

So, the second half of the second verse has no equivalent in the Old Testament! As for the first part, Christian scholars say it is composed of Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1. I think the problem is big, but the bigger problem is the Gospel writer changing the first-person pronoun to the second-person pronoun, adding the angel's action and that he " will prepare your way "! Why all these changes? Why did the Gospel writer make these "distortions" and "additions"? Let us monitor the distortions and changes in a simple table and then answer the question:

Mark 1:2 (Critical Text)	Malachi 3:1 (Septuagint)	Exodus 23:20 (Septuagint)
Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way.	Behold , I will send my angel, and he will prepare the way before me.	And behold , I send my angel before your face, to keep you on the way.

While acknowledging that the second part of the second verse, “ who prepares your way ,” has no parallel in the Old Testament, and that it may be inspired by the Hebrew text of Malachi, we will only compare with respect to the first part. If the first part of the quotation is taken from Exodus 23:20 only, there is no difference except in the omission of the conjunction ( Καὶ), and the word " I " ( ἐγὼ), but if it is from Malachi, there are many problems, the first of which is the addition of ( ἐξ) on the verb ( send)), and the second is the absence of the phrase ( πρὸ προσώπου) immediately after the word " my angel ," and the third is changing the pronoun from the speaker to the addressee. Perhaps the Gospel writer actually took the first part from Exodus, and the second part was inspired by Malachi! But why did he make these many changes?

The answer is found in the commentary of the Church of the Believers, which says: [ Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3—which are considered the sources for Mark's quote, which refers only to Isaiah—speak of the prophet who will prepare for the coming of the Lord. Mark slightly altered the prophetic texts, but it was an important and significant change . In Malachi, "the Lord of hosts" announces that a messenger will precede the Lord's coming to cleanse the temple. While in Isaiah, the voice crying out will prepare for the coming of the Lord. A simple change to both texts made it flow into Mark's text , to be a prophecy of the gospel of Jesus . ] ^{[ [45] ]}

So, things are clear: the Gospel writer distorted the prophetic texts so that they would be suitable as prophecies for those who would preach about Jesus! What a wonderful and very logical confession. Perhaps this explains to us why the translations made a slight distortion in the translation. They used the word “ apostolic ” even though the Greek phrase ( τὸν ἄγγελόνThe Hebrew word ( מלאכי ) is often translated as angel and not messenger. However, the Gospel writer wanted, through these distortions and changes in the prophetic texts, to give a prophecy from the Old Testament that clarifies the coming of John the Baptist before Christ, peace be upon him. John the Baptist was not an angel, but a messenger prophet, and therefore the translations used the word “ messenger ” instead of “ angel .” All the distortions have a meaning and significance!

۩ The second part of the quote - Mark 1/3 - (Critical Text) :

A voice crying in the wilderness	a voice of one crying in the wilderness
Prepare the way of the Lord	Prepare the way of the Lord.
Make his path straight	Straighten his stripes.

Greek-Arabic translation - Mark 1/3 ^{[ [46] ]}

Regarding the second part of the quotation in verse 3, we find it more accurately quoted than the Greek Septuagint, except for a difference at the end of the quotation. The text of Isaiah 40:3 according to the Van Dyke translation reads: " The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God .'" The end of the quotation is abbreviated as " Make his paths straight ," whereas in Isaiah it says " Make straight in the desert a highway for our God ." Let us take a closer look at the Hebrew text ^{[ [47] ]} :

Hebrew-Arabic Translation - Isaiah 40:3

Paul Al-Feghali’s translation of the Hebrew text: ( The voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Direct the way of the Lord, make straight the path of our God in the desert .”) The difference, as we said, appears in the last part, noting that the Hebrew text says “ the way of the Lord, ” while the Gospel text puts it in the plural form ( τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ).) " His ways ." If we compare the text of the Gospel with the text of Isaiah according to the Septuagint, we will find a near-identity:

Mark 1:3 (Critical Text)	Isaiah 40:3 (Greek Septuagint)
a voice of one crying in the wilderness	a voice of one crying in the wilderness
Prepare the way of the Lord.	Prepare the way of the Lord.
Straighten his stripes.	Make straight the paths of our God.

The only difference is that Isaiah says () " The ways of our God ," but the writer of the Gospel says in short ( τρίβους αὐτοῦ) “ His ways .” So, perhaps the author of the Gospel of Mark actually quoted Isaiah 40:3 from the Greek Septuagint, taking into account the difference at the end of the quote.

۩ Summary of this part :

The quotation in Mark 1:2-3 is taken from three passages: Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. We can divide the quotation into four parts: ( 1 ) " Behold, I send my messenger before your face ," ( 2 ) " who will prepare your way ," ( 3 ) " The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, '" ( 4 ) " Make his paths straight ." The third part is taken almost verbatim from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:3, and the fourth part is an abbreviation of what we find in the Septuagint version of Isaiah. The second part has no counterpart in the Old Testament, and many believe it was inspired by the Hebrew text of Malachi 3:1. All the problems and distortions are present in the first part, and we have listed the problems in detail. All of this is done in order to construct prophetic texts that herald the one who will herald Jesus.

Which one did Mark write: the prophets or Isaiah?

If you think that the previous problems are the biggest problems between the two texts, then you are wrong. What we will deal with now among the scholars is much bigger and more serious! The issue is not just differences between the manuscripts, but the problem revolves around a deliberate change to the text for specific reasons and motives. There are those who distorted the text and there are reasons that drove them to do so! Hold on, my Christian friend, I will not slander on my own. Rather, as I did before, I will only quote I'm boredthe statements of the specialized scholars and comment on them.

We knew previously, by comparing the Greek monetary version ( UBS4RE) in the Greek Received Text version ( GNT-TR)), there are many differences, and by the word difference we mean the existence of more than one form of the same single text, and the text is supposed to have only one form, since the writer wrote only one Gospel, and any differences we find in the sources of the Gospel text result from problems during the historical transmission of the Gospel text. The most important of these differences is the difference related to the source of the quote, is it ( τοῖς προφήταις) " The Prophets " or ( Isaiah the prophet)) " Isaiah the Prophet "? Which one did Mark write? And why did the other form appear in the sources for the text of the Gospel of Mark?

۩ External evidence (related to the sources of the text) :

Arrange the different forms of the text according to ( UBS4RE)^[[48]]:

· Figure 1: In (the) Prophet Isaiah [in Isaiah the Prophet] ]: Greek manuscripts: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th century), L(8th century), Δ33, 565, 892 (9th century), 1241 (12th century), 2427 (14th century).

· The second figure: In Isaiahthe prophet ]: Greek manuscripts: Beza (5th century), Θ(9th century), First Family Manuscripts ƒ1(12th century and later), 205 (15th century), 700 and 1243 and l 253(11th century), 1071 (12th century), Old translations: Armenian (19th century), Georgian (5th century), Old Latin: a(4th century), b, d, ff_2(5th century), f, q(6th century), aur(7th century), l(8th century), c(12th century), Vulgate (5th century), Syriac: Peshitta (5th century), Palestinian (6th century), Harculinian on the margin (7th century), Coptic: Sahidic (4th century), and Bohairic (9th century).

· The third form: in theprophets ]: Greek manuscripts: Alexandrian, Washington (5th century), Thirteenth Family manuscripts (13th century and later), 1424 (9th century), 28, 1006 (11th century), 180, 1010, 1505 (12th century), 579, 597, 1292, 1342 (13th century), Byzantine text manuscripts Capital letters: E, F, H, Σ(6th century), G, P(9th century), with most other Byzantine text manuscripts, most church reading manuscripts, ancient translations: some Vulgate manuscripts, Harcullin Syriac (7th century), Bohairic Coptic on the margin (9th century), Ethiopic (6th century), Slavonic (9th century).

· Figure 4: In Isaiahand in the Prophets ]: Some ancient Latin manuscripts (5th century and later).

· We will discuss the patristic evidence later.

Sinaiticus Codex 4th Century AD - Form 1: "In (the) Prophet Isaiah"

The textual sources of the Gospel of Mark contain four different forms of the text: ( 1 ) “ in (the) prophet Isaiah ,” ( 2 ) “ in the prophet Isaiah ,” ( 3 ) “ in the prophets ,” ( 4 ) “ in Isaiah and in the prophets .” The first and second forms of the text make the quotation from the prophet Isaiah, regardless of whether there is a definite article before Isaiah or not, its presence or absence makes little difference, as the two forms are in the same direction. The third form is the main competitor to the first and second forms , and the trade-off will be between these two groups. The fourth form is outside the calculations of scholars, as it is found in only a few Latin manuscripts, and has no support from the Greek manuscripts. It is very clear that the fourth form came from the combination of the second and third forms , which is a type of deliberate change to the text that scholars call “ conflation. ”“(Combining different forms of the text in a new manuscript, creating a new form) ^{[ [49] ]} .

In view of this strange form, " In Isaiah and in the Prophets ," I think it should have been written " In the Prophets and in Isaiah ," since the quotation from " the Prophets " came first, followed by the quotation from Isaiah. However, perhaps this order in the fourth form indicates the antiquity of " Isaiah " and its presence in manuscripts before the form containing " the Prophets " appeared . In any case, this form is evidence that attributing the quotation to " Isaiah " alone or to " the Prophets " alone is incorrect, and attribution should be made to both sources.

Vatican Codex 4th century AD - Form 1: "In (the) Prophet Isaiah"

At a simple glance, we can see that the third form , " In the Prophets ," has no evidence before the fifth century. As for the first form , " In the Prophet Isaiah ," we find it in the two oldest and most authentic Greek manuscripts: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. We also note that the second form , " In the Prophet Isaiah ," which is next to the first form , " In the Prophet Isaiah ," is found in the oldest and most common translations: Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Georgian, and Vulgate. As for the third form, " In the Prophets , " we find it only in translations from the sixth century and later. Thus, we can say with complete confidence and firmness that the two supported forms of " Isaiah the Prophet " are the oldest, and that the third form came later.

5th century AD Codex Beza - Form II: "On the Prophet Isaiah"

We can also note that the first and second forms are widespread in a fair number of manuscripts, and these manuscripts are from almost all textual families. There are the most important manuscripts of the Alexandrian text : the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and the Coptic; and the most important manuscripts of the Western text : the Bezaanite, the Old Latin, and the Vulgate; and there are also evidences from the Caesarean text. Among the signs of the prevalence of the first and second forms in manuscripts is their presence in many of the late manuscripts (from the ninth century onwards), in addition to their presence in the manuscript of the Monastery of Saint Catherine of the Four Gospels in Arabic, which dates back to the ninth century AD ^{[ [50] ] . As for the}third form , as we said previously, we do not find it in the oldest evidence, but it later spread in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts from the Byzantine text ^{[ [51] ]} .

St. Catherine's Monastery Manuscript of the Four Gospels from the 9th Century AD - Figure II: "The Prophet Isaiah"

Everything we said previously was acknowledged by the most prominent scholars of textual criticism, and here is what they said:

· Bruce Terry : [ Reading in the text ( UBS3:(The Prophet Isaiah), we find it in several types of ancient texts. ] ^{[ [52] ]}

· Bruce Metzger : [ Reading ( UBS4:(The) Prophet Isaiah) is found in the oldest typical evidence of the Alexandrian and Western texts. ] ^{[ [53] ]}

· Daniel Wallace : [ On the other hand, the references to “in the prophet Isaiah” (whether with a definite article before Isaiah or not) are ancient and geographically widespread : ( A BD L Δ Θ f1 33 565 700 892 1241 2427 al syp co Ir ). This evidence indicates that reading has been widespread since the second century , and is found in the most important evidence of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as the Caesarean ones. ] ^[^[54]^]

Alexandrian manuscript from the fifth century AD - Form III: "On the Prophets"

We also find in the NIV interpretation :The following: [ The quotation in verses 2 and 3 refers us back to verse 1 to show that the beginning of the gospel came “as it is written in the prophet Isaiah.” Although many ancient manuscripts of Mark read “as it is written in the prophets,” we find that the best manuscripts refer only to “Isaiah .” Perhaps Mark wanted to shed light on the quotation from Isaiah 40:3 in verse 3. ] ^{[ [55] ]}

Washington Codex, 5th Century AD - Figure III: "On the Prophets"

So, we can say that the first and second forms supporting “ Isaiah the Prophet ” can be found in the oldest and most authentic manuscripts, whether they are of the Alexandrian, Western, or Caesarean text. As Daniel Wallace said about them, they are “ since the second century, widely spread, and present in the most important witnesses .” As for the third form , we only find it in manuscripts of the fifth century and after, and it spread in manuscripts of the Byzantine text, which represent the majority of the New Testament manuscripts.

۩ Fatherly evidence :

Quotations from the Church Fathers and early writers are the third source of the New Testament text. Some try to give this source special authority in citation, but this is not the case with scholars. In any case, with regard to Mark 1:2, the Church Fathers from the beginning often quote the text in the first form , " in (the) Prophet Isaiah " or the second , " in the Prophet Isaiah ." However, I must draw the attention of my Christian friend to a very important piece of information that I will present in the form of an answer to the question : How do you know which Fathers quoted the text in this or that form? The answer is simple: from the critical Greek versions such as ( UBS4RE) or ( NA27), or from any well-known scholar specializing in textual criticism, I am not the one who claims that this father quoted or did not quote.

