This work is a commentary on the Greek translation of Isaiah in Codex Marchalianus. It discusses both the reception and the production of the text, i.e., how the text was produced as well as how it was read.
Because this commentary is on a translation, we comment on points where the translation is perhaps surprising or different than we might expect because it diverges from the Hebrew text. Because the translation is into Greek, we comment on the Greek language in its context, especially how the Greek language is being used in unusual ways, stretched beyond its normal range of use. Because it is a commentary on one particular manuscript, the peculiarities of this Codex will be addressed, including its history, scribes, divisions, and orthography.
In this Introduction we provide some background to the Greek translation of Isaiah and then the particular manuscript Codex Marchalianus, before describing the format and purposes of this commentary.
Greek Isaiah
Origins
Scholarly consensus since Seeligmann (1948, 75) has been that Isaiah was translated into Greek in Alexandria around 140 BCE (Troxel 2008, 24), although dates as early as 270 BCE have been proposed (Margoliouth 1900, 4–7). The basis for this location is the Egyptian vocabulary in Greek Isaiah. Ziegler (1934, 31–46) and Seeligmann (1948, 39–42) argued for a consistent translator(s) for the whole of Isaiah, whom I will refer to as G. Ziegler noted two patterns in Greek Isaiah that made it impossible to distinguish separate translators for Isaiah: interconnections between the two supposed parts, and translational inconsistencies within each supposed part. Van der Kooij has made a case that the translation of Isaiah was produced by Jewish scholars who fled to Egypt in the first half of the second century B.C.E. (1981, 50–65; see also 1997, 395; 1982, 71).
Because of the kinds of mistakes made by the translator (the kinds of mistakes that should have been caught by a proofreader), and the consistency of
the translation, we argue that the translation was made by an individual rather than a group. At that time, the vowel points developed by the Masoretes in the sixth century CE were of course not recorded in the translator’s Hebrew Vorlage. Ottley suggested that the translator may have followed a different tradition (Ottley 1904, 1:7), but there is no evidence that the translator made use of the resources of any reading community. On the contrary, instances in which the translator failed to understand his source text indicate that either Greek Isaiah was not part of a reading community that shared a common interpretation of Isaiah, or that he ignored that shared interpretation while expecting his own work to be accepted as a valid reading of Isaiah among this community, of which some others also knew both Greek and Hebrew. The latter option seems far-fetched to me; it is more reasonable to suppose there was no shared interpretive community at that time and place.
On orthographic grounds, there are reasons to think Isaiah is one of the latest books translated. Thackeray noted that ἄν “is practically confined in LXX to two phrases where there is crasis or elision (κἄν, οὐδʼ ἄν) and to a small group of books (Wisdom, Sirach, 4 Macc., Isaiah)” (Thackeray 1909, sec. 6.49, citing Isa 1:12; 8:14 B, 43:2). He also noted that τέρμινθος was the oldest form for the turpentine tree (Gen. 14:6 E, 43:11 F), which developed into τερέμινθος, and then to τερέβινθος in Isaiah 1:30, 6:13 and four times elsewhere (Thackeray 1909, sec. 7.21).
Cécile Dogniez refuted Seeligmann’s claim that Greek Isaiah depends on the Twelve minor prophets, the Dodekapropheton. Although there are some lexical similarities, evidence of borrowings can be otherwise explained. In Isa 1:6 and Nah 3:19, the contexts are very different. With Isa 1:8; Mic 1:6; Ps 78:1 Dines showed that the similarity may be from textual harmonization. The same is true for Isa 2:2 and Mic 4:1, in which Micah harmonized toward Isaiah. In Isa 24:23 and Mic 7:11 the verbal similarity is coincidental, since both readers independently vocalized לבנה incorrectly. The translation of ארמון by θεμέλια in Isa 25:2 is paralleled in seven places in the Twelve, but the translator of Isaiah is not at all consistent, and was probably using root etymology to guess at the meaning here. Athough a translational similarity appears between Isa 26:11 and Zeph 2:1, far more often the same Hebrew expressions are rendered very differently in these two prophets, and dependence need not be postulated to explain ἀπαίδευτος in Isaiah. In Isa 42:13 and Hosea 2:20 the similarity is already in the Hebrew. Other lexical parallels that might be considered signs of dependence are even less convincing. Dogniez pointed out 14 specific differences between the two translators, in Isa 1:13; 3:12; 3:22; 4:5; 10:4 & 14:17; 13:6, 16; 30:26; 49:26; 51:13; 55:1; 58:14. For example, חפה in Isa 4:5 is read not as a bridal chamber παστός as in Joel 2:16, but as a very different verb σκεπασθήσεται. Finally, Dogniez
listed six translation tendencies that differ between Isaiah and the Minor Prophets, including צבאות as σαβαώθ in Isaiah rather than παντοκράτωρ in the Twelve. If the translator of Isaiah knew the Dodekapropheton, he did not make use of it (Dogniez 2010).
Arie van der Kooij has argued on the basis of γραμματικός in 33:18 that the translator considered himself a “Schriftgelehrter” (van der Kooij 1981, 102:64), meaning that the translator acted as a pesharist; in other words he assumed the authority to interpret Isaiah’s prophecies as predictions of the translator’s time. Ronald Troxel agreed that the translator of Isaiah perceived himself as a “scribe” (Troxel 2008, 2–3). Albert Pietersma found this identification flimsy (2008). Van der Kooij has argued on the basis of the translations in 6:13 and 29:22 that the translator was especially interested in priesthood (van der Kooij 2012), but the argument is strained on this point as well.
Hebrew and Greek Compared
The Greek translation of Isaiah is notorious for the liberties it takes with its source text. Septuagint scholars have disagreed about the reason for the numerous differences between the Greek and Hebrew of Isaiah. Some of these differences are likely accidental mistakes; others are intentional; and still others are not mistakes but neither do they serve a clear or consistent purpose.
Over a century ago, the tendency was to consider these differences accidental as mistakes made either by the translator or by a copyist of the manuscript used by that translator. Scholz thought most of the differences were already in the translator’s Vorlage (1880), but Thackeray expressed the view that the translator of Isaiah was “careless about producing a literal rendering,” and tried to “hide his ignorance by paraphrase or abbreviation” (1903, 583). Swete agreed, saying “the Psalms and more especially the Book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence” (1914, 314). Although Ottley recognized “many instances … where the Hebrew, which the Greek translators evidently believed that they had before them, differs from the text which we now possess” (1904, 1:1:viii), he too thought the translator’s Vorlage was very similar to the Masoretic Text, and the differences derived from his incompetence with Hebrew. Ottley noted that Greek Isaiah was “by common consent one of the worst translated parts of the LXX” (1904, 1:9). He concluded that “the result seems to be, that the translators’ mistakes in reading (however ample their excuse) are so numerous, ranging in their effect from minute points to the wreck of whole sentences, that their view cannot carry weight as to the real Hebrew text of their day” (Ottley 1904, 1:1:viii).
However, in the last hundred years, the prevailing view has shifted, and the trend has been to ask whether the reason for the numerous differences between the Hebrew and Greek might be intentional.
Ziegler thought that incompetence was part of the problem, but also that the translator was influenced by his Alexandrian milieu (1934). Seeligmann took that influence a step farther, and proposed that the translator interpreted the prophecies as if they were to be fulfilled in his own time (1948). According to Seeligmann, the translator of Isaiah considered the period in which he lived “to be time for the fulfillment of ancient prophecies” (1948, 4) and that while some of this notion came through in translation only unconsciously, he made “efforts to contemporize the old biblical text and revive it by inspiriting it with the religious conceptions of a new age” (1948, 4).
Seeligmann wrote before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so when the pesharim were discovered at Qumran, this discovery confirmed that contemporization was in fact an attested method for interpreting prophecy in early Judaism. Since that time, it has become commonplace to think that the translator of Isaiah created allusions to contemporary events because he thought Isaiah was referring to the translator’s own time. Especially in the 1980’s but beginning with das Neves (1973), Koenig (1982) and Hanhart (1983) found this kind of fulfilment-interpretation in the various parts of Isaiah they studied. In fact, Koenig insisted that the translator actually was an expert in Hebrew. The most prolific proponent of fulfilment-interpretation now is Arie van der Kooij (1998a).
Yet the evidence for fulfilment-interpretation has not convinced everyone, and Troxel (2008) and de Sousa (2010a) have recently argued that it is unable to adequately account for the changes made by the translator. (For more opponents to contemporization, see also the end of Wagner 2007.) I am persuaded that the significant differences between the Greek and the Masoretic Text are mainly the result, not of a contemporizing method, but rather of the translator’s carelessness. I am led to this conclusion by three kinds of observations, which I present below: (1) the translation includes frequent changes equally attributable to the Vorlage or to the translator, but rarely includes changes attributable only to the Vorlage; (2) most minor differences are explainable as either mistakes or updating with no change of referent; (3) the major differences cannot be attributed to a consistent intentional method.
Mistakes Are by the Translator, not Vorlage
First, the scale of the divergences between Hebrew and Greek in Isaiah is nowhere near the scale seen in Jeremiah or Proverbs. According to Emanuel Tov’s comparison of the Greek and Hebrew, there are 1424 Hebrew words that have no equivalent in the Greek and 975 Greek words that have no equivalent in the Hebrew (Tov 2003). Yet there are no major additions or deletions larger than a single verse, indicating the translator felt constrained by his
source text. There are no transpositions, and only one difference in division (between chapters 8 and 9).
The most significant omissions involve less than a verse. These occur in 2:22; 38:15; 40:7 (this last case due to haplography); and 56:12. The Hebrew omitted in 2:22 says “Turn away from mortals, who have only breath in their nostrils, for of what account are they?” (the originality of this sentence is contested); 38:15 says “But what can I say? For he has spoken to me, and he himself has done it. All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul”; and 56:12 says “‘Come,’ they say, ‘let us get wine; let us fill ourselves with strong drink. And tomorrow will be like today, great beyond measure’.” The omission in 40:7 is due to haplography.
