Different Parent Texts in Isaiah 53:8d? (Part 2)

In the last post, we considered the different vocalizations between the MT and Symm. and the rest of the OT tradition.  The former witnesses preserve a noun nega’, while the latter witnesses contained a verb for the consonants נגע.  In this post, the textual variant comes to the fore.  The last post contains the evidence and it will not be listed again here.  The reader is encouraged to scan the evidence once more before continuing with this post.  We will conclude by giving an English translation of the verse which is not in any English Bible today, although the proposal is not mine originally [see the proposal of Jan De Waard, who is reporting for the UBS committee and Dominique Barthelemy here].

The Textual Problem in Isaiah 53:8d

This stichos contains a genuine textual variant between the MT and the LXX.  The MT reads למו while the LXX reads εις θανατον.  Gaining a full understanding of the MT as it stands constitutes the initial problem.  What does lamo mean?  The Ancient Versions also testify to the ambiguity of this form, since some translate it as a 3rd masculine plural pronoun (Aq Symm Th T V?) while others have a 3rd masculine singular pronoun (P V?).  What is the meaning of the MT here?  There is very little evidence, if any, that this form may be read as a 3ms for לו while most of the evidence indicates that this form is an allo-morph for להם.  Clearly the Versions testify to the plural meaning in this context.  Thus the MT read consistently means “on account of the transgression of my people the blow was theirs/belongs to them.”  The lamed indicates possession in this instance.  Therefore the MT read on its on terms does not really teach the substitutionary death of the individual servant in this verse.  Of course it does elsewhere, if we assume the Masoretes used and understood the term Servant in the same way.  The Targum of this chapter indicates that the Servant is the Messiah, but a national interpretation cannot be ruled out entirely.

There is one English translation that is worth mentioning in this connection: the New American Standard Version.  The NAS reads: For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke {was due?}.  The NAS has attempted to make sense of a difficult reading in the MT.  Their reading maintains that the Servant was cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due.  It has placed in brackets the reconstruction of the verbal clause in the stichos.  However, this is a completely hypothetical reconstruction since there is not a shred of evidence in the Hebrew text or the Versions which would warrant this reading.  In addition, the NAS has read the 3mp or 3ms pronoun as a relative pronoun, even though there is no relative pronoun in the text.  Is the pronoun resumptive?  Again, there is no relative pronoun earlier in the verse, which this pronoun would resume. Lastly, the NAS has read the min preposition quite loosely.  They translate “for,” which is only warranted if they mean “because.”  The “because” introduces the final stichos of the verse and provides the immediate reason for the blow belonging to them.  I do not think the min is a conjunction connecting the third and fourth stichoi, since even the MT has a disjunctive accent between these.  Rather the two lines constitute beautiful poetry.  The first line “for he was cut off from the land of the living” is explained by the second, “on account of the transgression of my people, the blow was belonged to them.”  Therefore, the NAS translation of this verse does not have grammatical basis.  They have misread the MT or have tried to cover the grammatical/theological problem the text introduces.  Either way they do not have a sufficient reading of this verse.

The Reading of the LXX

The LXX reads εις θανατον, which, when retroverted into Hebrew, evidences the following parent text: למות “to death.”  The only difference between the MT and the LXX is a tav.  Now the solution comes down to probabilities and scribal tendencies.  What is more probable: an original tav falling out of the text [via scribal error or damaged manuscript] or the adding of a tav during the transmission of the text?  In this case the former scenario is more easily imagined, since scribes are less likely to add than take away accidentally.  Thus on this reconstruction, the LXX preserves the original text.  The MT and the rest of the tradition including 1QIsa all testify to a divergent text, a text that lost the tav at a very early stage in its transmission.

We are now in a position to evaluate the place of 1QIsa in the textual history of this verse.  This text was early enough to preserve the correct vocalization of נגע but it was already late enough to contain the erroneous למו.  Therefore 1QIsa stands in an intermediate position in the textual transmission of this verse.

Conclusion

The reconstruction of the original text of this verse depends on the consulting of all of the available sources.  Based on this reconstruction of the evidence, the final translation of this verse should be as follows: on account of the transgression of my people he was stricken unto death.  The verb is not in brackets (like NAS et al) because it depends on 1QIsa and most of the Versions, while “unto death” depends on the LXX as containing the original reading of the verse given the probability that the original tav is more likely to drop out of the transmission of the text accidentally than it is to be added accidentally or even intentionally.

This textual problem is an indication of how important textual criticism is for English translations.  English translations must incorporate these types of variants and not be so concerned to make sure the text assumes the same form it has for hundreds of years.

Do you have any thoughts or comments on the incorporation of textual critical findings into English translations?  I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.