King James Onlyists insist that modern translations introduce errors into the text that would make the Bible untrue. A common example they use is Mark 1:2-3, where the gospel combines two Old Testament quotes (one from Malachi and the other from Isaiah.) The KJV simply attributes these quotes to “the prophets,” whereas most modern translations say it was written in “Isaiah the prophet.” The King James Onlyist thus argues that, since a large portion of the quote is from Malachi, saying that it was written in Isaiah is an error. The Bible cannot have errors, so the modern translations must be wrong. This line of argument not only fails to note the legitimate ancient method of citation that Mark was using, but it also fails to acknowledge similar instances in the KJV itself! In the end, this text does not undermine modern translations, but if the KJVO argument were correct, it would inadvertently undermine the KJV as well.
What is the issue with Mark 1:2-3?
The section of Mark in dispute here reads:
“As it is written in the prophets, 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.” (Mark 1:2-3, KJV).
“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight.'” (Mark 1:2-3, NASB).
There is no doubt that this passage is quoting both Malachi and Isaiah. That is not in dispute. So, three things need to be dealt with:
- Why do modern translations say Isaiah?
- Does the “Isaiah” reading constitute an error?
- Are there similar passages in the KJV?
As we will see, there are good (though not conclusive) reasons to suspect that the “Isaiah” reading is the earliest version, this does not imply an error in Mark (or in modern translations), and the King James Version has equivalent verses in other passages.
Manuscript evidence for Mark 1:2-3
So, first of all, why do most modern translations contain the reading “written in Isaiah” rather than the more general “written in the prophets”? Is this some subtle modern conspiracy to diminish the accuracy of the gospels? Well, no. As far as English translations go, the “Isaiah” reading is definitely the oldest. Centuries before the KJV, the 14th-century Wycliffe Bible read:
“As it is written in Esaias, the prophet, Lo! I send mine angel before thy face, that shall make thy way ready before thee.” (Mark 1:2, Wycliffe).
Even further back, the 10th-century West Saxon Gospels (which contain the earliest known English translation of Mark) also had the “written in Isaiah” reading. Clearly, this version is nothing new. On the other hand, several modern versions like the MEV and NKJV agree with the King James Version’s “written in the prophets.” So, whatever way you look at it, this is not a “traditional versus modern” issue. Instead, it comes down to the manuscripts. Let’s take a look at the evidence each way:
The “written in Isaiah” reading is found in Codex א and B (fourth century), Codex D (fifth century), Codex L (eighth century), Codex Δ and Θ (ninth century), and other manuscripts from that time on through the middle ages. It is also supported by the Old Latin, the vast majority of the Vulgate manuscripts, and the majority of Syriac and Coptic copies (including the oldest copies in those languages). This is likewise the reading in the Gothic and Georgian translations.
On the other hand, the “written in the prophets” version is present in Codex W (fourth century), Codex A (fifth century), Codex P and Codex Σ (sixth century), Codex E (eighth century), Codex F, G, H, K, Π, (ninth century), and the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts on through the middle ages. It is also found in some late Latin, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, as well as the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic translations.
As you can see, this is not one of those cases where the modern reading is found in all of the earliest sources, and the KJV reading shows up only much later. Both readings have early attestation and a long history of common use. Through the Latin tradition, the “Isaiah” reading became the majority version in the west while the “prophets” version was the form most common in the later Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine east, but both traditions are well represented in the early centuries. The “Isaiah” reading perhaps has a slight edge in that its early witnesses are far more diverse while most regions don’t have the “prophets” version show up until much later. However, the evidence for the “prophets” version still should not be swiftly dismissed!
In the end, modern scholars prefer the “Isaiah” reading not only because of the diversity of its early witnesses but also because it makes more sense out of the evidence. It is easier to understand why a later scribe might (either intentionally or accidentally) switch from “written in Isaiah” to “written in the prophets.” Indeed, they may have been motivated by the same thing that concerns King James Onlyists today! However, it is much harder to understand how or why an ancient scribe would have changed “written in the prophets” to “written in Isaiah.” And, even if a scribe had done so, it is difficult to understand why such a reading would have caught on so widely and persisted in so many regions. If it were both new and more difficult, it seems likely it would have been noticed and corrected.
Thus, modern scholars think that the “Isaiah” version is far more likely to be the original. Even if you disagree, there is undoubtedly room for charity in such a disagreement. Yet, the King James Onlyist seems always to pair this objection with accusations of heresy and malice on the part of modern translators. The reason is that they perceive the difference to be no small matter but rather to undermine the reliability of the Bible itself. But does it?
Is the “Isaiah” version a factual error?
The fiery passion surrounding this controversy primarily stems from the assumption that the modern version of Mark constitutes a factual error. If Mark says the words are “written in Isaiah” when, in fact, some of them are written in Malachi and not Isaiah, then doesn’t that make Mark wrong? Understandably, this provokes many Christians to a passionate defense of the inerrant word of God. Yet, the fact of the matter is, this isn’t an error at all! It is simply an example of ancient writers having different conventions for citation than modern ones.
