isaiah 53's hebrew: are words missing? if so, how can we 'recreate' them?

8/7/2019 Isaiah 53's Hebrew: Are Words Missing? If so, how can we 'recreate' them?

1/29

Splash Page: BibleWorks' Copyright Notice,Font download, and its Bible version Abbreviations

Copyright notice, pasted from http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html :"BWHEBB, BWHEBL,BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript Type 1 and TrueTypeTfonts Copyright 1994-2006 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrewfonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis andresearch." You can download the above fonts from that same link, either as zip file (recommended

so you can easily do it again when needed) or as an exe file. Please restart Windows afterwards, oit will act unpredictably.

I heartily recommend BibleWorks software: at $300, it's the best bargain out there; upgrades areusually $200 or less. You get a full morphological analysis with each word, so it makes learningthe languages, much faster and easier. Dunno about you, but I dislike the way they teachlanguage in school: repetition with no relevancy. My best friend quips she had four years ofFrench, but can only say "ou est la biblioteque". And she's a Phi Beta Kappa. So here inBibleWorks, you see relevancy: text with the Auto-info window just below, shows morphology ofevery word, so you quickly learn how God chose to write. And His Wit is incredible, since He usesevery nuance of the language, to communicate meaning. So everything is relevant and enjoyableeven all that erstwhile-dry grammar, if it's in the Word. Much faster and more enjoyable way to

learn. What your pastor then says about morphology, makes faster sense and you learn what hemeans, better. Breathing 1Jn1:9, you'll get the Holy Spirit's deiknumi (pointing-out) function(corollary of John 14:26), so He'll show you what to notice and how it ties to whatever you'relearning/searching. This is true happiness.

Frankly, my wallet testifies that you'd have to pay FAR more if you separately purchased the manygood lexicons and language study materials now in BibleWorks version 7; don't even ask how mucmore I paid at a local seminary! Even then, you'd still lack the ease-of-integration BibleWorksprovides with the same material -- ease of searching, side-by-side comparison in Windows ratherthan heavy books/codices all over the floor, like Gesenius, Tregelles, Tishendorf and Jerome allmust have suffered. It's understandable that Bible scholarship, teaching, and translation haveretained so many errors: without this software, how could they proof anything? Had to be a

miracle, that they got ANY of it right. And via the software, this stupid brainout can do in tenminutes, what took them a week or more to do. In short, this software is a goldmine. The programrequires a lot of downtime to learn its functions, and can be frustrating. Worth it!

BibleWorks people don't know about my anonymous "brainout" pages or this recommendation;they only know my real name, since I'm a registered user, unpaid. But God already pays anyone abizillion dollars who reads His Word with interest, 1Tim6:5-6.

The font names above, once installed, will show in lower case in your Windows/Fonts subdirectory;they will also show up in Word. So the following pages of this document, should display properly. instead you find unreadable text, either you didn't restart your computer, or you didn't properlydownload the fonts, yikes! So try again.

Now to the abbreviations of BibleWorks' software Bibles which use these fonts, in this and likedocuments of mine. Verses in my documents will be pasted from BibleWorks, in these versions.

"BHT" is a special, copyrighted, Transliterated Hebrew OT licensed to the BibleWorks peopleIt uses the Bwtransh font. Its phonetics can be helpful.

"WTT" is the BHS Hebrew (Masoretic) OT text. It uses the Bwhebb font. "BGT" is BibleWorks' own compilation of both the LXX and (usually NA27) texts. It uses the

Bwgrk fonts.

Other major "witnesses" are also in BibleWorks, like Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Friberg, etBut "BGT" seems to be a compilation of the best among them (i.e., the most likely correct text)As you analyze Bible in the original, you come to know when a verse needs audit-checking
http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.htmlhttp://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html


2/29

(famous example is James 4:5, which should not capitalize "pros", but does). So having morethan one Greek text, is a must. And we have thousands, not just a few, for comparison.

As usual, Greek and Hebrew words are given in their vocabulary form (i.e., as lexicons listthem), unless quoted, etc. I try to Romanize Greek words with the English-letter equivalents, ophonetically. Hebrew words if not obvious, are given with the letter names of their roots, aswell.

Oh: in Word, these fonts won't properly display in "Normal" View mode. But they do displayproperly in View Print, Print Preview (my favorite viewing mode) or in View Web mode, onceyou've downloaded the fonts and rebooted. (Quirk: downloaded fonts require rebooting.) Ofcourse, after that the printer will properly print, too. End Splash Page.

2


3/29

Isaiah 52:13-54:1, pasted from BibleWorksblue font shows meter (ellision and dramatic pause assumed)

BHT Isaiah 52:13hinnyaSKl `abD yrm9\wniSS wgbah md8

`dao)m. Hb;g"w> aF'nIw> ~Wry" yDI_b.[; lyKif.y: hNEhWTT Isaiah 52:1

BGT Isaiah 52:13ivdou. sunh,sei o` pai/j mou9\ kai. u`ywqh,setai kai. doxasqh,setaisfo,dra15\

BHT Isaiah 52:14Kaer mm `lk raBBm9\Kn-miHat m marh8\wtr

miBBn dm9

`~d'(a' ynEB.mi Ara]tow> Whae_r>m; vyaime tx;v.mi-Ke ~yBir; ^yl,[' Wmm.v' rv,a]K; WTT Isaiah 52:1

BGT Isaiah 52:14o]n tro,pon evksth,sontai evpi. se. polloi,11\ ou[twj avdoxh,sei avpo.

avnqrw,pwn to. ei=do,j sou15\ kai. h` do,xa sou avpo. tw/n avnqrw,pwn11\BHT Isaiah 52:15Kn yazz Gym raBBm `lyw9\yiqPc mlkm Phem8\K er l|-suPPa

lhem r9\waer l|-m` hitBnn9

`Wnn")ABt.hi W[m.v'-alrvm;-al{)w> Whaer>nIw> rd"+hal{w> Al ra;to-al{ hY"ci #r,a,me vr,Vok;w> wyn"p'

qnEAYK; l[;Y:w: Isaiah 53BGT Isaiah 53:2avnhggei,lamen evnanti,on auvtou/ w`j paidi,on15\ w`j r`i,za evn gh/|diyw,sh|8\ ouvk e;stin ei=doj auvtw/| ouvde. do,xa15\ kai. ei;domen auvto,n kai.ouvk ei=cen ei=doj ouvde. ka,lloj15\

3


4/29

BHT Isaiah 53:3nibz waHdal m8\ makbt wd` Hl8\ kmasTr Pnm mimmenn8\

nibz wl Habnuh8

`WhnU)b.v;x] al{w> hz


5/29

BHT Isaiah 53:4knHlyn h nS9\ makbn sblm 8\wanaHn4\

Habnuh4\ ng` muKK4\lhm m`unn4

`hNnI Atr'bux]b;W wyl'[' WnmeAlv. rs:WmWnyte_nOwO[]me aK'dum. Wn[ev'P.mi ll'xom. aWhw> W

Isaiah 53

BGT Isaiah 53:5auvto.j de. evtraumati,sqh dia. ta.j avnomi,aj h`mw/n15\ kai.memala,kistai dia. ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n15\ paidei,a eivrh,nhj h`mw/n8\ evpVauvto,n tw/| mw,lwpi auvtou/ h`mei/j iva,qhmen15\

BHT Isaiah 53:6Kulln Kaccn T`n8\ ldarK Pnn8\ wyhwh(wa|dny) hipG` B

t `wn Kulln9

`WnL'(Ku !wO[] tae AB [;yGIp.hi hw"hyw:) WnynI+PAKr>d;l. vyai Wny[iT' !aCoK; WnL'Ku WTT Isaiah 53BGT Isaiah 53:6pa,ntej w`j pro,bata evplanh,qhmen11\ a;nqrwpoj th/| o`dw/| auvtou/evplanh,qh11\ kai. ku,rioj pare,dwken auvto.n10\ tai/j a`marti,aij h`mw/n7\

BHTIsaiah 53:7niGGaS wh na`n7\wl yipTaH-Pw7\ KaSS laebaH ybl7\ krHl

lipn gzzh9\nelm wl yipTaH Pw9

`wyPi( xT;p.yI al{w> hm'l'_a/n< h'yzgO ynEp.

lxer"k.W lb'Wy xb;J,l; hF,K; wyPi-xT;p.yI al{w>hn fG:nIIsa53BGT Isaiah 53:7kai. auvto.j dia. to. kekakw/sqai10\ ouvk avnoi,gei to. sto,ma7\ w`jpro,baton evpi. sfagh.n h;cqh10\ kai. w`j avmno.j evnanti,on tou/ kei,rontoj auvto.na;fwnoj17\ ou[twj ouvk avnoi,gei to. sto,ma auvtou/10\

