Isaiah 53

During Holy Week, Christians often turn their attention to the servant songs of Isaiah, and to Isaiah 53 in particular, because these passages depict the work of God’s salvation through a coming servant, a servant the New Testament writers identify as none other than Jesus (1 Pet. 2:22; Luke 22:37). In this series, we have reflected on several textual issues related to the servant’s identity and work.

As today is Easter Sunday, we turn our attention to the beginning of Isaiah 53:11 to ask whether Isaiah’s prophecy includes not only the servant’s death, but also his resurrection. A quick survey of a few of our English Bibles illustrates the nature of this textual problem and highlights the issue of what the servant sees.

ESV         Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied
NASB      As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied.
CSB         After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied.
NIV         After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied;

These four English translations take a slightly different approach to identifying what the servant sees. They range from an unidentified object to a specific object. On the one side, the ESV does not specify what the servant sees. The NASB identifies the object imprecisely as simply it.The CSB is more specific by describing the servant as seeing “light.” Finally, on the opposite side of the continuum, the NIV not only identifies the servant as seeing light but as seeing the “light of life.”

Witnesses

The difference between our English Bibles at the beginning of Isaiah 53:11 illustrates for us an ancient variant that scribes and Bible translators have considered for at least two thousand years. Here is a survey of how Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac scribes have approached this variant.

Although we could discuss multiple textual issues here, we will focus on the problem of what the servant sees. These ancient translations provide us with two basic options.

1. “He will see” MT, Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Targum, Peshitta
2. “He will see light” 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, and 4QIsa^d, LXX

External Evidence

The first reading is widespread, occurring in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts. Moreover, it is early since Aquila dates to the second century AD, and Theodotion probably dates to the first century. Despite these facts, it is not surprising that these texts agree with the Masoretic Text (MT) since they were all translated from a text very close to the MT. The Targum interprets an MT like text by adding the phrase “on the vengeance of their enemies, showing the textual difficulty in this verse.

The second reading is also widespread, occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew parent text of the LXX. It is even earlier than the first reading since the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) dates to the second century BC. 1QIsa^a is, in fact, our oldest biblical manuscript preserving this verse, and it reads “light.” Unlike the first reading, the external evidence for this second reading can be described as “surprising” since three Isaiah manuscripts from Qumran attest it. Most surprising of all is the testimony of 1QIsa^b, a first-century BC manuscript, that usually reads very closely with the MT. Here, however, it agrees with the LXX and two other Dead Sea Scrolls against the MT.

Overall, the external evidence favors the second reading: the servant sees “light.” Now, we turn to the internal evidence.

Internal Evidence

When considering internal evidence, we are asking the following questions: which reading was more likely to derive from a scribe, and which reading was more likely to derive from the author? We can answer these questions by comparing the reading of 1QIsa^b and the reading of the MT.¹Although 1QIsa^a is older than 1QIsa^b, we will compare the MT to 1QIsa^b because this is the only difference between these texts. 1QIsa^a has other minor differences when compared to the MT. The use of the Masoretic vowel signs didn’t develop until the fifth through seventh centuries so we will only compare the consonants.

MT                  מעמל נפשו יראה ישבע
                        From the anguish of his soul, he shall see; he shall be satisfied

1QIsa^b           מעמל נפשו יראה אור יש֯[בע
                        From the anguish of his soul, he shall see light; he shall be satisfied

Could the MT have lost the word “light” (אור)?

First, let’s consider if the MT lost this word by scribal error. Scribes, at times, omitted text when their eyes skipped over words. This is known as parablepsis (lit. “to look beside”). Parablepsis can be caused when words start with the same letters (homoioarcton) or when they end with them (homoioteleuton). These are not uncommon scribal errors. Yet, when we compare the reading of the MT with the reading of 1QIsa^b, parablepsis is not a likely explanation. Notice how the words אור (ʾôr) and ישבע (yiśbāʿ) do not begin with the same letter, ruling out homoioarcton. Likewise, יראה (yirʾeh) and אור (ʾôr) do not end with the same letter, ruling out homoioteleuton. Thus, the scribe of the MT likely did not commit parablepsis. If this was a scribal error, the error was simply a “random omission.”²Tov uses this language to describe this error in TCHB, 221.

What about an intentional omission? At times, scribes could intentionally omit words for the sake of clarity. But this cause, in my experience, is rare. Moreover, the immediate context of the MT does not provide a basis for omitting this word. That is, the effect of omitting this word does not achieve any apparent goal like providing greater clarity; if anything, it makes it less clear. This explanation seems unlikely.

