EDIT, February 2011: I've reversed my contention that Hebrew text is missing from Isaiah 53. By Isaiah's Hebrew meter pattern, you can prove that no text is missing. You can also prove it, I just learned, by examining the interplay between Psalm 90 and Isaiah 53, Daniel 9's prayer and of all things, Ephesians 1:3-14's Greek! So much of what follows in this webpage is obsolete, a relic showing where things 'were'. The videos, however, are au courant, and I'm still documenting by video the astonishing meter ties in Daniel 9 and Ephesians, live Bible text onscreen: for unless one sees it live, it isn't believable. It's the most sophisticated and AUDITABLE accounting meter imaginable.

 

Advisory: the ‘transliterated’ Hebrew font is completely proprietary and has no unicode variant available, so it will not display correctly without the BibleWorks font. The Greek & Hebrew are now Unicode, however.

 

Now to the abbreviations of  BibleWorks' software Bibles which use these fonts, in this and like documents 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 people.  It uses the Bwtransh font.  Its phonetics can be helpful.

 

Other major "witnesses" are also in BibleWorks, like Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Friberg, etc. But "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 (famous example is James 4:5, which should not capitalize "pros", but does).  So having more than 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 list them), unless quoted, etc.  I try to Romanize Greek words with the English-letter equivalents, or phonetically.  Hebrew words if not obvious, are given with the letter names of their roots, as well.

Isaiah 52:13-54:1, pasted from BibleWorks

blue font shows meter (ellision and dramatic pause assumed)

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 52:14 Ka´ášer šämümû `älʺkä raBBîm⁹\ Kën-miš•Hat më´îš mar•´ëºhû⁸\ wütö´árô miBBünê ´ädäm⁹

כַּאֲשֶׁ֙ר שָׁמְמ֤וּ עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ רַבִּ֔ים כֵּן־מִשְׁחַ֥ת מֵאִ֖ישׁ מַרְאֵ֑הוּ וְתֹאֲר֖וֹ מִבְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃  ^WTT Isaiah 52:14

^BGT Isaiah 52:14 ὃν τρόπον ἐκστήσονται ἐπὶ σὲ πολλοί¹¹\ οὕτως ἀδοξήσει ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων τὸ εἶδός σου¹⁵\ καὶ ἡ δόξα σου ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων¹¹\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:1 mî he´émîn liš•mù`ätëºnû<sup>9</sup>\ ûzürôª` yhwh(´ädönäy)`al-mî nig•läºtâ⁹

מִ֥י הֶאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃  ^WTT Isaiah 53:1

^BGT Isaiah 53:1 κύριε τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν¹⁵\ καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη¹⁵\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:3 nib•zè waHádal ´îšîm⁸\ ´îš mak•´öbôt wîdûª` Höºlî⁸\ ûkümas•Tër Pänîm mimmeºnnû⁸ \ nib•zè wülö´ Hášab•nuºhû⁸

נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ מַכְאֹב֖וֹת וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ׃  ^WTT Isaiah 53:3

 

^BGT Isaiah 53:3 ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον¹⁰\ ἐκλεῖπον παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους¹⁰\ ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ ὢν καὶ εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν¹⁵\ ὅτι ἀπέστραπται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ¹⁰\ ἠτιμάσθη καὶ οὐκ ἐλογίσθη¹⁰\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:5 wühû´ müHöläl miPPüšä`ëºnû<sup>9</sup>\ müduKKä´ më`áwönötêºnû⁹\ mûsar šülômëºnû `äläyw⁹\ ûbaHábùrätô nir•Pä´-läºnû⁹

וְהוּא֙ מְחֹלָ֣ל מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ מְדֻכָּ֖א מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵ֑ינוּ מוּסַ֤ר שְׁלוֹמֵ֙נוּ֙ עָלָ֔יו וּבַחֲבֻרָת֖וֹ נִרְפָּא־לָֽנוּ׃  ^WTT Isaiah 53:5

^BGT Isaiah 53:5 αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν¹⁵\ καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν¹⁵\ παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν⁸\ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν¹⁵\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:7 niGGaS wühû´ na`ánè⁷\ wülö´ yip•TaH-Pîw⁷\ KaSSè la††eºbaH yûbäl⁷\ ûküräHël lip•nê gözüzʺhä⁹\ ne´éläºmâ wülö´ yip•TaH Pîw⁹

נִגַּ֙שׂ וְה֣וּא נַעֲנֶה֘ וְלֹ֣א יִפְתַּח־פִּיו֒ כַּשֶּׂה֙ לַטֶּ֣בַח יוּבָ֔ל וּכְרָחֵ֕ל לִפְנֵ֥י גֹזְזֶ֖יהָ נֶאֱלָ֑מָה וְלֹ֥א יִפְתַּ֖ח פִּֽיו׃ ^WTT Isaiah 53:7