BHT Isaiah 53:8m`cer mimmiP luqqH8\ wet-Dr m ySHH8\ K nigzar merec

Hayym8\ miPPea` `ammnega` lm8

5


6/29

`Aml'( [g:nnI yKix;xe_Afy> ymi ArAD-ta,w> xQ'lu jP'v.MimiW rc,[ome WT

Isaiah 53

BGT Isaiah 53:8evn th/| tapeinw,sei h` kri,sij auvtou/ h;rqh11\ th.n genea.n auvtou/ ti,jdihgh,setai11\ o[ti ai;retai avpo. th/j gh/j h` zwh. auvtou/15\ avpo. tw/n avnomiw/n

tou/ laou/ mou h;cqh eivj qa,naton15\BHT Isaiah 53:9wayyiTTn et-r`m qibr9\wet-`r Bmtyw7\`al l-Hms `S7\

wl mirm Bpw7

`wypi(B. hm'r>mi al{w> hf'[' sm'x'-al{ l[; wyt'_moBryvi['-ta,w> Arb.qi ~y[iv'r>-ta, !TEYIw: WTT Isaiah 53

BGT Isaiah 53:9kai. dw,sw tou.j ponhrou.j avnti. th/j tafh/j auvtou/15\ kai. tou.jplousi,ouj avnti. tou/ qana,tou auvtou/ 11\ o[ti avnomi,an ouvk evpoi,hsen10\ ouvde

eu`re,qh do,loj evn tw/| sto,mati auvtou/15

\

6


7/29

BHT Isaiah 53:10wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl9\im-TSm m nap8\ yir

zera` yark ymm9\ wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH9

`xl'(c.yI Ady"B. hw"hy> #p,xew> ~ymi_y" %yrIa]y[r;zyI Avp.n: ~v'a' ~yfiT'-~ai ylix/h,( AaK.D

#pex' hw"hyw: WTT Isaiah 53:1BGT Isaiah 53:10kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j15\ eva.n dw/te peria`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n15\ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,riojavfelei/n10\

BHT Isaiah 53:11m`mal nap6\ yir yiSB` Bda`T yacDq9\ caDDq `abD l|

raBBm8\ wa`wntm h yisBl8

`lBo)s.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIb.[; qyDIcqyDIc.y: AT[.d;B. [B'f.yI ha,r>yI Avp.n: lm;[]me WTTIsaia53:1

BGT Isaiah 53:11avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j15\ kai.pla,sai th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai11\ di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j15\ kai. ta.ja`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.j avnoi,sei11\

BHT Isaiah 53:12lkn Halleq-l braBBm9\ wet-`cmm yHallq ll9\ TaHat

er he`r lammwet9\ nap wet-P`m nimn9\ wh H-raBBm nS8\

wlaPP`m yapG` s8

aWhw> hn"+m.nI ~y[iv.Po-ta,w> Avp.n: tw rm:a' hl'W[bynEB.mi hm'meAv-ynEB>) ~yBiryKi( hl'x'-al{ ylih]c;w> hN"rI yxic.Pi hd'l'_y" al{ hr'q'[] yNIr' WT

Isaiah 54

BGT Isaiah 54:1euvfra,nqhti stei/ra h` ouv ti,ktousa10\ r`h/xon kai. bo,hson h` ouvk

7


8/29

wvdi,nousa10\ o[ti polla. ta. te,kna th/j evrh,mou10\ ma/llon h' th/j evcou,shj to.n

a;ndra10\ ei=pen ga.r ku,rioj6\

8


9/29

How to Rebuild the Missing Hebrew Text from the Greek, in Isaiah 53:10-12

Why we know text is missing: the Greek verbs in the LXX of Isa53:10-11 do not have ANY of thecorresponding Hebrew words in the same verses, which are normally used elsewhere in Bible.We also know these verses have one or more gaps in the Isaiah scroll. NT writers all frequentlyreference the LXX text of Isa53:10-11. Finally, the meter is off in the Hebrew of Isa53:11, at leas(compared to what Isaiah's been using), thus implying text is missing.

Most important is the fact that the Greek verbs do have Hebrew counterparts in Bible which are absentinverses 10-11, but should not be. The verbs are too important, and the NT writers all frequently referencethese Greek verbs in these two verses. For example, Greek verb katharizw appears in the OT 94 times, andalways has an atonement/purification connotation. 'Mostly, as a translation for Hebrew verb kaphar, taher, ohata, but not for dakah, which is used in Isa53:10. The latter is translated with many different Greek words,all of which stress either the condition of being broken and crushed, or hitting/crushing action which causesthat condition. See for yourself: search both the BHS and the LXX texts. BibleWorks makes searching, easyI couldn't make this document without it.

Isaiah would not miss so important a Hebrew keyverb as kapharor taher, especially here. So the LXX musthave been translating one of those verbs, if using katharizw. So one ought to back-translate the LXXtext and then test for Isaiah's meter. Same can be said for the other keywords which don't have theexpected Hebrew counterparts. Obviously what's concluded below is an educated guess. Here's what's not aguess: the LXX words missing in the Hebrew are frequently referenced in the NT. Every one of the fiveinfinitives is played on by the Lord and the NT writers so much, I rarely find an NT verse which doesn'treference one (directly or conceptually).

Also, Isaiah's dramatic style repeats a prior phrase and slightly changes its meaning, typical in Hebrew verseThis style is well-known. Two paired statements, very close and repetitive, yet slightly differing,to highlightsome principle or celebrate the meaning exposited. You see that style in Psalms, which predate Isaiah; yousee it in Proverbs, in the prophetical writings. It's a kind of poetic discourse. So why is that doublingsuddenly absent in the Hebrew here? The Hebrew is too brusque, compared to prior verses in context. TheLXX insertions proposed below seem to restore that doubling style.

Next, in Hebrew poetic verse you'll find a lot of antiphony: a stylized presentation of two or more persons

talking to each other, not unlike an ancient (i.e., Greek) play. Often these "persons" are Father and Son.Isaiah in particular specializes in antiphony (Isaiah 9, 63 are quick examples). David used antiphony a lot(i.e., the famous Psalms 22, 40, 110). Father talking to Son. Son talking to Father. So given that in Isa53:10you have the third person used in the Hebrew, and a 2nd person quotation in the Greek, probably means theGreek follows the Hebrew, 'answering' it.

So let's pause to play devil's advocate. Counter-contention: one often finds the Greek text using the secondperson when the Hebrew uses the third person in the OT. The LXX is generally translated idiomatically, notliterally. That is a better practice, and of course enough people were around who knew both languages, toexplain any differences as mere idiom. Then the Bible got 'lost', locked up in monasteries, churches, largelyinaccessible; for the better part of two millenia, you had to become a monk or a nun, if you wanted to haveongoing access to an original-language Bible. Only in the 1800's did the original-language texts begin to becollected, collated and published so any joe could get them (i.e., by Tregelles et al). Hence our more moder

preference for literal translation stems from not knowing either or both original languages, and we need thosliteralistic benchmarks as we learn those languages, in our translations. Else we can't compare translationand original text.

So (still playing devil's advocate) maybe the reason for the LXX difference in Isa53:10-12 is instead, idiomatifor example, the same meaning is expressed, but in Hebrew what you'd express in Third Person, in Greekrequired the Second.

Ok: but one can'tcall it a mere difference in idiom, unless the Greek verbs in these verses are actuallytranslations of the Hebrew, elsewhere in Bible. An idiom is a recurring thing. So more than once in Bible,you'd find the same construction 'translating' the Hebrew. Well: text here doesn't pass that 'test'. Neitherkatharizw nor aphairew (LXX in 53:10) are ever translations of dakah or tsaleah, for example. All four verbsmeanings are quite different, pan-Bible.

9


10/29

And finally, you still don't resolve the meter being off in verse 11. Granted, the ellision assumptions made,might be wrong. But notice how the basic metric pattern is 8's and 9's, breaking for dramatic effect into 4'sand 3's, such that they still ADD UP to 8's and 9's. Doctrine and "actor" define what meter Isaiah uses: 7'sare for the Lord's Own Action (vv. 7,9,12) and trebled (Trinity, bald). 8's denote man's action/attitude towarHim, or God's plan/attitude re man in Him. 9's denote God's Decree/Unilateral Action (Trinity, very bald). Itperfect: except in v.11. So what happened in verse 11? You must end meter at each clause (i.e., just beforthe next waw/vav) or whole idea (subject/verb/object, if given). If verse 10 is whole in Hebrew, you could

insert the entire 53:10 in LXX following it, back-translate in Hebrew, yet keep to that meter. In any event,one MUST solve the meter lacuna in v.11.