In the New Testament time period, it was not abnormal for a writer to quote two sources together and only name one of them. Ancient authors did not do so mistakenly, nor were they trying to trick the reader. They were usually quoting sources they expected their readers to be familiar with and thus knew that they would recognize the second author even without listing his name. There are a variety of reasons an ancient author might use such a technique. Biblical authors typically did so to point out how the unnamed author’s words reinforce and clarify the central point of the named author. You can see further discussion of this, with other ancient examples, in our article: Did Mark Confuse Isaiah and Malachi?
The point here is that this was a legitimate ancient practice which in no way constitutes an error nor dishonesty. The “Isaiah” reading of Mark 1:2-3 does not pose any problems for biblical reliability. Indeed, since this convention was normal at the time of the New Testament and not common in later centuries, this version provides further evidence that Mark is an authentic first-century writing. It is, if anything, another minor evidence in favor of trusting Mark’s gospel!
An example from the KJV
Having said this, let’s look at a concrete New Testament example that one finds in all versions, even the KJV. After Matthew reports Judas’ betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (and his subsequent regret), we read:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.” (Matthew 27:9-10, KJV).
The name rendered “Jeremy” here in the KJV is the prophet Jeremiah. But this passage isn’t primarily citing anything spoken by Jeremiah. It mainly refers to the words of Zechariah:
“And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.” (Zechariah 11:13).
Yet, Matthew doesn’t mention Zechariah. He seems to attribute all of this to Jeremiah. Again, this is actually in keeping with a legitimate ancient practice (to read more about this particular example, see: Does Matthew misquote Jeremiah?). But if modern translations are wrong to use this kind of citation method in Mark 1:2-3, then the KJV is just as incorrect to use it here. If it were an error for Mark to do it, it would be an error for Matthew to do it as well. Isaiah didn’t write the words of Malachi, and Jeremiah didn’t speak the words of Zechariah. Thus, if ancient authors are only allowed to use citation practices we would use today, the KJV is just as problematic as the NASB or NIV.
In fact, just as with Mark 1:2-3, we find that later scribes (whether purposefully or accidentally) again smoothed the problem out. Some manuscripts simply read “the prophet” rather than “Jeremy the Prophet.” Indeed, that reading is attested in Greek manuscripts, Old Latin and Vulgate copies (some quite early), multiple Syriac versions (including the oldest Syriac manuscript), Coptic and Slavonic translations, and even one or two church fathers. Why not go with this easier reading? Doesn’t it avoid the apparent difficulty in Matthew just like the “written in the prophets” reading avoids the apparent difficulty in Mark? Of course, the King James Onlyist can’t go with the easier reading in Matthew because that would disagree with the KJV. Yet, any reasonable argument the King James Onlyist makes here to defend why we should stick with the more challenging “Jeremy/Jeremiah” reading in Matthew 27 and why that doesn’t undermine the reliability of the Bible is going to end up sounding exactly like proponents of modern versions defending the “Isaiah” reading of Mark 1:2-3. We don’t get to change our standards depending on what we want the conclusion to be.
Mark 1:2-3 and King James Onlyism
One final point worth making is that, whichever reading one prefers, the opening verses of Mark do not support King James Onlyism. First of all, as noted above, there are modern translations that also contain the “written in the prophets” version of this passage, so even if you conclude that this reading is correct, that doesn’t leave you with the King James Only. You still have several translations available.
More importantly, however, Mark 1:2-3 quotes Isaiah in a way a King James Onlyist could not. This is true even in the KJV. Let’s take a look:
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,” (Mark 1:3, KJV).
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God,” (Isaiah 40:3, KJV).
The wording between the two is similar enough to be clear that Mark is quoting this verse in Isaiah, but it is not the same. Mark’s translation does not precisely agree with the KJV’s translation of this same verse. What’s more, we know what translation Mark was using. Take a look at Mark’s wording as compared to the Greek Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Old Testament from before the time of the New Testament:
“φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ,” (Mark 1:3)
“φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῗτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν,” (Isaiah 40:3, LXX)
Even if you can’t read Greek, you can easily see that the two are word-for-word identical except that Mark simplifies the very last phrase “τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν” (“of our God”) to simply “αὐτοῦ” (“of him,” or in plainer English, “his”). Anyone who has ever translated anything knows that this level of exact word-for-word agreement doesn’t just happen. Mark is definitely quoting from the Septuagint, a translation that differs notably from the wording of both the KJV and the Masoretic Hebrew text from which the KJV’s Old Testament was translated. A King James Onlyist could never accept the Septuagint as an authentic translation. It would violate King James Onlyism. Yet Mark confidently quotes the Septuagint as the word of God. Thus, while King James Onlyists run to Mark 1:2-3 because they think they have found a flaw in modern translations, it turns out to be another place where the New Testament writers reject King James Onlyism and trust other translations.