There is another very important question : Why do we have to accept the statements of specialized scholars? Why don't we search ourselves in the writings of the Fathers and extract the quotations to see in what form the text was quoted? The answer : Because there are many non-specialists who cannot distinguish between quotations and the Father's own explanation, so they come up with the explanation thinking that it is a quotation of a text because of the similarity of the explanation to the text! But in order for the Father's words to be evidence of a specific text from the New Testament, there must be a statement from the Father that it is a quotation, in addition to the quoted text having a close, literal relationship to the text as we find it in the New Testament. These criteria are not my own, but they are the criteria found in the critical Greek versions ^{[ [56] ]} .

In any case, as the poet said: " It is up to me to weave the rhymes from their mine... ", you, the reader, must be well aware and realize who adheres to academic and impartial standards, even if they are not of the same religion, and who falsifies and writes ignorantly, even if they are of the same religion. Do not let emotion be the judge of such purely academic matters, but rather let your mind be a just and equitable judge, so that it may guide you to what is right, God willing. Thus, we will present the fathers who quoted Mark 1:2, along with some of their quotes. We will also take an example of an incorrect citation of the words of one of the fathers, so that we may understand the difference between the correct witness and the unsound witness. And God is the Grantor of success.

According to the critical Greek versions ^{[ [57] ]} (we will detail matters later according to the two previous references), the fathers who quoted the third form “ in the prophets ” are: Irenaeus (d. 202 AD), and Asterius the Sophist (d. 341 AD). Those who adopted the first form “ in the Prophet Isaiah ” or the second “ in the Prophet Isaiah ” are: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. 202 AD), the learned Origen (born 185 AD - died 254 AD), Victorinus, Bishop of Beto (d. around 304 AD), Serapion, Bishop of Themmeus (bishop before 339 AD - 359/362 AD), Ambrosiostor (after 384 AD), Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403 AD), Severianus of Mount Sinai (d. after 408 AD), Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia (d. 407 AD), Hesychius (after 450 AD), Jerome (d. 419 AD), and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (d. 430 AD).

It is clear that the first and second forms are much more likely than the third , as the third has only two fathers who testify to it, while the first and second forms have eleven fathers (there are other fathers, but these are the most important). This numerical difference clearly shows us the geographical spread of the first and second forms , as these fathers came from different countries, some wrote in Greek and others wrote in Latin, which gives great strength.

First, we must clarify a very important point: How can Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, be a witness to both sides? The answer lies in understanding the nature of this father's writings. Irenaeus is considered one of the most important and famous theologians of the second century. He was born around 140 AD and died in 202 AD. His book Against Heresies , or Refutation of Heretics, is the oldest refutation of heresy in Christian literature. This book was originally written in Greek but was lost. What exists is a Latin translation of the entire text. ^{[ [58] ]}

The original Greek version of Irenaeus's book has indeed been lost, but traces of the Greek text are preserved through the quotations of the book by Hippolytus and Epiphanius . ^{[ 59] Thus} , according to the critical Greek versions we have already referred to, we find in the Greek text of Irenaeus a quotation of the second form , and in the Latin text another quotation of the same form, which indicates that the original in Irenaeus is the second form " in Isaiah the Prophet ", but in the later Latin translation we find the third form " in the Prophets ", and it is quoted twice.

On this, Daniel Wallace comments: [ The problem with Irenaeus's testimony is that he wrote in Greek, but most of what is preserved of him is in Latin. The surviving Greek texts of his contain ' in Isaiah the prophet '. The later Latin texts only read 'in the prophets'. Thus the King James reading was consistent with most of the later manuscripts. ] ^{[ [60] ]}

So, Irenaeus is considered a witness to the second form " in the prophet Isaiah " since the oldest texts of his Greek writings testify to this, while the later Latin texts testify to the third form " in the prophets ". This is not surprising, since it is not difficult to change the writings of the fathers, did not the change occur in the book itself?! In any case, we will present three quotes from Irenaeus , two for the third form, and one for the second:

The Book Against Heresies - Book Three, Chapter Ten, Verse Five: [ And so Mark also, the translator and companion of Peter, begins his Gospel with: “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 your face, who will prepare the way.’” ] ^{[ [61] ]}

Latin text of the quote ^{[ [62] ]}

Against Heresies - Book Three, Chapter Sixteen, Verse Three: [ For this reason Mark said: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets .” Knowing the same one Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who is Emmanuel who came from the line of David. ] ^{[ [63] ]}

Latin text of the quote ^{[ [64] ]}

The Book Against Heresies - Book Three, Chapter Ten, Verse Eight: [ On the other hand, Mark began referring to the prophetic spirit coming from above to man, saying: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ,” referring to the spiritual side of the gospel. ] ^{[ [65] , [66] ]}

Thus, we have demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that the Greek texts of Irenaeus's writings bear witness to the second form , while the third form is found only in later Latin texts. Now, let us consider the second witness to the third form , namely Asterius the Sophist , one of the fourth-century Fathers. Personally, I do not believe that Asterius is a person worthy of quoting anything from, for he was a disciple of Lucian of Antioch , who is considered the father of Arianism! It is clear that Lucian's doctrine was not in accordance with the orthodox faith, as we find Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia boasting of being his disciples, even calling themselves Lucianians. [ ^{67 ] Asterius}himself denied the faith during the persecution of Maximian, and was perhaps the first Arian writer, so much so that Arius himself used his writings in his rejection of the Nicene faith. This is according to what Athanasius testified to, as he called him “the sacrificer” because he sacrificed to idols and denied the faith, and he also called him “the advocate” of the heresy of Arius . ^{[ [68] ]}

Does it make a difference to a Christian whether Asterius was an infidel or not? A Muslim only quotes from a trustworthy, steadfast person with sound doctrine, while Christians quote from anyone, even if they are unknown or infidels! So, Asterius is considered the only patristic witness to the third form , after we have shown that Irenaeus is in fact considered a witness to the second form according to the oldest Greek texts. Now let us move on to presenting the statements of the remaining fathers who testified to either the first or second form .

The second witness after Irenaeus is the scholar Origen , who was born in 185 AD and died in 254 AD. Origen quoted the first form once, the second form three times, all four times in Greek, and once in Latin. Origen is considered a very powerful witness, as he lived in the late second and early third centuries, and was a man of prolific knowledge! His friends and admirers describe him as: the prince of biblical commentators, the prince of Christian philosophy, the teacher of bishops, and it is said that no human mind can comprehend all that he wrote. Saint Epiphanius (c. 315-403 AD) says that Origen wrote 6,000 manuscripts, written in Greek, some of which were translated into Latin during his lifetime and others after his death. Due to his intense passion for reading, he would rent out libraries overnight to read their books. Saint Jerome praised his love of reading and said that he would read while he ate, while he walked, and even while he rested. Thus, his knowledge expanded to a great degree and his mental superiority was undisputed. He worked in education. ^[^[69]^]

Now let us present Origen’s quotes for the first and second forms :

The Book Against Celsus - Book Two, Chapter Four: [ No, but one of the two Gospels - Mark - said: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the Prophet , ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ ”] ^{[ [70] ]}

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book One, Chapter Fourteen: [ Likewise, Mark himself says: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 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 out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ” ^{[ [71] ]}

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book Six, Chapter Fourteen: [ On the other hand, we find in Mark, the same words recorded at the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in agreement with the Book of Isaiah, thus: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet , ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ The voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ” ^{[ [72] ]}

Origen commented after this passage, saying: [ Perhaps John was seeking to compare: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God,” so he wrote it thus: “Make straight the paths of the Lord.” While Mark combined two prophecies reported by two prophets in two different places , making them one prophecy, “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 out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’” ] ^{[ [73] ]}

Thus we find that Origen only knows the first form , “ in the Prophet Isaiah ,” or the second , “ in the Prophet Isaiah ,” and he knows very well that the quotation is composed from two different places, and not from Isaiah alone. If this indicates anything, it indicates Origen’s culture and extensive knowledge.

Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (died c. 304 AD) is the third Father who quoted the second form , " in Isaiah the Prophet ," of the text. Victorinus was a third-century Father, and was Bishop of Pettau .In Syria. He is considered one of the early interpreters in the Latin Church, and Jerome says about him that he was not as proficient in Latin as he was in Greek. ^{[ [74] ]}

The Book of Interpretation of the Revelation of the Blessed John - Revelation 4/7-10: [ For this reason, Mark, as one of the Evangelists, begins thus: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet , ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness’ - has the image (personality) of a lion. ”] ^{[ [75] ]}

After Victorinus , there are many other Fathers who quoted the second form of the text, but I will only address the most important examples. Irenaeus , Origen , and Victorinus are among the earliest patristic witnesses to the first and second forms , as they are Fathers of the second and third centuries. However, there is also a large group of Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, the most important of whom are Augustine of Hippo and Saint Jerome .

Less important fathers include Serapion, Bishop of Thebes (bishop before 339 AD – 359/362 AD), who was head of a monastic community in Upper Egypt and was later ordained Bishop of Thebes, a city in the northern Delta. He was called "the teacher" or "the interpreter" because of his vast knowledge, his unique genius, and the greatness of his teachings, as Jerome mentions in his book "Famous Men." He was the 13th director of the Alexandrian Theological School, and in 339 AD, Athanasius sent him one of his Easter letters, beginning it with the words, "To my beloved brother and fellow servant." ^{[ 76 ]}

There is also Ambrosiostor (after 384 AD), a name given to the author of commentaries on all of Paul's epistles except the Epistle to the Hebrews. These commentaries are often found among the works of St. Ambrose . ^{[ 77] In} addition, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (born c. 315 AD, bishop 367 AD, died 403 AD), who is considered one of the famous fathers who adopted the second form of the text. His fame is based mainly on his attempts to refute heresies and promote the orthodox Nicene faith. He was a heresy hunter who adhered to the Nicene faith. Jerome says of him that he mastered Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Coptic, and a little Latin. ^{[ 78 ]}

There is Severianus of Mount (died after 408 AD), who was bishop of the city of Jabaleh (near Latakia) in Syria, and was a very capable preacher. St. John Chrysostom made him his vicar before his trip to Ephesus in 401 AD. He was an unflagging defender of the faith of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea against heretics and Jews, but his works lack originality and creativity. ^{[ [79] ]} In addition, Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia (died 407 AD), became a priest of the church in 387 or 388 AD after the death of Valerian, Bishop of that city. ^{[ [80] ]}

Finally, there is Hesychius of Jerusalem (died after 450 AD), who was honored by the Greek Church and considered a saint and had a great talent for interpreting the Bible. He interpreted the entire Bible, and in general he followed the Alexandrian school’s method of symbolic interpretation and rejected the literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible. ^{[ [81] ]}

All of the aforementioned Fathers quoted the second form of the text , " in Isaiah the Prophet ," but in order not to mention their fame, I will not discuss their quotations. I will suffice with the references I mentioned earlier, which tell us that they quoted the second form of the text. Now, I will present quotations from two of the most important Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries: Jerome, the so-called Saint, and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo .

Jerome is the most famous of the Latin Church Fathers. He was born around 345 AD and died in 419 AD. He was a scholar of the Bible, translator, polemicist, and ascetic. His most important literary works included revising the Latin translation of the Gospels and the New Testament, and translating the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, meaning "common"), and his real life's work began in 383 AD, when Pope Damasus commissioned him to revise the Old Latin translation of the Gospels. This task was extended to include (albeit with less accuracy) the rest of the New Testament. ^{[ [82] ]}

Jerome's Letter No. 57 - To Pammachius on the best means of translation: [ Mark, a disciple of Peter, begins his Gospel as follows: “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 the way before you. The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” ] ^{[ [83] ]}

After this, Jerome commented , saying: [ This quotation is composed of two prophets ; we can say Malachi (as if Jerome is not convinced of this and realizes that the first part of the quotation has many problems) and Isaiah . As for the first part, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way.” It is at the end of Malachi. As for the second part, “The voice of one crying out…” we read in Isaiah. On what basis, then, did Mark place these words at the beginning of his book: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet , Behold, I send my messenger…” when, as we said, it is not written in Isaiah at all , but in Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets? Let this ignorant supposition answer this question if he can, and then I will ask pardon for being mistaken. ] ^{[ [84] ]}

Here we have a pause with Jerome's comment , for we find in him an explanation and a statement of the problem, as if he is saying that this statement of Mark is wrong: " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger... " because the words: " Behold, I send my messenger... " are not written in Isaiah at all. But at the same time we find a kind of mockery from Jerome , as if he is posing the problem before you and he knows the solution very well, but he wants to make a mockery of you. Indeed, Jerome posed more than one problem in this letter after the problem of Mark 1:2, and in the end Jerome presents us with the solution to all of these problems.