The additions are even fewer. The most extensive such plusses (italicized here) in the Greek translation occur in 3:18 (ἀφελεῖ κύριος τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κόσμους αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἐμπλόκια καὶ τοὺς κοσύμβους καὶ τοὺς μηνίσκους); 27:4 διὰ τὴν πολεμίαν ταύτην ἠθέτηκα αὐτήν. τοίνυν διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς πάντα, ὅσα συνέταξεν; 32:19 ἡ δὲ χάλαζα ἐὰν καταβῇ, οὐκ ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ἥξει. καὶ ἔσονται οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν τοῖς δρυμοῖς πεποιθότες ὡς οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ πεδινῇ; and 58:11 καὶ ἐμπλησθήσῃ καθάπερ ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχή σου, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου πιανθήσεται, καὶ ἔσται ὡς κῆπος μεθύων καὶ ὡς πηγὴ ἣν μὴ ἐξέλιπεν ὕδωρ, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου ὡς βοτάνη ἀνατελεῖ καὶ πιανθήσεται, καὶ κληρονομήσουσι γενεὰς γενεῶν. None of the additions extends beyond a clause or short sentence.
I conclude that the translator did not consider it his prerogative to add to or subtract from or to rearrange his text on a scale larger than a sentence. That the mistakes are from the translator, rather than from the Vorlage is indicated by noting that the translation includes frequent changes equally attributable to the Vorlage or to the translator, but rarely includes changes attributable only to the Vorlage.
Minor Differences: Updating and Paraphrasing
Second, most of the differences between the Hebrew and Greek of Isaiah are explainable as either mistakes, or as updating without change of referent. There are numerous paraphrases and modernizations that do not change the meaning of the text. In this category of changes of no consequence I include updating of place names and paraphrases. For example, the translator updated place names 86 times. In these updatings, the referent did not change; the place referred to still remained the same. Whether the river in 27:12 is called the “River of Egypt” or the “Rhinokorouron” makes no difference to the meaning. Whether Aram is called Syria (as in 9:12), or Aram is inconsequential. The Rhinokouron and Syria are two examples of simply updating place names, and such updating can explain the similar change of “Jacob” to “Israel” in 2:6.
The other type of change of no consequence is paraphrase. In these instances the referent did not change, just as the referent did not change when updating. In paraphrases the same thing is being predicated of the same topic, but it is said in a different way. For example, a nominal phrase may be changed to a relative clause, as in 1:1, where “kings of Judah” is changed to “who ruled Judea,” or the infinitive in 1:15 “and-in-your-stretching your hands” is rendered “when you stretch out the hands to me.” Pronouns may be added or removed without changing the sense, as for example in 2:8, where “their land” becomes simply “the land” in Greek. Active constructions may be changed to passive, or vice-versa, as happens in 1:22-23. Prepositions may be changed, for no apparent reason but without change of meaning. This category of change is extremely common, and like the updating of place names, it makes no difference to the meaning.
Minor Differences: Mistakes
The other category of change is that of mistakes. These mistakes often do create a slight difference of meaning, but the differences do not contribute to any particular agenda, much less the alleged eschatological agenda. Most of these changes are readily explained as misreading of Hebrew words or mishearing of Hebrew sounds.
Differences apparently due to visual similarity include אמרו read as if from אסר (Δήσωμεν) in 3:10, וברא as ויבא (καὶ ἥξει) in 4:5; 5:18’s reading ב as כ in בחבלי (this confusion occurs many other times); confusing ר and ד in 15:4 (this also occurs many other times); confusing ו and ז in 24:1; ו and ר; ז and נ; ו and נ, ד and מ, and ו and י.
The last confusion is especially common. The confusion of waw and yod is demonstrated already in the first verse of Isaiah. In 1:1, G wrote Οἱ ἐβασίλευσαν for מלכי, reading the yod as a waw, yielding מלכו. In several places G put ἔσται where the Hebrew has יהוה, indicating G read יהיה (waw–yod confusion). This misreading occurs in Isa 4:5; 8:18; 28:21; cf. Isa 49:1 and 37:18 (Seeligmann 2004, 216–17). In 21:2 and 57:9 G mistook the waw for a yod, and rendered צוּרִים as πρέσβεις. In 40:9 G wrote plural imperatives ὑψώσατε and μὴ φοβεῖσθε, probably reading the feminine imperative yod endings in הרימי אל תיראי as masculine plural waw endings The yod is ignored in 1:3 (בעליו as κυρίου αὐτοῦ). In 2:13, the cedars in Hebrew are plural, so the Hebrew adjectives modify the cedars. But G understood the cedar as singular, so did not use the adjectives τῶν ὑψηλῶν καὶ μετεώρων attributively. The difference in Hebrew is yod on the end of ארזי, as also in 14:8. As Scholz pointed out, similar renderings of plurals as singulars appear in 15:2 and 26:17 (Scholz 1880, 34–35). The letter waw is ignored in 2:16 (שְׂכִיּוֹת as θέαν); 3:5 (plural ירהבו as singular προσκόψει); 5:10 (יעשו as ποιήσει); 8:11
(וְיִסְּרֵנִי as ἀπειθοῦσιν, although 1QIsaa has יסירני); 9:13 (על המכהו as ἕως ἐπλήγη); 10:22 (חרוץ as συντελῶν); 14:15 (תורד as καταβήσῃ); 16:1 (שלחו as ἀποστελῶ); 47:5 (feminine singular for plural).
Transpositions include 1:2 גדלתי read as ילדתי (ἐγέννησα); 9:2(3) הִגְדַּלְתָּ reading the dalet as a resh transposed with the gimel for הרגלת (κατήγαγες); a few verses later 9:4(5) בְּרַעַשׁ transposing the ayin and shin to ברשע, yielding δόλῳ; 14:12 חולשׁ was read as שׁולח.
Changes of inflection occur, for example in 2:6 reading נטשת עמך as נטש עמו (ἀνῆκεν γὰρ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ), changing the second person forms to the third person.
Differences due to phonetic similarity include sarid read as zaraˁ (σπέρμα) in 1:9, yikhlof as yiˁlof (κατακρύψουσιν) in 2:18, wenuqshu as wenagshu in 8:15, and aleyhem as aleykhem in 9:1(2). Especially significant are cases where a negative is misread, as is the case twice in chapter nine, where the MT has the negative lo spelled לא in 8:23 and again in 9:2 but in both cases, the Greek reflects lo spelled לו “to him.”
Even Significant Differences are not Agenda-Driven
Finally, there are changes that affect the meaning that cannot be traced back to visual misreading or phonetic mishearing of Hebrew words.
Even among these cases where there is a difference of sense, there is no discernable pattern of eschatological concern. The differences are not explainable by positing a tendency to contemporize. In only a very few cases is it possible to demonstrate an eschatological agenda, even in passages that are most clearly updated. Both Seeligmann (1948) and Hanhart (1983) used the beginning of chapter 9 to make their case because it is one of the passages in Isaiah exhibiting the most divergence between Hebrew and Greek. However, even this parade example of contemporization can be more adequately explained as a series of misunderstandings on the part of the translator.
Seeligmann perceived in Isaiah 9 “the historical atmosphere of Palestine in Hellenistic times” in “the hostility of the Greek cities on the west coast towards the Jewish population of Palestine” (Seeligmann 1948, 81). He based this on three cases of updating: verse one, the addition of παραλία, “the technical name for one of the parts of Palestine under Seleucid rule,” and τὰ μέρη τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, and the rendering of Aram by Συρία, and Pilistim by Ἕλληνες. Robert Hanhart likewise perceived an actualization in 8:23(9:1), where the MT has הֵקַל (he brought into contempt). Hanhart noticed the change from past to future in translating Hebrew perfects with a Greek aorist then a future in 9:3(2). There, according to Hanhart, the Lord brought down the people (that is, in the past), but their joy will come when he liberates them, as predicted in the next verse. Hanhart found a specific date for this liberation: December 14, 164 bce (1983).
This example of possible contemporizing is the strongest one in the book of Isaiah. The next strongest case to be made is that chapter 23 refers to Carthage. Van der Kooij considered chapter 23 to refer to prophetic events, based on the rendering of משא as ὅραμα. He perceived references to three historical events in the chapter. One is the 146 bce destruction of Carthage, on the basis of (1) translating Tarshish as Carchedon, (2) differentiating two types of “merchant,” μετάβολος and ἔμπορος, both rendering the same Hebrew word, סֹחַר in 23:3, 8, and (3) the addition of the word ταύτῃ after νήσῳ in 23:6. The second historical event is the Parthian invasion of Babylonia in 23:13. The third historical event is the involvement of Tyre in the Hellenization of Jerusalem in 23:12.
In only a few passages in Isaiah can a case be made that the author sought to find prophetic fulfillment in his own day. The other passages do not exhibit much out of the ordinary for the translator’s pattern of translation. That the translator refrained from inserting an eschatological agenda even when the opportunity presented itself can be demonstrated by showing that he neglected to opportunistically insert such an agenda in three ways: (1) by adding eschatological vocabulary; (2) by choosing a word with eschatological connotations rather than a word without those connotations; (3) by alluding to historical events in the translator’s own day, he neglected to do so in any of these three ways.
First, the point that eschatological vocabulary is not inserted by the translator can be seen by the content of the additions in the Greek compared with the Hebrew. The evidence for contemporization in the pluses in Isaiah collected by Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs is insubstantial (van der Vorm-Croughs 2014, 518).
Second, the argument that eschatological vocabulary is not favoured by our translator was made already in 1992 by Ron Troxel and developed in his 2008 book. He noted that “when ἔσχατος appears in temporal expressions in lxx-Isaiah, it connotes the future only in a general sense. … The translator did not use ἔσχατος as a technical term of eschatology, nor does his use of ἔσχατος suggest he was dominated by expectation of ‘die Endzeit’” (Troxel 2008, 187). The translator of Isaiah breaks from the pattern of the other translators of the Septuagint in that he does not use ἔσχατος to translate אחרון. Instead he uses μέγας in 26:4, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in 48:12, μετὰ ταῦτα in 44:6, καιρῶν in 30:8.