^BGT Isaiah 53:7 καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι¹⁰\ οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα⁷\ ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη¹⁰\ καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος¹⁷\ οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ¹⁰\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:9 wayyiTTën ´et-rüšä`îm qib•rô<sup>9</sup>\ wü´et-`äšîr Bümötäyw⁷\ `al lö´-Hämäs `äSâ⁷\ wülö´ mir•mâ Büpîw⁷

וַיִּתֵּ֤ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַ֚ל לֹא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו׃:  ^WTT Isaiah 53:9

^BGT Isaiah 53:9 καὶ δώσω τοὺς πονηροὺς ἀντὶ τῆς ταφῆς αὐτοῦ¹⁵\ καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ¹¹\ ὅτι ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν¹⁰\ οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ¹⁵\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô<sup>6</sup>\ yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq<sup>9</sup>\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm⁸\ wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl⁸

מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃  ^WTT Isaiah 53:11

^BGT Isaiah 53:11 ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς¹⁵\ καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει δικαιῶσαι¹¹\ δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς¹⁵\ καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει¹¹\

 

 

^BHT Isaiah 54:1 ronnî `áqärâ lö´ yäläºdâ<sup>9</sup>\ Pic•Hî rinnâ wücahálî lö´-Häºlâ<sup>11</sup>\ Kî|-raBBîm Bü|nê-šômëmâ<sup>8</sup>\ miBBünê bü`ûlâ ´ämar yhwh(´ädönäy)⁹

 רָנִּ֥י עֲקָרָ֖ה לֹ֣א יָלָ֑דָה פִּצְחִ֙י רִנָּ֤ה וְצַהֲלִי֙ לֹא־חָ֔לָה כִּֽי־רַבִּ֧ים בְּֽנֵי־שׁוֹמֵמָ֛ה מִבְּנֵ֥י בְעוּלָ֖ה אָמַ֥ר יְהוָֽה׃  ^WTT Isaiah 54:1

 ^BGT Isaiah 54:1 εὐφράνθητι στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα¹⁰\ ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα¹⁰\ ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου¹⁰\ μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα¹⁰\ εἶπεν γὰρ κύριος⁶\

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 the corresponding 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 frequently reference the LXX text of Isa53:10-11. Finally, the meter is off in the Hebrew of Isa53:11, at least (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 absent in verses 10-11, but should not be.  The verbs are too important, and the NT writers all frequently reference these Greek verbs in these two verses.  For example, Greek verb katharizw appears in the OT 94 times, and always has an atonement/purification connotation.  'Mostly, as a translation for Hebrew verb kaphar, taher, or hata, 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 causes that condition.  See for yourself:  search both the BHS and the LXX texts.  BibleWorks makes searching, easy.  I couldn't make this document without it.

 

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

 

Also, Isaiah's dramatic style repeats a prior phrase and slightly changes its meaning, typical in Hebrew verse.  This style is well-known.  Two paired statements, very close and repetitive, yet slightly differing, to highlight some principle or celebrate the meaning exposited.  You see that style in Psalms, which predate Isaiah;  you see it in Proverbs, in the prophetical writings.  It's a kind of poetic discourse.  So why is that doubling suddenly absent in the Hebrew here?  The Hebrew is too brusque, compared to prior verses in context.  The LXX 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 Isa53:10 you have the third person used in the Hebrew, and a 2nd person quotation in the Greek, probably means the Greek follows the Hebrew, 'answering' it. 

 

So let's pause to play devil's advocate.  Counter-contention:  one often finds the Greek text using the second person when the Hebrew uses the third person in the OT.  The LXX is generally translated idiomatically, not literally.  That is a better practice, and of course enough people were around who knew both languages, to explain any differences as mere idiom.  Then the Bible got 'lost', locked up in monasteries, churches, largely inaccessible;  for the better part of two millenia, you had to become a monk or a nun, if you wanted to have ongoing access to an original-language Bible.  Only in the 1800's did the original-language texts begin to be collected, collated and published so any joe could get them (i.e., by Tregelles et al).  Hence our more modern preference for literal translation stems from not knowing either or both original languages, and we need those literalistic benchmarks as we learn those languages, in our translations.  Else we can't compare translation and original text.

 

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

 

Ok:  but one can't call it a mere difference in idiom, unless the Greek verbs in these verses are actually translations 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'.  Neither katharizw nor aphairew (LXX in 53:10) are ever translations of  dakah or tsaleah, for example.  All four verbs' meanings are quite different, pan-Bible.

 

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's and 3's, such that they still ADD UP to 8's and 9's.  Doctrine and "actor" define what meter Isaiah uses: 7's are for the Lord's Own Action (vv. 7,9,12) and trebled (Trinity, bald).  8's denote man's action/attitude toward Him, or God's plan/attitude re man in Him.  9's denote God's Decree/Unilateral Action (Trinity, very bald).  It's perfect:  except in v.11.  So what happened in verse 11?  You must end meter at each clause (i.e., just before the 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.