This is the solution Jerome offered to all the problems: [ It appears clear from all these passages that the apostles and the Gospel writers, in translating the Old Testament, sought to clarify the meaning rather than to concentrate on the words, and that they did not care to preserve the forms and structures, as long as they would make the subject of the passage clearer. ] ^{[ [85] ]}

What Jerome said was also said by Brooke in the Modern American Commentary: [ Simply put, Mark and the rest of the biblical writers did not use the precise techniques of modern research. It was not necessary for them. ] ^{[ [86] ]}

Frankly speaking, this is a dangerous solution that never occurred to me, and a crushing answer that no human being can refute! What is this strange talk?! Jerome speaks as if the Gospel of Mark is not a book written by the inspiration of God Almighty, and completely ignores the fact that the Gospel writer is supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit! He speaks as if the Gospel writer is just a human being striving to clarify a point or a certain piece of information regardless of the text’s precision and scientific accuracy. And why am I so surprised? The book is indeed a pure human work, merely a human effort, and that is why the text came out in this form, which does contain a completely wrong phrase. But that is not important. What is important is that you receive the information that the writer wrote about, regardless of his writing style.

Thus, we find Jerome quoting the second form of the text , " in Isaiah the prophet ," and asserting that Mark's phrase, " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold, I send my messenger... '" is incorrect, since it is not written in Isaiah at all. But all this is irrelevant; what is most important is conveying the information the author is writing about. Now let us consider the quotations of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and so-called saint.

Augustine, called Saint, was born in 354 AD and died in 430 AD. He was the bishop of Hippo. He loved Latin, was fluent in it, and was familiar with its culture, but he did not like the Greek language, and he had no knowledge of Hebrew at all. There is a very strange piece of information about Augustine's youth that completely contradicts the title of "saint"! Augustine learned Christian teachings from his pious mother, Monica, but when he was 19 years old, he abandoned the Christian faith, became attached to a girl, and had an illicit relationship with her. He even had an illegitimate son with her, whom he named Adeodatus. He despised his mother's Christian religion and considered it a false superstition. ^{[ [87] ]}

This “saint” quoted the second form “ in the Prophet Isaiah ” of the text, and we will present his quotes:

The Harmony of the Gospels - Book Two, Chapter Six: [ And then he began thus: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet , ‘Behold, I send a messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ The voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ John was baptizing in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…’ etc. ] ^{[ [88] ]}

The Harmony of the Gospels - Book Four, Chapter One: [ Then Mark began thus: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God: as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ” and so on until he said, “Then they entered Capernaum, and immediately he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and taught.” ] ^{[ [89] ]}

Thus, we have presented the quotations of the Fathers who quoted Mark 1:2. Only one Father is considered a true witness to the third form of the text, compared to eleven Fathers who quoted the first and second forms. There is no longer any doubt that the two forms supporting " Isaiah " have the upper hand in the writings of the Fathers, from the second to the fifth centuries AD. Before concluding our discussion of the Fathers' evidence, I would like to provide an example of a misquotation of one of the quotations.

There are those who claim that the scholar Tertullian quoted the third form of the text. This claim is completely false. First, because there is not a single critical Greek copy or respected scholar specializing in textual criticism who says that Tertullian quoted the third form of the text. Second, because if you look closely at the father's words, you will find that he does not quote any of the four forms! Let us take Tertullian's words and see for ourselves. Look at the English text and the Arabic translation:

Just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future “angel,” through the prophet: “Behold, I send mine angel before Thy” - that is, Christ’s - “face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee.”^[[90]]

Just as the Spirit, speaking on behalf of the Father, points out and calls the herald of Christ, who is John, the future “angel,” through the prophet : “Behold, I send my angel before” – Christ – “your face, who will prepare your way before you.”

Here we find that Tertullian does not quote any of the four forms , but rather explains the prophecy found in Malachi , and then Tertullian says ( through the prophet" Through the prophet ," is this a fifth form of the text? It's quite clear that he doesn't quote the part under study, so scholars agree that Tertullian does not bear witness to any of the four forms we find in the sources for the Gospel of Mark. Thus, we have completed our presentation of the patristic evidence for the text of Mark 1:2.

۩ Summary of external evidence (concerning the sources of the text) :

It is quite clear that we find the first form , " In (the) Prophet Isaiah ," and the second , " In the Prophet Isaiah ," in the oldest sources of the text: Greek manuscripts (Sinai, Vaticanus), ancient translations (Coptic, Syriac, Latin), and patristic quotations (Irenaeus, Origen), in addition to their presence in witnesses from more than one textual family (the Alexandrian text, the Western text, the Caesarean text). The third form, " In the Prophets ," is found only in manuscripts from the fifth century and later (Alexandrian, Washingtonian), but this form is widespread in the vast majority of manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark from the Byzantine text. Thus, we can say with complete confidence that the first and second forms are the oldest and were widely distributed in ancient manuscripts until the fifth century. Then they began to disappear from the manuscripts, and the third form began to spread until it dominated the vast majority of manuscripts.

۩ Internal evidence (interpretation of what we found in the text sources) :

Now we have reached the crucial stage, in which we must choose one of the four forms of the text. This chosen form is supposed to be the oldest form of the text historically, all others coming after it. We have omitted the fourth form , " In Isaiah and the Prophets ," because we only find it in some ancient Latin manuscripts. We do not find the fourth form in the Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, or among the Fathers. It is very clear that it is a combination of the second and third forms . Thus, we must choose between the first form, " In (the) Prophet Isaiah ," the second , " In the Prophet Isaiah ," and the third , " In the Prophets ."

Some may ask: Why do we have to choose between the first and second forms ? Why not consider them as one form and choose directly between it and the third ? In fact, textual criticism is concerned with literalism, and its goal is to reconstruct the original text as written by the author, or, according to the available evidence, the closest version of the original text. Thus, we must decide: Did the Gospel writer place the definite article before the word " Isaiah " or not? This is if we say that Isaiah has the upper hand over the prophets.

So, we have to choose the oldest form of the text, and it is clear that when we talk about antiquity, we are heading towards the first or second form , because as we said before, the third form does not appear until the fifth century and after. The vast majority of textual critics say that the first form , " in (the) prophet Isaiah ," is the oldest form of the text. Then some dropped the definite article before the word " Isaiah , " so the second form of the text appeared. Then the copyists changed either the first or second form to the third form , but why?

I think the answer is easy and clear. As Jerome said : “ On what basis then did Mark place these words at the beginning of his book: ‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet , Behold, I send my messenger…’ when, as we have said, it is not written in Isaiah at all , but in Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets? ” The copyists also saw this, and changed “ (the) Isaiah the prophet ” or “ Isaiah the prophet ” to “ the prophets ” so that the phrase would be somewhat correct, at least at the beginning!

۩ Scholars' Sayings - "Isaiah" was changed to "the prophets":

Thus says Father Matta the poor, with all frankness and clarity: [ As for the completion of the saying: (as it is written in the prophets) , it is an old modification of the original verse : (as it is written in Isaiah), because the text is also taken at its beginning from (Malachi 3:1). ] ^{[ [91] ]} , for he admitted that the original had been changed and deviated from what it was at the beginning, because the beginning of the text is from Malachi and not from Isaiah, and Malachi is found “ in the prophets ” ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις).).

This is what Bruce Metzger also says : [ In ancient manuscripts containing Mark 1:2, the compound quotation consisting of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, is identified by the phrase: “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” Later copyists, sensing that this phrase contained some difficulty , changed ( ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) "In (the) prophet Isaiah" in the most comprehensive text ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) “In the Prophets.” [ ^{[ 92] ]}

Bruce Metzger adds in another book: [ The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is compound, the first part being taken from Malachi 3:1 and the second part from Isaiah 40:3. Therefore, it is very easy to see why the copyists replaced the words “in Isaiah the prophet” (…) in the most comprehensive form presented to us “in the Prophets.” ] ^{[ [93] ]}

Daniel Wallace says the same thing: [ The "Isaiah" reading has better external evidence in every case . It is supported by the oldest and best witnesses from all the recognized textual families . Moreover, it is the most difficult reading . The quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1, and then the quotation from Isaiah 40:3 comes in the next verse. The reading found in the later manuscripts (i.e., the third form "in the Prophets") was found to solve this problem . ] ^{[ [94] ]}

Bruce Terry supports the same opinion: [ The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is from two books: the first from Malachi 3:1, and the second from Isaiah 3:40, and it seems that the copyists changed the reference to make it appear more comprehensive. ] ^{[ [95] ]}

David Palmer comments : “ It is easy to understand why the scribes would want to change the text to the more inclusive ‘Prophets’, but it is not easy to understand why they would want to change it the other way around. ” ^{[ 96 ]}

Viland Felker gives his opinion on the problem, saying: [ If "Isaiah" was originally in Mark, it may have been changed to "in the Prophets" because the first part is from Malachi only, and the second part is from Isaiah. This is the traditional interpretation of the Nestle-Aland version (which says the first form is the original). Perhaps the change came in reaction to Porphyry's attack . Nestle-Aland is probably the original after evaluating the evidence. ] ^{[ [97] ]}

Marvin Vincent says: [ The correct reading in Mark 1/2 is ( ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ) “In (the) prophet Isaiah,” but it is clear to us that some copyists found it difficult or impossible to consider the quotation from Isaiah 40:3 , “The voice of one crying in the wilderness…etc.” preceded by a quotation from Malachi 3:1, “Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me…etc.” Thus, they replaced it with ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) “In the Prophets.” [ ^{[ 98] ]}

Pratcher says in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark: [ Instead of “the prophet Isaiah” which we find in all modern versions of the Greek text , the received text contains “in the prophets”: this later reading is clearly a correction made by the copyist to the original text because the first passage quoted from the Old Testament by Mark is not from Isaiah but from Malachi 3:1. ] ^[^[99]^]

Gold says in his critical interpretation: [ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις "In the Prophets" - This is undoubtedly a correction of the original text , to overcome the difficulty of attributing the double quotation from Malachi and Isaiah to Isaiah alone . Whereas we find that the reading of all critical texts is ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ "In the Prophet Isaiah." [ ^{[ 100] ]}

Philip Convert says in his critical comments: [ Many copyists were aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the next two verses (1/2-3), so they changed “Isaiah the prophet” to “the prophets” as in the Received Text and the King James Version. ] ^{[ [101] ]}

Brooke says in the Modern American Commentary: “ ‘Isaiah the prophet’ (40:3) supports only the part of the quotation in verse 3. The other part in verse 2 is taken from Malachi 3:1, perhaps with an allusion to Exodus 23:20 as well (the same word means angel and messenger). As a result, many medieval scribes substituted it for ‘in the prophets’. This reading is found in the KJV. ” and NKJVBoth versions are based on the medieval Greek text rather than on older manuscripts, which are now considered among the best , as the NIV does. (That is, it takes from the oldest and best manuscripts.) ] ^{[ [102] ]}

Wayne Candy, in his book on the Naskh tradition, says : [ Exegetes routinely justify the existence of different readings as a result of someone recognizing the flaw in attributing the complex quotation to a single prophet and correcting it. ] ^{[ [103] ]}

Wayne Candy elaborates : “ It may be argued that in the case of Mark 1:2, differences between manuscripts occurred regarding the attribution of the prophetic quotation, whether the text was “in the prophet Isaiah” or the more general “in the prophets.” The disputed part of the text reads: ( Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) and the other reading: ( in the prophets), what follows (this phrase) is in fact a composite quotation from parts taken from Malachi 3:1, Exodus 23:20, and also from Isaiah 40:3. Textual critics generally recognize the misattribution to Isaiah as an "original reading" while they consider the "correction" to result from scribal attempts to improve the text . ] ^{[ [104] ]}

Benjamin Warfield says in his book on textual criticism: [ We can find examples of corrections made to remove historical difficulties , for example in changing “the prophet Isaiah” to “in the prophets” in Mark 1/3. ] ^{[ [105] ]}

۩ Comments and notes on the scholars’ sayings:

The most important conclusion we can draw from all the statements of scholars who studied this problem, whether they say that the first form is the oldest, or that the third form is the oldest, is that all scholars, without exception, say that the text was deliberately changed. There were those who changed the text intentionally and knew full well what they were doing. There is not a single scholar who believes that the change occurred through an unintentional error. Father Matta El-Meskeen says that " The Prophets " is a change to the original. Who would dare to change the word of God? Or did the one who made the change believe that the Gospel of Mark was a human book, and that he came to correct the work of the corruptors? Whatever was going through the mind of the one who made the change, he certainly had his reasons, but in the end, the end result is that someone distorted the text from its original, and only a denier can deny this.

This is what Daniel Wallace confirms, saying: [ Thus, this leaves us with an interesting question: If this reading is not original (i.e., Isaiah), where did it come from? The scribes certainly knew that the first part of the quotation was from Malachi; after all, quite a few of these scribes also copied the Old Testament. They knew the book well. Therefore, an inadvertent change to "Isaiah" by a well-intentioned early scribe is unlikely. Moreover, there is virtually no possibility that the writer could have written Isaiah inadvertently by dittography" (i.e., the repetition of a letter, word, or phrase for an unspecified reason). This is the beginning of the Gospel, not only that there is no "Isaiah" in the previous phrases (so that they could be repeated), but that there is no " ησ" (i.e., the first two letters of the word Isaiah in Greek) in the previous phrases except in the name of Jesus ( ι ησ ου), but this word was written as a sacred abbreviation " IIH"."From an early time. ] ^{[ [106] ]}

Another very important point, which must be well highlighted, is that most scholars say that copyists changed the original because they found a difficulty, dilemma, or problem in the original, or perhaps they found that the original contained an error that needed to be corrected! This is not my statement at all, but remember the words of Jerome, which we have presented more than once. My dear brother and virtuous sister, my Christian friends, we must all admit that this phrase of Mark's, " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face... '" is actually wrong and does not correspond to reality . If we refer to the Book of Isaiah, we will not find it; rather, it is present in the Book of the Prophets. So whether the writer had an intention behind this wording, or he actually made a mistake, the phrase is actually wrong, whether anyone likes it or not. Review with me the statements of the scholars, and if you wish, refer to the full quotes:

· Bruce Metzger: " We feel that this statement contains some difficulty ."