Third, the point that the translator refrains from alluding to contemporary events can be made by observing his handling of toponyms. The classic proposed example of contemporization in Isaiah 23 replaces the Hebrew “Tarshish” with the Greek “Carchedon,” that is, Carthage. When Troxel investigated how often this phenomenon happens in Greek Isaiah, he found that
of the 558 toponyms, four had a variant in the Hebrew Vorlage, 24 had no clear Greek equivalent (five had no equivalent Hebrew toponym), 22 are translated as common nouns, 430 are transliterated, and 86 are translated into Hellenistic equivalents: Mitzraim as Aiguptos fifty times, Kush as Ethiopia eight times, the “brook of Egypt” is given its Egyptian name, etc. Generally speaking, when not transliterating, standard translations are used. Only in two instance are some changes evident. In 9:10-12 פלשתים is interpretively updated to Ἕλληνας, and in chapter 23, Carchedon is interpretively updated from Tarshish.
Incompetence in Matters Small and Large
Because most of the insignificant differences are explainable as either mistakes or modernizing with no change of referent, the competence or at least the carefulness of the translator is called into question. It is likely that even the more major differences stem from the same cause. I therefore propose that the translator’s carelessness alone is sufficient to explain the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek of Isaiah; no additional explanation is necessary.
I present an alternative explanation for the changes evident in the parade example of contemporization, Isaiah chapter 9. These unexpected translations can be explained without appealing to an eschatological agenda. In the absence of vowel points, הֵקַל in 8:23(9:1) was read as an imperative, hurry: do quickly. Once the translator had read this word as an imperative, he expected a vocative, and therefore that is how he understood the land of Zebulun and Naphtali. He continued the vocative with האחרון as οἱ λοιποί. He updated the reference to the way of the sea with a more up-to-date name, the παραλίαν, but the referent remains unchanged. In this context G was unsure what to do with הִכְבִּיד so he guessed at a verb that fit the context: κατοικέω, inhabit. In the next verse, G read the MT’s verb הִרְבִּיתָ, “you made numerous” as a noun from the same root, “the numerous part.” Where the MT hasלֹא הִגְדַּלְתָּ , G wrote ὃ κατήγαγες, either reading (with the Qere) the negative “not,” or confusing the consonants of the verbs, reading הרגלת. To fit the context then, and showing a typical lack of concern about the presence or absence of yod, he translated one of the perfects נגה in 9:1(2) with a future λάμψει. Similarly, in 9:1(2) the MT’s perfect רָאוּ was naturally read as an imperative ראו, resulting in the Greek imperative ἴδετε.
Most of the remaining differences on which a contemporizing interpretation might be based can be explained similarly, except for two cases: the addition of τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας, and the rendering of Pilistim by Ἕλληνες. Even in these two cases, we need not think the changes derive from an “fulfillment-interpretation.” Both cases may be considered updating; no change of referent
is implied, since τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας is used in apposition to the just-mentioned places (it is introduced without a conjunction), and those inhabiting Philistia in the translator’s time were Greeks. So even in these passages for which the best case can be made that the translator was contemporizing, we find that the differences between the Hebrew and Greek are explainable as mistakes or as updating with no change of referent.
The simplest explanation, the explanation to be preferred, does not attribute to multiple causes that which can be attributed to one. The hypothesis that the translator applied an intentional method of contemporizing of Isaiah’s prophecies is to be rejected because it is both insufficient in that it does not explain the majority of differences, and unnecessary in that incompetence can explain those differences attributed to contemporization.
Patristic Confirmation
To confirm that the differences are not the result of intentional method we may turn to the patristic commentators, who evidently did not read the prophecies the way proponents of contemporization do. As a case in point, not one patristic commentator saw in Isaiah 23 the destruction of Carthage in 146 bce. The problem is not that Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Cyril of Alexandria were averse to fulfillment-interpretation; quite the opposite, they did associate the prophecy with a historical event. Nor is the problem that they only saw its fulfillment in their own time; although they did see the end of chapter 23 fulfilled by the spread of Christianity in their own time, in the first half of the chapter they held that it was Tyre, not Carthage, that was being led captive, and that this prophecy referred to the Babylonian capture of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. Most of the fathers missed the significance of “this” before “island” in 23:6. For example, Jerome explicitly said the phrase “qui habitatis in insula hac” refers to the inhabitants of Tyre. But although Eusebius and Theodoret of Cyrrrhus noticed the “this” in 23:6, Eusebius took it to mean the Tyrians will wail from Carthage, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus said the inhabitants of Carthage were to join the inhabitants of Tyre in their wailing. The difference between μετάβολος and ἔμπορος escaped all of the patristic commentators. In sum, if G intended to convince his readers that the events prophesied had been fulfilled in his own day, he appears to have failed in his purpose.
The differences between Hebrew and Greek Isaiah are not explainable by an intentional contemporizing method, since most of the differences have nothing to do with fulfillment of prophecy, even when the translator had opportunity to contemporize. Those few cases where a good case can be made for contemporizing were still insufficiently clear to be understood as such by the earliest readers of Greek Isaiah.
Language
Because Greek Isaiah is a translation from Hebrew, interference from the source language can be expected. But as Ottley noted, “the translators seem generally to have viewed it as their duty rather to represent each word and phrase of the original literally and directly, than to render the spirit of the Hebrew with the greatest possible amount of Greek force, grace, and idiom” (Ottley 1904, 1:36).
Tenses in translation
A comparison of the verb forms used in the Hebrew and Greek permit testing of two hypotheses: First, if G’s supposedly free translation style led him to translate according to meaning and context rather than automatically mapping the formal features of Hebrew onto Greek, we should expect to find a tendency more varied than the usual qatal verbs translated into aorists and yiqtols to futures. Second, if his eschatological interpretation of Isaiah shaped his translation by making more of the prophecies refer to the future, we should expect to find Hebrew qatals and participles translated as futures even when the context does not demand it.
To address the first question, where Greek Isaiah falls on the spectrum of dynamic to formal equivalence (Dines and Knibb 2004, 110), Tov and Wright proposed that consistency is the key to measuring literalness (Dines and Knibb 2004, 120). Previous statistical studies of translational consistency have tended to measure lexical consistency. But lexical consistency will vary depending on the translator’s skill. Because lexical inconsistency in Isaiah may be the result of ignorance rather than an intention to be idiomatic, the kind of consistency I measured is something less susceptible to ignorance: morphological consistency (Tov 2010, 54–66), that is, the degree of correspondence between the grammatical forms (grams for short) of the source and translation. In a translation that aims at formal equivalence, one expects that source-language grams that do have corresponding grams in the target language will be translated as those corresponding grams. For example, infinitives, imperatives, and (to a lesser extent) participles function similarly in both Hebrew and Greek, so a formally equivalent translation should retain these grams. In a translational style that is paraphrastic or idiomatic, one expects the translator to translate according to meaning and context rather than automatically mapping the formal features of Hebrew onto Greek.
|
|
qtol→ |
liqtol→ infinitive |
qotel→ participle |
qatal→ |
yiqtol→ future |
weqatal → future |
wayyiqtol →aorist |
weyiqtol → future |
|
Eccl. |
100% |
94% |
54% |
77% |
57% |
19% |
100% |
21% |
|
Pent. |
89% |
51% |
56% |
71% |
60% |
82% |
87% |
41% |
|
Prophets |
78% |
53% |
61% |
65% |
62% |
85% |
88% |
65% |
|
Proverbs |
80% |
32% |
47% |
34% |
32% |
35% |
47% |
47% |
|
Isaiah |
79% |
48% |
72% |
59% |
60% |
84% |
77% |
45% |
Free Translation of Inflection
If G’s translation style was “free” it would lead him to translate according to meaning and context rather than to automatically map the formal features of Hebrew onto Greek, and therefore we should expect to find a tendency more varied than the usual qatal verbs translated into aorists and yiqtols to futures evident in the scriptures that were translated in the kaige style. Because of the difficulties of distinguishing in an unvocalized text the difference between wayyiqtol and weyiqtol, and the diachronic shift of the semantic value of weqatal, I omit the waw-prefixed forms from this comparison, and the finite verb forms considered are only the qatal and yiqtol.
The results of the comparison show that Isaiah is on average about as consistent as the other prophets in rendering these five verb forms. Isaiah is a few points below the median for the infinitive, imperative, and qatal; is at the median for yiqtol, and it is significantly (that is, by 16 points) above the median for the participle. Therefore, it is difficult to substantiate a translation style in Isaiah that is consistently more free or more literal than its comparators. If Greek Isaiah is to be classified as a “free” translation, it must be on grounds other than inconsistency in its translation of verb forms.
Fulfilment Interpretation
Our second test is regarding the common claim that the Greek translator of Isaiah injected his own fulfilment-interpretation into his translation. He is supposed to have interpreted Isaiah’s prophecies eschatologically. If it is true that his eschatology shaped his translation, we should expect to find changes to the time reference of the verbs, changes that make the events into future events rather than past or present.
If Hebrew was a tense-prominent language, normally we should expect to find qatals translated as aorists, imperfects, and pluperfects, unless they are lexically stative verbs, in which case stative qatals should be perfects or presents. Yiqtols should become futures, unless they are lexically fientive verbs, in which
case yiqtols should become presents or futures. We do find a high degree of correlation between yiqtol and future, and qatal and past.
This is not the first time such a question has been answered using a statistical method. In 1986, Beat Zuber analyzed the translation of 5335 Biblical Hebrew verbs in the Septuagint and Vulgate, to find patterns in translating the tenses (Zuber 1986). These translations indicate how Jerome and those who produced the Septuagint understood the semantics of the Hebrew verb forms. Zuber too found a clear correlation between the Hebrew verb forms and modality.
However, if G interpreted Isaiah eschatologically, we would expect to find Hebrew qatals and participles translated as futures even when the context does not demand it. That is indeed what we find; qatals and participles do both tend to be translated into a Greek future more frequently than in the other prophets or the Pentateuch.