10


11/29

Ok: then one must establish probable cause for the lacunae in the Hebrew, a kind of smokinggun. And we have it: the posited 'missing' LXX text appears to grammatically belong betweennaphesho and yireh, which TWICE occur in both verses. It makes sense that a copyist lost his place.Could happen to anyone in any language where a lot of text is being hand-copied. You copy or add a columof names, words, numbers, etc., and some are repeated. So you see a repeated name (word, number) andthink you're farther up or down than you are. Especially, if you have a huge scroll in front of you tolaboriously copy -- must have taken a good 30 seconds to even write one Hebrew letter! To make such errois more than excusable. We've all done it.

At the end of Isa53.htm (for the DDNA webseries), I treat the lacunae and resulting translationdifferently. First lacuna is treated as occurring after yitslah (tsaleah, below) in 53:10; all of LXXIsa53:10 is inserted after yitslah. The resulting amalgamation sounds more like Isaiah and Bible'spoetic repetition in translation (compared to similar OT text). I didn't know Isaiah's meter then, socouldn't test it. Meaning ends up the same, though.Then the second lacuna is treated as between naphesho and yireh, the "deixzai.. dikaiwsai" clause inLXX's Isa53:11.

Next, I treated as a third lacuna, "dikaion..anoisei" in LXX verse 11; but it's just a translation of theHebrew already there.

Upshot, a Similar Smoking Gun: in Isa53.htm, repeated whole clauses rather than the merelyrepeated "naphesho" and "yireh", are assumed to 'make' the copyist lose his place. Who's not madesimilar mistake? So what follows here is not like Isa53.htm in structure and translation, but has thesame meaning.

So, now on to the correction, amalgamating the LXX text with the Hebrew in Isa53:10-11. In Step1 below, you end up with four "the Lord delights" clauses, not merely two. (Hebrew uses both verb and nounconstructions ofhaphets; Greek twice uses a verb, boulomai). Since Isaiah uses Bible numerical rhetoric, wecan test these results. Okay, "four" is Bible's numerical rhetoric for "completeness". Next test: total numbeof resulting infinitives would be seven (Bible's number for "perfection"), in both languages:

1. dakah (hiphil, to be crushed/beaten -- different Greek verbs translate it, but never katharizw);2. katharizw (make atonement/purify, usually standing for Hebrew kapharor taher);

3. tsaleah (to be profitable, various Greek verbs translate it, but never aphairew; tsaleah is in the qalimperfect, but plays an infinitive-of-purpose role);4. aphairew (to carry off as plunder, standing for Hebrew verbs like gazal, asaph, qanah (quintessentia

redemption verb), karator abar, many verbs -- Isaiah crafts Chap53 around synonyms of plunder,carry up, carry off, carry away, bear);

5. deiknumi(exhibit or make known, standing for naha, famous in Exo13:21 or more likely, the hiphil ora'ah, to see/display (resh aleph hey) -- which Isaiah often uses rhetorically in this chapter);

6. plassw (to form/fashion/sculpt, standing for yatsar, quintessential potter-making-a-body pregancyverb, often used in Isaiah);

7. dikaiow (to make righteous, standing for yas'diq, maybe already in Isa 53:11).

Whether the LXX should be supplied with the clauses containing dakah, tsaleah, and the second ra'ahclause (yireh yis'ba in v.11), I'm not yet sure. It could be said that tes plages in v.10 covers dakah

though in 53:5 malakizomai is used for dakah, the soundplay on dakah ofmukkeh in v.4, is translatedeinai.. plages, (see green font here in both verses). It could also be said that aphelein indirectlyreferences profitability in its plunder connotations, though other Hebrew verbs are used for it, in Bible.Finally, not sure whether elegant Greek would repeat the second ra'ah clause (which seems necessary,it's very dramatic), since deixzai might cover it.

Languages differ in 'philosophy' which the underlying structure and rules, reflect. In one language, youstress the beginning of a thing to comprise the meaning and result of the whole; in another, you stressthe ending, to signify the same whole. So you must know both source and target languages' underlyingphilosophies, as well as the author's style of expression.

LXX does summarize the Hebrew, rendering it into good Greek idiom; at other times, you find a word-forword translation of the Hebrew. The LXX sometimes reflects Isaiah's meter. So I'm not sure if one shoulalso back-translate the Hebrew into the LXX.

11


12/29

Seven outcomes from His Soul's Labor are represented by these infinitives. The four "delighted" purposeverbs have seven perfecting results. Makes sense to say Isaiah would craft these verses with such numericarhetoric, since he does so throughout the chapter.

In any event, we know the deixzai autoi phos kai plasaiclause is missing, as some Hebrew textshave "light" in them after yireh (which belongs before yireh, as shown below). Isaiah scroll is one ofthese texts. One may still argue the two kai bouletai clauses are but translations of the two haphets

clauses, due to literal order (yhwh haphets, then haphets yhwh). But again, the other Greek verbs usedaren't elsewhere translated into the same Hebrew verbs here in Isa53:10-11. Since these LXX verses areplayed on all over the NT, there had to be Hebrew equivalents from which the LXX was crafted, right?

In sum: since the Greek verbs are NOT used elsewhere in Bible for the Hebrew verbs they hereseem to parallel, it's more likely the extra two Greek clauses are wholly missing from the Hebrewtext, and are antiphonal (or at least doubling). That would mean a total of three clauses aremissing. You decide.

12


13/29

Text below seeks to restore what's missing from both BHS and LXX in Isa53:10-11; therestoration words are in purple font. Chosen restoration words are from Bible (i.e., from Hebrew wordsused elsewhere for the same Greek words). Then one tests the restoration, for Isaiah's meter. If therestoration tests plausible, the Greek text was likely translated from the Hebrew.

Restoration Step 1: insert the Greek text which the Hebrew lacks.First Alternative, Isa53:10: assume only some of the Greek text is missing.

BHT Isaiah 53:10wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl im-TSm m nap yir zera`yark ymm wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH

Avp.n: ~v'a' ~yfiT'-~ai ylix/h,( AaK.D; #pexhw"hyw:WTT Isaiah 53:1

kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j

`xl'(c.yI Ady"B. hw"hy> #p,xew> ~ymi_y" %yrIa]y[r;zyI

kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/nor

Second Alternative, Isa53:10: assume all the Greek text is missing, on the grounds that it's anappositive/antiphonal clause.


#pex' hw"hyw: WTT Isa53:1+

BGT Isaiah 53:10kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/tperi. a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letaiku,rioj avfelei/n

+BHT Isaiah 53:11m`mal nap yir yiSB` Bda`T yacDq caDDq `abD l|raBBmwa`wntm h yisBl

Avp.n: lm;[]me WTTIsaiah 53:1dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai

`lBo)s.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIb.[; qyDIcqyDIc.y: AT[.d;B. [B'f.yI ha,r>y

BGT Isaiah 53:11avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai

th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nauvto.j avnoi,sei

Third Alternative: one might argue that only the "deixzai autoi phos kai plasai" clause ismissing, as shown above. To make that argument, one must assume yitslah, yetser and yireh confusedthe copyist; that LXX here is an explanatorytranslation, rather than a literal one (which is reasonable), andthen specifically assume:

a) The "katharisai" clause translates results of dakah, rather than the action itself, to 'answer' the dakahaction in vv.4-5.

b) The "ean dwte" clause is Greek idiom converting third person into second. That also happenselsewhere in Bible.

c) The "bouletai..aphelein" clause, like the "katharisai" clause, displays how the results of yitslah, occurThere's a conceptual connection between aphairew and tsaleah, idea of profit, gain, booty. Isaiah

13


14/29

builds the entire chapter on this concept.