· Daniel Wallace: " But more than that, it's the hardest read " and " to solve this dilemma ."

· Marvin Vincent: " The copyists found it difficult or impossible ."

· Bratcher: " An obvious correction made by the copyist to the original text ."

· Gold: " Correction to the original text ."

· Wayne Candy: " The Faulty Attribution of Compound Quotations ," " The Misattribution of Isaiah, " and " Scribers' Attempts to Improve the Text ."

· Benjamin Warfield: " For the corrections made to remove historical difficulties ."

Thus, we emerge from this dilemma with two extremely important pieces of information: the first is that the change in the text was deliberate and intentional, and the second is that the person who made the change believed he was correcting an error or resolving a problem. Thus, the majority of scholars agree that the first form is the oldest, and then Isaiah was changed to the Prophets. This change was made intentionally, due to a problem or error in attributing the complex quotation to Isaiah alone.

۩ Summary of internal evidence (interpretation of what we found in the text sources) :

In short, since we find the first form , " in Isaiah the prophet ," and the second , " in Isaiah the prophet ," in the oldest sources of the text, there is no reason to suppose that the third form , " in the prophets ," is older than the first two . Besides the obvious falsity of the phrase, " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet : Behold, I send my messenger before your face, " as Jerome and others have said , since it is not written in Isaiah but in the prophets, the majority of scholars say that the scribes changed " Isaiah the prophet " (with or without an indefinite article) to " the prophets " so that the phrase would be correct, even at the beginning.

Other theories and objections of scientists

There are some scholars who have deviated from the consensus! They have presented some strange theories, through which they want to prove that the third form " in the prophets " is the oldest! These theories may contain some validity or points that need some responses, but let us always remember, whether the oldest form is the first or the third , the change happened intentionally, and the motive is the presence of some defect in the form that was changed.

But before we present these strange theories, we must confirm a point we have made previously, namely that we find the first and second forms in the oldest sources of the text of the Gospel of Mark, whether Greek manuscripts from different text families, ancient translations in different languages, or patristic quotations in Greek or Latin. Therefore, we find that scholars do not assume anything contrary to the observed reality. However, there are those who are not satisfied with the first or second form , because they attribute the compound quotation to Isaiah alone. What is in this? We will find out when we discuss these theories and present the objections and problems.

۩ The motivation behind other theories:

There are some scholars who cannot accept either the first or second form of the text, and vehemently defend any other form of the text except the one that attributes the compound quotation to Isaiah alone! What is the motivation behind all this insistence? Whitney provides us with a logical answer:

In light of the testimony of ancient manuscripts and copies, it has generally been assumed that the received text was corrected early on to avoid attributing the quotation entirely to Isaiah , while only a few words were actually taken from Isaiah. This view is plausible, but there is another view that can be considered. The author of this gospel, Mark, was born a Jew and, like Timothy, was undoubtedly familiar with the Old Testament from his childhood. His mother was a devout Jewess, clearly of a firm faith, which qualified her to be one of the first followers of Christ, as we would expect her to be (Acts 12:12). Therefore, Mark, at least , should have been able to tell us from which Old Testament book he was taking his quotations ; for example, any student who has read the Old Testament well can tell us where this or that text is found . Even if we accept this, it will be difficult to conclude that Mark, when quoting from different prophecies, such as Malachi and Isaiah, could hardly have spoken as if he had only quoted from Isaiah , especially since he was fully aware that the first part of the two quotations was not from Isaiah . ^{[ [107] ]}

I swear by God, there is no god but Him, this man speaks with the utmost rationality and logic, and my pen screams with intense awareness of its inability to express itself. There are many feelings inside me, mixed together: feelings of sorrow and regret, feelings of pride and honor, feelings of joy and happiness. This man denounces the inability of an ordinary Jew to attribute his quotations to their correct sources, so what about the man who is said to be guided by the Holy Spirit! Whitney says that " any student who has read the Old Testament well can tell us where this or that text is found ," so what about the one who is guided by God Almighty from above seven heavens?! Whitney considers that attributing the complex quotation to Isaiah only, especially since the first part of the quotation is not found in Isaiah, a kind of intellectual and cultural degradation, and he would not accept this from a Jewish writer, let alone one who enjoys the company of the Holy Spirit! For this reason, some scholars, such as Whitney, reject any form of attributing the compound quotation to Isaiah alone, while scholars who accept it invent reasons to justify Mark's erroneous statement.

Therefore, I feel sorry and sorry for anyone who accepts a book that contains such strange problems. I feel proud and honored because I believe in a book that falsehood cannot approach from before it or from behind it, a revelation from the Wise, the Praiseworthy. I feel joy and happiness because God Almighty saved me from this and made me one of the Muslims. So praise be to God for the blessing of Islam, and that is enough of a blessing.

۩ Attributing the compound quotation to Isaiah alone means that the writer made a mistake:

This is the case of those who do not accept any form that attributes the compound quotation to Isaiah alone. As for those who do accept it, they invent reasons to justify it. However, there is a group of scholars who say that attributing the compound quotation to Isaiah alone is a mistake on the part of the writer! They openly admit this, and this is the truth, but few scholars admit it. But wait with me for a moment. Whether this scholar believes that the first form , " in (the) prophet Isaiah ," is the oldest or not, he admits that this form is wrong. So, my friend, you should think a little. There are two positions among scholars: the first is to admit that the first form is the oldest, while providing justifications for the error. The second is to admit that the third form , " in the prophets ," is the oldest, while admitting that the first form cannot be correct.

Look at McClymont speaking of all those who accept the first form of the text: [ They were even prepared to prefer a reading which involved the Evangelist's inaccuracy in regard to the quotation from the Old Testament, e.g., in Mark 1:2 'as it is written in Isaiah the prophet' instead of 'as it is written in the prophets', on the principle that the original was most likely changed in order to correct the error, on the assumption that the error had crept into the text by a copyist's fault. ] ^{[ [108] ]}

Thus, McClymont rejects evidence and proofs, and all that matters to him is preserving the image of the author, and not making him one of those who do not know how to quote correctly from the Old Testament! All the evidence, proofs, and evidence strongly indicate that the first form is the oldest, but people like McClymont reject all this, swimming against the current, solely out of theological motives, completely ignoring all the facts.

There are more forthright and fact-oriented scholars, such as Wayne Candy, who says: [ The puzzle that has long lingered with scholars regarding this text has centered on the question of how this error first entered the Gospel of Mark. The obvious answer is that the author of Mark simply made a mistake , or perhaps he deliberately attributed this saying to Isaiah because of the great status that this particular prophet occupied, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his audience. ] ^{[ [109] ]}

I can't help but respect Wayne Candy and his ilk! He says outright that attributing the compound quotation to Isaiah alone is clearly wrong, but there are two possibilities. The first is that the Gospel writer actually made a mistake—that is, he didn't mean it that way, but that's what he actually wrote. The second possibility is that the Gospel writer intentionally attributed the quotation to Isaiah alone, even though he knew it was wrong, but he had some intention behind it.

There are people who are completely opposite, such as Jay Green who says: [ The versions we have currently: ( NASB, NIV, NRSV, REB, NAB, GNB, ERV, CEV) All of them seem to follow the Nestle-Aland edition and the Greek Bible Societies. All of them accuse Mark of not knowing the sources of his quotations , leaving the authority and authenticity of the books in doubt in their copies. ] ^{[ [110] ]}

Jay Green adds : [ The evidence that testifies to the reading of “The Prophets” is: Manuscript A (Alexandria), all but six of the capital manuscripts, thousands of small-letter manuscripts, manuscripts of the canonical readings, and all but four of the ancient translations. Perhaps most important of all, this well-established reading (in the textual tradition of the manuscripts) does not leave Mark and the Holy Spirit condemned by a false statement , attributing to Isaiah the sayings of Malachi. ] ^{[ [111] ]}

Let's pause to consider this statement. Consider with me the deception used to support doctrine. We have discussed the external evidence in detail, but Jay Greene tries hard to make the reader believe that the third form is the one that has the upper hand in terms of external evidence. Jay Greene's words do not suggest to the reader that the third form did not appear in the manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark until the fifth century! Rather, he uses the misleading phrase: " the most established reading " to delude the reader that the third form of the text has deep roots, in an attempt to give the impression of the antiquity of the form.

He says that the third form is found in all capital letter manuscripts except six of them. This is the truth that was intended to be false! The statement is completely true, but it is extremely misleading. He does not tell the reader that these six manuscripts are the oldest Greek witnesses to the text, in addition to the fact that they are from different text families. On top of all this, he wants to delude the reader into believing that the number of capital letter manuscripts corresponding to these six is a large number, while there are only eight capital letter manuscripts that carry the third form of the text! Do you see how misleading it is? He also says that the third form is found in thousands of small letter manuscripts, while the vast majority of these manuscripts belong to a single text family, and the vast majority of these manuscripts date back to the tenth century and later!

The most misleading statement is that the third form of the text is found in all but four of the ancient translations. In fact, we find the third form in the Ethiopic (sixth century) and Slavonic (ninth century), in a few late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, in the margins of the Bohairic Coptic (ninth century), and in one edition of the Syriac (Haraclinic: seventh century). The second form, " in Isaiah the Prophet ," is found in the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate, the Old Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Bohairic.

Why does Jay Greene mislead the reader into believing that the third form is better based on external evidence? The answer lies in his final statement about the third form of the text, which states that " it does not leave Mark and the Holy Spirit condemned by a false statement, attributing to Isaiah the words of Malachi ." He can thus deceive and mislead the reader in order to support his own belief in the inspiration of the Bible. The matter does not stop there. Consider another of his statements:

The truth is that Mark never named the authors of his quotations! But others took it upon themselves to insert Isaiah into the Egyptian manuscripts . We must remember here that the Gnostics and some heretics were looking for opportunities to accuse the books of contradiction, to find fault with them in some places, and also to cast doubt on others. Since this was well known to everyone, why were the authors of the new versions so confident in themselves as to agree to insert this fraud into the Holy Scriptures, apparently not caring that in doing so they were giving ammunition and comfort to those who were eager to discredit the books and the authority entrusted to them? ^{[ 112 ]}

Here, Jay Green tries to make the reader believe that the evidence containing the form “ Isaiah ” is only from Egypt, and he ignores the fact that it is present in the oldest and most important manuscripts of the Western text : Beza, Old Latin, and the Vulgate, and it is also present in the Caesarean text , in addition to the presence of the form in most of the Church Fathers from the East and the West. So where is what Jay Green is trying to convey, that the form is only present in the Egyptian manuscripts!

What is strange and surprising is that Jay Green is well aware of this information, as he says: [ There are many corrupt manuscripts that highlight this distortion , such as: ( Aleph, B, C, D, L. Delta) of the capital manuscripts, and according to Dean Burgon; there are also thirty manuscripts of the small print, and it is claimed that many of the Fathers have accepted these erroneous words . But as in the first issue, many of these Fathers are merely quoting Origen. ] ^{[ [113] ]}

Tell me for God's sake, is the manuscript ( D) " Pisa " is an Egyptian manuscript? Of course not. Is the manuscript ( C) “ Ephraimites ” is an Egyptian manuscript? Of course not, but scholars say that this manuscript agrees with the Byzantine text . ^{[ [114] ]} Is the manuscript ( Delta Δ) " Senegal " is an Egyptian manuscript? Of course not, for only in Mark does it agree with the Alexandrian text , while the rest of the manuscript agrees with the Byzantine text . ^{[ [115] ] Then}Jay Green brings the laughable and tearful news that many of the Fathers quote Origen ! Was Irenaeus , who lived before Origen, quoting him? Did the Western Fathers who wrote in Latin quote Origen ? Who are you trying to deceive, man?! It is impossible that the source of the writings of all these Fathers who live in the East and West of the earth is one person who lived in Alexandria! Oh Christians, by God I wish you well, there are those who want to mislead you in order to support beliefs that have no evidence or facts to support them. The truth is more deserving of being followed. I ask God for guidance for everyone.

۩ Policy of questioning the authenticity of manuscripts:

A fair researcher must follow the evidence and testimonies, but what if the evidence and testimonies don't suit him? The solution is to question and challenge the evidence! This is what Burgon , Jay Green , and Whitney did so that they could rely on later manuscripts. Imagine with me, ancient manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries, representing the text of the Bible in those times, and I am questioning them and challenging their authenticity, for no reason other than that I was not pleased with what I found in these manuscripts!

