Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX

[civic]

Was the cross a punishment God inflicted on Jesus? One verse that is used to teach that it was is Isaiah 53:10. Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, who is understood to be Messiah. This passage, then, is understood by the Church to be about the cross and the atonement. Let’s read it, first, in the New International Version, which is in agreement with most other English versions.

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer. (NIV)

Other versions have it similarly: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (New King James Version). “And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick” (Young’s Literal Translation). “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief” (English Standard Version).

Was the cross really about God crushing Jesus, bruising him, making him sick? I used to think so, and this was a verse I used to teach that. I taught that Jesus took God’s punishment in our place, that God crushed Jesus, venting his anger on him so he would not have to vent it on us. This is known as the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. In recent years, however, I have had to let that theory go, because what I have seen in Scripture leads me to a different conclusion, a different understanding of the cross.

So what about Isaiah 53:10, then? Are the English versions quoted above the best rendering of Isaiah’s words? They are direct translations of the Hebrew text, at least of the best one that is available today, but do they give us the best sense of what Isaiah prophesied?

The Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:10. I could give you the Greek words themselves, which would be a simple cut and paste, but since many do not read Greek, I will quote the Brenton version, which is a classic English translation of the LXX. Then I will tell you about the Greek verb that is used:

The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. (Brenton)

The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint version has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”

The important thing to notice here is that God does not crush or bruise the Messiah, or make him sick. God does not inflict any wound on him. Quite the opposite, God is shown as cleansing and healing the wound!

The LXX reading seems to me more like what I find in the New Testament concerning the cross. When I think, for example, of how Peter and Stephen preached the gospel in the book of Acts, the cross was not something God did to Christ but something wicked men did. What God did was to raise Christ from the dead.

Isaiah 53 presents a stunning image of what Christ suffered in the atonement. But I do not think it is a picture of God crushing, bruising or punishing Christ. It is a portrait of God delivering Christ — and us through him. J,Doles

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Katharizo​

kath-ar-id'-zo
Verb
NAS Word Usage - Total: 31

1. to make clean, cleanse
   1. from physical stains and dirt
      1. utensils, food
      2. a leper, to cleanse by curing
      3. to remove by cleansing
   2. in a moral sense
      1. to free from defilement of sin and from faults
      2. to purify from wickedness
      3. to free from guilt of sin, to purify
      4. to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
      5. to consecrate, dedicate
2. to pronounce clean in a levitical sense

Bill Mounce Greek

Dictionary:
καθαρίζω
Greek transliteration:
katharizō
Simplified transliteration:
katharizo
Principal Parts:
καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, -, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
2511
GK Number:
2751
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
31
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to make clean, cleanse, purify
Definition:
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15; 11:9

Full article below:

καθαρίζω

to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to...

www.billmounce.com

Strongs
katharismos: a cleansing
Original Word: καθαρισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: katharismos
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ar-is-mos')
Definition: a cleansing
Usage: cleansing, purifying, purification, literal, ceremonial, or moral; met: expiation.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2512 katharismós (a masculine noun derived from 2511 /katharízō, "to purge") – purification, which results from God removing undesirable admixtures

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There are many, many places in the Septuagint that don't present the meaning of the original Hebrew correctly. The translation of Daniel, for example, is entirely a confused mess of wrong translation. To change your view of an entire passage based on a single line of a Greek translation is extreme indeed.

There are methods of authenticating historical texts. External evidence, internal evidence, etc. And one valuable method is to examine texts closest to their origins. The Septuagint is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Hebrew translators in the 3rd century BC. That gives it high marks for authenticity. I'm not saying it's the most authoritative source, but it should be highly regarded when it comes to ancient historical texts. I think it's reasonable to assume Hebrew translators in the 3rd century BC knew what they were doing, being closer to the original text than we are.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

There are methods of authenticating historical texts. External evidence, internal evidence, etc. And one valuable method is to examine texts closest to their origins. The Septuagint is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Hebrew translators in the 3rd century BC. That gives it high marks for authenticity. I'm not saying it's the most authoritative source, but it should be highly regarded when it comes to ancient historical texts. I think it's reasonable to assume Hebrew translators in the 3rd century BC knew what they were doing, being closer to the original text than we are.

