Theology

Part 3: The Servant’s Burial according to the Scriptures

The variation in Isaiah 53:9 touches directly on Christ’s fulfillment of the prophecy in his burial.

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.

Christ was buried according to the Scriptures. This is what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 and he also says that it is a matter of chief importance. With more detail, Matthew reports that Jesus’ body was laid in a new tomb of a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea. But were these details predicted in the Scriptures?

Before answering this question by treating the textual problem in Isaiah 53:9, let’s review some conclusions of our series. In Isaiah 52:14–15, we showed that the prologue’s description of the servant’s exaltation was better understood in terms of an exalted high priest’s anointing and his sprinkling of many nations, a theme picked up again and expanded in the latter part of the song.

In the case of Isaiah 53:8, we saw that, although the textual problem is difficult, the Hebrew text behind the LXX is probably the original text, and therefore, Isaiah’s song pictures the servant being stricken to death.

In this article, we move to Isaiah 53:9 and must unpack yet another textual problem, this one having to do with whether the servant is assigned a death or a tomb with the rich. To see why, we will (1) list the witnesses with an English translation; (2) summarize and make some observations about them; (3) show that the best reading is found in 1QIsa^a; and (4) conclude with the relevance of this reading for the New Testament’s portrait of Jesus.

Witnesses

Reading	Witness	Text
1. his tomb	1QIsa^a	And they assigned his burial with wicked men and with a rich man his tomb¹ ויתנו את רשעים קברו ועמ עשירים בומתו
2. in his deaths	MT	And he assigned his burial with wicked men, and with a rich man in his deaths (?) וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים קִבְרוֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁיר בְּמֹתָ֑יו
	LXX	And I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death καὶ δώσω τοὺς πονηροὺς ἀντὶ τῆς ταφῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ·
	Symmachus (via Eusebius)	He will assign the wicked for his grave και δωσει τους ασεβεις αντι της ταφης αυτου
	Latin Vulgate	And he will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death et dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sua
	Syriac Peshitta	He gave his grave with the impious and the rich in his death (or at his death) ܝܗܒ ܪܫܝܥܐ ܩܒܪܗ ܘܥܬܝܪܐ ܒܡܘܬܗ
	Aramaic Targum	And he will hand over the wicked to Gehenna and those rich in possessions which they robbed to a death of Perdition וְיִמסַר יָת רַשִיעַיָא לְגֵיהִנָם וְיָת עַתִּירֵי נִכסַיָא דַּאְנַסוּ בְּמוֹתא דְאַבדָנָא
3. his high places	Medieval MSS²	“his high places” בְּמֹתָ֑יו] בָמתיו

A survey of witnesses to Isaiah 53:9

The three main options are:

“his tomb” 1QIsa^a
“in his deaths” MT, Targum, smoothly translated as “in his death” in LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta
“his high places” Medieval Hebrew manuscripts

Observations

First, we need to consider whether or not the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) from the Dead Sea Scrolls has preserved a better reading than the Masoretic Text. Isaiah 53:9 is rendered by the ESV as: “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death.”

The Great Isaiah Scroll was among the first discovered. Today, it is housed at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. Photo by Dennis Jarvis
How Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove?
The Great Isaiah Scroll is a crucial piece of the Old Testament puzzle, but it doesn’t give us the whole picture.
Anthony Ferguson

For the phrase “in his death,” the Masoretic Text (MT) has “in his deaths,” with the word for death in the plural (בְּמֹתָ֑יו) followed by the pronoun. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word for “death” is found in the plural only in Ezekiel 28:10 where the phrase means “the deaths of the uncircumcised people” (מוֹתֵי עֲרֵלִים) and both words are plural. Thus, a phrase “in his deaths” where “death” is plural and the referent is singular is both odd and unique. And this is not from a small sample; the noun “death” is found 161× in the MT (including Isa. 53:9).

Two medieval manuscripts and the first hand of a third have בָמתיו (also Rome, Bibl. Vat. Urbinates 1). If the first vowel is qāmeṣ instead of shewa, the phrase would mean “his high places.” This is an error in vocalization since shewa is guaranteed by a Masoretic note in our best manuscripts.³

The Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this phrase with the word “death” in the singular. This is a facilitating translation, smoothing over the difficulty. The Jewish revisor Symmachus corrects the first-person singular verb in the Septuagint to a 3rd masculine singular pronoun and renders “wicked” (רשעים) by the more usual equivalent “the wicked” (ἀσεβεῖς), but is not extant for the part of the verse we are considering. Nonetheless, the reading of Symmachus shows up the interpretive character of the LXX and aligns closely with the MT.

The paraphrase of the Aramaic Targum is the only witness which allows for this word a plural context thus supporting the MT. 1QIsa^a is the sole witness attesting בומתו, whose meaning will be discussed shortly. Note that 1QIsa^a also has בומתי in Isaiah 14:14 and 58:14. Its testimony is older than all of the other witnesses.

In the history of interpretation, almost the entire Jewish tradition reads “in his deaths.” Three Jewish commentators offer a different interpretation of whom the chief is Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164 AD). Ibn Ezra states: “some say that the word במתיו is from the root בָּמוֹתֵימוֹ (Deut. 33:29), the meaning being the construction one establishes over a grave. במתיו would therefore be similar to קברו [“his grave”]… If someone objects that the vocalization of בָּמוֹת does not change in בָּמותימו, while it changes in the word בְּמתיו, one can answer that this word can be spelled according to two noun patterns like סְרִיסֵי (“officers of”; Gen. 40:7) and סָרִיסֵי (“eunuchs of”; Est. 6:14).”