Could the other witnesses have added “light” (אור)? First, could the word have been added through scribal error? At times, scribes accidentally add words. Reasons for adding content include errors such as dittography (a scribe writes a word twice instead of once), but the letters of the word “light” are not written twice so that explanation does not account for the data. In other instances, scribes may incorporate marginal readings into the text, but there is no evidence for that happening here. It is improbable that the other witnesses added this word by accident.

Second, could the other texts have added this word intentionally? This explanation is possible since the verb “to see” (ראה) often takes an object. People see “something” or “someone.” Even though this verb often takes objects, objects are not always specified.³See DCH, s.v. ראה. It is possible that the lack of an object led a subsequent scribe to add an object. Although this is possible, several witnesses have this object. How did this reading become so widespread if it was a scribal addition?⁴See Dominique Barthelemy Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Textual Criticism and the Translator 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 399.

To See Light or Not?

Finally, we should ask what’s at stake. What would it mean for the servant to “see light” here? There are two idiomatic phrases in Hebrew that are especially relevant. First, the phrase “see light” (יראה אור) is an idiom for describing life while the phrase “not seeing light” is an idiom of death.⁵John Meade mentioned this connection to me in a private conversation. Job 33:28 and 30, for example, describe life—resurrected life—as “seeing light.” Moreover, in Psalm 36:9, “seeing light” is associated with the “fountain of life” which is the opposite of death according to Proverbs 13:14 and 14:27. Furthermore, death is described in Job 3:16 and Psalm 49:19 as “not seeing light.” Second, a related Hebrew idiom means “to regain strength” (תארנה עינים).⁶See DCH, s.v. אור. This idiom is used by Jonathan to describe the effect of honey. Although famished and weak, the taste of honey caused his eyes to be bright (1 Sam. 14:27, 29).⁷Moreover, in Ben Sira 13:26, the author describes the happy heart as a “bright countenance” פנים אורים. Overall, the idea of “seeing light” describes life. And not just any life, but specifically the revival of life or resurrected life.

Isaiah describes the servant as smitten, afflicted, pierced, crushed, and oppressed. He is described as a lamb led to the slaughter. The climax of this suffering is none other than his death (Isa. 53:8) and being buried (Isa. 53:9); yet, out of this anguish, the servant “sees light” and is satisfied (Isa. 53:11). The reading of 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, 4QIsa^d, and the Hebrew parent text of the LXX describes the servant’s death and resurrection idiomatically as “seeing light.” Thus, what’s at stake, is nothing short of the servant’s resurrection after death.

The question remains: which reading is more original? The two (opposing) explanations with the best support are that:

1. the reading “light” was lost due to a scribal error
2. the reading was added for the sake of clarity

Among these options, my conclusion is that the more original reading is likely “he shall see light” because it is more likely that the small word “light” was lost in the MT tradition because of scribal error rather than the reading being a secondary addition preserved in three early Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran and the LXX. The fact that the reading “light” appears in 1QIsa^b is especially important since this text aligns closely with the MT tradition but disagrees here.

Conclusion

The textual problem in this text concerns the resurrection, a matter of first importance for the gospel according to Paul. He says this happened according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3–6). Without the resurrection, humanity is still lost and under the curse of sin. Without the resurrection, we stand before God still under our first father, Adam. The servant, however, as a new Adam, rewrites our past and gives us a new history through his resurrection.

This idea is taught in Isaiah 53 since the servant is “cut off from the land of the living”—an idiom for the curse and spiritual death (Isa. 53:8). Remarkably, Isaiah’s servant receives the covenantal blessings of an inheritance (Isa. 53:12) and, despite dying, he “shall see light” (Isa. 53:11). The dead can see light, and this is our hope for this Easter season. He is risen!

Notes

• 1
  Although 1QIsa^a is older than 1QIsa^b, we will compare the MT to 1QIsa^b because this is the only difference between these texts. 1QIsa^a has other minor differences when compared to the MT.
• 2
  Tov uses this language to describe this error in TCHB, 221.
• 3
  See DCH, s.v. ראה.
• 4
  See Dominique Barthelemy Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Textual Criticism and the Translator 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 399.
• 5
  John Meade mentioned this connection to me in a private conversation.
• 6
  See DCH, s.v. אור.
• 7
  Moreover, in Ben Sira 13:26, the author describes the happy heart as a “bright countenance” פנים אורים.