We at leasthave a lacuna of the "deixzai" clause, whether or not Isa53:10 needs LXX insertionand back-translation. For the "deixzai" clause plays off Gen1:3ff, Psalm 17:15 and like verses; so it deftlyexplains why "yireh yisba" occurs. Moreover, its back-translation only 'costs' three Hebrew syllables. Thebeginning of Isa53:11 would change to:Isaiah 53:11 m`mal nap r wycer9\ yir yiSB` Bda`T yacDq9\ caDDq `abD l|raBBm8

wa`wntm h yisBl8

rc,yEw> rAa= Avp.n: lm;[]me

The first poetic clause is made whole, keeps to Isaiah's style (he uses yatsar root 29 times). Translationwould read, "Out from His Soul's Labor, Light and Body-of-Thinking!" For often in the Hebrew OT, cognatenoun of yatsar denotes the 'shape' of man's thoughts. So the sins imputed and judged in HIM, change'shape', to His. Propitiation. That's what the rest of the verse says, too (doubling): "By His Mastery of TruthHe will be caused to make Righteous/Justify" (Hebrew bedato yasdiq clause). So no wonder we have "yirehyisba"= "He will see, be satisfied". Just like God the Holy Spirit, in Gen1:4. Light BECAME, for us. Notice ho

napheshoris a spoken unity, ha! See how often deixzai is used for rAa=in Bible. We know rAa= ="ois missing in the BHS, from the Isaiah scroll. "Or" has the same root whether noun or verb. 'Replacing ourdark, puny thoughts.. with His. Ahhhh.

14


15/29

Restoration Step 2: Back-translate the Greek text into the Hebrew.

Re Isaiah 53:10: seems like the best candidates for back-translation are wuh lataharo (Lev13:59, wherekatharisai used to translate tahar in the piel infinitive construct, third person masc singular suffix). Or,meholal (Isa53:5 for the piercing, polal participle masc singular)? Isaiah would chain the verbs, style in52:13.

For aphelein, use the qal infinitive ofsur, a common verb in OT (302 times, in all forms). Aphairew=sur

often in Isaiah: close contender is kaphar. But sur is often used with the idea of removing a reproach/sin inIsaiah. Yet kaphar, the result, parallels nicely with the back-translation of katharisai into tahar, here.Depends on whether the third clause ought to stress His Nature, or what gets made out from His Nature.Verse then parses as 9-9-8-9-9, rather poetic (see next page). Deut 17:20 qal inf, Job28:28, Jer32:40. Hiphilinf const w/le, Job 33:17. See also Ps34:15,37:27,39:11, but especially Isa5:5. Maybe should use hiphilinstead? But the qal balances to yitslah (reality of successful outcome) in v.10, and to yisba in v.11.

53:10 is verb-heavy like 52:13 to which :10 ties back. 53:11 is noun-heavy. So need only to back-translatethe verbs for Isaiah's style; must assume the LXX translation is explanatory, so it doesn't follow the sameclause order as Hebrew, though the meaning is the same (not comfortable with that assumption since someof the Greek words intend to match Hebrew order). Isaiah reserves climactic verbs for the end of a wholeidea clause whether noun- or verb-heavy. These are pretty climactic verbs. Beginning to doubt whether theean dwte clause in LXX is needed. So maybe not antiphonal repetition. The antiphony between Father and

Son is plain in verses 2, 10, 12, even in translation. Trinity doctrine positively screams from the meter aloneSo maybe repetition like ean dwte is overkill?

On the other hand, one can make a devastatingly-good argument for the LXX 53:10 as anecessary additionalclause, due to another commonality in Isaiah's running style: he alwaysstresses TRINITY. The verbs in the LXX 53:10 are all Holy Spirit activity. In the Hebrew, you 'hear' fromFather, in the first "haphets" clause: His Sovereign decision to impute and judge sins. You 'hear' from Son, the "im tasim asham naphesho" clause, since Son as God, would have to take on Humanity if He says "yes" tit. The second "haphets" clause is also Son, now Humanity ("hand" as the dead giveaway); for the secondhaphets clause is part of the contract, the two-sided deliverance offer of both offspring and prosperity. Sosecond haphets YHWH, is Son. Obviously, at Father's so Decreeing. Very clever, to switch from verb to nouhaphets to stress Identicality of Essence. No one but GOD is this witty, sorry!

Okay, where's the Holy Spirit? Isaiah never talks like this without also spending time on what the Holy Spiritdoes. Isaiah 63 is a chapter showing how Father, Son and Spirit work together: Son is mentioned first,through verse 9; then all Three Members, 9-10; Holy Spirit, 10-14; then the Father, 15-19. So too here inIsa53, the verbs in the LXX are known Holy-Spirit-birthing-restoration verbs. So the Spirit is in view. Wecould just back-translate the verbs though, with enough repetition of the Father-Son clause, to show Him.

For it's necessary to reference keywordsin the prior verse for Father and Son, to show the Spirit's Party tothe Contract with Son, since the Son's upcoming Humanity would be wholly sustained BY the Spirit (doctrineof true kenosis, Son won't use His Godness to benefit Himself). If Spirit is signing onto that Role in theContract, He must ratify it. Now repetition in Isa53:10, makes sense!

You're alerted to the LXX clause as additional, because katharizw and aphairew are never used for dakah antsaleah (respectively), elsewhere in OT. So these are additional Contract Provisions, which cover how He

goes from point A -- becoming sin for us (dakah, asham in Hebrew text) -- to OUR receiving point B -- theatonement, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption (katharizw, aphairew, deiknumi, plassw and dikaiowinfinitives in the LXX -- dikaiow is already in the Hebrew text as yasdiq). Thus it's also easier to understandwhy those LXX verbs are so frequently stressed in the NT, especially by the Lord, Paul, John, etc.

So in Step 3 below, back translation of Isa53:10 will have alternatives. First, akin to page 6 for verse 11,we'll just back-translate the two missing verbs in verse 10, assuming that Isaiah chose to continue the priorstyle of deft syncopation (noun-heavy or verb-heavy dramatic presentation). The words chosen below mighnot be right, but PLAUSIBILITY is demonstrated. That matters, for the NT references the GREEK of Isa53:10-11 almost constantly; the Greek in turn came from the Hebrew, since Isaiah wrote his book in Hebrew. So wneed a plausibility measure of how that Hebrew might have been written. It's a kind of "textual criticism"function, to test the validity of Bible words. Not definitive until scholars have done their own testing. Maybesomeday, they will decide to do that. Meanwhile, my spiritual life can't go on hold until they do their own du

15


16/29

diligence; for like every other brainout (nickname for believer), I'm in Royal Training to become a king underthe King of Kings. So I must do my own due diligence, before the Lord. This is it.

So Step 3 will also show a back-translation of the entire LXX 53:10, about the Holy Spirit's Role in theContract. Frankly, this second alternative seems the right one. It requires surprisingly few Hebrew words totranslate fully, if you use Isaiah's verb-heavy style.

Seems like the resulting Hebrew-with-back-translated-Greek of 53:10 must balance to 53:12 at seven clause

for verse 12 stresses the ultimate perfection of the contract, so of course is seven clauses long, 'answering'53:10. While it's true that verse and chapter divisions are man's invention (College of Paris, 12th century),the verse (not Chapter) divisions follow Isaiah's own clauses.

Finally, if the whole clause of 53:10 in Greek must be added to the Hebrew, then the Hebrew clause is missinfrom the Greek, too. Actually, that might make a total of two missing Hebrew clauses, in 10-11:

the haphets clause through yitslah (all the Hebrew of 53:10) would need to be back-translated intoGreek; but maybe also

the yireh yisba clause of v.11. I'm not sure but what the Greek already references this clause with it"deixzai" infinitive. But that infinitive is nowhere used foryireh, in Bible; it is used for other Hebrewconstructions ofra'ah, "to see".

So to back-translate the Hebrew into Greek, we'll maybe need a Step 4.

Restoration Step 3: Test the back-translated Hebrew for Isaiah's meter.

This is the hardest part, and will take a lot of rethinking; purple text here can change without warning. Manpossibilities. So at best one can only guess at how the Greek converted from the original Hebrew. Moreoveone shouldn't do a word-for-word back-translation (LXX didn't always follow that modern convention, butvaried with incredible genius, idiomatic and word-for-word translation). The back-translated text is inpurple font.

First Alternative, Isa53:10: back-translate only 'missing' verbs, then test for meter.

Isaiah 53:10wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl9\wlahr wasur `lyw9\ im-TSm mnap8\yir zera` yark ymm9\wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH9

`xl'(c.yI Ady"B. hw"hy> #p,xew> ~ymi_y" %yrIa]y: [r;zy

Avp.n: ~v'a' ~yfiT'-~ai wyl'[ 'rWswArhEj;lw ylix/h,( AaK.D; #pexhw"hyw

Notice both here and in v.11, the resultof seeing (yireh) is easier to understand. Via the "weletaharo wasurclause, you see why there would BE seed: purified IN Him ('alayw, which Isaiah uses repeatedly, pregnancyanalogy throughout Isa53, climaxed here), and He carries away the sin reproach (reprised below in verses11,12 and 54:1). Isaiah's point since 52:13 is that just as He was violated, that same process produces ALL'children'. Hebrews 2's OT quote of "I and the children You gave Me" refers back here and to v.11 below. It'very clever to place yireh just after naphesho. LXX of v.10 apes that cleverness, just as it does with dikaiwsadikaion in v.11. At the same time, to insert the missing verbs here 'makes' yireh look BACK at the verbs, toThis duality-of-direction is a characteristic of Isaiah's writing, and of both Hebrew and Greek.