The Best Reading

Before offering an interpretation of the reading in 1QIsa^a, we must analyze the different ways the terms are spelled in this particular manuscript. This step will ensure accuracy of interpretation. Here is the data of 1QIsa^a with the MT given for comparison in parentheses:

“Tomb” or “Height”

Isaiah 14:14 בומתי (MT בָּמֳתֵי)
Isaiah 58:14 בומתי (MT בָּמֳותֵי)

“Cult Shrine” or “High Place”

Isaiah 16:12 הבמה (MT הַבָּמָה)
Isaiah 36:7 במותיו (MT בָּמֹתָיו)

This analysis shows that 1QIsa^a consistently distinguishes the Hebrew terms for “tomb” and “high place” with distinct ancient spellings for each. Concerning these spellings of 1QIsa^a (בומתו Isa. 53:9, בומתי in 14:14 and 58:14), let us note that, already in the 18th century, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Dr. Jubb already surmised that Hebrew lexicography is wrong to confuse a word במה (plural: במות) meaning “a place consecrated to the deity,” “a cult center or shrine,” with a word במות (plural: במותים) designating a “height.”⁴ In this sense (attested in Isa. 14:14; 58:14), the word would designate in Isaiah 53:9 more specifically a funerary mound or tomb. Note that in Isaiah 16:12 and 36:7 where it clearly indicates places of worship, 1QIsa^a does not write waw (ו) in the first syllable. Barthélemy believes that the spellings of 1QIsa^a confirm the opinion of Bauer/Leander (597) who saw in בָּמֳתֵי the plural constructed from a singular בֹּ֫מֶת. He argues that we should correct Jubb’s intuition and say therefore that we have confused in the Masoretic vocalization and in the lexicons, a word בָּמָ֫ה “high place” and a word בֹּ֫מֶת “funerary mound.” 1QIsa^a allows us to find the second word in Isaiah 53:9.

There may be a problem, however, in proposing בֹּ֫מֶת as the form of the noun in the singular. If the singular was “tomb”(בֹּ֫מֶת), the construct plural would be “of tombs” (בָּמְתֵי), like “of holy ones” (קָדְשֵׁי), instead of the spelling “of heights” (בָּמֳתֵי)which is found in MT in Isaiah 14:14 and 58:14. In a reanalysis of the form of the noun, Hardy and Thomas propose a base form *bɘmot derived from original *bumut. This would yield a noun bɘmot, construct masc. plural בָּמֳתֵי. This noun means “back, mountain ridge » height, barrow/funeral mound.” A different and unrelated noun would be bɔmɔ, plural bɔmôt meaning “cult center / shrine.”⁵

But since the Great Isaiah Scroll is consistent in 14:14, 53:9 and 58:14 versus 16:12 and 36:7, we are looking directly at genuine evidence for the Hebrew language in the second or first century BC, not a corruption in one place in a manuscript. And this is the earliest interpretation! Moreover, the base meaning of the noun is “back” and not “corpse.” The notion of a back-shaped geographical feature like a mountain ridge or height can be easily derived metaphorically from “back.” Furthermore, an evolution in lexical usage from “open country” to “height” is just not plausible.

There is good reason, then, on the basis of our earliest witness to the text, to propose the following translation: “And he assigned his grave with the wicked and his tomb with a rich man.”

The Servant’s Tomb in the New Testament

Although this textual problem may not seem significant, this solution actually contributes to the portrait and prediction of the suffering servant. Assigning the servant’s tomb with a rich man accords with a detail given by Matthew that “a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, … took the body [of Jesus] … and laid it in his own new tomb” (Matt. 27:57–60). Our reading of Isaiah 53:9 fits the prediction of the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb that Matthew reports.

Our reading fits the prediction of the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb that Matthew reports.

Therefore, in summary, the servant was stricken to death in 53:8 and assigned a tomb with a rich man in 53:9. There is a progression between these two verses which matches the early creed that Paul also received as of chief importance: “Christ died … according to the Scriptures and was buried … according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

Notes

1
Corrector has עשיר (singular) by erasing ים and corrected עמ to עת (= את assuming weakening of gutturals). 1QIsa^b and 4QIsa^d are damaged at this place in the manuscript and do not give pertinent information for this problem.
2
de Rossi 440, 545, primo 304
3
Petrograd Prophets, Paris BN heb 2 and 6, Rome, Bibl. Vat. ebr 468 and 482, and Second Rabbinic Bible.
4
Quoted by Robert Lowth, Isaiah. A New Translation with … Notes, London, 1778.
5
Hardy and Thomas reject the proposal that Isaiah 53:9 is related to bɘmot meaning ‘back’ » ‘height’ for the following reasons: “it preferences the evidence from one text, the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa), which it has been suggested represents a corruption, over that of the earliest interpreters; and second, it relies on a meaning of the lexeme, ‘dead body, corpse’, unattested elsewhere (Kogan and Tishchenko, p. 346).” See Humphrey H. Hardy II and Benjamin D. Thomas, “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew bɔmɔ ‘High Place’,” Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012): 175–188. They are responding to L. Kogan and S. Tishchenko, “Lexicographic Notes on Hebrew bamah,” Ugarit-Forschungen 34 (2002), 319–52. Nonetheless, the Great Isaiah Scroll is consistent in Isaiah 14:14, 53:9 and 58:14 versus 16:12 and 36:7.

