Old Testament

Isaiah’s fourth servant song is by far the most famous, not least because Christians have long read it as one of the greatest Old Testament prophecies about the heart of the Christian faith, the death of Jesus. In this Easter series, we are focusing on major textual problems in Isaiah 53 as a necessary step in identifying the suffering servant.

In our Easter series on major problems in the text of Isaiah 53, we now come to the end of Isaiah 53:8. Most of our English translations read the final line of the verse similar to the ESV, “who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.” The NIV has “he was punished,” while the NET reads “he was wounded.” These translations clearly convey that the servant was stricken for the transgression of God’s people.

The new NASB 2020 renders the text slightly differently: “For the wrongdoing of my people, to whom the blow was due.” Here, the NASB’s rendering signals that the blow was due to the people and does not portray one, single servant as being stricken or punished. These different renderings arose because of a difficult Hebrew text, whose history shows variants and different ways of understanding it as we shall see.

The New English Bible actually renders a different Hebrew text, “stricken to death for my people’s transgression.”¹See also the commentary by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 345, for a similar translation. According to this translation, the servant is stricken to death, an idea not clearly presented in the translations mentioned above. Clearly, there are two different translations coming from two different Hebrew texts. This problem requires a deeper look at the ancient witnesses in order to arrive at a solution.

The testimony of the ancient witnesses

First, we will list all the witnesses in original language and English translation, group them according to the Hebrew text they attest, and finally make some observations about them. The textual problem is indicated in each witness by the use of italics so that one can see the different readings most clearly.

To summarize, the witnesses attest four main options for the original Hebrew:

1. “he was stricken to death” LXX
2. “he was stricken for them” 1QIsa^a
3. “he struck them” MS 715, Theodotion, Aquila, Vulgate, Peshitta, Targum
4. “the strike belonged to them” MT, Symmachus, 1QIsa^b(?), 4QIsa^d(?)

Surveying the evidence

Reading 1

The first reading is based on the Hebrew source of the Septuagint (LXX), which differed slightly but significantly from the Masoretic Text (MT): “he was stricken to death” (נֻגַּע לַמָּוֶת). Although the LXX has the verb “he was led,” the translator probably wanted to harmonize 53:8 with 53:7 (“as a sheep was led to the slaughter”) by using the same Greek verb. Thus, the Hebrew source of the LXX contained the same consonants for the word “stricken” as all our other Hebrew manuscripts and most probably agreed with the verb that we see in 1QIsa^a, the most famous Dead Sea Scroll. Because most of our English translations are based on the MT, readings like this one are often overlooked and not even included in a footnote. We will return to the full reading of the LXX below as we make a decision on the original text.

Reading 2

The second reading is found in 1QIsa^a and it also differs from the MT slightly: “he was stricken for them” (נוגע למו). Although most of our English translations render the MT as a passive verb (“was punished”), the only clear ancient evidence for such a translation is actually found, not in the MT, but in 1QIsa^a, a manuscript discovered seventy-five years ago.

Reading 3

The third reading is based on several witnesses that usually agree with the MT but, here, differ with it slightly by giving “he struck them” (נָגַע לָמֹו). Not only was this the Hebrew source of several ancient translations such as the Latin Vulgate, but it is also attested in one medieval Hebrew manuscript (known as DeRossi 715). Thus, this vocalization was probably known from an earlier time and existed alongside the MT’s reading (see Reading 4). But this, like reading 4 below, arose from a guess. The reason for this is that the translators and the later scribe didn’t have a copy of the text with vowel letters (known as matres lectiones) like what we find in 1QIsa^a or the later vowel signs.

Reading 4

The final reading is found in the MT and reads “a strike belonged to them” (נֶגַע לָמֹו). Only Symmachus, who revised the Greek Septuagint around 200 AD, unambiguously preserves a noun “strike” in agreement with the MT (1QIsa^b and 4QIsa^d are ambiguous on this point). That’s a fascinating observation in itself since most English translations claim to translate the MT and then usually footnote where they diverge from it—but here they give no note. Regarding the meaning of who receives the blow (“to them”; לָמֹו), only the Syriac Peshitta has “him,” but it also rendered the verb as a plural “they struck,” which is a clear sign of interpretation.