With this next problem in Isaiah 53, we come to a couple of textual problems that again touch on the servant’s vicarious death for the many. The problems in the prologue (52:14–15) showed us a servant who is an anointed high priest above others (rather than a disfigured person) and who sprinkles many nations. In 53:8–9, Isaiah describes the servant as one stricken to death and then subsequently assigned a tomb with a rich man.

The NIV is representative of our English translations for the final two lines of Isaiah 53:12:

For he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.

Is this the correct text and translation?

In what follows, we (1) give the manuscript evidence for the word “sin” in the first line and for the phrase “for the transgressors” in the last; (2) summarize the readings and make some observations about them; (3) treat the difficulty in our received Hebrew text or the Masoretic Text; and (4) conclude with my preferred translation and a few points on the relevance of the reading.

Witnesses

Here, we will list all the witnesses in original language and English translation. The textual problem is indicated in each witness by the use of italics so that one can see the different readings most clearly.¹For Theodotion, the reading is found in Armenian translation of a Greek work incorrectly attributed to Chrysostom but presented in Latin translation here. For Aquila, the reading is found in Armenian translation of a Greek work incorrectly attributed to Chrysostom but presented in Latin translation here. Theodoret cites Symmachus and follows with “and so also the Rest [of the translators];” that is, Aquila and Theodotion must have rendered the Hebrew similarly, but he does not give their exact readings.

Observations

From these sources, we can discern two problems, one in each line of the verse.

Isaiah 53:12a

1. “he bore the sins of many” 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, 4QIsa^d, LXX, Symmachus, Peshitta, Targum
2. “he bore the sin of many” MT, Vulgate

Isaiah 53:12b

1. “and at their rebellions he intervenes” 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, 4QIsa^d, LXX
2. “and he intercedes for the rebels” MT, Theodotian, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshitta, Targum

What does the servant bear?

Regarding the first problem, the testimony for “sins” over “sin” is very strong. The difference between texts regards whether the single letter yod (י) is present or lacking. It’s a small letter and therefore could have easily dropped out accidentally.  Another possible explanation is that the MT and Vulgate assimilated their texts to the singular “sin” already mentioned in the singular in 53:6 “iniquity” and 53:8 “transgression, rebellion.” In either case, the singular “sin” should be considered secondary, and we should choose the text containing the plural “sins” along with the best and majority of witnesses.

In the second problem, the reading “their rebellions” also enjoys the best external evidence. There is also a clear explanation for how the MT reads “transgressors”: the scribe assimilated his text here to the first instance of “transgressors” earlier in v. 12. In other words, the text containing “for the rebels” can best be explained as a secondary modification of the original “at their rebellions,” while the reverse is more difficult to explain.

In his analysis, Dominque Barthélemy wisely chose to handle the three textual problems in 53:11–12 together because 1QIsa^{a, b}, 4QIsa^d, all agree with LXX’s Hebrew text against the MT in these three well attested real variants among witnesses. Thus, for these verses, we are dealing with an ancient text type (attested by three Qumran texts and the Hebrew parent text of LXX) from which the MT is different in these three variants. Significantly, 1QIsa^b only contains notable variants to the MT in these verses and nowhere else. This gives us reason to suspect error in the internal transmission of the MT for these verses.²Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Van­denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 405; cf. also Jan de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 197–8. Therefore, the MT has probably suffered error in these three crucial places.

The external evidence for these two problems, as for the one in 53:11, is quite impressive, and we should choose its text. But what about the traditional reading of the MT: “and he will intercede for the transgressors”? We must say a word about the implausibility of this reading.

What does he intercede for?

Although most English translations have something like “he intercedes  for (יַפְגִּיעַ ל) the transgressors,” this syntax is otherwise unattested in MT, and therefore this reading is uncertain. The Hebrew verb paga‘ means “to meet” “come upon” (cf. Exod. 23:4), often in either the sense of entreat (e.g., Gen 23:8) or encounter with hostility (e.g., Exod. 5:3). Thus, in the causative stem, the verb means “to cause x to come upon y” as it does in Isaiah 53:6: “and Yahweh caused the (הִפְגִּיעַ אֵת) iniquity … to come upon (ב) him.” In Jeremiah 36:25, three individuals make entreaty with (הִפְגִּעוּ ב) the king. In each of these cases, the Hebrew beth preposition marks the person with whom the entreaty is or upon whom something is coming. But in the MT of Isaiah 53:12, we encounter the lamed preposition governing a person (i.e. “transgressors”).³Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 122, suggests, “to minister to someone,” interpreting the lamed as indicating the relationship between the event of ministering and the entity of the transgressors. All the major Hebrew lexicons (e.g., BDB, HALOT, Gesenius; cf.  פָּגַע Hi) render the lamed “for,” i.e., for the benefit of the transgressors.