Part 2: Does Isaiah’s Servant Really Die for the People?

The ancient witnesses to Isaiah 53:8 disagree on a central confession about Jesus’ death found in the New Testament.

John D. Meade

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.

These different renderings arose because of a difficult Hebrew text.

The New English Bible actually renders a different Hebrew text, “stricken to death for my people’s transgression.”¹ 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.

Reading	Witness	Text
1. He was stricken to death	LXX	Due to the lawless deeds of my people, he was led to death ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον
2. He was stricken for them	1QIsa^a	Due to the transgression of his people, he was stricken for them מפשע עמו נוגע למו
3. He struck them	MS 715	Due to the transgression of my people, he struck them מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נָגַע לָמֹו
	Theodotion, Aquila	Due to the faithlessness of my people, he struck them ἀπὸ ἀθεσίας τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥψατο αὐτῶν
	Latin Vulgate	Due to the sin of my people, he struck them propter scelus populi mei percussit eos
	Syriac Peshitta	And due to iniquities of my people, they struck him ܘܡܢ ܥ̇ܘ̈ܠܐ ܕܥܡܝ ܩܪܒܘ ܠܗ
	Aramaic Targum	The sins which my people sinned he will cast on them חובין דחבו עמי עד לותהון ימטי
4. Strike was theirs	MT	Due to the transgression of my people, the strike belonged to them מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמֹו
	Symmachus	Due to the offense of my people, the strike belonged to them διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν τοῦ λαοῦ μου πληγὴ αὐτοῖς
	1QIsa^b, 4QIsa^d	Due to the transgression of my people, the strike(?) belonged to them מפשע עמי נגע למו

A survey of witnesses to Isaiah 53:8

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

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

Isaiah 53:8 in Codex Leningrad (1008 AD), 1QIsa^a (2nd c. BC), and Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. AD). Images from Sefaria, Wikipedia, Codex Sinaiticus

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.²

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 is ultimately something central to the New Testament’s witness about Jesus.

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.

Part 1: The Servant Sprinkles Many as Anointed Priest

The first in our Easter series argues that the servant is not marred but rather anointed as a priest who sprinkles many.

Peter J. Gentry

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:

¹³See, my servant shall prosper;
    he shall be exalted and lifted up,
    and shall be very high.
¹⁴Just as there were many who were astonished at him
    —so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance,
    and his form beyond that of mortals—
¹⁵so 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.¹

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.

Neither Christian nor Jewish interpretations in the past adequately grappled with the grammatical structure.

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.

Reading	Witness	Text
Ambiguous	Masoretic Text	So he will sprinkle/startle many nations כֵּן יַזֶּה גּוֹיִם רַבִּים עָלָיו
	Dead Sea Scrolls	So he will sprinkle/startle many nations כן יזה גואים רבים עליו
“Astonish”	LXX	So shall many nations be astonished at him οὕτως θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπʼ αὐτῷ
“Sprinkle”	Theodotion, Aquila	He shall sprinkle… ῥαντίσει
	Symmachus	he will reject… ἀποβάλλει
	Latin Vulgate	He shall sprinkle many nations iste asperget gentes multas
	Syriac Peshitta	This one purifies many nations² ܗܢܐ ܡܕܟܐ ܥ̈ܡܡܐ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ
	Aramaic Targum	so he shall sprinkle many nations כֵין יְבַדַר עַמְמִין סַגִיאִין

A survey of key witnesses to the verb in Isaiah 52:15

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.

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).³ 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.

The noun “anointing” (מִשְׁחָה) is well attested in the biblical text (23×) whereas a noun “ruination” (מִשְׁחָת) is otherwise unknown in the Hebrew Scriptures.
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.

Isaiah is describing the dignity of a 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.⁴

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:

¹⁴Just as there were many who were astonished at him,
so his anointing was beyond that of men,
and his form beyond that of mortals,
¹⁵so 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.⁵ 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 picked up repeatedly by the New Testament writers.

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).

A New Series on Isaiah’s Suffering Servant

Our Easter series addresses a set of textual problems that are crucial to the identity of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.

John D. Meade

As Easter approaches, many Christians will be remembering the gospel of Christ, that he died for our sins, was buried, and was raised “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). No doubt, one scripture that many will read during holy week will be Isaiah 52:13–53:12, also known as the fourth servant song. This passage is a crucial text for understanding the events that took place in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago. Numerous questions surround this famous text, the most important of which is the identity of the servant.

Four servant songs

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is the last and by far the most famous of Isaiah’s four servant songs. In all four, the vexing question is the identity of the servant. In the first song (Isa. 42:1–9), Isaiah presents the nation of Israel as the servant.

In the second (Isa. 49:1–13), at first, Israel is identified with the servant (49:3) but then, shockingly, the servant is tasked to turn Jacob back to the Lord and to gather Israel to him (49:5). The servant must be one who can both embody the nation and be distinct from it at the same time, as a king who represents his people completely. The third and fourth servant songs (50:4–9; 52:13–53:12) read straightforwardly, if the servant is the future king, David’s awaited descendant. Thus, the last three of the servant songs can be read as speaking about the one king in relationship to the nation: he embodies and represents the nation totally, but he must also now intervene and save the nation.