Second Alternative, Isa53:10: assume all the Greek text is missing, on the grounds that it's anappositive or antiphonal clause which covers the Holy Spirit's Own Ratification of the Contract.

BHTIsaiah 53:10wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl9\ im-TSm m nap8\ yir zera` yark ymm9\wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH9


#pex' hw"hyw:WT+

Isaiah 53:10b wyhwh(wadny)Hpc lahr9\im-ntn TiTTne|t-napk9\wayysar

16


17/29

lkaPPr `lyw 9\

wyl'([' rPEk;l. rs;Y"w:^v.p.n:-ta,( !TETi !Atn"-~aArhEj;l #pex hw"hy'w

rendered fromBGT Isaiah 53:10kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.

a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/nHebrew here versus Step 2 choices: the "give" clause I took from Judges 11:30, compared to Jer45:5. Thedoubling structure (of natan) matters as a play on Gen2:17's doubled muth. In verse 9, Isaiah uses muth inthe plural (bemotayw) to reference Gen2:17 being 'solved'; and he doubles His giving over His Soul to deathin v.12 (two six-meter clauses). Also, Isaiah plays on natan in this Chapter -- giving, giving over, giving up,giving attention (positive and negative). That would account for the Second Person translation here. Next, chose the hiphil of sur, imperfect 3rd masc sing (pasted from Gen8:13), idea of Him caused to BE cause ofremoving sins. For kaphar, I chose the piel infinitive construct, pasted from Exo30:15. The use of alayw iswordplay (and it frequently appears with kaphar in Bible); Isaiah uses 'al in this Chapter to stress up-ness(smell of an offering going UP to God), which also functions as soundplay on El, ola, olam, verb ala: and onwhose behalf? Which "him"? Well, think: each "him" among mankind, but especially for Him-Father, andHim-Son. Them.. and all of us. Ahhhh.

It's important to notice that Greek "humwn" is plural, but "he psuche" is singular. Hence the Hebrew doublegiving clause fits for that reason, too. No doubt Christ-to-come is first God, okay? "Christos" is His GreekHuman Title in the OT, i.e., in Daniel 9. The Jews who translated into the LXX, thus knew of His God-Man-To-Come, Nature. "YHWH" plays on it (hayah's second syllable + hawah's second syllable). Vowel points in themiddle are optional, lots of wordplay to make from what vowels you select. Not a secret, sorry.

17


18/29

What's so cool about the above back-translation, is the ease with which Hebrew can express in a fewsyllables, so much meaning. The verbs chosen at the end are designed to parallel 52:13, both of which Greeaphelein represents in Hebrew of Isaiah (specifically, 6:7, 27:9, 28:18). That matters, because 53:10-11 'looback' to 52:13, completing the purpose circle. Coupling the two COMPLETED verbs at the end of our putativ10b with "me amal naphesho" in v.11, makes its own clause, just like it does in the Greek.

Hebrew doesn't need to repeat a full clause just presented, but just the beginning words of it -- that's a typeof incorporation by reference. Frequently a second clause will slightly change the words used, to elaborate

on the first clause. Greek has a similar incorporation method. So I'm not sure how much of the Hebrew textneeds to be back-translated into the Greek; Greek wouldn't repeat the seed clause, either: it would be in thmiddle, as in the actual LXX. So maybe only the dakah clause needs to be back-translated into Greek, goingin front of katharisai? Or, in front of "kai kurios"? Gotta think over what would NOT be repeated.

So too, since Greek "aphelein" is used in Bible (and Isaiah, especially) to translate both sur and kaphar, andsince in Greek it's inelegant to repeat the verb, one "aphelein" covers both Hebrew verbs: especially, as anblanket infinitive.

Other Hebrew words (or constructions) could be used instead, to back-translate the Greek. Still, here you gethe flavor of the Second Alternative and its justifying rationale. SOMEHOW the Greek reflects the Hebrew wsee or which is missing, for the NT constantly refers back to these five Greekinfinitives; since the first fourdon't seem to fit the Hebrew text, one must explain why.

For all Three Alternatives, Isaiah 53:11's back-translation at the bottom of page 6, is the bestone. Here's the whole verse:

Isaiah 53:11 m`mal nap r wycer9\ yir yiSB` Bda`T yacDq9\ caDDq `abD l|raBBm8

wa`wntm h yisBl8

`lBo)s.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIb.[; qyDIcqyDIc.y: AT[.d;B. [B'f.yI ha,r>yI rc,yEw> rAa= Avp.n

lm;[]meI can't improve on the verse 11 'fix' here. It seems to meet every test of Isaiah's style, his use of certain

words versus other ones, irony, sound, meter, cleverness (i.e., napheshor, showing He is the Light), the y-forYahweh repetition (yireh yitslah yatser yireh yisba), his use of yatser throughout (i.e., the famous "potter"theme), the fact we know "light" is missing in the BHS, the endless wordplay on plassw (Greek for yatsar) inOT and especially NT -- all these and other tests seem met.

See, the point ofyireh yisbah is to demonstrate that the purpose of creation, is completed. Hebrew verbsabea is related to the seventh-day rest because the requirements (i.e., work) are satisfied, full. "Genesis" iGreek for the Origin of The Man: Christ. The Holy Spirit's role in restoring the earth in Gen1:2ff, depicts whawould be done to save mankind. You know that, from the other uses of the Gen1:2 tohu wa bohu clause inthe OT (See "Creationism" entry in VERindex.htm for a listing of them). "Genesis" was given to the first booof the Bible by the Jews who wrote the LXX. Matthew plays on the name, in Matt1, as does John (in all hewrites). Lots of wordplay is made out of the parallel between Genesis 1 and the Incarnation, in both OT andNT.

For Moses is writing of the Genesis account in 1440-1400 BC, long after Adam. Everyone knew that materiaalready, as it had been passed down since Adam. But so far as we know, that story wasn't reduced to God'sWord in Writing, until Moses. So the purpose of Genesis, is not really to tell you how the world got here; thetopic receives peremptory treatment. Frankly you couldn't tell the difference between a baked potato whichis also microwaved; so too, you can't tell how long it took for the universe to get here, nor how long it tookfor the Holy Spirit to restore it, after its own 'fall' (tohu wa bohu clause in Gen1:2). So while Genesis is aliteral account of the earth being restored in six 24-hour days (initial creation is summarized in Gen1:1) -- bytelling us, the story of Who does what in salvation, is depicted: Self-Chosen roles of Father, Son, and Spirit.Son created the whole thing, in Gen1:1; Spirit restores, Gen1:2-25. All Three Agree to Create, in Gen1:26-2-- same contract as in Isa53:10-11. That was the Plan; and Salvation here, is the Satisfaction of itsCompletion: yireh yisba. God did it, and saw that it was good. Light first, then Sculpt or Form. Light first,then Sculpt from His Body-of-Thinking, a Body to serve Father, forever. Get the witty parallel Isaiah makes?See why the NT's incessant marital and pregancy analogies, are used? Isaiah 53 (52:13-54:1) is rhetorically

18


19/29

founded on pregnancy and birth i.e., the plunder 'raping' at the Cross, which gave birth to our salvation.

So whether you pick the First or Second Alternative with respect to Isa53:10's back-translation, verse 11'sGreek-into-Hebrew, looks like what's above: LXX gave us the missing words. In Hebrew, you achieve thesame effect as deixzai autoi phos kai plasai, by clever placement of the words (Result of His Soul's Labor), infront of the yireh yisba clause. Then the object ofyireh which causes yisba, is first mentioned. Hebrew usesheroic prolepsis, as does Greek. In English, for dramatic effect, we also put the object of a verb before theverb. Thus Greek word placement apes the Hebrew, in this clause. So it's not much of a guess, to back-

translate into Hebrew. God tells us, by what He preserved in Greek.

The Third Alternative presumes that verse 11 is the only place where lacuna exists, and so the above back-translation, supports that Alternative. But you decide for yourself, before the Lord.

19


20/29

Restoration Step 4: Back-translate the Hebrew into Greek.