Ok: then one must establish probable cause for the lacunae in the Hebrew, a kind of smoking gun.  And we have it:  the posited 'missing' LXX text appears to grammatically belong between naphesho 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 column of names, words, numbers, etc., and some are repeated.  So you see a repeated name (word, number) and think you're farther up or down than you are.  Especially, if you have a huge scroll in front of you to laboriously copy -- must have taken a good 30 seconds to even write one Hebrew letter!  To make such errors is more than excusable.  We've all done it.

 

At the end of  Isa53.htm (for the DDNA webseries), I treat the lacunae and resulting translation differently.  First lacuna is treated as occurring after yitslah (tsaleah, below) in 53:10; all of LXX Isa53:10 is inserted after yitslah.  The resulting amalgamation sounds more like Isaiah and Bible's poetic repetition in translation (compared to similar OT text).  I didn't know Isaiah's meter then, so couldn't test it.  Meaning ends up the same, though.

 

Then the second lacuna is treated as between naphesho and yireh, the "deixzai.. dikaiwsai"  clause in LXX's  Isa53:11.

 

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

 

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

 

So, now on to the correction, amalgamating the LXX text with the Hebrew in Isa53:10-11.  In Step 1 below, you end up with four "the Lord delights" clauses, not merely two. (Hebrew uses both verb and noun constructions of haphets; Greek twice uses a verb, boulomai).  Since Isaiah uses Bible numerical rhetoric, we can test these results.  Okay, "four" is Bible's numerical rhetoric for "completeness".  Next test:  total number of 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 kaphar or taher);
3. tsaleah (to be profitable, various Greek verbs translate it, but never aphairew;  tsaleah is in the qal imperfect, but plays an infinitive-of-purpose role);
4. aphairew  (to carry off as plunder, standing for Hebrew verbs like gazal, asaph, qanah (quintessential redemption verb), karat or 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 of ra'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 pregancy verb, 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'ah clause (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 of mukkeh in v.4, is translated einai.. plages, (see green font here in both verses).  It could also be said that aphelein indirectly references 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, you stress the beginning of a thing to comprise the meaning and result of the whole;  in another, you stress the ending, to signify the same whole.  So you must know both source and target languages' underlying philosophies, 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-for-word translation of the Hebrew.  The LXX sometimes reflects Isaiah's meter.  So I'm not sure if one should also back-translate the Hebrew into the LXX.

 

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

 

In any event, we know the deixzai autoi phos kai plasai clause is missing, as some Hebrew texts have "light" in them after yireh (which belongs before yireh, as shown below).  Isaiah scroll is one of these 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 used aren't elsewhere translated into the same Hebrew verbs here in Isa53:10-11. Since these LXX verses are played 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 here seem to parallel, it's more likely the extra two Greek clauses are wholly missing from the Hebrew text, and are antiphonal (or at least doubling).  That would mean a total of three clauses are missing.  You decide.
Text below seeks to restore what's missing from both BHS and LXX in Isa53:10-11;  the restoration words are in  purple font.  Chosen restoration words are from Bible (i.e., from Hebrew words used elsewhere for the same Greek words).  Then one tests the restoration, for Isaiah's meter.  If the restoration 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.

or

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

+

 

^BGT Isaiah 53:11 ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει

 

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

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

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

c)       The "bouletai..aphelein" clause, like the "katharisai" clause, displays how the results of yitslah, occur.  There's a conceptual connection between aphairew and tsaleah, idea of profit, gain, booty.  Isaiah builds the entire chapter on this concept.

 

We at least have a lacuna of the "deixzai" clause, whether or not Isa53:10 needs LXX insertion and back-translation.  For the "deixzai" clause  plays off Gen1:3ff, Psalm 17:15 and like verses; so it deftly explains why "yireh yisba" occurs.  Moreover, its back-translation only 'costs' three Hebrew syllables.  The beginning of Isa53:11 would change to:

 

The first poetic clause is made whole, keeps to Isaiah's style (he uses yatsar root 29 times).  Translation would read, "Out from His Soul's Labor, Light and Body-of-Thinking!"  For often in the Hebrew OT, cognate noun 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 Truth He will be caused to make Righteous/Justify" (Hebrew bedato yasdiq clause).  So no wonder we have "yireh yisba"= "He will see, be satisfied".  Just like God the Holy Spirit, in Gen1:4.  Light BECAME, for us.  Notice how napheshor is a spoken unity, ha!  See how often deixzai is used for אור = in Bible.  We know אור ="or" is missing in the BHS, from the Isaiah scroll.  "Or" has the same root whether noun or verb.  'Replacing our dark, puny thoughts.. with His.  Ahhhh.

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, where katharisai 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 in 52:13.