This raises the question about whether the Hebrew pronoun (לָמֹו) is plural “them” or singular “him.” All the ancient translations (except Peshitta) use the plural “them,” and this is the normal way to read the Hebrew. But the very interesting part is that most of our English translations lack an equivalent for this word in the MT (but see NASB above), probably because it is difficult to translate. But a literal translation of the MT would be “a strike belonged to them.” In context, this would refer to the people of Israel as the ones receiving the blow.

By now, one can see that textual criticism is essential for understanding what happens to the suffering servant and so for identifying who he is. The careful study of our witnesses not only shines a light on the textual problems, but it also offers a probable solution too. Unfortunately, most translations do not footnote this problem, so English Bible readers are usually unaware of it. So, what text should we choose and then translate?

The original text

Basically, textual criticism works by identifying the reading that best explains the origin of the others. This assumes that a scribe is likely to modify the original text, either accidentally or intentionally. From the three texts listed above, we prefer the first reading (“he was stricken to death”) as the original text.²See Jan de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 194–95; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Van­denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 397–99.

The LXX attests both the verb “he was stricken” (נוגע) and the oldest form of the final word “to death” (למות). It is easier to believe that a scribe accidentally omitted a letter in copying, or that the letter was lost in a damaged margin of a manuscript than to think that a scribe intentionally modified the text. Since the LXX’s text also preserves the continuity of the masculine singular subject found in the rest of the song, this reading commends itself as what Isaiah most probably wrote.

On the other hand, 1QIsa^a shows an intermediate form of the text, a form which still preserves the original reading of the verb “he was stricken” (the reading most of our English translations assume anyway), but one which already shows the accidental omission of the single letter taw from “to death” (למות) resulting instead in “to them” (למו). This copyist error must have occurred very early in the transmission of the text for it now appears in the very wide base of witnesses shown above. If the error crept in early, we would expect exactly this situation.

For its part, the MT continued to transmit the text it received, which then preserved an inferior vocalization for “strike” (נֶגַע) along with the corrupted final word “to them” (למו). Its reading “a blow belonged to them” must have been interpreted as referring to the people of Israel and eventually aided a national interpretation of the servant.

Conclusion

The textual decision here significantly changes the meaning of this song with respect to whether the servant dies and, in turn, who the servant is. Only the Hebrew parent text of the LXX preserves the servant’s death on account of the people’s transgression. Later scribal mistakes obscure the servant’s death and its purpose found in the original text.

What’s at issue, then, is ultimately something central to the New Testament’s witness about Jesus. One of the matters of chief importance that Paul received is that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul, and those who transmitted early tradition about the Messiah’s death, seems to have been reading the version of Isaiah 53:8 argued for here (cf. Isa. 53:12) which explains how he arrived at this conclusion.

Notes

• 1
  See also the commentary by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 345, for a similar translation.
• 2
  See Jan de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 194–95; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Van­denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 397–99.

Isaiah’s fourth servant song is by far the most famous, not least because Christians have long read it as one of the greatest Old Testament prophecies about the heart of the Christian faith, the death of Jesus. In this Easter series, we are focusing on major textual problems in Isaiah 53 as a necessary step in identifying the suffering servant.

Isaiah’s fourth servant song begins with an important prologue that not only sets the tone but also contains the seeds that will sprout into the rich theology of the rest of the song. Three lines in the center (Isa. 52:14–15) describe what in the servant’s role and work cause aston­ishment. But a series of textual problems require revision to the traditional translation of the servant’s disfigurement and instead highlight his anointing as a priest and thus his atonement for many nations.

In the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the text reads as follows, with the key issues italicized:

¹³ See, my servant shall prosper;
    he shall be exalted and lifted up,
    and shall be very high.
¹⁴ Just as there were many who were astonished at him
    —so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance,
    and his form beyond that of mortals—
¹⁵ so he shall startle many nations;
    kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
for that which had not been told them they shall see,
    and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.

We will treat three crucial problems for the interpretation of the prologue: (1) the “just as… so… so…” structure governing 14–15; (2) the meaning of the verb in 15 and whether it should be translated “startled” or “sprinkled”; and (3) the meaning of the term in v. 14 translated “marred” by the NRSV (“his visage was so marred more than any man”). Each of these will help confirm the overall view of who this servant is and what he does.¹Dominique Barthélemy has offered excellent solutions to these issues, but they are not widely known. I hope in what follows to build upon his proposals. See Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).

