Peshitta Forum

Full Version: The "Isaiah the prophet" from Mark's account
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Greetings. <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: -->

ok, here is my first step:

Byzantine text type, including Majority text and critical editions of TR (Erasmus, Elizer, Stephanus, Schrinver, etc.) read "in the prophets".

Eclectic text (WH, NA, UBS), and then Peshitto and Peshitta read "Isaiah the prophet".

Any speculation why this discrepancy is in the aramaic Mark 1:2? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Could Peshitta be derived from the same proto-source as the Critical text?
DrawCloser Wrote:Greetings. <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: -->

ok, here is my first step:

Byzantine text type, including Majority text and critical editions of TR (Erasmus, Elizer, Stephanus, Schrinver, etc.) read "in the prophets".

Eclectic text (WH, NA, UBS), and then Peshitto and Peshitta read "Isaiah the prophet".

Any speculation why this discrepancy is in the aramaic Mark 1:2? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Could Peshitta be derived from the same proto-source as the Critical text?

Shlama Draw Closer:
The Peshitta often agrees with some of the older Greek manuscripts and this case it does. The Majorty text and the TR as you probably already know are a collage of various manuscripts, many of which do not agree verbatim, while the Peshitta is the original text from which all of these individual texts are copied and interpreted. Some of the Greek texts are more liberal in their interpretation as the various scribes took licence and liberty to make changes. This was often done to fall in line with the dogma's of the Roman Church. The Peshitta is the straight goods from which all Greek texts find their origin, by different scribes, in different places and at different time periods.

Shlama.
Stephen Silver
Ok, why [then] does Peshitta have "Isaiah the prophet"?

The clause that follows that does not seem to come from Isaiah... (well our Isaiahs such as MSS, LXX, VUL, TNKH, etc.)
It seems like rather a Malachi reading is there, why does the Peshitta say Isaiah?! <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

(2) I interpreted that you meant that Peshitta is the 'mother' of the Critical Text, instead of being a translation that shares the same [possible] proto-source with the Critical Text?
DrawCloser Wrote:
Quote:Ok, why [then] does Peshitta have "Isaiah the prophet"?

The clause that follows that does not seem to come from Isaiah... (well our Isaiahs such as MSS, LXX, VUL, TNKH, etc.)
It seems like rather a Malachi reading is there, why does the Peshitta say Isaiah?! <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

(2) I interpreted that you meant that Peshitta is the 'mother' of the Critical Text, instead of being a translation that shares the same [possible] proto-source with the Critical Text?

Shlama Akhi:
There really is no discrepancy here, only the order in which the saying of Isaiah is placed. Perhaps because of the chronological order of the prophet Isaiah, the passage from Isaiah 40:3 is mentioned first in position to Malachi 3:1 who was the last prophet. This includes in fact all of the prophets. All of the prophets are important and in some way contribute to the foretelling of the birth and ministry of the Messiah, the Living WORD of Alaha. Hence Mark 1:2-3 says Isaiah the prophet in some versions as does the Peshitta. It's easier for me to follow the Peshitta as the "source text", from which all Greek texts are derived by interpretation and recopying. The Peshitta resolves many discrepancies where the multitude of Greek manuscripts create impossibilities, paradoxes and eventually doubts in the authority of the Greek New Testament, making the Gospel less effective and leading to denominalationalism and the divisions within the Body of Meshikha.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
"Isaiah the Prophet" is the reading of the Codex Bezae, the Vaticanus, the Sinaiaticus, and several other early Greek MSS. It is found also in the Syriac, the Persic, the Coptic, the Armenian, the Gothic, the Vulgate, and the Itala versions, and was the reading in Tertullian's Bible, who lived from 160-225 A.D. and in Origen's Bible, who lived from 185-253 A.D. As this prophecy quoted by Mark is found both in Isaiah and Malachi, probably the reading was changed to "the prophets" in later MSS, that it might include both Prophets, but in one of Asseman's Syriac copies, it shows both Isaiah and Malachi are mentioned. See all the authorities in Griesbach, 2d edit.

Also, these two readings both seem to go back very early, as Ireneaus who lived from 115-202 A.D. has the reading "the Prophets" in his copy of the Bible...and it is also found in the Arabic and the Ethiopian versions... and is the Greek Majority reading of the verse.

Here is further info on this I found.

"in Isaiah the prophet" -- Aleph B D f1 700 1071 1243 pc 253 844 2211 Epiphanius omit "in") L 33 565 892 1241 2427 al a aur b c d f ff2 l q am ful peshitta, hark(marg) sahidic, bohirac, armenian, georgian, Irenaeus, Origen, [UBS WH Tischendorf Soden Merk Bover Vogels NEB Souter Greeven]

"in the prophets" -- A E F H P W G S f13 28 579 1006 1010 1342 1424 1505 1506 1546 Byz (r1-vid "in Isaiah and in the prophets") hark(text ) bohirac(ms-marg) ethiopian slavonic [Hodges-Farstad (Maj Text, TR]

Preferred reading: #1
This reading (except for the question of including or excluding "in", which is relatively trivial, can be resolved based on either internal or external evidence. The external evidence overwhelmingly favours the reading "Isaiah the Prophet;" it is supported by the "Alexandrian Text type" (Aleph, B, L, D, 33, 892, 1241, 2427, the Coptic versions of the Sahidic, and the Bohirac), The "Western text type" (D it vg), and the "C?sarean text type" (Q, f1, 565, 700, the Armenian, The Georian. Tertullian (Latin) & Origen (Greek).

In favour of "in the prophets" we have only the Byzantine text type and Ireneaus as witnesses.

Internal evidence is equally decisive -- because the quotation is not from Isaiah alone, but from Malachi and Isaiah. The attribution to Isaiah is an error, and scribes would obviously have been tempted to correct it. (Neither of the parallels mentions Isaiah.) Thus it becomes certain that the original reading was "In Isaiah the prophet."
Thirdwoe, thank you for that historical information! It's so hard to find that information online!

(1) Other than what Stephen said (about the writer referring to the scroll of the prophets starting with Isaiah) , I am wondering why else would the writer of Mark write an erroneous reading?

(2) And could a non extant version of Isaiah have a verse that reads like Malachi? Considering that we do not have the original copy of Isaiah...