 

For aphelein,  use the qal infinitive of sur, 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 in Isaiah.  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. Hiphil inf const w/le, Job 33:17. See also Ps34:15,37:27,39:11, but especially Isa5:5.  Maybe should use hiphil instead?  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-translate the verbs for Isaiah's style;  must assume the LXX translation is explanatory, so it doesn't follow the same clause order as Hebrew, though the meaning is the same (not comfortable with that assumption since some of the Greek words intend to match Hebrew order).  Isaiah reserves climactic verbs for the end of a whole idea clause whether noun- or verb-heavy.  These are pretty climactic verbs.  Beginning to doubt whether the ean 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 alone.  So maybe repetition like ean dwte is overkill?

 

On the other hand, one can make a devastatingly-good argument for the LXX 53:10 as a necessary additional clause, due to another commonality in Isaiah's running style:  he always stresses TRINITY.  The verbs in the LXX 53:10 are all Holy Spirit activity.  In the Hebrew, you 'hear' from Father, in the first "haphets" clause:  His Sovereign decision to impute and judge sins.  You 'hear' from Son, in the "im tasim asham naphesho" clause, since Son as God, would have to take on Humanity if He says "yes" to it.  The second "haphets" clause is also Son, now Humanity ("hand" as the dead giveaway);  for the second haphets clause is part of the contract, the two-sided deliverance offer of both offspring and prosperity.  So second haphets YHWH, is Son.  Obviously, at Father's so Decreeing.  Very clever, to switch from verb to noun haphets 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 Spirit does.  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 in Isa53, the verbs in the LXX are known Holy-Spirit-birthing-restoration verbs.  So the Spirit is in view.  We could just back-translate the verbs though, with enough repetition of the Father-Son clause, to show Him.

 

For it's necessary to reference keywords in the prior verse for Father and Son, to show the Spirit's Party to the Contract with Son, since the Son's upcoming Humanity would be wholly sustained BY the Spirit (doctrine of true kenosis, Son won't use His Godness to benefit Himself).  If Spirit is signing onto that Role in the Contract, 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 and tsaleah (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 -- the atonement, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption (katharizw, aphairew, deiknumi, plassw and dikaiow infinitives in the LXX -- dikaiow is already in the Hebrew text as yasdiq).  Thus it's also easier to understand why 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 prior style of deft syncopation (noun-heavy or verb-heavy dramatic presentation).  The words chosen below might not 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 we need 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.  Maybe someday, they will decide to do that.  Meanwhile, my spiritual life can't go on hold until they do their own due diligence; for like every other brainout (nickname for believer), I'm in Royal Training to become a king under the 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 the Contract.  Frankly, this second alternative seems the right one.  It requires surprisingly few Hebrew words to translate 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 clauses;  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 missing from 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 into Greek;  but maybe also
• the yireh yisba clause of  v.11.  I'm not sure but what the Greek already references this clause with its "deixzai" infinitive.  But that infinitive is nowhere used for yireh, in Bible;  it is used for other Hebrew constructions of ra'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.  Many possibilities.  So at best one can only guess at how the Greek converted from the original Hebrew.  Moreover, one shouldn't do a word-for-word back-translation (LXX didn't always follow that modern convention, but varied with incredible genius, idiomatic and word-for-word translation).  The back-translated text is in purple font.

 

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

 

Notice both here and in v.11, the result of seeing (yireh) is easier to understand.  Via the "weletaharo wasur" clause, you see why there would BE seed:  purified IN Him ('alayw, which Isaiah uses repeatedly, pregnancy analogy throughout Isa53, climaxed here), and He carries away the sin reproach (reprised below in verses 11,12 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's very clever to place yireh just after naphesho.  LXX of v.10 apes that cleverness, just as it does with dikaiwsai dikaion in v.11.  At the same time, to insert the missing verbs  here 'makes' yireh look BACK at the verbs, too.  This 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 an appositive or antiphonal clause which covers the Holy Spirit's Own Ratification of the Contract.

+

rendered from

 

Hebrew here versus Step 2 choices:  the "give" clause I took from Judges 11:30, compared to Jer45:5.  The doubling structure (of natan) matters as a play on Gen2:17's doubled muth.  In verse 9, Isaiah uses muth in the plural (bemotayw) to reference Gen2:17 being 'solved';  and he doubles His giving over His Soul to death, in 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, I chose the hiphil of sur, imperfect 3rd masc sing (pasted from Gen8:13), idea of Him caused to BE cause of removing sins. For kaphar, I chose the piel infinitive construct, pasted from Exo30:15.  The use of alayw is wordplay (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 on whose behalf?  Which "him"?  Well, think:  each "him" among mankind, but especially for Him-Father, and Him-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 doubled-giving clause fits for that reason, too.  No doubt Christ-to-come is first God, okay?  "Christos" is His Greek Human 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 the middle are optional, lots of wordplay to make from what vowels you select.  Not a secret, sorry.