The servant’s identity

But not all readers arrive at this conclusion and interpretation has been varied. The identity of the servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 has been debated from the beginning. In Acts 8:26–35, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the prophet Isaiah, but he does not know how to interpret Isaiah 53:7–8. The eunuch asks Philip to help him understand, “I ask you, concerning whom does the prophet say this? Concerning himself or concerning another?” (Acts 8:34). Philip begins from this scripture to preach Jesus to him.

The identity of the servant has been debated from the beginning.

Today, debate over the identity of the Servant continues to divide interpreters. Jewish interpreters typically say the servant is the nation of Israel. Most Christian interpreters claim the servant is Jesus the Messiah, while some commentators continue to hold that the servant is the prophet. Have most Christians been wrong for 2,000 years in interpreting the servant as Jesus? To answer this, we need to ask a prior question about the textual transmission of Isaiah 52:13–53:12.

The text

The more fundamental question is what the text of the song is. English Bible readers may not be aware that there are several important problems in the textual history of this passage that affect translation and therefore interpretation. In fact, our major English versions disagree on which manuscripts preserve the original text, and therefore, they disagree at several key points within this passage. And these are no minor differences. They center on the servant’s identity and work, his suffering and death, his burial, his resurrection, and his bearing of sins and intervention at the rebellions of the many. Indeed, the problems cluster around the very tenets of the Gospel that Paul says he received as of chief importance (1 Cor. 15:3–5).

A new series

Over the weeks leading up to Easter, the Text & Canon Institute will be addressing some of the most important textual problems in the fourth servant song. Dr. Peter Gentry, Dr. Anthony Ferguson, and I will guide readers through these difficulties. We will treat these five textual issues:

Does the servant startle the nations because he is disfigured or sprinkle them after being anointed? (Isa. 52:14–15)
Is the servant stricken for the people’s rebellion, or are they? (Isa. 53:8)
Is the servant’s death or his tomb that is with the rich? (Isa. 53:9)
Who and what does the servant intercede for? (Isa. 53:12)
Is the resurrection of the servant anticipated in what he sees? (Isa. 53:11)

We want to help readers see the problems in the textual history of this passage by comparing English translations and commentaries. When readers see the analysis of difficulties in our primary sources, they can appreciate how textual criticism aims to determine the probable, original text and how those decisions influence Bible translation at the most fundamental level. Since texts were copied by hand, those hands sometimes changed the text when copying it. Many of these modifications are insignificant, but in Isaiah 52:13–53:12, there are important differences to the text we would do well to note and form opinions about.

Join us this Easter season for a series of articles on the intersection between textual criticism and Bible translation as we give a deep reading of one of the most significant passages that informs us about the person and work of Christ.

Be sure to subscribe to get the new articles in the series in your inbox.

The Letter and the Spirit

The evangelical scholar has no need to fear or to exclude the Holy Spirit when practicing textual criticism.

Maurice A. Robinson

But when that one should come—the Spirit of Truth—he will guide you into all the truth. John 16:13

In the 19th and early 20th centuries most New Testament textual scholars freely acknowledged divine involvement when discussing not only the inspiration of the Greek New Testament but a divine providence that had preserved the biblical text throughout the centuries of manual transmission.¹

The Neglect of the Holy Spirit

More recently, however, such divine oversight has become a missing factor in the discipline of New Testament textual criticism: most current handbooks make no mention of God, inspiration, preservation, or the role of the Holy Spirit—even among works from professed evangelical believers. Metzger and most other contemporary textual critics make no mention in their textual studies of divine inspiration, the providential activity of God, or the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving the biblical text.

As David Parker notes, theological affirmation has become disconnected from the “science and art” of New Testament textual criticism: “Any theological a priori, which says this or that about the New Testament . . . is an arbitrary attempt to impose dogma on reality”²—even while theological handbooks freely discuss such matters.

Theological affirmation has become disconnected from the “science and art” of textual criticism.

Yet for the evangelical, John Skilton wrote in 1946 that “God’s Word has been preserved throughout the ages in an essentially and remarkably pure form”—a statement that parallels F. J. A. Hort’s comment in 1882 that “Variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text.”³ Contemporary works nevertheless tend not to apply theological concepts directly to the matter of New Testament textual criticism, even if such tacitly undergird the text-critical field itself.

But why should any real separation necessarily exist between the respective concepts? Perhaps it is as James Borland suggests: “Young evangelical exegetes do not want to seem out of step with the assured results of modern textual criticism which accept questionable postulates.”⁴ One therefore has to wonder why there should be an apparent capitulation to a secular approach when endeavoring to determine the proper form and content of the New Testament text. In effect, a general “neutrality” tends to predominate among most contemporary textual critics, evangelical or otherwise.

Although theological misappropriations often appear in comments on New Testament textual criticism—particularly among the movements that effectively avoid scholarly interaction by restricting authenticity to a particular form of the text found in early printed Greek or English editions—this merely shows that the theological envelope must not be pushed too far. Even when the Holy Spirit is acknowledged in regard to textual preservation, the level of influence and the degree of precision that preservation entails remain matters for discussion. As even the former evangelical Bart Ehrman has noted, “The evidence must lead to the doctrine, not vice versa.”⁵

The Spirit’s Place

The simple recognition of what God has permitted to take place by the more natural means of transmission remains far superior to expecting or proclaiming a perpetual miracle throughout transmissional history. As F. H. A. Scrivener noted, “We may confidently pronounce beforehand, that such a fact could not have been reasonably anticipated, and is not at all agreeable to the general tenour of God’s dealings with us,” and that for Scripture we should “recognize the more fully its general integrity in the midst of partial variation.”⁶