Jay Green quotes Burgon's statements , which he supports, saying: [ What about the authenticity of the oldest existing manuscripts? Burgon mentioned 27 places where the (ancient manuscripts) denied or diminished the divinity of Christ , all of them either by means of the Sinaiticus ( Aleph) or Vatican ( B), and often by both of them together, and the Pisa manuscript ( D) often agrees with them.), and also the Ephraimite manuscript ( C), and rarely the Alexandrian manuscript ( A).]^[[116]]

As I told you before, the main reason is the blind defense of beliefs. They found that the ancient manuscripts do not support their beliefs in the way they want, and perhaps these ancient manuscripts denied their beliefs, so how can they accept them? And how will they confront people with what they found in them? The solution is to fiercely attack these manuscripts until we lose their credibility in the eyes of the people, and we cling to any other manuscripts that support our beliefs and agree with our whims. There is no power or strength except with Allah, the Most High, the Almighty.

Jay Green continues to quote Burgon , saying: “ Burgeon also drew attention to 2,877 omissions from the Vatican ( B), and to 3,455 words deleted from the Sinaitic ( Aleph) which Burgon limited to the four Gospels only. The Beza manuscript ( D) also contains) on 3,047 deleted words. He also added that he had discovered 2,378 amendments and changes in the Vatican ( B), and 3,893 in Pisa ( D). Burgon gives us this example to demonstrate the reliability of the Sinaiticus manuscripts ( Aleph) and the Vatican ( B) and the Ephraimites ( C) and Pizza ( D): In seven verses of the Gospel of John 13/21-27, these manuscripts have differences in 35 places: Vatican ( B) is responsible for 28 differences, and the Sinaiticus ( Aleph) about 22 differences, and the Ephraimites ( C) about 21 differences, and pizza ( D) about 19 differences, and Alexandria ( A) about 3 differences, whether the differences are within the manuscript itself or with other manuscripts. The true Greek appears in these five manuscripts (an ironic statement given the large number of differences in only seven verses of the Gospel of John). Also in the Gospels there are 563 additions in the Vatican ( B), and 839 in Sinaiticus ( Aleph), and 2,213 in Pisa ( D).]^[[117]]

Daniel Wallace responded to Burgon : “ Indeed, this is the accusation that John Burgon made against the ancient manuscripts. But if it is a conspiracy, there remain three difficult—if not impossible—problems that we must explain: How could such a conspiracy have occurred that affected so many and so diverse witnesses ? The roots of this conspiracy would have to go back so early that it would call into question any reading of the New Testament . This would mean that the earliest copies, as well as the majority of the New Testament manuscripts according to the Majority Text theory, were corrupted. Thus, the conspiracy theory proves a great deal more than Burgon can bear. ” ^{[ 118 ]}

Daniel Wallace simply wants to say that challenging the oldest manuscripts is challenging the entire text of the New Testament. The corruption of such ancient evidence indicates that distortion began at a very early time, which will certainly mean that this corruption and distortion will spread to the majority of the later manuscripts, which were copied from older manuscripts. Thus, Burgon wanted to defend the doctrine of the Bible being free of errors, so he destroyed the entire Bible!

Thus, Whitney follows in the footsteps of Burgon and Jay Green , saying: [ This, however, is the conclusion we are forced to reach if our oldest manuscripts are truly reliable, and the reading in eight or ten of them is accepted by us as the original. But those manuscripts are not as a whole reliable. They all contradict each other constantly . They all contain erroneous readings that entered the New Testament early and unconsciously. ] ^{[ [119] ]}

The war continues against all manuscripts that contain forms of the text that do not agree with the Christian desires and beliefs. This has been the case with Christianity since ancient times. They choose what they want and get rid of everything that contradicts them. If the ancient manuscripts testified to what satisfied them, they would be proud of them and place them above their heads, walking around with them in the streets, to witness to people how the ancient manuscripts support the Christian belief. But the matter was not like this, so they declared war and hostility against every manuscript that contradicted them.

Daniel Wallace 's advice for those who do not accept evidence:

Wonderful words from Daniel Wallace for all those who take the approach of skepticism about evidence and rejecting testimonies and proofs. The beauty of his words is that he is able to express his point of view with such eloquence. No one can tell me that Daniel Wallace didn't mean this, as he didn't allow for multiple meanings in his words. I will present his words on the problem of Mark 1:2 and then comment on them:

Now, what does all this have to do with the issue of the Bible's inerrancy ?) ? Three answers need to be given. First, the evidence is overwhelming that Mark wrote "in Isaiah the prophet." Whatever one's beliefs about the Bible's infallibility, it seems to me, they must accommodate themselves to this fact . ^{[ [120] ]}

These are wonderful words, my friend. You must follow the evidence. Let the evidence lead you to the belief, not challenge the evidence for the sake of belief! This is how a Muslim is who builds his belief on evidence, not like those who believe and then choose books and leave what they want. Let us continue with Daniel Wallace's words :

Second, when it comes to dealing with textual criticism, if we look at the saying: “We begin with the presupposition that the book is free of errors ( inerrancy))", we would logically have to make intuitive corrections in some places (such as Luke 2:2). This is because there are many other problems more serious than Mark 1:2 for the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible . But if this is our approach, shouldn't we also correct the text of the Bible anytime it contradicts our doctrine? There are many passages that might suggest that Jesus was less than truly God. Wouldn't we have the right to change them to conform to our doctrinal convictions? There is no way to stop such a doctrinal approach once it has begun. ^{[ [121] ]}

So here I say, with a loud voice, and let everyone hear me, East and West, praise be to God for the blessing of Islam, and that is enough of a blessing. By God, there is no god but Him, I have never heard a Muslim say that this suspicion, for example, is not the only one that casts aspersions on the Holy Quran, but rather that there are many other suspicions that are more dangerous than this suspicion to the Holy Quran. Can you imagine such a statement from a Muslim, O Muslims?! Of course not. Can you imagine an Islamic scholar uttering a phrase to the effect that there are many verses that suggest, for example, that Muhammad is not a prophet from God? We might hear this statement from someone who criticizes the Quran out of ignorance, but it would never come from a Muslim. The words I just quoted were from a believing Christian who specializes in textual criticism, not from one of the secularists or atheists who cast aspersions on the Bible. Let us continue with Daniel Wallace’s words :

Third, we simply need to be honest with the evidence before us. It is acceptable to say, "I don't know," at times. The doctrine of the Bible's inerrancyCredibility will not live or die because of Mark 1:2. There are many critics who embrace the "Isaiah" reading and affirm the infallibility of the book, and in fact, I would venture to say that most scholars who affirm the infallibility of the book embrace that reading. Nevertheless, they have a few options to explain what happened. They may not have the right answer , but to simply call it "in Isaiah" is a mistake of a kind of arrogance. Some have suggested that the book of Isaiah headed a book (the "Scroll") .) the prophets, and this would be what Mark meant in the book (“ Scroll ”) Isaiah. Perhaps so, but we lack sufficient evidence . There are other suggestions as well, but they are not definitive answers . ^{[ [122] ]}

When I read this passage by Daniel Wallace , I was very surprised. I felt that there was a contradiction between his statement and his previous statement about following the evidence. It was as if Daniel Wallace wanted to tell us that the evidence is overwhelming and points to the fact that the form of " Isaiah " is the oldest, but nevertheless the doctrine of the Bible's infallibility remains the same! My scholarly friend Daniel , you have clarified and demonstrated that most scholars confirm that the Bible is free of error, but where is the evidence to support this assertion? You yourself said that they may not have the right answer, and that they lack sufficient evidence. This is what we have actually demonstrated in this research, and we have responded to their weak justifications that lack evidence.

So, everyone should look at the other side that says that the form of " Isaiah " is wrong. Isn't their evidence conclusive and abundant? When I, the tired one, say after this long research that the form of " Isaiah " is completely wrong in fact, as Jerome and others have said before, do I not have the evidence? Shouldn't Daniel Wallace or anyone else follow this evidence, or should he remain neutral, ignore the evidence, and say I don't know?

۩ The first theory - attributing the quote to a specific source:

Wield Felker presents this theory: [ On the other hand, if "in the prophets" was originally in Mark, it may have been changed to Isaiah to be more specific . This also happened in other places, such as Matthew 13:35, when "through the prophet" was changed to "through the prophet Isaiah," even though the words are not found in Isaiah. ] ^{[ [123] ]}

This theory is based on the assumption that the quote is not attributed to a specific reference, but this is wrong. We have previously proven that the writers of the New Testament referred more than once to “ what was written in the prophets .” The book “ Prophets ” is a specific reference. As for the example given by Wieland , which is Matthew 13/35, it does not refer to a specific reference that we can refer to, but rather says “ that what was spoken by the prophet may be fulfilled .” In Greek ( διὰ τοῦ προφήτου) which literally means " by the prophet ", so which prophet is this? The text does not specify a reference. Perhaps this is the main reason behind what Wieland called " more specific ". The copyist wanted to specify a prophet, so he wrote the most famous prophet of the Old Testament, known to Christians for his prophecies regarding the New Testament. As for the text of Mark 1:2, it attributes the quotation to a specific reference, as did more than one New Testament writer. If the third form, " in the prophets ", is the oldest, and this form makes the text of Mark 1:2 free from problems or errors, is it conceivable that someone would change it to a wording that is incorrect or contains difficulty?!

Whitney quotes Jerome , saying: “ This was the conclusion Jerome reached nearly 1,500 years ago. Although he respected the evidence he found when he consulted the Old Latin version, and maintained the reading ‘in Isaiah the prophet’ ( Esaia propheta) In the Latin version of the Gospel, he said in his commentary on the text of Matthew 3:3, in reference to Mark 1:2, that he believed that the name Isaiah was a distortion of the text by the copyists ; like similar readings in more than one place. ] ^{[ [124] ]}

Jerome's statement is extremely astonishing, and Whitney's conviction of it is even more astonishing! How could Jerome believe that the name Isaiah was a scribal corruption, and then insert the corruption into his Latin Vulgate version ?! Was Jerome spreading the corruption? We have already quoted Jerome earlier when he said that Mark's statement was incorrect, since Malachi's words are not found in Isaiah , but he said that what is most important is getting the idea across regardless of the wording itself. Did Jerome really say that Isaiah was a scribal corruption? If so, then his statement contradicts the interpretation he offered earlier, and condemns Jerome himself, since he was content to publish the corruption in his Latin version.

Whitney continues in an attempt to justify the presence of Isaiah in the oldest manuscripts: [ And when it is borne in mind that this reading appears in the margin of a manuscript and in the text of other Syriac versions; the versions of the New Testament in Tatian's country, we should not be in a whirl of confusion to know from where, how, and when this reading entered the text of the New Testament ! It clearly came from Matthew 3:3; through Tatian in the latter part of the second century. It is what Dr. Hort would call the distinct Syriac reading. The reading is preserved in ( Aleph. B, L, 2,1, Origen) ... etc. The original reading - as we find it in the received text - has come down to us in late capital letter manuscripts and other documents. ] ^{[ [125] ]}

Indeed, this is a very strange justification. Is it conceivable that a form of the text was formed in Syria, even in the second century, and spread throughout all ancient evidence beginning in the second century?! Is it conceivable that the form was formed in Syria, and then quoted by Irenaeus in France during the same period? Whitney is among those who refuse to accept the fact that the Isaiah form was widespread in all textual families from the second to the fifth century and beyond, and tries to delude the reader, as Jay Green did before, that the Isaiah form was present in a very limited group of manuscripts. This is completely false.

In addition to all of the above, the Diatessaron does not combine the prophecy of Malachi with the prophecy of Isaiah , as the Gospel writer did. Malachi's prophecy is found in the thirteenth section, and is probably taken from Luke 7:27 ^{[ [126] ] , while}Isaiah's prophecy is found in the third chapter, and is probably taken from Matthew 3:3 ^{[ [127] ]} . And so I say to all who think like Whitney , do not invent justifications and accept the facts.

۩ The second theory - Reconciling the Gospels:

Jay Green and Burgon present this theory: [ Burgon believes that the beginning came from an attempt to reconcile the texts of the four Gospels. Three of the four Gospels contained a quotation from Isaiah (Matthew 3:3, Luke 3:3-6, John 1:23). For some reason, or perhaps for no reason , the attempt to reconcile made Mark also quote from “Isaiah” (i.e., like the other three Gospels). In fact, Mark was quoting Isaiah, but he did not refer to “Isaiah” or even to “Malachi,” but only said that the quotation was from “the prophets.” ] ^{[ [128] ]}

Whitney also presents this theory and the one before it, saying: [ The term “in the Prophets” is somewhat imprecise. It seemed unsatisfactory to many early scribes. So in order to make it more precise, or perhaps to reconcile Matthew and Mark, the scribe would simply have changed “in the Prophets” to “in Isaiah the Prophet” as in Matthew 3:3. ] ^{[ [129] ]} Viland Felker also says: [ The change to “Isaiah” may also simply have been a reconciliation of Matthew and Luke. ] ^{[ [130] ]}

Consider Burgon's statement , quoted by Jay Green : " For some reason, or perhaps for no reason at all. " This phrase only indicates justification for justification's sake. He doesn't want the form " in Isaiah the prophet " to be the oldest in any way, so he concocts a bizarre scenario for which there is no evidence and which makes no sense at all. Burgon's statement only indicates a lack of understanding of the Greek phrase we explained earlier. He says that Mark was only saying that the quotation was from the prophets, meaning the prophets as individuals, not the prophets as a book to which we can refer. We have already proven and demonstrated that the Greek text refers to a written source to which we can refer, and this is how the New Testament writers used it.