"They knew what they were doing"? Yes, they knew they were providing a religious text for the "enemy". They purposely obfuscated many things and corrupted many things. To trust a work just because it is the "oldest" without considering the content, is not the trait of a scholar.

The Talmud records that when the Septuagint was complete, it was a day of mourning. The religious leaders had absolutely no use for it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There are many, many places in the Septuagint that don't present the meaning of the original Hebrew correctly. The translation of Daniel, for example, is entirely a confused mess of wrong translation. To change your view of an entire passage based on a single line of a Greek translation is extreme indeed.

You're appealing to half truths and deception.

There are variant editions of Daniel. You're appealing to the extended version that no one takes seriously. Hebrew texts are no different. They are variant Hebrew texts among the DSS. Both sources have issues. The Hebrew tradition has MORE.

You have no idea what the original Hebrew text states. It was probably written in an ancient form of Hebrew that has not survived. Paleo-Hebrew isn't close enough and it isn't well preserved to any great degree anywhere. It is conjecture to try and establish Paleo-Hebrew as the source of the Hebrew OT. The best we have are derivative works. The Greek OT is better.

You have to compare with how this line fits in context around it and within the entire passage. The particular word English translations use as "crushed" can also have the meaning as "smitten", It was Yahweh's desire/will to smite/strike Him causing wounds. Even the following line (which you did not quote) also says the situation was a serious one - of death - a guilt offering. There is no healing being implied here whatsoever.

Nonsense. The appeal is to "cleansed". Same word found in

Lev 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: Greek

Lev 14:4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop.
Hebrew.

It is perfect match to the Greek source and extant Hebrew sources. It is differently treated in Isa 53. I wonder why......

You need to do more study before you make such simple errors. The best method of dealing with the differences in Greek and Hebrew texts are to LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES THE WORD IS USED. The Scriptures define themselves.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"They knew what they were doing"? Yes, they knew they were providing a religious text for the "enemy". They purposely obfuscated many things and corrupted many things. To trust a work just because it is the "oldest" without considering the content, is not the trait of a scholar.

The Talmud records that when the Septuagint was complete, it was a day of mourning. The religious leaders had absolutely no use for it.

When was this "Talmud" written? Provide the old extant date?

The source you have is from no earlier than the 3rd century. The Talmud has been edited for centuries. The next "Rabbi" is the editor. You only have their words and they were are long removed from the event.

Have you given up on that Armiac nonsense you keep peddling?

Again. Nothing but half truths and deception from you? How much Youtube are you looking to generate?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The religious leaders had absolutely no use for it.

The ones that killed Jesus? I wonder why?

Judaism hates the LXX. They once loved it. The Jewish apostles loved it. They used it extensive.

There is no reason to try and treat the words of those who hated Jesus as evidence of anyone.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

When was this "Talmud" written? Provide the old extant date?

The source you have is from no earlier than the 3rd century. The Talmud has been edited for centuries. The next "Rabbi" is the editor. You only have their words and they were are long removed from the event.

Have you given up on that Armiac nonsense you keep peddling?

Again. Nothing but half truths and deception from you? How much Youtube are you looking to generate?

Personal attack deleted

 

[praise_yeshua]

All nonsense. Every word you wrote.

Pick some of the words I wrote and prove it. I proved you wrong by quoting both the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves. That is evidence. Not your conjecture.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Complete and utter rubbish.

I know the subject better than you do and you know. All you ever do is run when you're faced with your mistakes.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Pick some of the words I wrote and prove it. I proved you wrong by quoting both the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves. That is evidence. Not your conjecture.

I did. Actually read my response first personal attack deleted

 

[praise_yeshua]

I did. Actually read my response first before spouting such trash.

I read it. I quoted it. Don't pretend I didn't.

 

[TedT]

The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint version has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”

Thank you!! I'm incorporating this into my pov of my interpretation of Matthew 27:46 which refers to Psalm 22:1, a psalm of VICTORY, not despair!!!

Just another thing I've learned and incorporated into my understanding!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL. Obviously you do not. It was so easy to disprove what you write.