While we should therefore recognize and grant guidance by “the Spirit of truth” in relation to “all the truth,” the fact remains that the precise wording of the New Testament text frequently diverges. Even in the quotation from John 16:13 cited at the head of this essay, the final clause of that segment (“he will guide you into all the truth”) has seven differing phrasings among the Greek manuscripts and two additional phrasings exclusive to the Old Latin and Vulgate, even while each variant provides an almost identical declaration. Combining the data from multiple editions, one finds the following among Greek and Old Latin/Vulgate manuscripts:⁷

ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν	E. G. H. K. Γ. Δ. Π. Ψ. 068. 0141. 0233. f¹³. 28 157. 180. 205. 597. 700. 892s. 1006. 1009. 1010. 1079. 1195. 1216. 1230. 1241. 1242. 1243. 1292. 1342. 1344. 1365. 1424. 1505. 1506. 1546. 1646. 2148. 2174. Byz. Lect. L-844. L-2211. f. q. r¹
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ	ℵ¹. L. W. 1. 33. 565. 1071. 1582. al. b. [NA/UBS]
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν	A. B. 054. pc. e. vg^st. Or
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ	ℵ*
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πᾶσιν	579
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ	Θ. ff²
ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ	D. d
ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν	a
διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀληθείαν πᾶσαν	aur. c. (l). vg^{cl, ww}

Such a variety of reading in one short phrase informs us about both the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to textual preservation and the nature and task of New Testament textual criticism in general. Obviously, the preservational role of the Holy Spirit is neither absolute nor specifically miraculous, but occupies a passive and apparently minimalist role rather than an active or observable divine interference within the transmissional process.

Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from Wikimedia Commons
Providence and Preservation
The different methods and modes of divine providence help us better understand God’s role in the Bible’s preservation.
Richard Brash

Avoiding Extremes

A proper evangelical position regarding the purpose and role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the providential preservation of the New Testament text therefore must stand firmly between two extremes:

At one extreme is an abandonment of scientific textual criticism, placing one’s trust instead in either questionable early printed editions that freeze and isolate the text in various “received” forms, or in the presumed text that underlies a particular (KJV) English translation.
At an opposing extreme is a capitulation to modern or postmodern secularism, emphasizing a prevailing doubt and uncertainty regarding the basic integrity and reliability of the text of Scripture, thus effectively excluding God and the Holy Spirit from any role whatever in relation to New Testament textual criticism.

By overemphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit, textual criticism as a discipline ceases to function for any actual purpose. By minimizing or eliminating his role, the text-critical field becomes indistinguishable from that underlying any other ancient work of antiquity. Either extreme creates a theological inconcinnity for the evangelical that fails to comport with acceptance of divine involvement in regard to the initial inspiration and preservation of the biblical text along with its establishment as canon so as to be an authoritative and God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) standard for church doctrine and practice.⁸

Giving Providence its Proper Place

A more excellent way should exist for the evangelical scholar that avoids both extremes: while divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the resultant, inerrancy, infallibility, and canonical status of the New Testament books should be affirmed, the evangelical scholar should also acknowledge the providential work of the Holy Spirit regarding the transmission and preservation of the text through human agency of various theological or even non-theological viewpoints. As David Dockery has noted: “At every point in the transmission, translation, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible we [evangelicals] see God’s providential hand at work.”⁹

At every point in the transmission, translation, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible we see God’s providential hand at work.

One therefore should accept theologically that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the background, with the ultimate goal of preserving his inspired and authoritative New Testament text in a form that guarantees its general reliability, even while various human scholars attempt to establish a more precise form of that text by eliminating, correcting, and repairing the errors and intentional variations that developed over the centuries.

As John H. Skilton pertinently stated long ago,

We must look for such grounds for the acceptance or rejection of variant readings as God has provided and seek to glorify him by arriving at the truth in the manner which he has made available to us . . . . We may receive benefits from the working of the Holy Spirit in us, but we ought not to expect that the necessity for consecrated scientific investigation will be removed.¹⁰

Ultimately, the role of the Holy Spirit in New Testament textual criticism remains that promised in John 16:13—the Spirit is there to “lead” and “guide” (ὁδήγειν) the evangelical believer in a manner consistent with the Spirit’s guidance and leadership in all other areas of Christian faith and practice.¹¹ Such involvement by the Holy Spirit permeates and undergirds the labors of the evangelical Christian scholar, even when the various text-critical theories and practices might appear identical to those of various non-evangelical or even non-Christian scholars. As Skilton further explains,

The conservative scholar, [with his] . . . . reverence for the Scripture and his labors on the text will be used by God in the preservation and transmission of his Word . . . . In God’s providence men may glorify him by textual studies and may aid in the preservation of his Word in a form of exceptional purity.¹²

The evangelical scholar thus should seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit while making judgments on textual variants based on the available external and internal data. The evangelical thereby honors the Holy Spirit who not only has inspired the Holy Scriptures, but continues to guide the textual researcher “into all truth.”¹³

Evidence of Providence

Given that the Greek New Testament tends to maintain an approximately 94% identity of reading among all editions, regardless of theory, text-type, or favored manuscripts, such a strong textual base should cause the evangelical scholar seriously to consider the role of the Holy Spirit in regard to the establishment and preservation of his inspired text. Even among the circa 6% of variation that remains, the evangelical can affirm a general Spirit-based oversight, given that most variant readings either do not affect the meaning and interpretation of the text, or are readily resolved by reasonable principles of evaluation.