I'm not yet sure how to handle this Step. The big conundrum is that the Greek of Isa53:10-11 does SOMEaping of Hebrew word order, to preserve the same wit the Hebrew conveys. On the other hand, the Greeklanguage 'philosophy' would also construct the sentences similarly. So is the similarity due to aping, orinnate language rules? Let's focus on the main similarities and dissonances between the Hebrew and Greek.

1. As said earlier, the dakah clause in 53:10's Hebrew, is missing from the Greek. Since dakah is

routinely translated by other Greek verbs elsewhere in the LXX, why not translated here? Perhapsrelevant, is that the Greek uses multiples of Isaiah's meter, so truncates to keep within thosemultiples? For example, in verse 10's Greek, multiples of 8, but beginning at "kai bouletai kuriosaphelein" it's a doubled 10 (ending at autou in v.11); and then reverts again to 8's (how clever), forthe rest of verse 11. This isn't classical Greek meter being substituted. This isn't the only versewhere such matching is attempted, either.

2. Verse 10 in both Hebrew and Greek place "His Soul" right next to an ACTION of His Soul (paying, thenseeing). Very clever. That construction is repeated again in the Hebrew of v.11, but NOT in the Gre-- at least, not directly. Meaning in the Greek still conveys an action of the Soul Who is Light, seeing The Greek word placement and use of the dative (without intervening preposition) stress the fact He Light. So I can understand the poetic omission ofyireh, it would throw off the meter-matching. So ifyireh can be omitted for the sake of meter, then maybe yisba can be omitted, too.

3. Verse 10 in both Hebrew and Greek center the placement of the Contract clause of Him paying,flanked by two "delight" clauses. However, Greek omits the "succeed in His Hand" clause, oddlyexcludes it. That Hebrew clause would translate well in Greek, it's part of the overall Contract, so isimportant; generally the LXX translates "hand" clauses, too. "Hand" is a common Bible term forOwnership, Power, Authority, Grantor, Blessing Source. One must explain this anomaly.

4. The two "delight" clauses don't match; not only is Hebrew text missing in the Greek as describeabove; but text supplied in the Greek, is quite different. That strongly implies lacuna at thepoint ofhaphets/bouletaiin one or both texts. If the idea of success was meant to besummarized in Greek rather than word-for-word quoted from the Hebrew's colorful expression (seewordplay in Ps15:11 in LXX, which is 16:11 in BHS), we'd still have the problem of the directionaletymologyoftsaleah verses aphairew: tsaleah has to do with cleaving wood, "success" in the sense

going in, penetrating, accomplishing an objective. But the directional etymology ofaphairew is ataking OFF, removal: again with plundering or rescuing success as a result. They're orientationalopposites, these Hebrew and Greek verbs.

5. Clearly there's a lacuna between naphesho and yireh in Hebrew of v.11. The wit ofyirehdirectly following would not be diminished by supply of the nouns which represent the 'children' of HiSoul's Labor, one of which we know is Light, because those nouns would still be 'looked back to' byyireh, explaining yisba. Furthermore, the Greek text makes witty use of placement ofphos right nextto autos, which denotes an equality between the two nouns; to put autos in the dative with nopreposition conveys conduit and on whose behalf the deixzai occurs.. and of course, He is Light, andthis happens FOR Him (another meaning of the dative case is who's the beneficiary). Very clever.Now you just know Isaiah could easily demonstrate the same meaning by simply putting "or" (alephwaw resh) after naphesho. The sound runs together, as shown above in v.1l's back translation. So it

kinda plain what words belong to verse 11 in Hebrew, to 'cure' its meter in the first clause.6. Which returns us to the question of why the Greek lacks "yisbah" of the Hebrew, since that verb is so

um, pregnant with meaning (see Luke 1:57's use ofpimplemi). Well, one could argue its omissionfrom the Greek renders the 'satisfaction' concept implicit or finessed; due to meter excluded safely,because Soul already sees and obviously what it sees, is satisfying. Then there's the problem ofporting over the seventh-day Hebrew wit inherent in sabea. Problem is, Greek verb pimplemi isroutinely used for sabea perhaps over 100 times in the OT; always with witty meaning, very portablefrom one language to the other; pimplemi also is the kind of 'filling' of the Spirit OT believers got(lower level than the plerow of the NT, see Luke 1:15, compare to how the Lord got plerow, the NTChurch legacy). So sabea should be translated into Greek, it seems. Especially, since LXX Psalm90:16 (91:16, BHS) is referenced in Isa53:11.

20


21/29

7. Verse 11's Hebrew wit ofyatsdiq tsaddiq is emulated in the Greek dikaiwsai dikaion. Same wittyprolepsis in both languages. What happened to Him, makes Him a Hero, so God makes Him INTO us.Blows me away.

8. Everything from tei sunesei forward in Greek, parallels the Hebrew from bedato yatsdiq forward, wordfor word, same order. kai plasai tei sunesei kai dikaiwsei is a very clever phrase, balances to deixzaiautoi phos (the parallelism is on the datives, on Him being the Agent of it all); so where in Greek onewould put the equivalent ofyireh yisba, it wouldn't go between plasai and tei.

9. Dramatic Greek, like Hebrew, drops objects, switches normal constructions (i.e., from verbs toparticiples to nouns). The changes do not mask the meaning but instead heighten it. Key is, if you'lldrop a word, to use another word so the ellipsis is clear. So Isaiah in Hebrew, drops nouns in verbheavy clauses; so does the Greek. So that's drama, not lacuna.

Overall, despite all these 'excuses' to claim the text we have is whole, it doesn't make sense thathe LXX would be so careful here to match the Hebrew, then suddenly STOP doing so, then startmatching again -- unless Hebrew text is also missing from the Greek. Until I can resolve theseissues, I'm stuck.

So let's go on an expedition to the NT and examine whether the Hebrew which seems to be missing fromthe Greek, is incorporated by reference in the NT. Obviously if it is, then maybe we can know what Hebrew

Greek words might have been in the LXX of these verses at the time God deployed the NT writers. For theHebrew and Greek texts they had, would have been better than what has come down to us. We still have thperfect Divine Writ, alright, but it's in puzzle format, so to speak. Their 'puzzle' would have been far lessfragmented, than ours. Between then and now, many a Bedouin nomad or 'civilized' merchant has torn upmanuscripts to get higher sales from scraps, than he thought he could get from a whole manuscript.Humanity is always grasping.

First stop in our NT expedition: how dakah is referenced. Greek of Isa53:5 uses the term also. It's ingreen font, back on page 2. Greek verb used to render it, is malakizomai. In the OT, it's not used for dakahanywhere else, but is used for hala, to become sick. It's not used in the NT, at all. Hebrew hala is used in53:10, along with dakah. Greek words used for dakah vary much. Up through say Job 6:9. Job 19:2, 22:9,each verse uses different Greek verbs or nouns for dakah, none of which seem stressed in the NT withreference to Our Lord. But beginning in Job 34:25, and continuing thereafter in Psalms and

Proverbs, we find tapeinow used: that's a famous verb in the NT. Peter plays on tapeinowincessantly with his hupo prefixes, and of course Paul wrote 2Phili2:5-10. So tapeinow is a poetic anddramatic verb. Seem to remember John using it also. Point is, it's a common and stressed NT verb.

In Isaiah, kataischunw (to disgrace or disappoint, often in the sense of miscarriage-of-justice) is used(3:15); next, dakah is converted to the Greek noun dune, grief (19:10); suntribw, to be batteredmauled, broken(-hearted), is also used (57:15). It's a good alternate verb for dakah. NT uses seven times, and famously in John 19:36 (prophecy of His Bones not being broken, see also Exo12:46Num9:12, Ps34:20). Romans 16:20 uses suntribw as a synonym for terew, recalling Gen3:15 to thereader's mind; terew has the root meaning of grasping something and holding it close, zealously --terew is used famously for the upcoming Savior grabbing Satan's heel in Gen3:15 (so of course Jacobname is presaged). Verb terew is a favorite of the Lord's and John, Jude, so bear that tie in mind.Rev2:27 rounds out our tour ofsuntribw -- recalling Isaiah's potter metaphor, which of course is being

played on in Isa53:10-12! Who but God is so smart with language! Don't you just wish you never hadto do ANYTHING else, but study Bible? It would be worth the shame of a catheter and intravenousdrip, if one could thus study Bible all the time. Of course, that wouldn't be fair to the caregivers...