What's so cool about the above back-translation, is the ease with which Hebrew can express in a few syllables, so much meaning.  The verbs chosen at the end are designed to parallel 52:13, both of which Greek aphelein represents in Hebrew of Isaiah (specifically, 6:7, 27:9, 28:18).  That matters, because 53:10-11 'look back' to 52:13, completing the purpose circle.  Coupling the two COMPLETED verbs at the end of our putative 10b 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 type of 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 text needs to be back-translated into the Greek;  Greek wouldn't repeat the seed clause, either:  it would be in the middle, as in the actual LXX.  So maybe only the dakah clause needs to be back-translated into Greek, going in 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, and since in Greek it's inelegant to repeat the verb, one "aphelein" covers both Hebrew verbs:  especially, as an blanket infinitive.

 

Other Hebrew words (or constructions) could be used instead, to back-translate the Greek.  Still, here you get the flavor of the Second Alternative and its justifying rationale.  SOMEHOW the Greek reflects the Hebrew we see or which is missing, for the NT constantly refers back to these five Greek infinitives; since the first four don'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 best one.  Here's the whole verse:

 

I 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-for-Yahweh 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) in OT and especially NT -- all these and other tests seem met.

 

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

 

For Moses is writing of the Genesis account in 1440-1400 BC, long after Adam.  Everyone knew that material already, as it had been passed down since Adam.  But so far as we know, that story wasn't reduced to God's Word in Writing, until Moses.  So the purpose of Genesis, is not really to tell you how the world got here;  the topic receives peremptory treatment.  Frankly you couldn't tell the difference between a baked potato which is also microwaved;  so too, you can't tell how long it took for the universe to get here, nor how long it took for the Holy Spirit to restore it, after its own 'fall' (tohu wa bohu clause in Gen1:2).  So while Genesis is a literal account of the earth being restored in six 24-hour days (initial creation is summarized in Gen1:1) -- by telling 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 Gen1:26-27 -- same contract as in Isa53:10-11.  That was the Plan; and Salvation here, is the Satisfaction of its Completion:  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 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's Greek-into-Hebrew, looks like what's above:  LXX gave us the missing words.  In Hebrew, you achieve the same effect as deixzai autoi phos kai plasai, by clever placement of the words (Result of His Soul's Labor), in front of the yireh yisba clause.  Then the object of yireh which causes yisba, is first mentioned.  Hebrew uses heroic prolepsis, as does Greek.  In English, for dramatic effect, we also put the object of a verb before the verb.  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.

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 SOME aping of Hebrew word order, to preserve the same wit the Hebrew conveys.  On the other hand, the Greek language 'philosophy' would also construct the sentences similarly.  So is the similarity due to aping, or innate 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?  Perhaps relevant, is that the Greek uses multiples of Isaiah's meter, so truncates to keep within those multiples?  For example, in verse 10's Greek, multiples of 8, but beginning at "kai bouletai kurios aphelein" it's a doubled 10 (ending at autou in v.11); and then reverts again to 8's (how clever), for the rest of  verse 11.  This isn't classical Greek meter being substituted.  This isn't the only verse where 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, then seeing).  Very clever.  That construction is repeated again in the Hebrew of  v.11, but NOT in the Greek -- at least, not directly.  Meaning in the Greek still conveys an action of the Soul Who is Light, seeing it.  The Greek word placement and use of the dative (without intervening preposition) stress the fact He is Light.  So I can understand the poetic omission of yireh, it would throw off the meter-matching.  So if yireh 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, oddly excludes it.  That Hebrew clause would translate well in Greek, it's part of the overall Contract, so is important;  generally the LXX translates "hand" clauses, too.  "Hand" is a common Bible term for Ownership, 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 described above;  but text supplied in the Greek, is quite different.   That strongly implies lacuna at the point of haphets/bouletai in one or both texts.   If the idea of success was meant to be summarized in Greek rather than word-for-word quoted from the Hebrew's colorful expression (see wordplay in Ps15:11 in LXX, which is 16:11 in BHS), we'd still have the problem of the directional etymology of tsaleah verses aphairew:  tsaleah has to do with cleaving wood, "success" in the sense of going in, penetrating, accomplishing an objective.  But the directional etymology of aphairew is a taking OFF, removal:  again with plundering or rescuing success as a result.  They're orientational opposites, these Hebrew and Greek verbs.

 

5. Clearly there's a lacuna between naphesho and yireh in Hebrew of v.11.  The wit of yireh directly following would not be diminished by supply of the nouns which represent the 'children' of His Soul's Labor, one of which we know is Light, because those nouns would still be 'looked back to' by yireh, explaining yisba. Furthermore, the Greek text makes witty use of placement of phos right next to autos, which denotes an equality between the two nouns;  to put autos in the dative with no preposition conveys conduit and on whose behalf the deixzai occurs..  and of course, He is Light, and this 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" (aleph waw resh) after naphesho.  The sound runs together, as shown above in v.1l's back translation.  So it's 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 of pimplemi).  Well, one could argue its omission from 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 of porting over the seventh-day Hebrew wit inherent in sabea.  Problem is, Greek verb pimplemi is routinely used for sabea perhaps over 100 times in the OT;  always with witty meaning, very portable from 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 NT Church legacy).  So sabea should be translated into Greek, it seems.  Especially, since LXX Psalm 90:16 (91:16, BHS) is referenced in Isa53:11.