1. The Grammatical structure

The first problem to be addressed is overall structure of this section of the prologue. Misunderstanding this has led to confusion on the other points. Properly understanding it is essential for solving the textual problems addressed below. The clause structures of vv. 14–15a are governed by the sequence of particles “just as… so… so…” (…כאשׁר… כן… כן). The following literal translation highlights these with italics:

14a         just as many were astonished at you
14b        so his appearance was disfigured (or anointed) beyond human …
15a         so he will sprinkle (or startle) many nations

These words correlate the two “so” affirmations about the servant with the “just as” affirmation of the reaction of the many to him. It is difficult, however, to make sense of the sequence of thought. The Geneva Bible, one of the most popular Protestant translations before the King James Version (KJV), led Christian intepreters in a new direction by understanding the first “so” clause as a parenthesis. This solu­tion was then popularised by the KJV. Few modern translations, if any, faithfully present the structure in Hebrew. The NIV is representative of the problem:

14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so will he sprinkle many nations…

Note how the NIV’s translation makes the first “so” clause a statemement about the degree to which he’s disfigured. This is problematic since this is not how the Hebrew word for “so” (כן) normally works. When the word is moved in translation, the English reader can no longer appreciate the original structure. The NIV is trying to solve a real interpretive problem here, but there is a better solution which we explain below.

In short, neither Christian nor Jewish interpretations in the past adequately grappled with the grammatical structure in the text in the prologue. This structure will affect how we deal with the next two issues, the disputed words in v. 14b and v. 15a. We must choose an interpretation that honors this syntactic struc­ture. We will begin by looking at the verb that means either “he will sprinkle” or “he will  startle” (נזה) in v. 15.

2. Does the servant “startle” or “sprinkle” many nations?

We will look at the full textual evidence before commenting on the Masoretic Text (MT), the dominant form of the Hebrew text behind our English Bibles.

Leaving the LXX to one side for the moment, the other ancient translations of the Hebrew text such as Theodotion and the Vulgate understand the meaning of the verb as “sprinkle.” Symmachus’s “he will reject” probably shows he confused two letters in the Hebrew. What these translations show is that, the ancient translators did not find this verb difficult to understand. But the LXX translator did render it differently and this forces us to look more closely at the Hebrew original.

Objections have been raised to interpreting the Hebrew verb as “sprinkle” (נזה) because of the unusual grammatical construction. The normal con­struction for the verb (used 23×) is to sprinkle a liquid (e.g., blood) on a person or thing (e.g., Lev 5:9, 8:11, 30) or before someone (Lev. 4:17, 14:16). In our text, however, no liquid is mentioned, and there is no preposition “upon” (על) before “nations” to mark the object being sprinkled.

There are instances, however, where the liquid that is sprinkled is omitted if it can be assumed from the context (e.g., Exod. 29:21, Lev. 14:7, Num. 19:19). There are also cases where the object sprinkled is the direct object of the verb marked by the Hebrew direct object marker (Lev. 4:6, 17). Since Isaiah is poetry, this marker (את) is normally omitted. This probably explains the LXX translation. The unusual grammar of the verb may have caused the translator to render the verb “will be astonished” because he already had “will be appalled” in Isaiah 52:14. If so, the LXX was not translating a different Hebrew text here but rendering the same Hebrew word contextually (“as many will be appalled … so many will marvel”).

If correct, then the “nations” is best understood as who the servant sprinkles and the liquid that’s sprinkled is assumed and is likely the blood of a sacrifice. In other words, the text is describing the servant’s priestly work in sprinkling the nations with the blood of a sacrifice. One of the remarkable implications of this is that it describes the servant as an Israelite priest who sprinkles the nations.

A number of scholars have found this solution unacceptable and have pro­posed to interpret the verb from a root related to an Arabic verb nazā that means “to jump,” translating the text as “he will cause people to jump,” which is a way of saying that he will startle them. But support for this proposal is weak because the verb in Arabic is not used of jumping as a result of being emotionally startled. The appeal to Arabic, therefore, is linguistically unsound. To suggest that Isaiah’s audience easily recognized an otherwise unknown verb instead of a common one is not plausible. Linguistically, then, “to sprinkle” has more to commend it if one can argue that it fits the context well. Showing how this reading does fit the context is what we address next.