As Greg Bahnsen suggests, “By His providential control God . . . . provides for the essential accuracy of the Bible’s copying.”¹⁴ Such “providential control” requires no direct or miraculous intervention, but only capacities granted to well-prepared human agents, who themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) labor under the providential care and generally invisible influence of the Holy Spirit himself.

In particular, the primary establishment of the text does not depend upon one’s view of inerrancy or providential preservation, nor should text-critical decisions reflect an a priori choice on the basis of theological considerations that merely attempt to sidestep difficult interpretative problems. The actual data and legitimate text-critical principles cannot be bypassed or nullified for particular theological or pro-inerrantist gain, but remain applicable to the determination of the most likely New Testament autograph reading at any point. As the present writer noted on the ETC blog, inerrancy is not the “overriding master for establishing the text, but rather a hermeneutical servant when dealing with the interpretation of the text as previously established.”

Inerrancy is not the overriding master for establishing the text, but rather a hermeneutical servant.

Such a scenario for the evangelical merely recognizes the Bible and the New Testament in particular as primarily theological works that were canonically recognized as authoritative and intended for the doctrinal and practical instruction and guidance of those who have comprised God’s Church through the centuries. It is therefore quite reasonable that evangelicals should reflect upon the providential role of the Holy Spirit as they evaluate the existing manuscript, versional, and patristic data while endeavoring to establish the NT text in its most accurate form. For the evangelical, the benevolent providential guidance of the Holy Spirit in New Testament text-critical research overshadows the establishment of the NT text, in a manner not requiring direct miraculous intervention.

Cautions

Even so, a few cautions remain for the evangelical textual critic. These include the following:

An avoidance of dogmatic assertions that particular debatable readings must be precisely those that God has inspired.
Not granting an unnecessary capitulation to various subjective elements, whether evangelical or otherwise;

The evangelical scholar should cautiously oppose such potentially attractive alternatives and thereby avoid text-critical doublethink when dealing with textual alteration. Theology should derive from the text as established; one cannot simply shape the text to fit one’s theological presuppositions. Although theology remains a factor when interpreting the data within a particular presuppositional framework, if a person’s theological views distort an honorable and fair assessment of the evidence, the results will have been forced to fit the theology, regardless of data to the contrary. As Dan Wallace’s former student, Bill Brown, has observed: “Nothing ruins consistent textual criticism like a theological a priori.”

Since no textual critic—evangelical or otherwise—possesses the Urim and Thummim so as to make an absolute determination in regard to a plethora of variant units, the evangelical scholar should consider the resolution of textual variation as a matter based on constant prayer, having a confidence that the Holy Spirit will continue his underlying providential guidance, leading the believing textual critic to a goal transcending what might be weighed under various secular methodological approaches. As Brittany Melton pertinently stated in an Old Testament context: “Divine providential guidance can be perceived only in retrospect.”¹⁵

Conclusion

The evangelical practitioner of New Testament textual criticism has no need either to fear or exclude the Holy Spirit.

The evangelical practitioner of New Testament textual criticism has no need either to fear or exclude the Holy Spirit when engaging in the practice of the discipline.¹⁶ Although one should avoid the “theological argument” approach when attempting to establish the New Testament text, at the same time one must not abandon the evangelical theological perspective. The evangelical textual critic can thus affirm in one domain with David Sorenson that

God in his providence has allowed the preservation of his inspired words by human means in a manner such that the text thereby preserved remains wholly sufficient and authoritative regarding all matters necessary for salvation, doctrine, instruction, reproof, application, and a prophetic perspective, along with commands requisite for conduct and morality as such relates to his Church, comprised of those believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.¹⁷

And equally, though coming from a different perspective, the evangelical textual critic can affirm with Kenneth W. Clark:

The Bible is for us the word of God, our chief guide for the salvation of humanity . . . . We who are Christians perceive in it, above all other writings, man’s only hope of life. It is with this book that the textual critic deals. This is the book whose true text he seeks, and whose transmission from generation to generation he studies to understand.¹⁸

And so may it be.

The text of manuscript 579 reads πᾶσιν not πάσῃ at John 16:13. An earlier version of this article mistakenly listed it with both.