In addition, we find that the referenced texts contain only Isaiah's prophecy, so it is natural that the reference is to Isaiah. There is another note: Matthew 3:3 and John 1:23 were narrated by different people: the first by Christ, and the second by John the Baptist. There is no similarity between these two texts in terms of wording or literalism. The only text that resembles Mark's is Luke 3:4, which says: " As it is written in the book of the prophet Isaiah: 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight .'" The Greek text could be literally translated as: " As it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah . " ^{[ 131 ]} The passage in Mark 1:2 begins with the prophecy of Malachi, followed by the prophecy of Isaiah. Is it possible that someone would change " the prophets " to " the prophet Isaiah " knowing that the quote immediately following it was not from Isaiah? Or was the change " for no reason, " as Burgon did ?

Above all, and as usual, this theory ignores the reality of the manuscripts and the evidence, namely that the first form , " in the Prophet Isaiah " and the second , " in the Prophet Isaiah ," are the oldest in all textual sources, and the third form, " in the Prophets ," does not begin to appear until the fifth century. Thus, the theory must be consistent with all the evidence and evidence available to us, and not be merely a justification for the defense of a particular doctrine.

۩ The third theory - Isaiah only without Malachi:

Beza , the author of the famous manuscript , gives us this theory, saying: [ If there is room for speculation here, my suspicion would be that the ancient reading “in Isaiah the prophet” is the original, and that the part mentioned from Malachi, which crept in from the margin into the text, is taken from Matthew 11:10. Thus, it was written “in the prophets” ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) Here. This view is confirmed by the fact that reference to Isaiah is mentioned in Matthew 3:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:15, where they discuss the beginning of John’s ministry. ] ^{[ [132] ]}

Jan Kranz comments on this theory, saying:: Instead , he presented us with a speculative theory, which included three or four stages: 1- The original text contained “in (the) prophet Isaiah” ( ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) but without the quotation from Malachi. 2- There was a manuscript containing Malachi as a marginal comment. 3- The commentary entered the original text. 4- A copyist made an adaptation (following the new circumstances, namely the insertion of Malachi's quotation between "Isaiah the Prophet" and Isaiah's own quotation), and wrote "in the prophets" ( ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), in order to explain the fact that we now have that the text contains quotations from two prophets. ] ^{[ [133] ]}

This theory is one of the most beautiful theories. A beautiful theory because it shows that its author has a very fertile imagination! He simply tells us that the original form of the text does not exist in any source of the text, meaning that the original was completely lost, and all the current forms of the text were not written by the Gospel writer! Moreover, it is completely illogical. How does the text of Malachi sneak in between the phrase " as it is written in Isaiah the prophet " and Isaiah's prophecy itself?! Was it an intentional sneaking in and the referee was not paying attention?! Pardon the sarcasm, but I couldn't stop myself. The theory is very weak in every aspect and is not based on any evidence whatsoever. It is a figment of its author's imagination from beginning to end. I only presented it to show the reader the lengths to which a Christian critic would go in order to solve a problem in the Bible!

۩ The fourth theory - Malachi only without Isaiah:

This theory is my own invention, just to prove that anyone can invent a theory, as long as we don't restrict them with evidence, proofs, and testimonies. This theory says that the Gospel writer originally wrote the following: " As it is written in the prophets: 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.' John was baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. " He completely ignored the prophecy of Isaiah ! Then a scribe came along and couldn't find the prophecy of Isaiah that he found in the other gospels, so he added it after the prophecy of Malachi , leaving the phrase " in the prophets " as it is. Then a scribe came along later and changed the reference from " the prophets " to the reference found in the other gospels, " Isaiah ." What do you think of this composition? This is how we solve the problem of the book being free of errors, because the original text will be completely correct, and we will actually find the quotation in the Prophets. Thus, I have justified the existence of all the different forms of the text, but one problem remains, or several problems, the most important of which is: there is not a single proof for what I say, as it is a pure fabrication only for the sake of justification and defense of the doctrine.

۩ Summary of the above:

Because this statement is false: " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet : Behold, I send my messenger before your face... ", since the prophecy is from Malachi and not Isaiah, many scholars have tried to defend the inspiration of the Bible, since even the most inexperienced student with the slightest knowledge of the Old Testament can tell us where it is quoted from, let alone someone who is inspired by the Holy Spirit! According to Christian doctrine, the Bible cannot contain errors. Therefore, there are those who have falsified and distorted the facts, and there are those who have challenged the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, and there are those who have done both, without realizing that by doing so, they have challenged the entire historical credibility of the New Testament!

Everyone must accept the facts, whatever the consequences, and we must follow the evidence, proofs, and testimonies, because they are what will lead us to the truth. If we develop a theory, we must consider all the evidence and testimonies, and not ignore any of them, and impose our beliefs on the evidence and testimonies, but rather let the evidence and testimonies form our beliefs. We should not invent justifications in order to defend beliefs and faiths.

Conclusion

If I have presented my arguments, evidence, and proofs well, and achieved my goal of highlighting the problems found in Mark 1:2-3, then that is what I hoped for. If I was weak in my presentation and deficient in the performance of my task, then I have done my best. God knows how much effort I have put into making this research appear in this form, but perfection belongs to God alone.

I have presented all the different viewpoints on the two texts in question. I have not been biased toward any particular opinion, but rather have presented evidence and proof, adhered to the academic scientific method, and documented all the information I have provided to the best of my ability. I hope my Christian friends will appreciate this effort and know that I have not done this to attack Christianity, but rather to demonstrate what I believe to be the truth. If this truth does not agree with what you currently believe, then rest assured that your commitment to the truth is far better than your opposition to it.

I ask God Almighty to make this work purely for His sake.

Praise be to God, by whose grace good deeds are accomplished.

[1] Abu Ja`far Muhammad al-Tabari: Tafsir al-Tabari , Comprehensive Explanation of the Interpretation of the Verses of the Qur’an, Dar Hijr Edition, Part Twenty - pp. 443 and 445.

[2] Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Qurtubi: The Compendium of the Rulings of the Qur’an , published by Al-Risala Foundation, Part Eighteen, p. 428.

[3] Fakhr al-Din Muhammad al-Razi: The Great Commentary and Keys to the Unseen , Dar al-Fikr Edition, Part Twenty-Seven, p. 132.

[4] Scrivener's 1881 Received Text (Mk 1:2).

[5] The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Mk 1:2) - Page 117.

[6] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G5613 (ὡς hōs hoce) Probably adverb of compound from G3739; which how, that is, in that manner (very variously used as shown): - about, after (that), (according) as (it had been, it were), as soon (as), even as (like), for, how (greatly), like (as, unto), since, so (that), that, to wit, unto, when ([-soever]), while, X with all speed.]

[7] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G2531 (καθώς kathōs kath-oce') From G2596 and G5613; just (or inasmuch) as, that: - according to, (according, even) as, how, when.]

[8] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G1715 (ἔμπροσθεν emprosthen em'-pros-then) From G1722 and G4314; in front of (in place [literally or figuratively] or time): - against, at, before, (in presence, sight) of.]

[9]Fathers Paul Al-Feghali, Antoine Awkar, Nimatallah Al-Khoury, and Youssef Fakhry: The New Testament , an Interlinear Greek-Arabic Translation - p. 161.

[10] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G32 (ἄγγελος aggelos ang'-el-os) From ἀγγέλλω aggellō (probably derived from G71; compare G34; to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication a pastor: - angel, messenger.]

[11] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G4253 (πρό pro pro) A primary preposition; “fore”, that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.]

[12] King James Concordance [ G4383 (prosōpon) Total KJV Occurrences: 81, face, 51 . ]

[13] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G4383 (πρόσωπον prosōpon pros'-o-pon) From G4314 and ὤψ ōps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.]

[14] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. IV. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Page 551, 552 – From Letter XXXIX. (for 367.) – Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church. [4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.]

[15] Tadros Yacoub Malti: From the Interpretations and Reflections of the Early Fathers , The Gospel According to Mark - p. 25.

[16] Father Matta El Meskeen: The Gospel According to Saint Mark , Study, Interpretation and Explanation - p. 119.

[17] Dr. William Eddy: The Great Treasure in the Interpretation of the Gospel , Part Two, Commentary on the Gospels of Mark and Luke - p. 10.

[18] Monastery of St. Macarius: A Greek-Arabic Dictionary of New Testament Words and Early Christian Writings - p. 34.

[19] Dr. Maurice Tawadros: Analysis of the Language of the Gospel of St. Matthew in its Greek Origins - pp. 77, 78.

[20] Tyndale House: The Practical Commentary on the Holy Bible - p. 1871.

[21] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G1125 (γράφω graphō graf'-o) A primary verb; to “grave”, especially to write; figuratively to describe: - describe, write (-ing, -ten).]

[22] Stanley Skreslet: The Greek Origins of the New Testament - p. 11. [ Place in a place or time. ]

[23] Curtis Vaughan & Virtus E. Gideon: A Greek Grammar of the NT (Dative Case) - Page 50. [Dative of reference: Sometimes the force of interest in the dative is reduced to the idea of mere reference.]

[24] R. T. France: The Modern Commentary on the Bible , The New Testament, The Gospel of Matthew - pp. 87, 88.

[25] Father Dr. Michel Najm: The Ancient Christian Interpretation of the Holy Bible , New Testament 1-A, The Gospel as Written by Matthew 1 to 13 - p. 106.

[26] William Barclay: The New Testament Commentary , Volume 1, The Gospels of Matthew and Mark - p. 37.

[27] Bernard, J. H. (1929). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Paged continuously. (A. H. McNeile, Ed.) (1:204-205). New York: C. Scribner' Sons. [The quotation is freely made from Isa. 54:13, and does not agree precisely with either the Hebrew or the LXX.]

[28] Bryant, B. H., & Krause, M. S. (1998). John. The College Press NIV commentary (Jn 6:45). Joplin, For.: College Press Pub. Co. [The Old Testament verse Jesus seems to have in mind is Isaiah 54:13, “All your sons will be taught by the Lord, ” but the concept is encountered elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 25:4–5; 94:12; Isa 2:3; Jer 16:21; Micah 4:2; Zeph 3:9; Mal 1:11; cf. 1 Cor 2:13).]

[29] Antonius Fikry: Interpretation of the Holy Bible , New Testament, Interpretation of Acts 13/40-41.

[30] Tyndale House: The Applied Commentary on the Holy Bible - p. 1978.

[31] Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen: Explanation of the Wasitiyyah Creed by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Dar al-Ghad al-Jadeed, p. 76.

[32] Fathers Paul Al-Feghali and Antoine Awkar: The Hebrew Old Testament , an interlinear translation from Hebrew to Arabic, Malachi 3/1 - p. 970.

[33] Samuel Kamel and Maurice Tawadros: The Greek Language of the New Testament , Third Edition - p. 340.

[34] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries [G1914 (ἐπιβλέπω epiblepō ep-ee-blep'-o) From G1909 and G991; to gaze at (with favor, pity or partiality): - look upon, regard, have respect to.]

[35] Monastery of St. Macarius: A Greek-Arabic Dictionary of New Testament Words and Early Christian Writings - p. 52.

[36] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. [G2680 (κατασκευάζω kataskeuazō kat-ask-yoo-ad'-zo) From G2596 and a derivative of G4632; to prepare thoroughly (properly by external equipment; whereas G2090 refers rather to internal fitness); by implication to construct, create: - build, make, ordain, prepare.]

[37] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. [H6437(פּנה pânâh paw-naw') A primitive root; to turn; by implication to face, that is, appear, look, etc.: - appear, at [even-] tide, behold, cast out, come on, X corner, dawning, empty, go away, lie, look, mark, pass away, prepare, regard, (have) respect (to), (re-) turn (aside, away, back, face, self), X right [early].]

[38] Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim = Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Mal 3:1). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. [Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenanta that you desire, he is already coming.]

[39] Philip W Comfort: NT Text And Translation Commentary - Page 93 [Various scribes, aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the following verses (1:2-3), changed "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets" (so TR and KJV). In 1:2 Mark quoted first from Exod 23:20 (LXX) and then from Mai 3: 1 (Hebrew text), and in 1:3 he quoted Isa 40:3 (LXX) - or perhaps Mark was using an early Jewish collection of texts relating to the Messiah (Cole 1961, 57). Whatever his source, Mark attributed the text to Isaiah only.]

[40] David R. Palmer: Holy Bible, A Translation From The Greek - Mark 1:2. [The first quotation appears to be a blend of Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1, and the second quotation is of Isaiah 40:3.]

[41] Father Jack Mason, Jesuit: The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark, a study and explanation - p. 40.

[42] France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark : A commentary on the Greek text (Page 63). Grand Rapids, Me.; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press. [This is essentially a combined quotation of Mal. 3:1 (with elements drawn from Ex. 23:20) and Is. 40:3, the whole being attributed to Isaiah presumably because the better-known Isaiah text, even though coming second, was the basis of the herald idea which links the two.]

[43] Fathers Paul Al-Feghali and Antoine Awkar: The Hebrew Old Testament , an Interlinear Hebrew-Arabic Translation, Exodus 23:20 - p. 127.