3. Is the servant’s appearance “disfigured” or “anointed”?

As argued above, verses 14–15a are syntactically bound together and the verb in v. 15 means “to sprinkle” as a priestly function. We must now revisit the meaning of the second disputed word, the noun (משׁחת) translated “marred” (KJV) or “disfigured” (NIV).³Barthélemy offers the most detailed and thorough treat­ment of the history of interpretation of this word and this will be conveniently sum­marized here. See D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:385–386. Thankfully, all our textual witnesses attest the same text.

There are two possibilities for understanding the Hebrew noun in the Masoretic Text: a noun derived from (1) the root “to ruin” (שׁחת), or (2) the root “to anoint” (משׁח). The meaning is either “ruining” or “anointing” depending which of these two is adopted. Thus two translations are possible. Either “his appearance is anointed beyond that of men” or “his appearance is ruined beyond that of men.” Note that in the latter translation, “his appearance is ruined,” the word “ruined” is passive. This involves changing the vowels in the Masoretic Text where the form of the word requires an active interpretation: “his appearance is a ruining beyond that of men. This active interpretation doesn’t make sense of the text we have.

Almost all interpreters from ancient times to the present have connected the word with the first of these two roots (“to ruin”). Nonetheless, in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) dating around 100 BC, the reading is actually “I anointed” (משׁחתי) which may be a simplification of the reading in Masoretic Text, but also clearly shows that this scribe interpreted the word as being from the second root (“to anoint”).

This scribe’s instinct was right for the following reasons.

1. The noun “anointing” (מִשְׁחָה) is well attested in the biblical text (23×) whereas a noun “ruination” (מִשְׁחָת) is otherwise unknown in the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. This fits with other priestly anointings in the Old Testament. Regulations concerning a special anointing oil devoted strictly for parti­cular occasions and persons and not for common use is found in Exodus 30:30–33. The anointing of the high priest with this oil to in­stall him into his office set him above his fellow priests (Lev. 21:10) and the anointing of the king to indicate his divine election for this office set him above his fellow Israelites (Psa. 45:8). Such parallels show, then, that an expression “an anointing above that of men” is natural in biblical Hebrew while an expression “a destruction above that of men” is otherwise unattested. This reinforces the exalted stature of Isaiah’s servant.

If this reading is correct, then several significant pieces of the servant’s identity fall neatly into place.

It shows his high office

Parallel to “his appearance” (מַרְאֵהוּ) is “his form” (תֹּאֲרוֹ). This second term is similar to our English expression “he cut a fine figure.” This is not just indicating that he may be attractive, but may also suggest his rank and social status. In Isaiah 53:2 this same term is found: “He had no form or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”

This means that the servant does not have a royal bearing in his appearance. He does not “cut a fine figure” in such a way  that people would say, “We want him for a king!” (This stands in contrast to Israel’s choice of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:1–2, 10:23–24 where Saul’s physique is precisely what encourages Israel to make him king.) Thus Isaiah is here describing the dignity and social status of a high office like that of the high priest or king whose entry into office is symbolized by an anointing.

It fits the Old Testament pattern

The meaning “anointing” suits the progression of thought in the two “so” clauses of vv. 14–15. According to Leviticus, a priest can only sprinkle after he’s been anointed:

The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement (Lev. 16:32; NIV).

The meaning “anointing” makes excellent sense of the sequence in this text. The servant sprinkles because he has been anointed. As we have already seen, the symbolism of anointing indicates that the high priest was exalted above his fellow Israelites. This anointing qualifies him to atone for the nation. In the same way in our text, the ser­vant is exalted above all humans and so atones for all the nations. This interpreta­tion also explains the exaltation of the servant described in v. 13 better than any other proposal.⁴John Goldingay adds significant support: “[t]he observation that, following his desolation, the servant is superhumanly anointed fits with the description of his superhuman exaltation in v. 13. The reference to anointing (mišḥat) parallels the account of David’s anointing as a person good in appearance and a man of [good] looks (1 Sam. 16:12–13, 18; cf. *Grimm/Dittert). It also again parallels Ps. 89:19–20, 50–51 [20–21, 51–52], where Yhwh’s ‘servant’ David is ‘anointed’ as well as ‘exalted’ and his successor as Yhwh’s ‘servant’ and ‘anointed’ is taunted by ‘many’ peoples. Further, the anointing of this servant as if he were a king parallels the designation of Cyrus as Yhwh’s anointed in 45.1. Tg was not so outland­ish in adding reference to Yhwh’s anointing in 52.13 as at 42.1.” John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Com­mentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 491.

