Mark 1:1-3 -- Introduction in Bible Studies

The first chapter of Mark already starts with an interesting situation. Chapter 1, verse 1 says, "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." A footnote says that some ancient manuscripts omit the phrase, "the Son of God." That seems like a very important phrase to have in doubt! Is Jesus' status as the Son of God established elsewhere in Mark, in verses that are consistent across the ancient manuscripts?

Even without the phrase, "the Son of God," a couple commentaries say that the phrase Mark uses to open the gospel, "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah," has special meaning for Romans, which is a bit of evidence that the author was writing for the Romans. The phrase "good news" comes from euangelion, a word which for the Romans meant "joyful tidings." The larger phrase, "the beginning of the euangelion," was used to mark the birthday of the Roman emperor, who was worshiped by the Romans as a god. Mark is effectively saying, "You Romans say the emperor is your god; this book is the story of my God."

Chapter 1, verse 2 says, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.'" Once again, there's a problematic footnote, which says the quote is from Malachi 3:1. Wait, what? It's true, Mark says he is quoting from Isaiah, and then quotes Malachi. Here's a rather in-depth discussion of the basis in the existing manuscripts for the attribution to Isaiah. In a nutshell, Mark really did write the phrase, "in Isaiah the prophet" and then quote from Malachi.

But this is a good example of the importance of taking the Bible in context and understanding that the chapter-and-verse structure didn't exist in the original. Mark 1:2 looks like a mistake, but Mark 1:3 contains the actual quote from Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" Mark 1:4 then introduces John the Baptist by name. Clearly, when Mark wrote that he was quoting from Isaiah, he meant the quote in verse 3. So why did he say that and then quote from Malachi before quoting from Isaiah?

There are a few possibilities. Writers at the time sometimes quoted or paraphrased from a well-known source without citing it -- in fact, the earliest evidence of the gospel of Mark itself is such a quote. We do the same thing today, but it seems weird for Mark to have cited one quote, then quoted another without citation. It could also be that the Greek phrase "in the Isaiah the prophet" was meant to be read as "in Isaiah and the prophet." But as far as I know, Malachi was a minor prophet, while Isaiah was one of, if not the most important prophet. If anyone was called "the prophet," it would've been Isaiah, not Malachi. Of course, it might be similar to "and the rest" in the Gilligan's Island theme song.

Open Questions:
1) Is Jesus' status as the Son of God established elsewhere in Mark, in verses that are consistent across the ancient manuscripts?
2) Is there a better explanation for the Malachi quote in Mark 1:2?