Jeremiah 44:10 uses pauw (but that verb's meaning varies much by context); Lam3:34 uses tapeinowagain: one can see why. Looks like the Hebrew concept ofdakah had many different meanings; sowhen translating, there were special Greek words to extract out whatever nuance ofdakah wasstressed in that Hebrew. (KJV and NASB (and modern) translation philosophy was often the opposite: to preferably-alwayuse the same English word, never mind how misleading it might be: so the student of Greek or Hebrew can know what originalword, is there. See, they didn't expect common people to want to read Bible for themselves! So when you see someone tout"literal" translation, that's the kind of "literal" it is, and the common reader of that translation will be QUITE mislead as to whatBible actually SAYS.) All the Greek words in these indented paragraphs are used in the NT, and oftenenough to see their meaning 'dimensions'.

21


22/29

Using tapeinow, Matthew 18:4, 23:12 and Luke 3:5, 14:11, 18:14 all play on Isaiah 9 and 40; the lattOT chapters were made famous in modern times by Handel's Messiah. Isaiah himself plays on boththose prior chapters, in chapter 53, with stress on up-ness and down-ness, birthing from dying, peace(reconciliation, Levitical term for peace-with-God) from violence. 52:13 is the up-ness prediction,53:12 is the ultimate fulfillment of it, and 53:10-11 is the mechanism, the 'how' you go from 52:13, to53:12. So in using tapeinow, the entire context of Isa53 is referenced: Paul is quite bald about it, inPhili2:5-10, with the tapeinow being in v.8, and huperupsow in v.9 (clever play on upsow in Isa52:13)That makes tapeinow the best candidate to use for dakah. Isaiah uses some form of that verb 26

times in his book.

Day of Atonement uses tapeinow (see Lev16:29) for the Hebrew ana, the quintessential abuse verbIsaiah uses in 53:7. That verb has a connotation of raping (euphemistic, of the captors 'busying'themselves with afflicting the captives, kakow in Greek translates it in 53:7, same idea). So tapeinowis a shoe-in. Next choice would be suntribw. Probably would use malakizomai for hala in Isa53:10, iftranslating each verb separately. Wouldn't need to do that.

Next, is sabea in Isa53:11. Greekpimplemiis used for sabea throughout the OT; of the 120 or soforms of sabea used in the OT, pimplemi must stand in for over 100 of them. Of course, pimplemiiscommon in the NT, but never in the same context as used in Isa53:11. Sabea connotes satisfaction, first.It's a kind of satisfaction due to the fullness of a meal, the fullness of prosperity. An at-ease REST you get,from having come to the place where you have 'enough'. Greek verb pimplemi, on the other hand,

references the fullness itself; the satisfaction is often assumed, but needn't be. Sufficiency is stressed bypimplemi. So we need another word in the Greek? Maybe not. After all, both the Hebrew and Greek wereknown back then, so the cross-reference between the two verbs would be well-known. So at that point,pimplemi would come to MEAN what sabea means, to the reader of both texts. Aha.

22


23/29

Oh, but next is tsaleah, last word in Hebrew of Isa53:10! And baby, here we hit paydirt! It's used65 times in the OT, according to my BibleWorks search on the root. Like dakah, it's a multi-purpose verb, sothe Greek uses varying verbs to focus on the nuance stressed in a given verse. Most interesting isGenesis 39:3 and :23, which uses the prosper-in-his-hand construction, which the Greek literallytranslates. Greek verb there is euodow; it means to make a successful journey (eu + odos), and it'scommonly used (think of the times) for tsaleah, both literally/materially, and figuratively/spiritually. Journeyon roads were hazardous, and so is the journey through life. Joshua 1:8, Isa55:1 tell you the principle:believe in Him, follow the Law, and you shall have success. Moreover, if you look at the Hebrew of :23, Gree

adds "hand" a second time, for sense! So it's very Greek to use "hand".

Ok, so this verb and the "hand" usage, are well-known; so there's no excuse for the"hand" clause to be missing from the Greek of Isa53:11, UNLESS it refers to what was saidprior, so is not to be repeated. To end at makrobion would be okay, ONLY if it's a requote: for inGreek you don't requote the entire passage, but just the key clause or beginning of a list. Looks likewe got a smoking 'lacuna' gun! See a similar hand verse in Daniel 8:25.

The dead giveaway that Isa53:10 in Hebrew is missing in the Greek: the Greek is quoting a versewhich USED to be there, and cleverly, too! For it's good Greek to truncate a quote just presented, toselect from it the operative clause on which one will expatiate: and from "makrobion" onward, theWAY in which the offspring WILL BE MADE, is given in the LXX. It's a perfect fit! So it has to be arequote. The Greek syntax is complete; dramatic ellipsis in using only infinitives is good Attic style,

you can practically hear a Homeric actor saying the lines. So it's a deliberate clause. So the lacuna,is a whole verse. No doubt about it. That's not so easy to tell from the Hebrew, due to Isaiah's style.But it's VERY clear from the Greek style. Again, to end the quote of the contract at "makrobion" tellsyou it's a requote, not an initial quote being truncated, because the syntax and meaning flowsDIRECTLY from that clause. That's why the hand clause is left out. The Greek after makrobion isEXPLAINING HOW the contract gets completed.

So now we know for sure that all of the Hebrew of 53:10 is missing, and all of the Greek o53:10 is missing from the Hebrew. No longer guesswork.

Now, the similar-to-eyes verb tsalah means "to rush upon", connotation of flooding, penetrating,enemy troops overrunning: and THAT is played on in the OT to signify the Power of the Spirit. It too is amulti-purpose verb which LXX more narrowly translates to suit context. So you have allomai used to transla

tsalah, in Judges 14:19; power of the Spirit is depicted with that verb (Spirit 'rushing' upon), in Judges15:14,1Sam11:6 (epallomai), etc. Demons 'rush', too (verse is missing from LXX, but is in 1Sam18:10 of the BHS).Obviously it ties to pimplemi, in the Greek, for Joel 2:28ff's 'rushing' prophecy (3:1, in Heb and Greek texts) iused by Peter to explain Pentecost in Acts 2. Hebrew shapak and Greek ekchew are synonyms for tsalah,idea of the pouring-out.

Heh: of course there would be a sound tie! The Holy Spirit's Power is referenced in Isa53:10 in the LXX,playing on tseleah! Another smoking gun! This is exactly what Isaiah loves to do, make soundplays(especially on Trinity). All this becomes relevant for v.11.

Ok, now it will be easy to back-translate Hebrew of Isa53:10, into Greek. We already have the Hebrewand most of the Greek!BHTIsaiah 53:10wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl9\ im-TSm m nap8\ yir zera` ya

rk ymm9\wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH9


#pex' hw"hyw:WTbecomes

Isaiah 53:10a kai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai eivu`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bionkai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/

+

23


24/29

BGT Isaiah 53:10kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n

Judges 16:19 used for tapeinwsai, aorist infinitive (for dakah, used also in Isa53); Gen42:38 for malakizomai(for hala, but also in 53:5 for dakah), again aorist infinitive; hupotassw future 3rd from 1Cor15:28, thoughmaybe one should convert that to a participial phrase, and make it subjunctive: but it's Hebraic to make itfuture 3rd indicative (tense Greek uses for the Commandments). In that 1Cor, Paul is playing on words, so I

bet money hupotassw is used here in Isa53; see also Heb2, and Peter's frequent usage. Hupotassw is astressed NT word. Plemmeleia is taken from Lev7:5, the official name in Greek for asham, guilt (i.e., redheifer) offering. He psuche clause comes from LXX of Isa53:10; the (gnomic/aoristic use of) present infinitiveofeuodow comes from 3Jn1:2, and the hands clause comes from Gen39:3. Have to rethink whether theseshould be the right words, but they seem to match the Greek and Hebrew we have. With ellision, ourputative v. 10a parses at 17, 17, 8 and 17 syllables, so ties to the 8's and 9's Isaiah uses -- see how Greekuses 17 syllables in Isa53:7 to balance to a 10+7 construction. The chosen words here also fit that goal andthat verse, but I didn't know they would fit like that, when choosing them. I didn't think to count the Greeksyllables, until afterwards.Now, onto verse 11. The big challenge is where to place the yireh yisba clause from the Hebrew, into theGreek. First, let's look at the back-translated Greek of the putative verse 10a, coupled with the real LXX,coupled with its v.11 'as is':

Isaiah 53:10a kai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai eivu`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bionkai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/

+BGT Isaiah 53:10kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n

+BGT Isaiah 53:11avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai th/|sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.javnoi,sei

Where should the yireh yisba clause go? In the Hebrew, it follows what in Greek would be "autou" in v.11.But when we back-translated the Hebrew we put in "or wa yetser" in front ofyireh (reprinted below from pag9):Isaiah 53:11 m`mal nap r wycer9\ yir yiSB` Bda`T yacDq9\ caDDq `abD l|raBBm8

wa`wntm h yisBl8

`lBo)s.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIb.[; qyDIcqyDIc.y: AT[.d;B. [B'f.yI ha,r>yI rc,yEw> rAa= Avp.n

lm;[]meShould we just do the same, in the Greek? Yep. Watch how cool this is...