Notes

1
This article was originally presented in fuller form at the ETS 70th Annual Meeting, November 15–17, 2018 in Denver, Colorado.
2
D. C. Parker, “Textual Criticism and Theology,” ExT 118 (2007): 588.
3
John H. Skilton, “The Transmission of the Scriptures,” in Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Wooley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967), 164; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2: Introduction and Appendix (London: Macmillan, 1882), 564–565.
4
James A. Borland, “The Preservation of the New Testament Text: A Common-Sense Approach,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10 (1999): 48.
5
Bart D. Ehrman, “New Testament Textual Criticism: Quest for Methodology” (MDiv Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981), 48.
6
F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 vols.; 4th ed. rev. by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), 1:2–3, 7.
7
Data is taken from SQE¹⁵, UBS^3–5 and NA^26–28. UBS^4–5 erroneously cites Θ for two different readings (the error not reproduced here).
8
As Michael Kruger has observed, “If God intended his people to have his Word, then it is reasonable to think that he providentially oversaw the entire process so that his Word was faithfully delivered.” Michael J. Kruger, “Do We Have a Trustworthy Text? Inerrancy and Canonicity, Preservation, and Textual Criticism,” in John MacArthur, ed., The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 315.
9
David S. Dockery, The Doctrine of the Bible (Nashville: Convention Press, 1991), 100; emphasis added.
10
Skilton, “Transmission,” 170–171.
11
As J. L. Dagg noted, “We are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular.” J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg VA: Gano, 1982 rep. ed. [1857]), 24–25.
12
Skilton, “Transmission,” 169, 194–195.
13
As Merrill Parvis noted: “The New Testament is the Church’s Book . . . . In the last analysis it is the tradition of the Church and not the vagaries of our own scholarship which must determine the contents of that Book.” Merrill M. Parvis, “The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies,” Studia Evangelica VI (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 403.
14
Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), n.p. (electronic edition).
15
Brittany N, Melton, Where is God in the Megilloth? A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence, Oudtestamentische Studiën/Old Testament Studies 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 146.
16
Cf. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer, eds., Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
17
David H. Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation (Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001). Note that Sorenson stands clearly within the TR/KJV-only camp.
18
Kenneth W. Clark, “The Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament,” in Merrill M. Parvis and Allen P. Wikgren, eds., New Testament Manuscript Studies: The Materials and the Making of a Critical Apparatus (Chicago: University Press, 1950), 1. Clark notably represents a far more liberal theological perspective.

Why Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?

Knowledge of the Bible’s history clears away the caricatures and misinformation swirling around this common question.

John D. Meade

Why do Catholic Bibles contain more books than Protestant ones? Few questions provoke more curiosity (and angst) about the history of the Bible than why and how the two major western branches of Christianity have different books in the Book. The Roman Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestant Bible contains 66.

Both groups claim the Bible functions as their authority for doctrine, though admittedly in different ways. That is, Protestants and Catholics claim the Bible is their canon or authority for faith and morals. Before we can understand how each group reads their Bible, we need to learn the differences between the bibles they read. To do that, we will detail the major differences, describe the history of the canon, and then show why the question matters.

The Differences

Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament. Thus, the differences between their Bibles concerns the boundaries of the Old Testament canon. In short, Catholics have 46 books, while Protestants have 39. Thus, Catholics have seven more books and also some additions within shared books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus / Sirach / Ben Sira, 1–2 Maccabees, Baruch, and the additions to Daniel and Esther.

Protestants call these books collectively, “the Apocrypha,” while Catholics refer to them as “the Deuterocanon.” Here, “Deuterocanon” does not mean second in authority but second only in reception in time. The Protestant Old Testament agrees with the narrower contents of the Hebrew canon (though not the ordering and numbering of books), while the Catholic Old Testament contains these same books plus the deuterocanonical books.

How the Different Canons Arose

At the start, several simplistic answers need to be avoided. These include the notion that Protestants removed books from the Bible or that Roman Catholics finally published their Bible pure and simple at the Council of Trent. As we will see, the Old Testament’s history from the beginning of the Christian era to the 16th century was quite complex. One must understand the early history of the relationship of the canon to these other books before making sweeping statements about what happened in the 16th century.

Early Christian History (100–400 AD)

Early Christians answered the question “What is the Old Testament?” differently as they recognized the voice of their Shepherd in the Jewish writings that remained. Jesus and the Apostles did not leave behind a list of authoritative books for the earliest church, and there were various spiritually significant books and different opinions about them. The complete Greek Bible codices of the fourth century (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) contained many of the deuterocanonical books alongside the others. They were integrated alongside the rest of the Old Testament.

Christians were clearly copying and reading these books. Whether they considered them as having authority or not is a separate question, as we will see. Furthermore, in the third century, Christians began to cite the deuterocanonical books as “scripture.” Clearly, they considered these works important. Although the New Testament and second-century authors never cite the deuterocanonical books as scripture, they do allude to them, showing awareness of them. (See, for example, the allusion to the Jewish martyrs of 2 Maccabees 6–7 in Heb. 11:35.)

But Paul’s statement in Romans 3:2, “the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God,” probably led many early Christians to conclude that the church’s Old Testament canon should match the Jewish canon. The earliest, second- and third-century lists of Melito of Sardis, Bryennios list, Origen of Alexandria, and the fourth-century Greek lists (e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus) omitted almost all of the deuterocanonical books (e.g., some still included Baruch as part of Jeremiah).¹

These Christians and others beside did not outright reject the deuterocanonical books. Rather, they considered them useful for believers to read for edification, but not authoritative for doctrine. That is, their first-tier-canonical books established doctrine for the church, while second-tier-readable books illustrated piety for believers. That is a crucial distinction that is sometimes lost today.

First-tier books established doctrine while second-tier books illustrated piety for believers.

However, in the Latin West, another development was underway. Instead of asking whether a book was part of the Jewish canon, some early Christians accepted a book into the canon if the churches read and received that book. Augustine of Hippo and Pope Innocent I, for example, clearly accepted the deuterocanonical books based on this consideration. But other Latin Christians such as Jerome of Stridon and Rufinus of Aquileia continued to promote the narrower canon, placing the deuterocanonical books in a secondary list of edificatory books that did not establish church doctrine.

