Mar 1:2. Ὡς, as) Mark shows, from the prophets, that the beginning of the Gospel ought to have been such as it actually was; and having proved that point, all the rest is proved. The Apodosis is at verse 4.-ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, in Isaiah the Prophet) Mark brings forward a testimony first [Mar 1:2] from Malachi, next [Mar 1:3] from Isaiah. Therefore some have written thus, ἐν τοῖς προφἡταις, in the prophets. But yet, in the same way as Mat 21:4-5, quotes Zechariah under the title of one prophet [That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek, etc.], and at the same time blends with Zechariah’s words something out of Isa 62:11 [Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy salvation cometh, etc.]; and as Paul also, in Rom 9:27, quotes Isaiah by name, and yet has interwoven with Isaiah’s words something out of Hos 2:1 : so Mark quotes two prophets, and yet mentions by name only the one, the prophet Isaiah (as I have long since been of opinion): however it is not without show of probability, that Beza conjectures that the passage of Malachi crept from the blank space in the margin [ex albo] into the context of Mark. Isaiah is more copious and better known, and his testimony, which has been quoted by Mark, used to be read in public on the Sabbath; and Mark here produces the testimony of Malachi in a kind of parenthetic way, equivalent to a supplement, intending, as he did below, to omit that section of the Gospel history in which Malachi is properly [in the peculiarly appropriate place] quoted in Mat 11:10, and Luk 7:27 : whereas the quotation of Isaiah, as in Matthew, Luke, and John, so also here in Mark, is peculiarly appropriate to this place. John the Baptist himself quoted Isaiah, not Malachi, concerning himself.
 As it is written, etc., Behold I send my messenger, so “John did baptize,” being that messenger.-ED.
 Porphyry, an infidel of the third century, in charging Mark, on the ground that he has ascribed to Isaiah the words ἰδοὺ-προσώπου σοῦ, by the very fact of this charge establishes the fact, that the reading at that early date in the Greek or Syriac copies was ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ τᾠ προφήτῃ, and therefore that it was not a reading spuriously reproduced from the Latin copies, as may be seen at greater length in J. D. Michaelis’ Enleitung, etc., T. i., p. m. 162, 586, 587.-E. B.
Ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῳ προφήτῃ is the reading of BD (omitting the second τῷ)LΔ Vulg. be, Syr. Memph. Origen, Iren. 191: “in Eseiam (Esaiam) prophetam” in ad. But Rec. Text ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, with A P, and Iren. 187, 205, expressly. Lachm. from Orig. 4,15e, which represents Mark, in accordance with his wonted style, abruptly to pass from “the beginning of the Gospel,” etc., Mar 1:1, to ‘John,’ Mar 1:4, is of opinion Mar 1:2-3 were inserted by pious readers. See Lachm. Gr. Test., vol. ii. p. 6.-ED. and TRANSL.