[44] Edwards, J. R. (2002). The Gospel according to Mark. The Pillar New Testament commentary (Page 26). Grand Rapids,Me; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos. [The quotation of 1:2–3 is identified as coming from the prophet Isaiah, although it is actually a tapestry of three OT passages. The reference to the sending of the messenger in v. 2 follows the first half of both Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, although there is no exact counterpart in the OT to the latter half of v. 2 (“who will prepare your way”). The greater part of the tapestry comes in v. 3, which reproduces Isa 40:3 nearly exactly.]

[45] Geddert, T. J. (2001). Mark. Believers church Bible commentary (Page 32). Scottdale, Well.: Herald Press. [Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 (the two main sources of the quotation Mark here attributes to Isaiah) both speak of a messenger who will prepare for God’s coming. Mark modifies the prophetic texts slightly but significantly. In Malachi, the “LORD of hosts” announces that a messenger will precede the Lord’s own coming to purify the temple. In Isaiah, the voice prepares a highway for God. Slight modifications to both texts make it possible for Mark’s text to be a prediction of Jesus’ forerunner.]

[46] Fathers Paul Al-Feghali, Antoine Awkar, Nimatallah Al-Khoury, and Youssef Fakhry: The New Testament, an Interlinear Greek-Arabic Translation - p. 161.

[47] Fathers Paul Al-Feghali and Antoine Awkar: The Hebrew Old Testament , an Interlinear Hebrew-Arabic Translation, Isaiah 40:3 - p. 693.

[48] The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition - Page 117. [ {A} in Isaiah the prophet אBL Δ 33 565 892 1241 2427 Origen ^1/4 // in the prophecy of the prophets D Θ ƒ1 205 700 1071 1243 l 253 arm geo Irenaeus ^gr Origen ^3/4 Serapion Epiphanius Severian Hesychius (in the prophecy of the prophets or in the prophecy of the prophets) ^{a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff_2, l, q} vg syr ^{p, h_mg, pal} cop ^{sa, bo} Irenaeus ^{lat 1/3} Origen ^lat ; (Victorinus-Pettau Chromatius omit prophecy) Ambrosiaster (Jerome) Augustine // in the prophets AW ƒ ¹³ 28 180 579 597 1006 1010 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [EFGHP Σ] Lect vg ^ms syr ^h cop ^{bo_ms mg} eth slav Irenaeus ^{lat 2/3} Asterius // in Isaiah and in the prophets it ^{r_1 vid}]

[49] Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman: The Text of NT, 4th edit - Page 265. [What would a conscientious scribe do if the same passage was given differently in two or more manuscripts that were available? Rather than make a choice between them and copy only one of the two variant readings (with the attendant possibility of omitting the genuine reading), many scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy that they were transcribing.]

[50] Dr. Youssef Ziedan: Manuscripts of Saint Catherine's Monastery - Bibliotheca Alexandrina, information about the manuscript from the booklet accompanying the Digital Manuscript Library CDs. ( The manuscript is dated 284 AH [corresponding to 898 AD] )

[51] Hodges, Z. C., Farstad, A. L., & Dunkin, W. C. (1985). The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (2nd ed.) (Page 104). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers. // Pierpont, W. G., & Robinson, M. A. (1995, c1991). The New Testament in the original Greek : According to the Byzantine/Majority textform (Mk 1:2). Roswell, TO: The Original Word Publishers. [ As it is written in the prophets , “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you.” ]

[52] Bruce Terry: A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, The Gospel According to Mark V. 1:2. [The reading in the text is found in several types of ancient text.]

[53] Bruce Metzger: A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (Page 62). London; New York: United Bible Societies. [A reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text.]

[54] Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition. [On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: א B D L Δ Θ f1 33 565 700 892 1241 2427 al syp co Ir. This evidence runs deep into the 2nd century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses.]

[55] Black, A. (1995). Mark. The College Press NIV commentary (Mk 1:2). Joplin, For.: College Press Pub. Co. [The quotation in vv. 2–3 looks back to v. 1 to explain that the beginning of the gospel came about “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” Although many ancient manuscripts of Mark read “as it is written in the prophets,” the best manuscripts refer only to Isaiah. Perhaps Mark wanted to focus on the citation of Isa 40:3 in v. 3.]

[56] United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition with apparatus - Page 30*. [The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., the New Testament text or the manuscript cited by the author must be identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament.]

[57] United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament , Fourth Revised Edition - Page 117. [ τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Origen1/4 - ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Irenaeus ^gr Origen ^3/4 Serapion Epiphanius Severian Hesychius Irenaeus ^{lat 1/3} Origen ^lat Victorinus-Pettau Chromatius Ambrosiaster Jerome Augustine - ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Irenaeus ^{lat 2/3} Asterius ] // Deutsche Bibelstiftung. (1993, c1979). Novum Testamentum Graece - Nestle-Aland 27 - Page 88. [ τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Ir Or ^pt Epiph - τοις προφήταις Ir ^lat . ]

[58] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 59.

[59] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 1 - Irenaeus - Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against Heresies. [The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of the greater part of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius.]

[60] Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition. [The difficulty of Irenaeus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late mss.]

[61] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 1 - Irenaeus Against Heresies - Book III - Chap. X - Proofs of the Foregoing, Drawn from the Gospels of Mark and Luke - V5. [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.]

[62] Henry Deane: The Third Book Of St. Irenaeus Bishop Of Lyons Against Heresies, With Short Notes, And A Glossary - Page 30.

[63] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 1 - Irenaeus Against Heresies - Book III - Chap. XVI - Proofs from the Apostolic Writings, That Jesus Christ Was One and the Same, the Only Begotten Son of God, Perfect God and Perfect Man - V3. [Wherefore Mark also says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets.” Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David’s body was Emmanuel.]

[64] Henry Deane: The Third Book Of St. Irenaeus Bishop Of Lyons Against Heresies, With Short Notes, And A Glossary - Page 69.

[65] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 1 - Irenaeus Against Heresies - Book III - Chap. X - Proofs Of The Foregoing, Drawn From The Gospels Of Mark And Luke - V8 [Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,” — pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel.]

[66] John Keble: Five Books Of S. Irenaeus Bishop Of Lyons, Against Heresies, With The Fragments That Remain Of His Other Works - Page 236. [And Mark hath made his beginning from the prophetic Spirit, which cometh upon men from on high, thus S.Mark Saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... as it is written in the Prophet Esaias: implying the winged image of the Gospel.]

[67] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 126.

[68] Previous reference - p. 213.

[69] Previous reference - p. 71.

[70] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 4 - Origen Against Celsus - Book II - Chap. IV [Nay, even one of the evangelists - Mark - says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,”]

[71] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John - Book I - 14. The Old Testament, Typified by John, Is the Beginning of the Gospel. [For the same Mark says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.”]

[72] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. X : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John - Sixth Book V14 - Page 363. [In Mark, on the other hand, the same words are recorded at the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in accordance with the Scripture of Isaiah, as thus: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send My messenger before thy face, who 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.”]

[73] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. X : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John - Sixth Book V14 - Page 363. [Perhaps John was seeking to compress the “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God,” and so wrote, “Make straight the way of the Lord;” while Mark combined two prophecies spoken by two different prophets in different places, and made one prophecy out of them, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.”]

[74] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 248.

[75] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 7 - Victorinus - Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John. [Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet;” The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” - has the effigy of a lion.]

[76] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 87.

[77] Catholic Encyclopedia > A > Ambrosiaster. [The name given to the author of a commentary on all the Epistles of St. Paul, with the exception of that to the Hebrews. It is usually published among the works of St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII, 45-508).] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01406a.htm

[78] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 231.

[79] Previous reference - p. 139.

[80] Catholic Encyclopedia > C > St. Chromatius. [Bishop of Aquileia, died about 406-407. He was probably born at Aquileia, and in any case grew up there. He became a priest of that church and about 387 or 388, after the death of Valerianus, bishop of that important city.] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03730a.htm

[81] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 149.

[82] Previous reference - pp. 263, 264, 265.

[83] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works - Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating - V9 - Page 116. [Mark, the disciple of Peter, begins his gospel thus:—“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: 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.”]

[84] Ibid. [This quotation is made up from two prophets, Malachi that is to say and Isaiah. For the first part: “Behold I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare thy way before thee,” occurs at the close of Malachi. But the second part: “The voice of one crying, etc.,” we read in Isaiah. On what grounds then has Mark in the very beginning of his book set the words: “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold I send my messenger,” when, as we have said, it is not written in Isaiah at all, but in Malachi the last of the twelve prophets? Let ignorant presumption solve this nice question if it can, and I will ask pardon for being in the wrong.]

[85] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works - Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating - V9 - Page 117. [From all these passages it is clear that the apostles and evangelists in translating the old testament scriptures have sought to give the meaning rather than the words, and that they have not greatly cared to preserve forms or constructions, so long as they could make clear the subject to the understanding.]

[86] Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark; The New American Commentary (Page 39). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. [Mark and other biblical writers simply did not employ the technical precision of modern research. It was not necessary for their purpose.]

[87] Tadros Yaqoub Malti: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 269.

[88] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI. St. Augustin: The Harmony of the Gospels - Book II - Chapter VI - Page 113. [For it is thus that he sets out: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send a 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. John was in the wilderness baptizing, and preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, etc.]

[89] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI. St. Augustin: The Harmony of the Gospels - Book IV - Chapter I - Page 226. [Mark, then, commences as follows: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God: as it is written in the prophet Isaiah;” and so on, down to where it is said, “And they go into Capharnaum; and straightway on the Sabbath-day He entered into the synagogue and taught them.”]

[90] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 3 - The Writings of Tertullian - Part First - Apologetic - VII. An Answer to the Jews - Chap. IX. - Of the Prophecies of the Birth and Achievements of Christ.

[91] Father Matta El-Meskeen: The Gospel According to Saint Mark , Study, Interpretation and Explanation - pp. 120, 121.

[92] Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman: The Text Of The NT - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration - Page 246. [In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1.2, the composite quotation from Malachi (3.1) and from Isaiah (40.3) is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet." Later scribes, sensing that this involves a difficulty, replaced ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ with the general statement ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.]

[93] Bruce Metzger: A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (Page 62). London; New York: United Bible Societies. [The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is composite, the first part being from Mal 3.1 and the second part from Is 40.3. It is easy to see, therefore, why copyists would have altered the words “in Isaiah the prophet” (…) to the more comprehensive introductory formula “in the prophets.”]

[94] Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition. [The “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. Moreover it is the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. The reading of the later mss seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty.]

[95] Bruce Terry: A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, The Gospel According to Mark V. 1:2. [The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is from two scriptures: the first part is from Malachi 3:1 and the second part is from Isaiah 40:3. Thus it is likely that copyists changed the reference to make it more general.]

[96] David R. Palmer: Holy Bible, A Translation From The Greek - Mark 1:2. [It is easy to understand why copyists would want to change the text to the more inclusive "the prophets," but not easy to understand why they would want to change it the other direction.]

[97] Wieland Willker: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels - Vol. 2 Mark - Bremen, online published 7th edition 2010 - TVU 2 - 2. Difficult variant NA27 Mark 1:2. [If Isaiah was originally in Mk, it might have been changed to "in the prophets" because the first part is from Malachi and only the second part is from Isaiah. This is the traditional explanation of the NA reading. Perhaps it was a reaction to Porphyry's assault ? (NA probably original after weighting the witnesses).]

[98] Marvin R. Vincent: A History Of The TC Of The NT - Page 80. [The correct reading in Mark 1:2 is (ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) "in Isaiah the prophet;" but it is apparent that some scribe found it difficult or impossible to account for the fact that the quotation from Isa. 40:3, "The voice of one crying," etc., is preceded by a quotation from Mal. 3:1, "Behold I send my messenger" etc. ; and accordingly substituted (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) "in the prophets."]

[99] Bratcher, R. G., & Nida, E. A. (1993], c1961). A handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 1961. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (Page 5). New York: United Bible Societies. [Text Instead of tō E̅saia tō prophētē ‘Isaiah the prophet’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has tois prophētais ‘the prophets’: this late reading is an obvious correction which a scribe introduced into the original text because the first O.T. passage quoted by Mark is not from Isaiah but from Malachi 3.1.]

[100] Gould, E. P. (1922). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (Page 4). New York: C. Scribner's sons. [ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.—There is no doubt that this is a correction of the original, to meet the difficulty of ascribing the double quotation from Malachi and Isaiah to Isaiah alone. The reading of all the critical texts is ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ. ]

[101] Philip W Comfort: NT Text And Translation Commentary - Page 93 [Various scribes, aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the following verses (1:2-3), changed "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets" (so TR and KJV).]

[102] Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark; The New American Commentary (Page 39). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. [“Isaiah the prophet” (40:3) supplies only that part of the quotation in v. 3. The part in v. 2 is from Mal 3:1, perhaps with an allusion to Exod 23:20 as well (the same word means angel and messenger). As a result many medieval scribes substituted “in the prophets.” This reading is found in the KJV and NKJV, which are based on the medieval Greek text rather than on the earliest and now regarded best manuscripts as is the NIV.]

[103] Wayne C. Kannaday: Apologetic Discourse And The Scribal Tradition, Evidence Of The Influence Of Apologetic Interests On The Text Of The Canonical Gospels - Page 65. [Commentators routinely report the variant reading to be the result of someone who recognized the defective attribution of a composite quotation to a single prophet and repaired it.]