Some of these participles translated as future in Isaiah are to be expected. For instance, some are participles expressing the imminent future. Examples
include Isaiah 1:15 “even though you make many prayers, I not listening” (preceded by yod); and 2:2 “It shall happen at the future of the days, the mountain of the house of Yahweh being established” (prefixed by a waw). Similarly the famous וְיֹלֶדֶת in 7:14 expresses the imminent future, and what is more, it might have been mistaken for a weyiqtol, so it was translated as τέξεται. Similarly, the participle in Isaiah 52:12 may have been translated as a future because it is in the phrase כִּי־הֹלֵךְ, with an immediately preceding yod. These could be explained if (as it appears) G felt free to ignore word breaks.
Examples of anomalous future qatals include Isaiah 9:1-2(3), where the light shines as נגה in Hebrew and λάμψει in Greek; the nation rejoices as שמחו in Hebrew and καὶ εὐφρανθήσονται in Greek. In Isaiah 10:28, he comes to Aiath/Aggai as בא but ἥξει; he passes through Migron/Magedo as עבר, but καὶ παρελεύσεται in Greek. Evidently G did shift some of Isaiah’s prophecies into the future, but at other times he did not take the opportunity to do so, as evidenced by the 33 instances where he wrote an aorist where the Masoretic Text has a weyiqtol. The reason for moving some prophecies to the future and others to the past could be an avenue for fruitful exploration.
Three conclusions are evident from this comparison of Hebrew and Greek verb forms.
- If Greek Isaiah is to be classified as a “free” translation, it must be on grounds other than inconsistency in its translation of verb forms.
- The translator of Greek Isaiah did shift some of Isaiah’s prophecies into the future, but at even more times he did not take the opportunity to do so.
- The translator of Greek Isaiah most likely considered the Hebrew qatal and yiqtol as tenses (locating the event in time).
Proper Names
Emanuel Tov demonstrated that G did not treat personal names in an idiosyncratic way, but followed the pattern established in the LXX and the Greek prophetic books. One exception is the contemporization of toponyms. Hellenized endings are found on 41% of proper names in Isaiah, a figure that is 10% higher than other Septuagint books probably because there are more place-names in the prophets. Isaiah is admittedly inconsistent, but this simply means he did not have a list of equivalences; likely he intended to create literary variation (Tov 2010).
Lord
Johan Lust compared the divine titles האדון and אדוני in Proto-Isaiah and Ezekiel, showing that האדון is distinctive for Proto-Isaiah, and is not interchangeable with the tetragrammaton as אדוני is. Greek Isaiah translated האדון as δεσπότης, but δεσπότης never is a translation of אדני. The title האדון points to the ruler of the world, whereas אדני points to a special relationship with the prophet (Johan Lust 2010). Peter Nagel noted that אדני was often rendered unconventionally when with .יהוה אדון was consistently rendered by δεσπότης, and κύριος was the equivalent for אדני and יהוה. Θεός was considered an appropriate Greek word for any reference to the Hebrew deity (Nagel 2013).
Graeme Auld made a case for the translation of κύριος as a proper name, based on the inclusion or omission of the article before κύριος (Auld 2005). His conclusion holds also in the book of Isaiah. Auld found that the presence of the article is determined more by grammatical case than by whether the noun is a proper noun or a common noun. In Joshua, Auld found that the article tends to be used with proper names only in the dative case, and never in the genitive case.
In Isaiah, in the nominative case, κύριος is arthrous in 6 out of 230 instances, compared to 8 out of 21 for βασιλεύς and 112 of 122 for θεός. The genitive κυρίου is arthrous 2 of 117 times (one of which, 1:3, is not divine), βασιλέως is arthrous
Caption: Words with the article in Joshua
Caption: Words with the article in Isaiah
4 out of 19 times θεοῦ 27 of 36. The accusative κύριον is arthrous 13 of 35 times, βασιλέα is arthrous 9 of 14 times, and θεόν 13 of 21. The dative of κύριος is arthrous 7 of 15 times, and βασιλεῖ arthrous 2 out of 3 times, θεῷ 6 of 7 times. Ἰερουσαλήμ, Αἴγυπτος, Ἑζεκίας, Ἠσαΐας, Βαβυλών, κυρος, Σόμνας, and Ἰούδας never get the article except twice as genitive (Isa 5:3, 7) and once as accusative (9:21). Ἰουδαία and Λίβανος always do (the land), as does Χελκίας (all 3 genitive). Ῥομελιας is arthrous twice out of four in the genitive. Isa 8:2 has arthrous proper names for all the men mentioned.
However, κύριος fits the article pattern of neither proper nor common nouns.
The question remains why κύριος is so rarely arthrous, and θεός so often. By analogy, one might think ὁ θεός should be translated “the deity” or “the god.” Because κύριος when referring to the deity normally appears without the article in the nominative and genitive cases, I treat it as a proper name, and translate as “Lord” rather than “the lord” or even “the Lord.”
Recourse to Favoured Words
Thackeray was the first to notice that G had recourse to certain favorite expressions when in doubt as to the meaning of the Hebrew. He noted that G used μικρὸς καὶ μέγας (ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου) even when it had no basis in the Hebrew. It translates five different Hebrew phrases (9:14(13); 22:5, 24; 23:4, 19), none of which are the Hebrew phrase מקטן ועד גדול that typically lies behind this Greek phrase (Thackeray 1903, 583n3). Ottley additionally noticed certain other Greek words that appear in Isaiah more frequently than the Hebrew text would warrant, especially when the Hebrew is difficult. He explained, “Often we can see the translator losing his clue, and going gradually astray, as in 3:10, 8:15, 16, 24:23; unable to construe (or read) his text, and apparently reduced to guessing or a stop-gap rendering. At such times he is wont to fall back on certain favourite words, and uses these almost at random” (1904, 1:50).
For example, at 33:6, Ottley commented, “παραδοθήσονται almost warns us that lxx. are in difficulties” (Ottley 1909, 2:270), noting that this verb shows up also in 23:7, 25:5, 7, 33:1, 6, 38:13, 47:3 (1904, 1:50). Ottley surmised that the first translators of the Hebrew Scriptures “probably found the vocabulary at their command, although extensive, not always adequate” and noted the unexpected appearance of πενθήσει and πέπαυται (24:7, 8), λογίζομαι, (40:15, 17), ὕψος, ὑψηλός, ὑψόω (2:11ff.), and κατακαίω (43:2) (Ottley 1904, 1:36).
Ziegler agreed that G had a penchant for certain words and phrases, which he often used when the Hebrew was opaque, following Ottley in calling them “stop-gap words.” Very often he resorted to one of his favorite words without any justification. These words include ἁλίσκομαι, ἡττάω, παραδίδωμι, πλανάω,
βουλή, ἐλπίς, πλάνησις. A good example is the reproduction of 33:1, where three of his favorite words occur (ἁλίσκομαι, παραδίδωμι, ἡττάω). Here G did not recognize the meaning of his (admittedly difficult) Vorlage, and therefore made up a sentence that could be understood quite well (Ziegler 1934, 13–14).
Seeligmann gave a more complete evaluation of this tendency:
We find, throughout his work, traces of his attempts to express some idea or other which was dear to his heart, without his bothering overmuch about the Hebrew original. As soon as he gets into difficulties he has recourse – as both Ottley and Ziegler have repeatedly pointed out – to certain favoured words and notions: ἀπολλύναι, βουλή, ἀπό μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου; παραδιδόναι; παρακαλεῖν; πλανᾶν (Seeligmann 1948, 57).
To these examples I would add ἀθετέω (for פשׁעו in 1:2), ἄνομος (for בדיל in 1:24-27; for רשׁע in 3:11), and ἰσχύοντες (5:22).
Transmission and Preservation
The original users of the Old Greek translation of Isaiah were Greek-speaking Jews, but especially once Christians began to use it more widely to support their Christocentric interpretations in the second century CE, some Jews sought a translation more in accord with the Hebrew. The most well known alternative translations are are those of Aquila around 130 CE, Theodotion around 180-190 CE, and Symmachus shortly thereafter.
The Old Latin translation was made around the second century CE, so it attests the Old Greek before the revisions of the third century, which have affected most of our Greek copies (to varying degrees). Burkitt wrote, “there are readings found in the Old Latin representing Greek readings which have disappeared from every known Greek MS., but which, by comparison with the Hebrew, are shown to preserve the genuine text of the LXX” (Burkitt 1894, cxvii).
Early Manuscripts
The earliest portions of Greek Isaiah extant (aside from quotations in the New Testament) are from the third century.