It makes best sense of the structure

The resulting meaning from understanding the term as “anointing” best honors the “just as… so… so…” structure  that has tripped up translators in the past. The logic can best be appreciated by comparing the structure in Exodus 1:12:

just as they [the Egyptians] mistreated them [the Israelites], so they increased and so they spread.

The idea is that despite the Egyptians mistreatment, the Israelites increased. So here, the anointing and sprinkling of the Servant is in contrast to the astonishment many feel when looking at him. Modifying the NRSV, the result would be something like this:

¹⁴ Just as there were many who were astonished at him,
    so his anointing was beyond that of men,
    and his form beyond that of mortals,
¹⁵ so he shall sprinkle many nations

The upshot of all this is that Isaiah is not saying that the people are shocked because of how disfigured he is. Rather, the people’s shock is proportional to the servant’s incredible anointing and his work of sprinkling many nations.

Although this proposal may seem novel, Dominique Barthélemy discusses five Jewish interpreters from the 12th to 19th cen­turies who adopted “anointing” as the best interpretation, and two Christian inter­preters from the 16th to 17th centuries who held such a view.⁵D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:388-390. It is noteworthy that the interpretation proposed by Barthélemy and developed here is also that expounded recently by John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary, 490–492, although no reference is made to Barthélemy and discussion of grammatical, lexi­cal, and textual issues is extremely limited (these, however, are not the focus of his work). This is also the un­derstanding of the scribe of the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran as we saw earlier. There is good precedent, then, for this interpretation.

Conclusion

Scholars and Bible translators have long had to face the difficulties in the prologue to Isaiah’s fourth servant song. English translations have typically solved these problems by presenting the servant’s shocking appearance as the reason for the people’s astonishment. But a comprehensive look at the issues results in a more cohesive portrait of the servant, one that anticipates key themes throughout the rest of the song. It shows that the people’s astonishment is contrasted with his exalted status as an anointed priest who, surprisingly, sprinkles the nations.

This idea of Jesus’ high priestly work is, of course, picked up repeatedly by the New Testament writers. The writer of Hebrews, for example, tells us that Jesus is “the mediator of a new covenant” whose “sprinkled blood” speaks a better word (Heb. 12:24). Because of his work, we are exhorted to “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (Heb. 10:22).

The original version of this article cited the KJV at the beginning when the NRSV was meant. This article is adapted from the author’s longer treatment in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.

Notes

• 1
  Dominique Barthélemy has offered excellent solutions to these issues, but they are not widely known. I hope in what follows to build upon his proposals. See Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
• 2
  One manuscript (11L4, Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine, Syr MS 8, 9th–10th Century AD) has “thus” (ܗܟܢܐ) instead of “this” (ܗܢܐ). Whether this reading is influenced by MT or LXX is uncertain.
• 3
  Barthélemy offers the most detailed and thorough treat­ment of the history of interpretation of this word and this will be conveniently sum­marized here. See D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:385–386.
• 4
  John Goldingay adds significant support: “[t]he observation that, following his desolation, the servant is superhumanly anointed fits with the description of his superhuman exaltation in v. 13. The reference to anointing (mišḥat) parallels the account of David’s anointing as a person good in appearance and a man of [good] looks (1 Sam. 16:12–13, 18; cf. *Grimm/Dittert). It also again parallels Ps. 89:19–20, 50–51 [20–21, 51–52], where Yhwh’s ‘servant’ David is ‘anointed’ as well as ‘exalted’ and his successor as Yhwh’s ‘servant’ and ‘anointed’ is taunted by ‘many’ peoples. Further, the anointing of this servant as if he were a king parallels the designation of Cyrus as Yhwh’s anointed in 45.1. Tg was not so outland­ish in adding reference to Yhwh’s anointing in 52.13 as at 42.1.” John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Com­mentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 491.
• 5
  D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:388-390. It is noteworthy that the interpretation proposed by Barthélemy and developed here is also that expounded recently by John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary, 490–492, although no reference is made to Barthélemy and discussion of grammatical, lexi­cal, and textual issues is extremely limited (these, however, are not the focus of his work).