Isaiah 53:11avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/cortasqh,setaidei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai.pla,sai th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nauvto.j avnoi,sei

Xortazw is a synonymal verb for sabea in the OT and is a favorite of the Lord in the Gospels. It stresses theSATISFACTION, and it's in the 3rd person future passive aorist, famously used in Psalm 103:13, 16, andLam3:30 (i.e., cedar from Lebanon was used to build Solomon's Temple, which depicted Messiah-to-Come).You need to look at those verses, because they are all prophetic of the Cross, and tie back to the restorationof the earth in Gen1:2ff. Moreover, the etymology ofxortazw is fabulous: sheep being fatted up for theslaughter on grass, same as what David talks about in Psalm 23. Better still, xortazw is a kind of kindred verto pimplemi, so you see the prediction of the Holy Spirit tied in. Best of all, the sacred "He" doubles for boththe satisfaction (synonym for propitiation!) of Father, Son, Spirit as a result of Son's Soul Labor.

24


25/29

Placement looks back and forward, as elegant Greek requires; you can't put xortazw in front oftei sunesei,because tei sunesei is the result ofplassw; hence xortazw must precede the entire deixzai clause (which runas a grammatical unit from deixzai through the end of v.11). The placement naturally leads into the deixzaiclause, as the third person singular of a satisfaction verb, must have an object. Heroic (proleptic) object isHis Labor, mentioned BEFOREHAND; but the OUTPUT of that Labor follows next, in its natural order (as aclause of infinitive effects, rather than nouns). Notice how the xortazw also stands alone, just as yireh yisbadoes, yet you know WHAT is satisfactory, due to word order. That preserves the wit of the infinitives in the

actual Hebrew and LXX we have, along with their results. For there's a distinct separation between theclauses, since of course He is apart from sin yet being made a Substitute for sin. You don't need a separate"see" verb, because "deixzai" covers that, especially as an infinitive 'explaining' the 'He will be satisfied' justpreceding.

Notice the resulting parallelisms: the finite verbs parallel, and the infinitives parallel. Greek is famous forthat. See how John constructs parallelisms so carefully, in 1John, right down to word order so it's like a tic-tac-toe to see what's paralleled. Same thing here. Since this is a legal contract, the repetition of "bouletai"becomes important. Stresses Trinity, too -- which Isaiah loves to do. There are synonyms in both Greek andHebrew for "delight", whether verb or noun. Maybe a synonym was used. You decide.

It's 44 syllables ((9*4)+8)) from our putative word to the end of the verse. Ha! Ok, I can't improve on the 'fin this Greekverse 11, either. If you can, email me?

25


26/29

Here's the putatively-corrected Greek, all in one 'go':

Isaiah 53:10-11 kai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai17\ eivu`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/17\ o;yetai spe,rmamakro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/17\kai.ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j15\ eva.n dw/te peri. a`marti,aj h` yuch.u`mw/n15\ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n10\avpo. tou/po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/10\cortasqh,setaidei/xai auvtw/| fw/j10\ kai. pla,sai th/|sune,sei dikaiw/sai11\ di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j15\ kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nauvto.j avnoi,sei11\

Now, the presumably-corrected Hebrew, also all at once, but only the 2nd+3rd Alternatives, together:

Isaiah 53:10-11wyhwh(wadny) Hpc DaKK he|Hl9\ im-TSm m nap8\ yir zera` yark ymm9\wHpec yhwh(dny) Byd yiclH9 wyhwh(wadny)Hpc lahr9\im-

ntn TiTTne|t-napk9\wayysar lkaPPr `lyw 9\ m`mal nap r wycer9\ yiryiSB` Bda`T yacDq9\ caDDq `abD l|raBBm8\ wa`wntm h yisBl8


#pex' hw"hywwyl'([' rPEk;l. rs;Y"w:^v.p.n:-ta,( !TETi !Atn"-~a

ArhEj;l #pex hw"hy'w`lBo)s.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIb.[; qyDIc

qyDIc.y: AT[.d;B. [B'f.yI ha,r>yI rc,yEw> rAa= Avp.nlm;[]me

Again, there are additional alternatives. But I can't beat this. Maybe you can. Yet the purpose of this rtf is tshow plausibility, to demonstrate that the LXX is unfairly given short shrift in translations -- at least here. Foeven here, see how PLAUSIBLE it is, that the text was missing in one language, which GOD PRESERVED in thother? See how much more sense it makes, once amalgamated? God keeps His Word. God Keeps His WordPerfect. God keeps His Word Intact. We know it's the devil's world, and the devil would of course want to rito shreds, this Word. So, we have it in pieces -- MANY pieces. So many, we can tell the counterfeit from thetrue, by testing CONTENT. We merely need to learn His 'tongues', which anyone can, even a mere brainout by using 1Jn1:9 in God's System. For it takes GOD's Brains, anyway, to phanerow -- Make Himself Known.

Many thanks to the BibleWorks people for inventing their software. This document would have taken a yearor two, minimum research time -- had not the searching been so easy via BibleWorks. God knew we'd needit!

Next, I need to do a metered translation of the whole chapter, to show the rhythmic flavor of the Hebrewbetter. It will be placed in Isa53trans.htm, so you can view the meter here and the translation, side-by-side.Next page is the 'shape' of the Hebrew meter for the entire chapter, without inserting missing text. Verse 1is broken into its existing meter, therefore. It might prove helpful to see the 'shape'. Uses of prepositions 'aand upness, 'et substitution/progeny, and min plus birthing are each highlighted, each category of metaphorin a different color so you can see how Isaiah uses them. All the down-nesses -- the bearing, carrying,dragging, being assaulted vocabulary -- are not highlighted, though should be, as they are evocative of HisSoul's Labor, giving birth to our salvation. There are too many such words.

26


27/29

Isaiah 52:13 - 54:1

~Wry" yDI_b.[;lyKif.y: hNEhi 13

`dao)m. Hb;g"w>aF'nIw>

~yBir: ^yl,['Wmm.v' rv,a]K; 14

Whae_r>m;vyaime tx;v.mi-!

Ke`~d"(a' ynEB.mi

Ara]tow>

wyl'[' ~yBir:~yIAG hZ [;Arz>W

wyn"p'l.qnEAYK; l[;Y:w: 2hY"ci #r

hm'l'_a/n ymiArAD-ta,w>

~yYIx;

#rnI yKi`Aml'( [g:nmial{w>

27


28/29

Whaer>nIw>ha,r>m;-al{)w>

`WhdE(m.x.n~yviyai ld:x]w:

hz 5Wnyte_nOwO[]me

aK'dUm.wyl'[' WnmeAlv.

rs:Wm

`Wnl'(-aP'r>nIAtr"bux]b;WWny[iT' !aCoK;

WnL'Ku 6WnynI+P'

AKr>d:l. vyai`WnL'(Ku !wO[]

ylix/h,( AaK.D:#pex'

hw"hyw: 10Avp.n: ~v'a'

~yfiT'-~ai~ymi_y"%yrIa]y: [r;zyI`xl'(c.yI Ady"B.

hw"hy>#p,xew>

Avp.n:lm;[]me 11

[B'f.yI ha,r>yIqyDIc.y:

AT[.d:B.~yBi_r:l'( yDIb

.[; qyDIc;`lBo)s.yI aWh

~t'nOwO[]w:~yBir:b' Al-qL,x;a] !kel' 12ll'v' qLex;y>~ymiWc[]-

ta,w>hr"[/h, rv,a]

tx;T;Avp.n:tw


29/29

tae AB[:yGIp.hihw"hyw:)

s `[:yGI)p.y:~y[iv.Pol;w>

hd"l'_y" al{

hr"q'[] yNIr" 54:1

hl'x'-al{ ylih]c;w>hN"rI yxic.Pi

hm'meAv-ynEB>) ~yBir:-

yKi(`hw")hy> rm:a'

hl'W[b.ynEB.mi

29

isaiah 53's hebrew: are words missing? if so, how can we 'recreate' them?

Documents