|
Rahlfs |
Location |
Shelf |
Coverage |
Citation |
|
844 |
Washington |
Library of Congress 4082 B |
Isa 23:4–7, 10–13 |
(Luijendijk 2010) |
|
881+948 |
Vienna |
|
Isa 33:7–8, 17–19; Isa 38:3–5, 13–16; 40:13–14, 24–26 |
(Wessely 1909; Bastianini 1982) |
|
965 |
|
+ , |
Much of Is. 8:18–19:13; 38:14–45:5; 54:1–60:22 |
Kenyon 1937; von Effra 1935; Vaccari 1951; Naldini |
|
958 |
|
|
(Kenyon 1958) |
|
|
850 |
Alexandria |
|
Isa 48:6–18 |
(Carlini 1978; 1972) |
|
902 |
|
Ägyptisches Museum P. 6772 |
Isa 36:16–20; 37:1–6 |
(O. Stegmüller 1939, 58–60) |
|
904 |
Berlin |
Ägyptisches Museum P. 13422 |
Isa 49:16–18 |
(O. Stegmüller 1939, 60–61) |
|
958 |
Manchester and Oslo |
John Rylands ; university library + (P. Osl. II 11) |
Isa 42:3–4; 52:15–53:3, 6–7, 11–12; 66:18–19 |
Roberts 1936, not |
|
7Q6? |
|
|
Isa 18:2 |
|
|
7Q8? |
|
|
Isa 1:29-30 |
|
|
2205 |
New Haven |
P. CtYBR Inv. 2083a (= P. Yale II 88) |
Isa 61:10-11 |
|
|
oS-38 |
Mailand, Univ. Cuore |
P. Med. Inv. 71.84 |
Is. 58:6–9 |
|
|
oS-42 |
New Haven |
YBR, P. CtYBR Inv. 2083a |
Is. 61:10–11 |
|
|
oS-48 |
Oxyrhynchus |
P. Oxy. 406 |
Is. 6:10 |
|
|
consisting of, and Rahlfs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The complete manuscript evidence for Greek Isaiah at the middle of the fourth century can be tabulated as follows, in canonical order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8:20-9:1 |
S B |
|
9:2-3 |
S B 965 |
|
9:4-11:4 |
S B |
|
11:5-7 |
S B 965 |
|
11:8-9 |
S B |
|
11:10-12 |
S B 965 |
|
11:13-14 |
S B |
|
11:15-12:1 |
S B 965 |
|
12:2-12:4 |
S B |
|
12:5-13:2 |
S B 965 |
|
13:3-5 |
S B |
|
13:6-9 |
S B 965 |
|
13:10-11 |
S B |
|
13:12-14 |
S B 965 |
|
13:15-17 |
S B |
|
13:18-20 |
S B 965 |
|
13:21-14:1 |
S B |
|
14:2-4 |
S B 965 |
|
14:5-22 |
S B |
|
14:23-27 |
S B 965 |
|
14:28 |
S B |
|
14:29-15:1 |
S B 965 |
|
15:2 |
S B |
|
15:3-5 |
S B 965 |
|
15:6-7 |
S B |
|
15:8-16:4 |
S B 965 |
|
16:5-6 |
S B |
|
16:7-10 |
S B 965 |
|
16:11 |
S B |
|
16:12-17:3 |
S B 965 |
|
17:4 |
S B |
|
17:5-7 |
S B 965 |
|
17:8 |
S B |
|
17:9-12 |
S B 965 |
|
17:13-14 |
S B |
|
18:1-4 |
S B 965 |
|
18:5 |
S B |
|
18:6-19:1 |
S B 965 |
|
19:2 |
S B |
|
19:3-6 |
S B 965 |
|
19:7 |
S B |
|
19:8-13 |
S B 965 |
|
19:14-23:3 |
S B |
|
23:4-7 |
S B 844 |
|
23:8-9 |
S B |
|
23:10-13 |
S B 844 |
|
23:14-33:6 |
S B |
|
33:7-8 |
S B 881 |
|
33:9-16 |
S B |
|
33:17-19 |
S B 881 |
|
33:20-36:15 |
S B |
|
36:16-20 |
S B 902 |
|
36:21-36:end |
S B |
|
37:1-6 |
S B 902 |
|
37:7-38:2 |
S B |
|
38:3-5 |
S B 948 |
|
38:6-12 |
S B |
|
38:13 |
S B 948 |
|
38:14-16 |
S B 948 965 |
|
38:17-40:12 |
S B 965 |
|
40:13-14 |
S B 881 965 |
|
40:15-23 |
S B 965 |
|
40:24-26 |
S B 881 965 |
|
40:27-42:2 |
S B 965 |
|
42:3-4 |
S B 965 958 |
|
42:5-45:5 |
S B 965 |
|
45:6-48:5 |
S B |
|
48:6-18 |
S B 850 |
|
48:17-49:15 |
S B |
|
49:16-18 |
S B 904 |
|
49:19-53:end |
S B |
|
54:1-52:14 |
S B 965 |
|
52:15-53:3 |
S B 965 958 |
|
53:4-5 |
S B 965 |
|
53:6-7 |
S B 965 958 |
|
53:8-10 |
S B 965 |
|
53:11-12 |
S B 965 958 |
|
53:13-60:22 |
S B 965 |
|
60:23-61:9 |
S B |
|
61:10-11 |
S B 2205 |
|
62:1-66:17 |
S B |
|
66:18-19 |
S B 958 |
|
66:20-end |
S B |
Early quotations of Isaiah are extant: Isa 40:16 in TM 64469 (Gronewald 1974); Isa 53:11 in TM 171876 (Chang and Henry 2012); 58:6-9 in TM 61959 (Daris 1978); 6:10 in TM 62336; 66:1 in TM 63392 and TM 63550. Isa 53:11 in TM 171876 (Chang and Henry 2012); 58:6-9 in TM 61959 (Daris 1978); 6:10 in TM 62336; 66:1 in TM 63392 and TM 63550.
Fourth-Century Revisions
In the early third century, the great scholar Origen sought to correct the discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Old Greek, by comparison with these three new versions. To this end, Origen created the Hexapla, so named for the six parallel columns, containing (1) the Hebrew text, (2) Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Old Greek, (6) Theodotion. He noted differences between the Hebrew and Greek, including additions, omissions, and rearrangements. In most cases, he corrected the Greek to match the Hebrew, supplying omissions from Aquila or Theodotion, and marking additions by the signs of Aristarchus.
Some revisions of the Greek were made early in the fourth century. Eusebius and Pamphilus copied the fifth column of the Hexapla separately beginning
around 307 CE. This “hexaplaric” version, used in Palestine, originally included the critical signs indicating additions from Aquila or Theodotion, but it was not long before copies neglected to reproduce the signs. Burkitt noted the agreement in omissions between the hexaplaric text and B (Burkitt 1894, cxvii). Lucian revised the Greek beginning around 300 CE as well, and those manuscripts of Isaiah classified as “Lucianic” provide many Hexaplaric readings. The Lucianic manuscripts were used in the East and Constantinople. Perhaps an Egyptian revision was also made, around 310 CE, this one corresponding to the quotations from the Alexandrian Fathers. Ziegler’s edition provides details regarding the manuscript families (Ziegler 1939).
Natalio Fernández Marcos showed that the textual variants in Isaiah 65-66 attest a pattern of readings in the manuscripts Ziegler called “Lucianic.” In these manuscripts he identified 13 small changes taken from the Three toward conformity with the Masoretic Text, but even more stylistic improvements and a few Atticizing tendencies. He pointed out a few older readings preserved in Antiochene manuscrpts, readings that were supplanted in later manuscripts. He noted the Antiochene reading was an exegetical method that emphasised the historical over the allegorical method of interpretation, but he did not associate this method with specific Antiochene textual readings. In other words, the label “Antiochene reading” does not constitute a witness to Antiochene theology in the same way as Seeligmann claimed the Old Greek was a witness to Alexandrian theology (Fernández Marcos 2010).
Compare Ziegler, Rahlfs, S, A, B
Because users of this commentary might be used to reading from an edition of the Greek text of Isaiah other than that in Marchalianus, I include a partial apparatus indicating where the text of Q (=Marchalianus) varies from that of the oldest codices S (Penner), A (Ottley 1904), and B (Swete 1887), and the eclectic critical editions R (Rahlfs 1935) and Z (Ziegler 1939). In such notes, the witness of the correctors of Marchalianus is also indicated.
Reception
New Testament
Every quotation and allusion to Isaiah in the New Testament is discussed in the commentary. According to the data provided by Silva (1993), Paul’s citations of Isaiah most often matched neither the Greek nor the Hebrew (12 times), matched the Greek against the Hebrew 9 times, and never matched the Hebrew against the Greek. Silva’s classifications are shown in the following table.
Paul’s appeal to Isaiah occurs mainly in his correspondence with the Romans and Corinthians. Only twice did he refer to Isaiah outside of these three
|
Paul |
Isaiah |
Type |
|
1 Cor 15:32 |
Isa 22:13 |
1. Paul = LXX = MT. |
|
2 Cor 6:2 |
Isa 49:8 |
1. Paul = LXX = MT. |
|
2 Cor 6:17 |
Isa 52:11 + Ezek 20:34 |
1. Paul = LXX = MT. |
|
Rom 15:21 |
Isa 52:15 |
1. Paul = LXX = MT. |
|
Rom 9:29 |
Isa 1:9 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 15:12 |
Isa 11:10 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 11:34 |
Isa 40:13 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 14:11 |
Isa 45:23 (+ 49:18?) |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 2:24 |
Isa 52:5 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 10:16 |
Isa 53:1 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Gal 4:27 |
Isa 54:1 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 10:20–21 |
Isa 65:1–2 |
3. Paul = LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 11:8 |
Deut 9:4 (+ Isa 29:10) |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 9:27–28 |
Isa 10:22–23 (+ Isa 29:10) |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
1 Cor 15:54 |
Isa 25:8 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 11:27b |
Isa 27:9 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
1 Cor 14:21 |
Isa 28:11–12 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 10:11 |
Isa 28:16 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
1 Cor 1:19 |
Isa 29:14 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
1 Cor 2:16 |
Isa 40:13 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 10:15 |
Isa 52:7 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 11:26–27a |
Isa 59:20–21 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 3:15–17 |
Isa 59:7–8 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
Rom 9:33 |
Isa 8:14 + 28:16 |
4. Paul ≠ LXX ≠ MT |
|
1 Cor 2:9 |
(Isa 64:4 + 65:16?) |
5. Debated |
|
2 Tim 2:19b |
Isa 26:13? (+ Sir 35:3?) |
5. Debated |
|
Rom 9:20 |
Isa 29:16 (45:9) |
5. Debated |
|
2 Cor 9:10 |
Isa 55:10 + Hos 10:12 |
5. Debated |
letters. The fact that Paul’s citations of Isaiah often matched the Greek against the Hebrew, but never matched the Hebrew against the Greek indicates that Paul preferred to appeal to the Greek rather than the Hebrew. Whether this preference is due to necessity (for example, if he only had the Greek available to him) or choice (for example, his case was better made by the Greek, or he assumed his readership would be using the Greek) is a question beyond the scope of this commentary.