I don't see it. Quote it.

 

[civic]

LOL. Obviously you do not. It was so easy to disprove what you write.

So, how do we account for these differences? It may be the case that Paul is paraphrasing the Old Testament. Such does happen from time to time, and we can certainly understand how these changes could happen in a paraphrase. If Paul is paraphrasing, there is really nothing more to be said.

… but what if there is a better explanation? What if there is textual evidence that suggests the source or sources from which Paul got his not-quite-the-same-as-the-MT quotation?

This is where the Greek translations of the Old Testament come in (commonly, and a bit problematically, referred to as “The Septuagint” or “LXX”). The Greek Old Testament, various books of which were translated more-or-less between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD, was circulating before and during the 1st century AD. Since, at that time, the common language of the Roman Empire was Greek and since Paul was writing in Greek, it stands to reason that his OT quotes may have often been dependent on a Greek version of an Old Testament text.

So, if we were to look at Isaiah 29:14 in the Old Greek translation (i.e., the earliest form of Greek Isaiah), what would we find? If I were a betting man, I’d say we would find the text from which Paul was pulling.

Isaiah 29:14 (LXX)
διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ προσθήσω τοῦ μεταθεῖναι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ μεταθήσω αὐτούς καὶ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω.
Therefore, pay attention! I will again change this people, and I will change them and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and I will hidethe intelligence of the intelligent.

Crazy random happenstance? I think not.

Aside from the last verb, the text of 1 Cor. 1:19 matches the Greek text of Isaiah 29:14 exactly. No 3rd person pronouns, a noun for “intelligent” rather than a participle, and God (“I”) destroying wisdom. Even though the last verb “hide” doesn’t match in meaning to the NT’s “nullify,” it does match in person and voice, in that God (“I”) is the subject of both verbs, rather than discernment as in the Hebrew, and he is actively hiding or nullifying intelligence, rather than discernment hiding itself as in the Hebrew.

The Old Greek translation of Isaiah 29:14 covers every single difference between the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT but one. This is substantial and compelling evidence. It indicates that Paul is indeed quoting, not paraphrasing, the Old Testament in 1 Cor. 1:19. Confusion arises when one assumes Paul was using the Hebrew Old Testament and does not question whether he had a different source. As the evidence demonstrates, in 1 Cor. 1:19, Paul was pulling from the Old Greek translation of Isaiah for his quotation.

Paul the Paraphraser or Paul the Septuagint-Quoter?

(This post was originally written in 2013 and published at my previous blog, Old School Script.) Imagine you are listening to a sermon during which the preacher says in passing, “Here, Paul q…

koine-greek.com

hope this helps !!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL. Obviously you do not. It was so easy to disprove what you write.

You want to go with me "line by line" through the "Mesha Stele?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You want to go with me "line by line" through the "Mesha Stele?

Personal attack deleted

 

[praise_yeshua]

When you display such a combative unloving attitude, I don't have any use for people like you. None whatsoever. If you truly were interested and if any reply actually would make any difference to you, then it would be worth my time. As it is, it's not.

You keep saying the same things over and over again without dealing with the challenges I give to you. You can call that "unloving" if you want. It is not. You're making excuses. You know what I said is true. I pointed you to a specific verse that is unmistakable in its crossover between Hebrew and Greek text words. It is unmistakable proof that the Hebrew sources has been translated differently throughout the pedigree of the Hebrew source texts. We go from the writing of Moses to a much latter edition in Isaiah.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You keep saying the same things over and over again without dealing with the challenges I give to you. You can call that "unloving" if you want. It is not. You're making excuses. You know what I said is true. I pointed you to a specific verse that is unmistakable in its crossover between Hebrew and Greek text words. It is unmistakable proof that the Hebrew sources has been translated differently throughout the pedigree of the Hebrew source texts. We go from the writing of Moses to a much latter edition.

Not interested in the least.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"

That is a big assumption. One that has very little actual historical support. You start from a faulty foundation.

There is actually more proof that New Testament writers were quoting the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament or paraphrases (Targumim) or even creating their own paraphrases. Matthew and John do this very often in their writings.

---