 

7. Verse 11's Hebrew wit of yatsdiq tsaddiq is emulated in the Greek dikaiwsai dikaion.  Same witty prolepsis 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, word for word, same order.  kai plasai tei sunesei kai dikaiwsei is a very clever phrase, balances to deixzai autoi phos (the parallelism is on the datives, on Him being the Agent of it all);  so where in Greek one would put the equivalent of yireh yisba, it wouldn't go between plasai and tei.

 

9. Dramatic Greek, like Hebrew, drops objects, switches normal constructions (i.e., from verbs to participles to nouns).  The changes do not mask the meaning but instead heighten it.  Key is, if you'll drop a word, to use another word so the ellipsis is clear.  So Isaiah in Hebrew, drops nouns in verb heavy 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 that the LXX would be so careful here to match the Hebrew, then suddenly STOP doing so, then start matching again -- unless Hebrew text is also missing from the Greek.  Until I can resolve these issues, I'm stuck.

 

So let's go on an expedition to the NT and examine whether the Hebrew which seems to be missing from the Greek, is incorporated by reference in the NT.  Obviously if it is, then maybe we can know what Hebrew or Greek words might have been in the LXX of these verses at the time God deployed the NT writers.  For the Hebrew and Greek texts they had, would have been better than what has come down to us.  We still have the perfect Divine Writ, alright, but it's in puzzle format, so to speak.  Their 'puzzle' would have been far less fragmented, than ours.  Between then and now, many a Bedouin nomad or 'civilized' merchant has torn up manuscripts 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 in green font, back on page 2.  Greek verb used to render it, is malakizomai.  In the OT, it's not used for dakah anywhere else, but is used for hala, to become sick.  It's not used in the NT, at all.  Hebrew hala is used in 53:10, 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 with reference 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 tapeinow incessantly with his hupo prefixes, and of course Paul wrote 2Phili2:5-10.  So tapeinow is a poetic and dramatic 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 ódune, grief (19:10);  suntribw, to be battered, mauled, broken(-hearted), is also used (57:15).  It's a good alternate verb for dakah.  NT uses it seven times, and famously in John 19:36 (prophecy of His Bones not being broken, see also Exo12:46, Num9:12, Ps34:20).  Romans 16:20 uses suntribw as a synonym for terew, recalling Gen3:15 to the reader'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 Jacob's name 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 of suntribw -- 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 had to do ANYTHING else, but study Bible?  It would be worth the shame of a catheter and intravenous drip, 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 tapeinow again: one can see why.  Looks like the Hebrew concept of dakah had many different meanings; so when translating, there were special Greek words to extract out whatever nuance of dakah was stressed in that Hebrew. (KJV and NASB (and modern) translation philosophy was often the opposite: to preferably-always use the same English word, never mind how misleading it might be: so the student of Greek or Hebrew can know what original word, 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 what Bible actually SAYS.)  All the Greek words in these indented paragraphs are used in the NT, and often enough to see their meaning 'dimensions'.

 

Using tapeinow, Matthew 18:4, 23:12 and Luke 3:5, 14:11, 18:14 all play on Isaiah 9 and 40;  the latter OT chapters were made famous in modern times by Handel's Messiah.  Isaiah himself plays on both those 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, to 53:12.  So in using tapeinow, the entire context of Isa53 is referenced:  Paul is quite bald about it, in Phili2:5-10, 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 verb Isaiah 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 tapeinow is a shoe-in.  Next choice would be suntribw.  Probably would use malakizomai for hala in Isa53:10, if translating each verb separately. Wouldn't need to do that.

 

Next, is sabea in Isa53:11.  Greek pimplemi is used for sabea throughout the OT;  of the 120 or so forms of sabea used in the OT, pimplemi must stand in for over 100 of them.  Of course, pimplemi is common 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 by pimplemi.  So we need another word in the Greek?  Maybe not.  After all, both the Hebrew and Greek were known 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.

Oh, but next is tsaleah, last word in Hebrew of Isa53:10!  And baby, here we hit paydirt!  It's used 65 times in the OT, according to my BibleWorks search on the root.  Like dakah, it's a multi-purpose verb, so the Greek uses varying verbs to focus on the nuance stressed in a given verse.  Most interesting is Genesis 39:3 and :23, which uses the prosper-in-his-hand construction, which the Greek literally translates.  Greek verb there is euodow;  it means to make a successful journey (eu + odos), and it's commonly used (think of the times) for tsaleah, both literally/materially, and figuratively/spiritually.  Journeys on 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, Greek 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 said prior, so is not to be repeated. To end at makrobion would be okay, ONLY if it's a requote: for in Greek you don't requote the entire passage, but just the key clause or beginning of a list.  Looks like we 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 verse which USED to be there, and cleverly, too!  For it's good Greek to truncate a quote just presented, to select from it the operative clause on which one will expatiate:  and from "makrobion" onward, the WAY in which the offspring WILL BE MADE, is given in the LXX.  It's a perfect fit!  So it has to be a requote.  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" tells you it's a requote, not an initial quote being truncated, because the syntax and meaning flows DIRECTLY from that clause.  That's why the hand clause is left out.  The Greek after makrobion is EXPLAINING 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 of 53:10 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 a multi-purpose verb which LXX more narrowly translates to suit context.  So you have allomai used to translate 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) is used 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 Hebrew and most of the Greek!