Although our English translations interpret the syntax positively (“intercession for the benefit of the transgressors”), the Hebrew could be read negatively. In fact, very early Jewish translations of this text into Greek (Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus) plainly render the proto-MT something like, “he will attack the rebels”; that is, he will encounter the wicked with hostility, describing the servant as defeating enemies. Given the MT’s syntax, both readings are possible. But in contrast to the ambiguity of the MT, the reading of the three Dead Sea Scrolls plus the LXX shows that only the servant could intervene at the rebellions of the many.

Based on the external evidence, there’s a more satisfactory solution for the ending of the song: he intervened at their rebellions. In Isaiah 59:16, another instance of our verb appears without any prepositional phrases: “then he [Yahweh] saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no one who intervened (מַפְגִּיעַ).” This usage is akin to the one in our verse, since its complement is now lamed + impersonal object. That is, the lamed preposition does not mark the relation of an event to a person but rather defines the situation or event at which the servant intervenes, i.e., at the rebellions of the many. Note the LXX’s translation “due to their sins” comes close to this meaning showing that the sins of the many are the cause or situation for the servant’s intervention.

The original text changes the way we analyze the grammar of this line. We should also note how the usage in Isaiah 59:16 increases the tension concerning who will intervene for the people. The text claims no man intervenes, but in Isaiah 53:12, the servant does intervene which increases curiosity over his identity.

Putting all this together, we should translate the line: “Yet he bore the sins of many and at their rebellions he intervenes.”

Why it matters

In Isaiah 53:10–12, the song focuses on the relationship between the one and the many. For example, at the end of v. 11, the one servant is described as “righteous,” and he thus declares the many righteous. The many share in the verdict of the one. Also, in the one’s victory, the many are given a portion and with the numerous the victory spoils are divided (cf. Isa. 53:12a). In 53:12b, the servant is numbered with the rebels, and in 53:12c, he intervenes at their rebellions.

The one servant is both identified with the many rebels and yet distinct enough from them in order to carry their sins and intervene at their rebellions. Only the king would be in solidarity with the nation’s plight and at the same time distinct from the nation to rescue it from it (cf. Isaiah 49:1–6 which already prepares the reader for this conclusion).

One last note on the readings of “sins” and “transgressions / rebellions” in this line. The New Testament authors in many places describe Jesus’ atoning death as “due to our trespasses” (e.g., Rom. 4:25) or “for our sins” (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3; cf. 1 Pet. 2:24). The reading of Isaiah 53:12 proposed here is right in line with how the apostles interpreted the Messiah’s vicarious death “according to the Scriptures.”

Notes

• 1
  For Theodotion, the reading is found in Armenian translation of a Greek work incorrectly attributed to Chrysostom but presented in Latin translation here. For Aquila, the reading is found in Armenian translation of a Greek work incorrectly attributed to Chrysostom but presented in Latin translation here. Theodoret cites Symmachus and follows with “and so also the Rest [of the translators];” that is, Aquila and Theodotion must have rendered the Hebrew similarly, but he does not give their exact readings.
• 2
  Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/2 (Göttingen: Van­denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 405; cf. also Jan de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 197–8.
• 3
  Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 122, suggests, “to minister to someone,” interpreting the lamed as indicating the relationship between the event of ministering and the entity of the transgressors. All the major Hebrew lexicons (e.g., BDB, HALOT, Gesenius; cf.  פָּגַע Hi) render the lamed “for,” i.e., for the benefit of the transgressors.

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

The three main options are:

1. “his tomb” 1QIsa^a
2. “in his deaths” MT, Targum, smoothly translated as “in his death” in LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta
3. “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.”

Related

• 
  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.³Petrograd Prophets, Paris BN heb 2 and 6, Rome, Bibl. Vat. ebr 468 and 482, and Second Rabbinic Bible.

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.”⁴Quoted by Robert Lowth, Isaiah. A New Translation with … Notes, London, 1778. 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.”⁵Hardy 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.

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.

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.

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).