Illustrations by Peter Gurry. Photos from iStock and Insight of the King
How Can You Know We Have the Right Books in the Bible?
Any study of the canon must eventually ask how Christians know which books belong and which don’t.
Michael J. Kruger

What this short survey shows is that fourth-century Christians were divided over the criteria for the Old Testament canon. Based on the canon lists, most Christians would have followed the Hebrew canon criterion for determining what belonged in their own. But others determined the Christian Old Testament by looking at what books the churches were reading in public and accepting. The two views agreed on the Hebrew canon but disagreed on the status of the deuterocanonical books with some relegating them to a secondary, edificatory status and others integrating them with the rest of the books. The issue was still debated in the early Reformation period and into the period of the Roman Catholic response in the Council of Trent (1546).

Reformation Period and Council of Trent

Although the Council of Florence around 1445 included a list of Old Testament books that incorporated the deuterocanonical books, the list did not have dogmatic definition. This means that Catholics before the Council of Trent were still debating the Old Testament canon in different ways. For example, Cardinal Ximénes (best known for his role as Grand Inquisitor), Cardinal Cajetan (known for his role as reviewer of Martin Luther’s teachings at the Diet of Augsburg in 1518), and the great Catholic scholar Erasmus would have probably agreed with the early Protestants on the contents of the Old Testament and the distinction between the canonical books and the edificatory deuterocanonical books. But other Catholic theologians were persuaded that Pope Innocent, Pope Eugenius, and the Council of Florence among others included the deuterocanonical books in the canon.

When the Council of Trent convened in 1546 to discuss the matter of the canon of scripture, they committed to printing the list of books of the Council of Florence, but they did not believe they were settling once and for all the debate between Augustine and Jerome—a live debate at the time between Humanist and Protestant scholars on the one hand and Catholics on the other.

But when the council published its decree on the canon, the text did not clearly reflect this live debate. Instead, it came with an unqualified list of books that included the deuterocanonical books on the same tier as the other books. But the minutes and papers of the Council of Trent’s meetings suggest a different story. They show that the theologians and church leaders believed they were not settling the long-held debate over the deuterocanonical books despite the fact that their decree published the wider list of books without any qualification or explanation. As one recent Catholic historian says, “In this case at least, the council itself must be held responsible for the misunderstanding.”²

From this point forward, Catholic apologists, who should have known better, began to defend this canon as part of Roman Catholic identity. For their part, Protestants also understood Trent’s decision as a way to include the deuterocanonical books that supported some of their doctrinal positions.

In 1566, Roman Catholic theologian, Sixtus of Sienna, coined the term “Deuterocanonical” to describe these books together with a few others that Christians would not call Deuterocanonical today (e.g., Revelation). By “Deuterocanonical,” Sixtus means second in time of reception—not second in authority and dignity. These books were slower to be received into the church’s canon of scripture, and therefore he called them deuterocanonical, while Protestants continued to call these books “Apocrypha,” clearly preserving the ancient distinction between them and the canonical books.

Do the Differences Matter?

As early as 1519, the differences between these canons could be felt. At a debate in Leipzig, Martin Luther and Catholic Johann Maier von Eck debated the doctrine of purgatory and the role of indulgences among other issues. As Luther questioned the scriptural authority for purgatory, he noted that 2 Maccabees 12:43–45 might offer some opinion, but “since Maccabees is not in the canon,” it is only effective for the faithful and does not furnish such authority. Only books in the canon could establish doctrine. If a book’s canonical status was disputed, as all the deuterocanonical books were, then it was not a sufficient authority. In this, Luther was appealing to Jerome’s view.

In 1547, one year after Trent’s decree on the canon, John Calvin in his Antidote argued that the leaders at Trent “provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?”³

These early Protestants understood clearly that the Apocryphal books taught different doctrines than the canonical books, and once the Roman Catholic Church lent full authority to them, many of their teachings could then find full support too. Clearly, the differences between the two canons are not trivial. Canon means authority, and thus, an authoritative support for the church’s teachings.

Clearly, the differences between the two canons are not trivial. Canon means authority, and thus, an authoritative support for the church’s teachings.

Conclusion

Today, because of the different canons, Catholics and Protestants have different scriptural authorities. Opening up the history of the matter shows that Catholics at Trent did not think they were solving the canon debate or publishing the Catholic Bible once and for all, even if the decree had that effect.

Similarly, the history of the matter shows that Protestants were not removing books from the Bible, for their canon was not only traditional but, in so far as it cohered with the Hebrew canon, actually had the more ancient precedent. Knowledge of the Bible’s history clears away the caricatures and misinformation swirling around this question.

This article is also available in Polish.

Notes

1
For these lists and more in original languages and English translation see Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
2
John W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 92.
3
From Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Volume 3: Tracts, Part 3, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet (Edinburgh; Calvin Translation Society, 1851; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 68.

Topics

Levels

Theology

Witnesses

Observations

Related

The Best Reading

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

The Servant’s Tomb in the New Testament

Notes

The testimony of the ancient witnesses

Surveying the evidence

Reading 1

Reading 2

Reading 3

Reading 4

The original text

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Conclusion

Notes

1. The Grammatical structure

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

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

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

It shows his high office

It fits the Old Testament pattern

It makes best sense of the structure

Conclusion

Notes

Four servant songs

The servant’s identity

The text

A new series

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

The Neglect of the Holy Spirit

The Spirit’s Place

Related

Avoiding Extremes

Giving Providence its Proper Place

Evidence of Providence

Cautions

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Conclusion

Notes

The Differences

How the Different Canons Arose

Early Christian History (100–400 AD)

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Related

Reformation Period and Council of Trent

Do the Differences Matter?

Conclusion

Notes

Footer

Articles

Research

Events

About

Support