becomes

+

 

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, though maybe one should convert that to a participial phrase, and make it subjunctive: but it's Hebraic to make it future 3rd indicative (tense Greek uses for the Commandments).  In that 1Cor, Paul is playing on words, so I'd bet money hupotassw is used here in Isa53;  see also Heb2, and Peter's frequent usage.  Hupotassw is a stressed NT word. Plemmeleia is taken from Lev7:5, the official name in Greek for asham, guilt (i.e., red heifer) offering. He psuche clause comes from LXX of Isa53:10; the (gnomic/aoristic use of) present infinitive of euodow comes from 3Jn1:2, and the hands clause comes from Gen39:3.  Have to rethink whether these should be the right words, but they seem to match the Greek and Hebrew we have.  With ellision, our putative v. 10a parses at 17, 17, 8 and 17 syllables, so ties to the 8's and 9's Isaiah uses -- see how Greek uses 17 syllables in Isa53:7 to balance to a 10+7 construction.   The chosen words here also fit that goal and that verse, but I didn't know they would fit like that, when choosing them.  I didn't think to count the Greek syllables, until afterwards. 

Now, onto verse 11.  The big challenge is where to place the yireh yisba clause from the Hebrew, into the Greek.  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':

 

 

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 of yireh (reprinted below from page 9):

 

Should we just do the same, in the Greek?  Yep.  Watch how cool this is...

 

Xortazw is a synonymal verb for sabea in the OT and is a favorite of the Lord in the Gospels.  It stresses the SATISFACTION, and it's in the 3rd person future passive aorist, famously used in Psalm 103:13, 16, and Lam3:30 (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 restoration of the earth in Gen1:2ff.  Moreover, the etymology of xortazw is fabulous:  sheep being fatted up for the slaughter on grass, same as what David talks about in Psalm 23.  Better still, xortazw is a kind of kindred verb to pimplemi, so you see the prediction of the Holy Spirit tied in.  Best of all, the sacred "He" doubles for both the satisfaction (synonym for propitiation!) of Father, Son, Spirit as a result of Son's Soul Labor.

 

Placement looks back and forward, as elegant Greek requires;  you can't put xortazw in front of tei sunesei, because tei sunesei is the result of plassw;  hence xortazw must precede the entire deixzai clause (which runs as a grammatical unit from deixzai through the end of v.11).  The placement naturally leads into the deixzai clause, as the third person singular of a satisfaction verb, must have an object.  Heroic (proleptic) object is His Labor, mentioned BEFOREHAND;  but the OUTPUT of that Labor follows next, in its natural order (as a clause of infinitive effects, rather than nouns).  Notice how the xortazw also stands alone, just as yireh yisba does, 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 the clauses, 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' just preceding.

 

Notice the resulting parallelisms:  the finite verbs parallel, and the infinitives parallel.  Greek is famous for that.  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 and Hebrew 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 'fix' in this Greek verse 11, either. If you can, email me?

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

Again, there are additional alternatives.  But I can't beat this.  Maybe you can.  Yet the purpose of this rtf is to show plausibility, to demonstrate that the LXX is unfairly given short shrift in translations -- at least here.  For even here, see how PLAUSIBLE it is, that the text was missing in one language, which GOD PRESERVED in the other?  See how much more sense it makes, once amalgamated?  God keeps His Word.  God Keeps His Word Perfect.  God keeps His Word Intact.  We know it's the devil's world, and the devil would of course want to rip to shreds, this Word.  So, we have it in pieces -- MANY pieces.  So many, we can tell the counterfeit from the true, 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 year or two, minimum research time -- had not the searching been so easy via BibleWorks.  God knew we'd need it!

 

Next, I need to do a metered translation of the whole chapter, to show the rhythmic flavor of the Hebrew better.  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 11 is broken into its existing meter, therefore.  It might prove helpful to see the 'shape'.  Uses of prepositions 'al, and upness, 'et substitution/progeny, and min plus birthing are each highlighted, each category of metaphor in 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 His Soul's Labor, giving birth to our salvation.  There are too many such words.