[104] Ibid. [Consider the case of Mark 1:2. Variation in the manuscripts occurs with regard to attribution of the prophetic citation, whether the text is said to be located “in Isaiah the prophet” or more generally “in the prophets.” The disputed portion of the verse reads, Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ [v.l. ἐν τοῖς προφήταις]....What follows is, in fact, a composite quotation consisting of material from Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20, as well as Isaiah 40:3. Textual critics generally recognize the erroneous attribution to Isaiah as the “original” reading and the “correction” to be the product of scribal amendment.]

[105] Benjamin B. Warfield: An Introduction To The TC Of The NT - Page 95. [Examples of corrections for clearing up historical difficulties may be found in the change of "Isaiah the prophet" into "the prophets" in Mark 1:2.]

[106] Daniel B. Wallace: Mark 1:2 and New Testament Textual Criticism. http://bible.org/article/mark-12-and-new-testament-textual-criticism [Hence, this leaves us with an interesting question: If this reading is not original, where did it come from? Scribes surely knew that the first part of the quotation was from Malachi--after all, not a few of these same scribes had copied out the OT. They knew their Scriptures well. Hence, an accidental change to “Isaiah” by some well-meaning early scribe is rather unlikely. Further, there is virtually no possibility that a scribe could have accidentally written Isaiah by dittography. This is the beginning of the gospel; there is not only no Isaiah (Hsaia) in the preceding material, there is also no Hs in the preceding material except in Jesus’ name, but that would have been written as a nomen sacrum (IU) from early on.]

[107] S. W. Whitney: The Revisers' Greek Text - A Critical Examination Of Certain Readings, Textual And Marginal, In The Original Greek Of The NT - Volume I - Page 171, 172. [In view of the testimony of the older manuscripts and versions, it is generally considered that the received reading is an early emendation to avoid the ascribing to Isaiah of words that are taken only in part from Isaiah. This is plausible; and yet there is another view to be taken. The author of this Gospel was born a Jew. He had, beyond a doubt, like Timothy, known the Old Testament writings from his childhood. His mother was evidently a devout, conscientious Jewess, a fit subject to become one of the early followers of Jesus, as we find that she was. (Acts xii. 12.) So that Mark would, at least, be quite as well able to say from which of the Old Testament writings he was quoting, as, for example, any well-read student of the Old Testament to-day would be to say in what book this or that passage might be found. In view of this, it seems hardly just to conclude that Mark, in giving two passages from different prophecies, like these from Malachi and Isaiah, would speak of them both as taken from Isaiah, especially when the first of them was one that he must have known was not in Isaiah.]

[108] J. A. M'Clymont: NT Criticism, Its History And Results - Page 78. [They were even willing to prefer a reading which implied inaccuracy on the part of the Evangelist in quoting from the Old Testament, e.g. in Mark 1 2 , "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," instead of "As it is written in the prophets," on the principle that it was more likely the original was altered in order to correct the mistake, than that the mistake had crept into the text through the error of a copyist.]

[109] Wayne C. Kannaday: Apologetic Discourse And The Scribal Tradition, Evidence Of The Influence Of Apologetic Interests On The Text Of The Canonical Gospels - Page 66. [What lingering puzzlement has remained for scholars regarding this text has centered around the question of how the error first found its way into the Marcan Gospel. The obvious answer is that the author of Mark simply erred, or that he knowingly credited Isaiah with the saying because of the high regard in which he or his audience held this particular prophet.]

[110] Jay P. Green: Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels - Mark 1:2 [In today’s versions, NASB, NIV, NRSV, REB, NAB, GNB, ERV, CEV, all apparently follow the Nestle/UBS Greek. And all are condemning Mark as being ignorant of the authorship of his quotations, leaving the authority and authenticity of the Scriptures doubtful in their versions.]

[111] Ibid. [The Evidence for in the prophets: MSS. A, all the dozens of uncials but 6, thousands of cursive mss. and lectionaries, all the versions but 4. Even more important, perhaps, is that this well-attested reading does not leave Mark and the Holy Spirit guilty of a false statement which accredits Isaiah with saying the words of Malachi.]

[112] Jay P. Green: Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels - Mark 1:2 [The fact is, Mark does not ever name the human authors of his quotations! Someone else took it upon themselves to insert Isaiah into the Egyptian MSS. It must be remembered that Gnostics and other heretics sought out opportunities to charge the Scriptures with being contradictory within itself, false in many places, and doubtful in many other places. This being well known, why do our new versionists so confidently and blithely insert these adulterations of the Scriptures, apparently not caring whether they give ammunition and comfort to those who wish to discredit the Scriptures and the authority that goes with them ?]

[113] Ibid. [There are many more corrupted mss. exhibiting this corruption: Aleph, B, C, D, L. Delta of the uncials, and according to Dean Burgon another thirteen cursives, and a claim that many Fathers accept the false words. But as in verse one, many of these Fathers are only quoting Origen.]

[114] Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman: The Text of NT, 4th edit. - Page 70. [It seems to be compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with secondary Alexandrian witnesses but also with those of the later Koine or Byzandne type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable.]

[115] Ibid - Page 82, 83. [In Mark, its text belongs to the Alexandrian type, similar to that of L; in the other Gospels, however, it belongs to the ordinary Koine or Byzantine type.]

[116] Jay P. Green: Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels - Mark 1:2 [WHAT ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLDEST EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS? Burgon cites 27 places where the old uncials deny or detract from the deity of Christ, all of them by either Aleph or B, and most of them by both Aleph and B; usually these are accompanied by D, several times by C, and seldom by A.]

[117] Ibid. [He also calls attention to the 2,877 omissions in B, and 3,455 words omitted in Aleph, which Burgon counted in the four Gospels alone. Also Codex D had 3,704 words omitted. Further he states that he had discovered 2,379 substitutions and modifications in B; 2,379 in Aleph; 3,893 in D. Burgon gives this example of the reliability of Aleph, B, A, C, D: In 7 verses of John, 13:21-27, these uncials differ 35 times: B responsible for 28; Aleph for 22; C for 21; D for 19, and A for 3, either singly or in combination with the others. Actual Greek of the 5 uncials is shown. In the Gospels, B also has 536 additions; Aleph has 839; D has 2,213. (Burgon’s Works slightly condensed in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. I, pp. 53, 76, The Causes of Corruption etc.)]

[118] Daniel B. Wallace: Mark 1:2 and New Testament Textual Criticism. http://bible.org/article/mark-12-and-new-testament-textual-criticism [Indeed, this is the charge that John Burgon makes of these early MSS. But if there is such a conspiracy, then three problems remain that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain: (1) How in the world could such a conspiracy have infected so many early and diverse witnesses? Its roots must go back so early that we would have to doubt virtually any reading in the NT. This would mean that the very first copies--and therefore often the majority of MSS (according to majority text theory) got corrupted. Thus, the conspiracy theory proves too much. That’s even too much for Burgon!]

[119] S. W. Whitney: The Revisers' Greek Text - A Critical Examination Of Certain Readings, Textual And Marginal, In The Original Greek Of The NT - Volume I - Page 172. [This, however, is the conclusion to which we are forced if our oldest documents are really trustworthy, and the reading presented by eight or ten of them here is to be accepted as the genuine reading. But these documents are not altogether trustworthy. They are continually in conflict one with another. They contain many of the erroneous readings that were early and inconsiderately introduced into the New-Testament Scriptures.]

[120] Daniel B. Wallace: Mark 1:2 and New Testament Textual Criticism. http://bible.org/article/mark-12-and-new-testament-textual-criticism [Now, how does all this relate to the issue of inerrancy? Three answers need to be given. First, the evidence is overwhelming that Mark wrote “in Isaiah the prophet.” Whatever one’s beliefs about inerrancy, it seems to me, they have to adjust to this piece of evidence.]

[121] Ibid. [Second, when it comes to dealing with textual criticism, if we want to take an approach to the text that says, “Start with the presupposition of inerrancy,” then we should logically be forced into holding to conjectural emendation in some places (such as Luke 2:2). This is so because there are several more severe problems to inerrancy than Mark 1:2. But if that is our approach, shouldn’t we also emend the text any time it disagrees with our theology on other fronts? There are passages that seem to indicate that Jesus was less than true deity. Don’t we have the right to change them to fit our doctrinal convictions? There is no stopping this kind of dogmatic method once it has begun.]

[122] Ibid. [Third, we simply need to be honest with the evidence in front of us. It is acceptable to say, at times, “I don’t know.” Inerrancy does not live or die with Mark 1:2. There are many fine exegetes who adopt the “Isaiah” reading and yet affirm inerrancy (in fact, I would venture to say that most inerrantist scholars adopt this reading). Nevertheless, they have options as to what is going on. They may not have the answer, but to simply call “in Isaiah” a mistake is quite arrogant. Some suggest that Isaiah headed up the scroll of the prophets and hence Mark meant “In the scroll of Isaiah.” This may be, but we are lacking sufficient proof. There are other suggestions as well, though no firm answers.]

[123] Wieland Willker: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels - Vol. 2 Mark - Bremen, online published 7th edition 2010 - TVU 2 - 2. Difficult variant NA27 Mark 1:2. [On the other hand if "in the prophets" was originally in Mk, it might have been changed to Isaiah to be more specific. This happened also at other places e.g. at Mt 13:35 where "through the prophet" has been changed to "through the prophet Isaiah" even though the word is NOT from Isaiah.]

[124] S. W. Whitney: The Revisers' Greek Text - A Critical Examination Of Certain Readings, Textual And Marginal, In The Original Greek Of The NT - Volume I - Page 172, 173. [This was the conclusion to which Jerome came nearly one thousand five hundred years ago. For, though in deference to the evidence which he had before him when he revised the Old Latin Version, he retained the reading in Esaia propheta in the Vulgate, he says, in commenting on Matthew iii. 3, in reference to Mark i. 2, that he thinks the name of Isaiah is a vitiation of the text by scribes like similar readings in other places.]

[125] S. W. Whitney: The Revisers' Greek Text - A Critical Examination Of Certain Readings, Textual And Marginal, In The Original Greek Of The NT - Volume I - Page 172, 173. [And when it is borne in mind that this reading appears in the margin of one and in the text of the other of the Syriac Versions, - the versions of the country of Tatian's Diatessaron, we need not be at a loss to see whence or how or when it got into the text. It evidently came from Matthew iii. 3, through Tatian in the latter part of the second century. It is what Dr. Hort would call a Syrian, a distinctively Syrian reading, though preserved in Aleph. B, L, 2,1, Origen, etc. The genuine reading, as found in the Received Text, comes down to us in later uncials and other documents.]

[126] The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - The Diatessaron of Tatian - Section XIII. [This is he of whom it is written, I am sending my messenger before thy face To prepare the way before thee. (Luk 7:27).]

[127] Ibid - Section III. [This is he that was spoken of in Isaiah the prophet, The voice which cries in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, And make straight in the plain, paths for our God. (Mat 3:3).]

[128] Jay P. Green: Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels - Mark 1:2 [Burgon believes it began with a harmonistic attempt to harmonize the words of the four Gospels, 3 of them having a quotation from Isaiah (Matt. 3:3; Luke, 3:3-6; John 1:23), and for some reason, or lack of reason, the harmonist included Mark as quoting Isaiah also. Mark does quote Isaiah, but he does not credit either Isaiah or Malachi, saying only that the quotation is from in the prophets.]

[129] S. W. Whitney: The Revisers' Greek Text - A Critical Examination Of Certain Readings, Textual And Marginal, In The Original Greek Of The NT - Volume I - Page 172, 173. [The expression, " in the prophets," is somewhat indefinite. It may have seemed unsatisfactory to some early scribe. So, in order to give it definiteness, or perhaps simply to make Mark correspond with Matthew, he would naturally change "in the prophets" to "in Isaiah the prophet," as Matthew has it in iii. 3.]

[130] Wieland Willker: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels - Vol. 2 Mark - Bremen, online published 7th edition 2010 - TVU 2 - 2. Difficult variant NA27 Mark 1:2. [The change to "Isaiah" could also simply be a harmonization to Mt/Lk.]

[131]Fathers Paul Al-Feghali, Antoine Awkar, Nimatallah Al-Khoury, and Youssef Fakhry: The New Testament , an Interlinear Greek-Arabic Translation - p. 279.

[132] Jan Krans: Beyond What Is Written, Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the NT - Page 285. [If there were some room for conjecture here, it would seem probable to me that the old reading ‘in the prophet Isaiah’ is genuine and that the place from Malachi, which crept from the margin into the text, is repeated here from Matt 11:10. Therefore it occurred that (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) was written here. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that only Isaiah’s testimony is cited at Matt 3:3 as well as Luke 3:4 and John 1:15, where they discuss the beginning of John’s ministry.]

[133] Ibid - Page 285. [Instead, he offers a conjecture, which comprises three or four stages: 1 the original text with (ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) but without the quotation from Malachi; 2 a manuscript with the Malachi quotation as a marginal gloss; 3 a text with the gloss introduced into the text; 4 a scribal accommodation, (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), in order to account for the fact that the text now contains quotations from two prophets.]

Search This Blog

kufrcleaner

Problems of Mark 1:2-3 Quotations and Distortions -

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Index of topics of the KUFRCLEANER LIBRARY

Mecca in Bible, a response

| The philosophy of pornography in the Bible and the response to it! Only for Males