Patristic
The Isaiah volume of The Church’s Bible refers to four complete commentaries on Isaiah: Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340), Jerome (342-420), Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458).2 Origen (185-254) wrote a commentary that is now lost, but nine of his homilies elaborate on verses from Isaiah (xxv). Other early authors who expound on small parts of Isaiah include Irenaeus (fl. C. 175-195), the Letter of Barnabas (c. 130), Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Hippolytus (fl. c. 222-245), Didymus the Blind (313-398), Cyril of Jerusalem (fl. c. 348), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394). Tertullian (fl. 197-222) and Aphrahat (fl. 337-345) also commented on Isaiah, but did not write in Greek. Tertullian (Τhe Resurrection of the Flesh 20) provided an overview of how Isaiah was interpreted:
No doubt we are accustomed also to give a spiritual significance to these statements of prophecy, according to the analogy of the physical diseases which were healed by the Lord; but still they were all fulfilled literally: thus showing that the prophets foretold both senses, except that very many of their words can only be taken in a pure and simple signification, and free from all allegorical obscurity; as when we hear of the downfall of nations and cities, of Tyre and Egypt, and Babylon and Edom, and the navy of Carthage; also when they foretell Israel’s own chastisements and pardons, its captivities, restorations, and at last its final dispersion. Who would prefer affixing a metaphorical interpretation to all these events, instead of accepting their literal truth? The realities are involved in the words, just as the words are read in the realities. Thus, then, (we find that) the allegorical style is not used in all parts of the prophetic record, although it occasionally occurs in certain portions of it (A. Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe 1885, 559–60).
The comments of the Nicene Fathers are also relevant. Especially relevant are the commentaries on Isaiah written after 350 by Chrysostom (370-398) and Basil (second half of fourth century). Occasionally reference will be made to these later interpretations of Greek Isaiah.
Early Christian Writers’ Use of Isaiah
The early Christian writers certainly thought the prophet Isaiah was a foreteller of future events. John Sawyer also titled his book on Isaiah in the History of Christianity “The fifth gospel,” building on Jerome’s preface to Isaiah, where he said Isaiah “should be called an evangelist rather than a prophet because he describes all the mysteries of Christ and the Church so clearly that you would think he is composing a history of what has already happened rather than prophesying about what is to come” (Comm. Isa. 24 4:850; McKinion 2004, 3). Chrysostom said, “the souls of the prophets when illuminated by the gift of the Spirit had access to the future” (Wilken 2007, 18). Cyril of Alexandria said Isaiah “was able to see with the eye of the mind what was going to happen to Judah at a later time” (Wilken 2007, 19).
Calling Isaiah the Fifth Gospel, and implying that such a title is long-standing gives the impression that Isaiah was understood throughout history as pointing to the life of Christ, i.e., that interpretations of Isaiah were mainly Christological, even Christocentric. Such is the position of McKinion, who wrote, “For the Fathers, Christ was the skopos (“aim,” “object”) of the Hebrew Scriptures. That is, the author’s intention in writing the Old Testament was to announce the coming Messiah. Early Christian interpreters were nearly unanimous in this regard” (McKinion 2004, xxii). He continued, “Theodoret and Cyril represent this similarity. Both contend that Isaiah spoke of Christ. Both contend as well that some passages speak overtly and that others require interpretation. While they differ on the number of passages that do either, they still agree
that Christ is the subject of the prophecy, as it exists in the Old Testament” (McKinion 2004, xxii). But Elliott disagreed, claiming that the leading patristic interpretation of Isaiah 40-66 “is soteriological rather than christological, that is, focused relatively more on the process of God’s salvation than on the identity of the Savior” (Elliott 2007, xx). Elliott argued that the reason Christ appears so central is that he is a part of salvation history, which is the real focus of Isaiah’s prophecies. The fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies is to be found in the results of the salvation effected by Jesus Christ. In other words, the fulfillment is to be found in the time of the church, the time of the commentators themselves.
Evidence to solve this disagreement may be found by comparing the relative frequency of the time to which the earliest Christian authors believed Isaiah’s prophecies pointed. In order to identify how the Ante-Nicene Fathers interpreted Isaiah, I classified their references to Isaiah according to where they placed the fulfilment of the prophecy.
Of the 1097 references to Isaiah indexed by the Biblia Patristica (at the Biblindex.info website) from Christian writings up to the mid-fourth century (the New Testament, Apostolic Fathers, and Ante-Nicene Fathers), those in which the Christian writer treated the prophecy from Isaiah as a reference to a historical event are 728 in number. The rest of the references are either simply allusions or are used as timeless truths.
Those that were considered fulfilled in the time of Isaiah amount to 4% of the total. For example, Cyprian in Hab. virg. 13 said Isaiah “chides the daughters of Sion” for “departing from God for the sake of the world’s delights” by adorning themselves with cosmetics (Deferrari 1958, 42). In Origen’s explanation of Isaiah 14, he wrote that its lament is offered on behalf of the king of Babylon (Cels. 6.43). But more often among Christian writers we find the view that although the Hebrews think the prophecy referred to a figure from that time such as Hezekiah, it is really about Christ.
The second locus of fulfillment is that of pre-Christian history. For example, Eusebius wrote about the Oracle against Moab in Isaiah 15 that “these things were fulfilled historically at the time of the invasion of the Assyrians and Babylonians…” (ἃ δὴ καὶ ἐπληροῦτο κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσσυρίων καὶ Βαβυλωνίων ἐπιθέσεως, Comm. Isa. 1.70) (Wilken 2007, 185). A similarly small number of interpretations, 4%, take this time frame as their fulfilment.
The third time in which Isaiah’s prophecies might have been fulfilled is in the earthly life of Jesus. This locus of fulfilment is commonly seen in the Gospels, where for example, Matt 1:22-23 says Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled by Jesus’ conception, in the following words: “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel’” (NRSV). Because it is at times hard to tell whether a certain prophecy was more about Christ or about the realities of the Church (because Christ was thought to continue his activity after his ascension), for the purposes of categorizing the references, I included in this third time frame only the historical events that were part of the Jesus’ incarnated life from conception to ascension. The largest number of interpretations, 29%, consider this time the fulfilment of the prophecy.
The fourth locus of fulfillment is that of the period in which the commentator lived: the period of the Church, which began after the ascension, but before the end of the world. The early Christian writer might have seen the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies in his own day, in much the same way that the pesharists at Qumran understood prophecy. For example, in Rom 11:7-8 Paul wrote, ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ, τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν, ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν· οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν, καθὼς γέγραπται· Ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως “Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a sluggish spirit …’” A similarly large proportion, 21%, were thought to be fulfilled in the time of the Church, i.e., in the interpreter’s day.
Finally, the fifth possibility is that the early Christian writer could understand Isaiah’s prophecies as something yet to be fulfilled. Of course, this is the view taken by many amateur interpreters of prophecy today, namely that Isaiah’s prophecies are to be fulfilled at the end of time, as the book of Revelation would have it. For example, Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:54 τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. “then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’” Our collected evidence shows that this eschatological interpretive tendency occurred only 11% of the time among the Church Fathers.
A few trends are worth noting. First, the most obvious trend is that of the five possible fulfilment times assumed by pre-Nicene Christians, two clearly stand out: For most of these early Christians, the prophecies of the first chapters of Isaiah are fulfilled either in the life of Jesus or in the time of the Church, that is, of the commentator himself. There are very few interpretations of Isaiah’s prophecies that are fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, or in pre-Christian history at all, for that matter. The evidence shows that the early Christian writers were even more interested in Isaiah’s prophecies about Jesus’ human life than about his work in the Church. Isaiah was used more to prove that Jesus life was a fulfilment of prophecy than to claim that Isaiah was predicting events in the commentator’s day. The early Christians thought Isaiah rarely, if ever, referred to events in Isaiah’s own day, and it was uncommon for them to find fulfillments in historical events before the time of Jesus at all.
Second, the data also show that certain authors use Isaiah much more than others. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin top the list, with Origen and Cyprian close behind.
Third, the use to which Isaiah was put evolved over time. In the first century, Longenecker correctly observed that the New Testament authors were concerned to show that the “this” that was manifest in the person and work of Jesus “is that” which was recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of hopes for deliverance. The New Testament authors usually did not use Isaiah for polemic, and Isaiah was quoted mainly within the mission to Jews (Longenecker 1975, 96).
In the second century, there are no quotations of Isaiah in the Didache, in Hermas, or the Martyrdom of Polycarp. But Clement of Rome made a few references to Isaiah: mostly allusions, timeless interpretations, or future fulfillments. The non-interpolated writings of Ignatius have mostly allusions and Christological fulfilments, for example, to Jesus’ birth, from Isa 7:14. Barnabas found fulfilments mainly in the time of the church and in Jesus. Barnabas used Isaiah to condemn rituals, but not specifically to condemn the Jewish people, as e.g., in 9.1: “But moreover the circumcision in which they trusted has been abolished. For he declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they erred because an evil angel was misleading them.” Justin Martyr was the one who introduced this kind of anti-Jewish polemic, arguing that because of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, they had been rejected by God, and their blessing transferred to the Gentile believers. Dialogue with Trypho 17 reads, “So that you are the cause not only of your own unrighteousness, but in fact of that of all other men. And Isaiah cries justly: ‘By reason of you, My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.’”
In the third century, Irenaeus found mostly Jesus-fulfilments. In Adv. Haer. 4.23.2 he wrote, “‘in His humiliation His judgment was taken away’ and all the rest which the prophet proceeded to relate in regard to His passion and His coming in the flesh, and how He was dishonoured by those who did not believe Him.” Clement of Alexandria found relatively few fulfillments because he preferred to use Isaiah for allusions and timeless truths. Tertullian wrote an Adversus Judaeos replete with quotations from Isaiah, often fulfilled by Jesus. In this work, he followed the precedent established by Justin, in which Christianity superceded Judaism. For example, in Adv. Jud. 3 he wrote, “For circumcision had to be given; but as ‘a sign,’ whence Israel in the last time would have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be prohibited from entering the holy city, as we see through the words of the prophets, saying, ‘Your land is desert; your cities utterly burnt with fire; your country, in your sight, strangers shall eat up.’” Hippolytus wrote a work on “Antichrist” and one on Daniel, so his interpretations mainly saw fulfilments in the future. Origen followed Clement of Alexandria’s lead, by finding mainly timeless truths and allusions, but Origen was also supercessionist, as indicated in Comm. Matt. 14.17: “Christ … did not put away His former wife, so to speak—that is, the former synagogue—for any other cause than that that wife … plotted against her husband and slew Him, … wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, ‘Of what kind is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, with which I sent her away?’” Cyprian used Isaiah mainly for timeless truths, but also a large number of Jesus-fulfilments. He, too, pitted the Jews against the Christians, claiming that the blessing originally belonging to the Jews was transferred to the Gentiles. Cyprian’s Testimonies against the Jews 1.22, which begins with a quote from Isa 65:13-15, is entitled, “That the Jews would lose while we should receive the bread and the cup of Christ and all His grace, and that the new name of Christians should be blessed in the earth.” Novatian found fulfilments mostly in Jesus.