 

	Isaiah 52:13~54:1
	הִנֵּ֥ה יַשְׂכִּ֖יל עַבְדִּ֑י יָר֧וּם	52:13	נִגַּ֙שׂ וְה֣וּא נַעֲנֶה֘	53:7
	וְנִשָּׂ֛א וְגָבַ֖הּ מְאֹֽד׃		וְלֹ֣א יִפְתַּח־פִּיו֒
	כַּאֲשֶׁ֙ר שָׁמְמ֤וּ עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ רַבִּ֔ים	52:14	כַּשֶּׂה֙ לַטֶּ֣בַח יוּבָ֔ל
	כֵּן־מִשְׁחַ֥ת מֵאִ֖ישׁ מַרְאֵ֑הוּ		וּכְרָחֵ֕ל לִפְנֵ֥י גֹזְזֶ֖יהָ
	וְתֹאֲר֖וֹ מִבְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃		נֶאֱלָ֑מָה וְלֹ֥א יִפְתַּ֖ח פִּֽיו׃
	כֵּ֤ן יַזֶּה֙ גּוֹיִ֣ם רַבִּ֔ים עָלָ֛יו	52:15	מֵעֹ֤צֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙ לֻקָּ֔ח	53:8
	יִקְפְּצ֥וּ מְלָכִ֖ים פִּיהֶ֑ם		וְאֶת־דּוֹר֖וֹ מִ֣י יְשׂוֹחֵ֑חַ
	כִּ֠י אֲשֶׁ֙ר לֹֽא־סֻפַּ֤ר לָהֶם֙ רָא֔וּ		כִּ֤י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים
	וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־שָׁמְע֖וּ הִתְבּוֹנָֽנוּ׃		מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמוֹ׃
	מִ֥י הֶאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵ֑נוּ	53:1	וַיִּתֵּ֤ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ	53:9
	וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃		וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו
	וַיַּ֙עַל כַּיּוֹנֵ֜ק לְפָנָ֗יו	53:2	עַ֚ל לֹא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה
	וְכַשֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צִיָּ֔ה		וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו׃
	לֹא־תֹ֥אַר ל֖וֹ		וַיהוָ֞ה חָפֵ֤ץ דַּכְּאוֹ֙ הֶֽחֱלִ֔י	53:10
	וְלֹ֣א הָדָ֑ר		אִם־תָּשִׂ֤ים אָשָׁם֙ נַפְשׁ֔וֹ
	וְנִרְאֵ֥הוּ		יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע יַאֲרִ֣יךְ יָמִ֑ים
	וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה		וְחֵ֥פֶץ יְהוָ֖ה בְּיָד֥וֹ יִצְלָֽח׃
	וְנֶחְמְדֵֽהוּ׃		מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙	53:11
	נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים	53:3	יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע
	אִ֥ישׁ מַכְאֹב֖וֹת וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי		בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק
	וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ		צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים
	נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ׃		וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃
	אָכֵ֤ן חֳלָיֵ֙נוּ֙ ה֣וּא נָשָׂ֔א	53:4	לָכֵ֞ן אֲחַלֶּק־ל֣וֹ בָרַבִּ֗ים	53:12
	וּמַכְאֹבֵ֖ינוּ סְבָלָ֑ם		וְאֶת־עֲצוּמִים֘ יְחַלֵּ֣ק שָׁלָל֒
	וַאֲנַ֣חְנוּ		תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֙ר הֶעֱרָ֤ה
	חֲשַׁבְנֻ֔הוּ		לַמָּ֙וֶת֙ נַפְשׁ֔וֹ
	נָג֛וּעַ מֻכֵּ֥ה		וְאֶת־פֹּשְׁעִ֖ים נִמְנָ֑ה
	אֱלֹהִ֖ים וּמְעֻנֶּֽה׃		וְהוּא֙ חֵטְא־רַבִּ֣ים נָשָׂ֔א
	וְהוּא֙ מְחֹלָ֣ל מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ	53:5	וְלַפֹּשְׁעִ֖ים יַפְגִּֽיעַ׃ ס
	מְדֻכָּ֖א מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵ֑ינוּ
	מוּסַ֤ר שְׁלוֹמֵ֙נוּ֙ עָלָ֔יו		רָנִּ֥י עֲקָרָ֖ה לֹ֣א יָלָ֑דָה	54:1
	וּבַחֲבֻרָת֖וֹ נִרְפָּא־לָֽנוּ׃		פִּצְחִ֙י רִנָּ֤ה וְצַהֲלִי֙ לֹא־חָ֔לָה
	כֻּלָּ֙נוּ֙ כַּצֹּ֣אן תָּעִ֔ינוּ	53:6	כִּֽי־רַבִּ֧ים בְּֽנֵי־שׁוֹמֵמָ֛ה
	אִ֥ישׁ לְדַרְכּ֖וֹ פָּנִ֑ינוּ		מִבְּנֵ֥י בְעוּלָ֖ה אָמַ֥ר יְהוָֽה׃
	וַֽיהוָה֙ הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בּ֔וֹ אֵ֖ת עֲוֹ֥ן כֻּלָּֽנוּ׃