06-16-2012, 04:21 AM
"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."
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."