In the fourth century, Methodius was mostly concerned about chastity so he used Isaiah for that purpose. Lactantius found fulfilments in Jesus almost exclusively. Eusebius held a balance between fulfilments in Jesus and the Church. An example of the latter appears in Comm. Isa. on 23:18: “And this also has been fulfilled among you, for the Church of God has been established in the city of Tyre.”
Fourth, the locus of fulfilment varies depending on which prophecy is being referred to. As may be expected, chapter 53, with its imagery evoking the Passion, was consistently thought to refer to Jesus. Others, such as chapters 1 and 2, with their condemnation of Israel’s unfaithfulness, were seen as predictions of the rejection of Israel in favour of the Gentiles. Those most frequently
considered prophecies about Jesus are chapters 53, 7, 9, 61, and 35. These tend to be prophecies that have an established precedent in the New Testament. The New Testament authors already have interpreted the prophecies of Isaiah 7, 9, 53, and 61 as being fulfilled in Jesus. Those most frequently considered supercessionist are chapters 1, 2, 5, and 19. The 8th-century prophecies of judgement on Israel and Judah were thought to be fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and later also by the major success Christianity met among the Gentiles. But that kind of supercessionism had little place in the 6th-century prophecies of comfort. Instead, the prophecies of the servant songs which in Greek would be the songs of the παῖς, the son, were fulfilled by Jesus.
Fifth, the genre of writing influences the use to which Isaiah is put. The writings “Against the Jews,” intended to refute the Jewish insistence that Jesus was not the Christ tend to emphasize the fulfilments in the person of Jesus, and the indictments of Israel and Judah in the judgement oracles, especially in the first six chapters of Isaiah. The use of Isaiah in these anti-Jewish writings shows they were interested in two main things: that Israel should have recognized the son of God when he came, and that in consequence of their failure, God’s favour has moved from the Jews to the Gentiles. This polemic has its roots in Paul’s letters. For example, in Romans 11:11, after quoting Isaiah 29:10, that God gave Israel a spirit of imperception, Paul wrote, “through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles.” Even in the patristic references to the life of Jesus, the supercessionist theme is frequently present. As a case in point, the interpretations of the first chapter of Isaiah tend to argue that when Jesus came, the Jews did not recognize him, as Justin said, “expecting the Christ, did not recognise Him.” What the Jews were unable to do, the Gentiles did, as Origen said, “Israel did not know the manger of their Lord, but the unclean Gentiles did.” Jesus was predicted by the prophets, according to Justin, 1 Apology 43: the Jews and Samaritans, having the word of God delivered to them by the prophets, and always expecting the Christ, did not recognise Him when He came, except some few, of whom the Spirit of prophecy by Isaiah had predicted that they should be saved. God’s blessing transferred from Jews to Gentiles, according to Origen, Homilies on the Gospel of Luke 13.7: “‘The ox knows his owner and the donkey his master’s manger.’ The ox is a clean animal, and the donkey an unclean one.… The people of Israel did not know the manger of their Lord, but the unclean Gentiles did.” Commenting on chapter 2, Eusebius said, “The beginning of the prophecy is consistent with the reality that the Lord descended not only for the salvation of the Jewish race but also for that of all people” (Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 6.13). He continued to claim that God’s house is no longer the Temple: “the house of God which exists in Judea would be the Church of the nations.”
In light of the manifest purpose of the patristic interpreters, their interpretive tendency cannot simply be called Christological or soteriological because it is not simply a question of whether Isaiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Jesus or in the experience of the Church. Rather, when they are comparable to events in Jesus’ life, Isaiah’s prophecies are used to show that the Jewish people should not have rejected him, but they should have recognized him when he came. When they are comparable to events in the Church subsequent to Jesus’ incarnated life, Isaiah’s prophecies are used to show that the Jewish people were now receiving the consequences of that rejection, that, in the words of the author of Acts, “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: ‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts 28:25-28). So yes, the interpretations are Christological, because they are concerned with the rejection or acceptance of Christ. And yes, the interpretations are soteriological, because salvation depends on the acceptance of Christ. Even yes, the interpretations are eschatological, because they thought they were living in the end times. But the main concern in the second and third century continues that question that perplexed the writers of the New Testament: why do we believe in a Jewish Messiah and the Jews do not?
We may not like their answer to that question, we may be embarrassed by their supersessionism. McKinion and Elliott ignored these unattractive interpretations. Wilken, in his introduction to the Isaiah volume in the Church’s Bible series (xxv), raised the problem of patristic supersessionism, but concluded: “since the purpose of this series is to provide excerpts for spiritual reading and resources for the theological appropriation of the Bible, and not simply to offer a representative cross section of early Christian biblical interpretation, it seemed advisable not to include many of the sharply polemical passages.” But if our goal is to understand the pre-Nicene Christians, we must not sweep these embarrassments under the rug and pretend they are not part of history. Rather, we can learn from both good and bad examples, and use these lessons in self-critical shaping of our own reading of scripture. As we seek to look at historical interpretations of Isaiah, we can recognize something about which Isaiah, and the ancients all agreed, and that is Isaiah’s insistent demand for faithfulness.
Faith
It has long been recognized that “Trust in God is a basic feature in OT religion,” as Bertram said. “This is indicated by the prophetic message. Isaiah and Jeremiah in particular demand confidence in God and warn against false confidence in earthly powers” (in Bultmann 1964, 5). Zion is judged for being a faithless city; king Ahaz is urged to trust God in the face of the threats from Aram and Ephraim. Idols are not to be trusted, and neither is Egypt’s military might.
In the New Testament, trust is normally spoken of using the word πίστις and cognates in the semantic realm that includes faith, trust, belief, and confidence. Some of the most famous sayings in the Bible use one of these words. Paul said, “It is by πίστις that you are saved, not by works, lest anyone should boast.” Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων in him might not perish, but have eternal life.” But despite the importance of faith in the message of Greek Isaiah, πίστις and πιστεύω together appear there only a dozen times.
Because faith is central to Christian theology, the question of how the earliest Christian commentators interpreted faith when they read of it in Isaiah is of interest. We might expect the earliest commentary on Greek Isaiah (that of Eusebius) to interpret this faith in Christian ways by recasting the idea in terms of Christian πίστις. However, this expection is not what we find in Eusebius, based on an examination of how Eusebius treated four kinds of passages in Isaiah: (1) where Isaiah used the root πιστ–; (2) where Isaiah used πεποιθ-; (3) where Isaiah spoke of faith without using these two word groups; and (4) where Eusebius introduced πιστ- words when they were not present in Isaiah.
Eusebius tended not to connect passages in which the root πίστις appears in Isaiah with the πίστις Jesus and the apostles advocate for so prominently in the New Testament. In five passages, Eusebius did not add to what Isaiah says about πίστις (Isaiah 8:2; 22:23, 25; 49:7; 55:3). In two cases, Eusebius did add an interpretation about faith, but it was not distinctively Christian (Isaiah 1:21; 7:9). Only in five cases did he add some Christian interpretation (Isaiah 17:10; 28:16; 33:16; 43:10; 53:1).
Instead, Eusebius did not have a tendency to import Christian theology into Isaiah’s uses of πίστις. Eusebius retained the generally non-theological use of the verbal root πεποίθως in Isaiah. Eusebius did not often speak of faith with vocabulary other than these two words groups. Although Eusebius rarely introduced words from the πεποίθως group into his commentary, he often did mention πίστις where no πίστις was found in his source text.
As an explanation for these phenomena, I propose that Eusebius considered πίστις not as an attitude toward a person or things (trust), nor even as a belief
system (though this is stronger), but he used πίστις primarily to refer to the acceptance or rejection of the divine Christ. In Eusebius’s usage, πίστις mainly describes the assent to Christ, particularly in recognizing pointers to Christ in the scriptural prophecies. The unfaithful are those who do not acknowledge Jesus as the divine Christ, and are identified with the disobedient, rebels, and rejecters.
Modern Study
Modern Study of the Septuagint
On the “Septuagint” generally, until recently the most comprehensive overview was that of Fernández Marcos (2000), although the earlier introduction by Swete (1887) is still useful, and the more general introductions by Jobes and Silva (2000) and Dines and Knibb (2004) are helpful. Reference will be made to grammars of the Septuagint (Conybeare and Stock 1905; Thackeray 1909) and to Swete’s introduction (1914). The years since I began this commentary have seen the republication of Tov’s essays (Tov 2006), the publication of a lively introduction (Law 2013), and a systematic description of the translation of the individual books (Aitken 2015). Bibliographies of the Septuagint have been collected in recent decades (Brock, Fritsch, and Jellicoe 1973; Tov 1983; Dogniez 1995).
Modern Study of Greek Isaiah
Editions of the Greek text of Isaiah include those of Brenton (1844), Swete (1887), Ottley (1904), Rahlfs (1935), Ziegler (1939), the Sinaiticus project (“The Codex Sinaiticus Website” 2008). Earlier English translations of Greek Isaiah include those of Silva, Ottley (1904), Brenton (1844), and the Lexham English Septuagint (Brannan et al. 2012). In German there is now the Septuaginta-Deutsch (Baltzer et al. 2009), and in French the Bible d’Alexandrie (le Boulluec and le Moigne 2014).
Works specifically on the whole of Greek Isaiah begin with the studies of Scholz (1880) and Ottley (1904). Ziegler (1934) and Seeligmann (1948) set the stage for the next generation of research on Greek Isaiah. Major works on Greek Isaiah that followed included those by das Neves (1973) and Koenig (1982). Arie van der Kooij has been the most prolific of the scholars on Greek Isaiah (van der Kooij 1978; 1981; 1982b; 1982a; 1986; 1997c; 1997a; 1998b; 1998a; 2006a; van der Kooij and van der Meer 2010a). Some of his students have continued his work, namely Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs (Croughs 2001; van der Vorm-Croughs 2010; 2014), and Wilson de Angelo Cunha (2009a; 2009b; 2013; 2014). Monographs devoted to Greek Isaiah include Olley (1979), Ekblad (1999), Baer (2001), Troxel (2008), de Sousa (2010), Wagner (2013), Ngunga (2013),
Byun (2017). A recent bibliography specifically of Greek Isaiah is included in the Arie van der Kooij Festschrift (van der Kooij and van der Meer 2010b).
Pluses and Minuses
Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs’s monograph (2014) enumerates and describes the reasons for one of the main categories of differences between the Greek and Hebrew of Isaiah, namely those differences that exhibit themselves quantitatively. Such a quantitative difference is called a “plus” when the Old Greek includes words with no counterpart in the Masoretic Text, and a “minus” if the Masoretic Text includes words with no counterpart in the Old Greek. Van der Vorm-Croughs made two valuable contributions. One is text-critical, by showing that most differences can be explained by clear tendencies without recourse to a different Vorlage. Second, she showed which translation techniques Greek Isaiah considered acceptable, i.e., what rules he followed. Almost every plus or minus can be attributed to a small number of policies. Notably, one of these rules was rearrangement. Although she claimed for Greek Isaiah a high proficiency in both Hebrew and Greek, I do not find the evidence for the Hebrew convincing because it consists solely of Greek Isaiah’s use of formal association (showing he was well rooted in Jewish exegesis), and his borrowing from other (Greek) scriptures (showing that he had a thorough acquaintance with scripture) (van der Vorm-Croughs 2014, 521).
Marchalianus Isaiah
Description of Manuscript
History of Codex Marchalianus
Scribes
Orthography
The first-hand scribe of Q regularly omitted the mu in futures of -λαμβάνω: λήψεται, 2:4; 8:4; 10:29; 19:9; 23:5; 28:19; 30:28; 33:14; 41:16; 57:13; ἐπιλήψεται, 4:1; 5:29; λήψομαι, 10:10; λήψῃ, 14:4; περιληφθήσονται, 31:9; καταλήψεται, 35:10; λήψονται, 14:2; 39:6, 7; ἀναλήψομαι, 46:4; Q’s corrector made this tendency more uniform by deleting the mu from ἐπιλήμψεται, 3:6; λήμψεται, 15:7; 26:11; 49:24, 25; 64:1, 3; ἀντιλήμψομαι, 42:1; λήμψομαι, 47:4; 66:21; καταλήμψεται, 51:11; and ἀντιλημψόμενος, 59:16. The first-hand scribe also omitted the mu in one aorist of λαμβάνω: ἐλήφθη, 52:5.
The first-hand of Q used a single σ in place of two with ὡστιγμὴ (ὡς στιγμὴ), 29:5; Ziegler’s apparatus does not mention this error. A similar mistake may have occurred with νοσοις, 60:8; while νοσοις may be read as the feminine dative plural of νόσος (νοσοῖς), Ziegler placed Q*’s reading alongside νοσσοῖς (=S B O L-96 198 544); Qc opted for νεοσσοῖς (=ARZ).
Q* doubled the γ in μογιλάλων (μογγιλάλων =Q*-26-106 O(Bc)-88 lI-311 (μωγγιλ.) 91-490-cI’), 35:6.
Correctors
Ziegler identified the work of Q’s corrector (Qc) as being focused on eliminating itacisms, the remaining μ in 3:6’s ἐπιλήμψεται (as well as in other futures of -λαμβάνω, see above), and occasionally deleting the ultimate ν—such as in ἀνῆκεν, 2:6. He suggested the correction at 33:21 (διωρυχες from διώρυγες) reveals an hexaplaric origin.
Figure 1: Isa 33:21 – Qc‘s spelling of διώρυγες to διώρυχες may reveal hexaplaric influence
Ziegler suggested that the corrections of Qc and the anonymous hexaplaric readings of Qmg2 may go back to the same hand since both are hexaplaric (46); according to him, Q*/Qtxt belongs to the Alexandrian group rather than the hexaplaric recension.
Uncorrected errors in Q which are not mentioned in the apparatus of either Swete or Ziegler include: αὐτιοῦ, 29:8; κληρομήσουσι, 61:7.
Swete noted in the section of his Introduction detailing The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions:
‘Pentapla’ is cited by J. Curterius from cod. Q at Isa. iii. 24,
and Field’s suspicion that Curterius had read his MS. incorrectly
is not confirmed by a reference to the photograph, which exhibits
ἐν τῷ πεντασελίδῳ. Origen’s work, then, existed (as
Eusebius implies) in two forms: (1) the Hexapla, which contained,
as a rule, six columns, but sometimes five or seven or
eight, when it was more accurately denominated the Pentapla,
Heptapla, or Octapla; and (2) the Tetrapla, which contained
only four columns answering to the four great Greek versions,
excluding the Hebrew and Greek-Hebrew texts on the one
hand, and the Quinta and Sexta on the other. (Swete 1914, 67)
Figure 2: Marginal notes at Isa 3:24 referencing τω πεντασελιδω and Origen
The reading ταυτα σοι αντι καλλωπισμου σου noted at 3:24 does not appear in Origen; Ziegler identified it (minus σου) as being Lucianic (47).
Glosses
Discovery
Publication
Divisions
The Format of this Commentary
This commentary has three aims. First, it seeks to bring together the insights scattered among the various published studies on the Greek translation of Isaiah and particularly its exemplar in Codex Marchalianus. Therefore the secondary literature that deals with a specific verse or interpretive crux in Greek Isaiah is discussed under that verse in the commentary.
Second, this commentary seeks to answer the kinds of questions that an imagined reader of Greek Isaiah might ask. For this purpose, the reader I imagine is a graduate student of biblical studies who is making an early foray into reading the Jewish Greek Scriptures. Accordingly, I address questions regarding the variant readings, unusual vocabulary, morphology, and grammar.
Third, this commentary seeks to present Greek Isaiah as a text that was read by those who produced the Codex Marchalianus. Therefore it discusses points raised about the text as received more than about the text as produced. It is not that Greek Isaiah is not interesting as a translation; it most certainly is! In fact those interesting questions bleed through into even this commentary. But for such questions there is another commentary series that examines the Greek translations with reference to the underlying Hebrew. In holding that the SBL series and the Brill series complement each other, I affirm Takamitsu Muraoka’s words from over three decades ago, when he wrote:
Indeed, one must distinguish two essentially different approaches to the LXX. On the one hand, it can be studied from the point of view of the translator or translators. Then questions would be raised as to how he understood the Semitic text or why he chose this or that particular mode of rendering the original text. For obvious reasons, this approach dominates the bulk of Septuagintal studies, with an undesirable effect of relegating such studies to the position of an ancillary discipline within the Old Testament research. The other approach, however, would seek to look at the Greek translation without reference to the underlying Hebrew or Aramaic text. Strange as it might sound to advocates of the first approach, this was exactly how the LXX was looked at and read by the Church since late antiquity, with a few notable exceptions such as St. Jerome. The
two approaches which one may conveniently characterize as translator-centred and reader-centred, are applicable to more than one area, not only lexical. Soisalon-Soininen’s numerous studies on aspects of the LXX Greek grammar are unmistakably characterized by the first approach. One should not think, however, that the two are mutually exclusive, but rather they should be complementary (Muraoka 1984).
Transcription
Because this commentary is on a specific manuscript rather than a reconstructed critical edition, a transcription of the manuscript is the starting point for any discussion. In this case, the task of transcription was made far easier thanks to the availability of the following electronic resources: the Digital Vatican Library website, Logos Bible Software, Diogenes, and the Perseus website.
Yet the fact that only one manuscript is under consideration does not mean the editor is released from making editorial decisions. No, because the several scribes and correctors do not always agree on the correct reading, critical judgement is still required. To maintain consistency, I have endeavoured to present the earliest intelligible readings of Marchalianus. In some cases where the original scribe made an error that resulted in a nonexistent word, or an ungrammatical construction, this policy meant emending the text, but usually it was possible to follow one of the correctors of the manuscript.
I have provided accentuation, normalized spelling, and punctuation to make the text more accessible to readers. I have followed Rahlfs (1979) to standardize the accentuation and orthography, except where Rahlfs does not accent Hebrew names, in which case I have followed Swete. The same applies for the punctuation, since the only punctuation in the manuscript is likely from a later time. Again I largely follow Rahlfs and Swete. The manuscript punctuation consists of the occasional raised dot, colon, or dieresis (above word-initial iota and upsilon). I have adjusted the punctuation when necessary to suit the divisions marked in the manuscript or variant readings, and noted in the commentary such adjustments where appropriate.
As noted above in the discussion of the manuscript, Codex Marchalianus is not divided into the chapter and verse divisions so familiar to today’s Bible reader.
Translation
My translation could be described as woodenly literal, insofar as I do not attempt to convey in good English style the thoughts in G’s mind. Instead, I try to replicate the effect on the reader. What this means is that where G would sound stilted or awkward to a native Greek reader (as it often would), I aim to produce that same effect for the English reader. In order to preserve the connections between passages, and word-plays, I have attempted to maintain some lexical consistency.
Commentary
The main criterion I used to decide whether a feature of the text merited comment was simple: what would likely raise questions for a typical graduate student studying early Judaism or early Christianity. A typical graduate student might wonder about vocabulary, morphology, grammar, syntax, and differences among printed editions. He or she might be interested in the debates raised in the secondary literature, especially journal articles. Such a reader would not be as interested in comments on the Hebrew text, or on the grander themes already present in the original Hebrew Isaiah For those questions the standard commentaries on Isaiah are readily available, and in no way do I pretend to replace them. Unfortunately, of the excellent monographs on Greek Isaiah, several were published only after I had written the commentary, so I interact with this recent work only sporadically.
Feedback/Errata