Splash Page: BibleWorks' Copyright Notice,

Font download, and its Bible version Abbreviations

Copyright notice, pasted from http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html :"BWHEBB, BWHEBL,

BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT
fonts Copyright © 1994-2006 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew
fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis and
research." You can download the above fonts from that same link, either as zip file (recommended,
so you can easily do it again when needed) or as an exe file. Please restart Windows afterwards, or
it will act unpredictably.

I heartily recommend BibleWorks software: at $300, it's the best bargain out there; upgrades are
usually $200 or less. You get a full morphological analysis with each word, so it makes learning
the languages, much faster and easier. Dunno about you, but I dislike the way they teach
language in school: repetition with no relevancy. My best friend quips she had four years of
French, but can only say "ou est la biblioteque". And she's a Phi Beta Kappa. So here in
BibleWorks, you see relevancy: text with the Auto-info window just below, shows morphology of
every word, so you quickly learn how God chose to write. And His Wit is incredible, since He uses
every nuance of the language, to communicate meaning. So everything is relevant and enjoyable,
even all that erstwhile-dry grammar, if it's in the Word. Much faster and more enjoyable way to
learn. What your pastor then says about morphology, makes faster sense and you learn what he
means, better. Breathing 1Jn1:9, you'll get the Holy Spirit's deiknumi (pointing-out) function
(corollary of John 14:26), so He'll show you what to notice and how it ties to whatever you're
learning/searching. This is true happiness.

Frankly, my wallet testifies that you'd have to pay FAR more if you separately purchased the many
good lexicons and language study materials now in BibleWorks version 7; don't even ask how much
more I paid at a local seminary! Even then, you'd still lack the ease-of-integration BibleWorks
provides with the same material -- ease of searching, side-by-side comparison in Windows rather
than heavy books/codices all over the floor, like Gesenius, Tregelles, Tishendorf and Jerome all
must have suffered. It's understandable that Bible scholarship, teaching, and translation have
retained so many errors: without this software, how could they proof anything? Had to be a
miracle, that they got ANY of it right. And via the software, this stupid brainout can do in ten
minutes, what took them a week or more to do. In short, this software is a goldmine. The program
requires a lot of downtime to learn its functions, and can be frustrating. Worth it!

BibleWorks people don't know about my anonymous "brainout" pages or this recommendation;
they only know my real name, since I'm a registered user, unpaid. But God already pays anyone a
bizillion dollars who reads His Word with interest, 1Tim6:5-6.

The font names above, once installed, will show in lower case in your Windows/Fonts subdirectory;
they will also show up in Word. So the following pages of this document, should display properly. If
instead you find unreadable text, either you didn't restart your computer, or you didn't properly
download the fonts, yikes! So try again.

Now to the abbreviations of BibleWorks' software Bibles which use these fonts, in this and like
documents of mine. Verses in my documents will be pasted from BibleWorks, in these versions.
• "BHT" is a special, copyrighted, Transliterated Hebrew OT licensed to the BibleWorks people.
It uses the Bwtransh font. Its phonetics can be helpful.
• "WTT" is the BHS Hebrew (Masoretic) OT text. It uses the Bwhebb font.
• "BGT" is BibleWorks' own compilation of both the LXX and (usually NA27) texts. It uses the
Bwgrk fonts.

Other major "witnesses" are also in BibleWorks, like Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Friberg, etc.
But "BGT" seems to be a compilation of the best among them (i.e., the most likely correct text).
As you analyze Bible in the original, you come to know when a verse needs audit-checking
 2
(famous example is James 4:5, which should not capitalize "pros", but does). So having more
than one Greek text, is a must. And we have thousands, not just a few, for comparison.

As usual, Greek and Hebrew words are given in their vocabulary form (i.e., as lexicons list
them), unless quoted, etc. I try to Romanize Greek words with the English-letter equivalents, or
phonetically. Hebrew words if not obvious, are given with the letter names of their roots, as
well.

Oh: in Word, these fonts won't properly display in "Normal" View mode. But they do display
properly in View Print, Print Preview (my favorite viewing mode) or in View Web mode, once
you've downloaded the fonts and rebooted. (Quirk: downloaded fonts require rebooting.) Of
course, after that the printer will properly print, too. End Splash Page.
 3
Isaiah 52:13-54:1, pasted from BibleWorks
blue font shows meter (ellision and dramatic pause assumed)

BHT \
Isaiah 52:13 hinnË yaS•Kîl `ab•Dî yärûm9 wüniSSä´ wügäbah mü´öd8

`dao)m. Hb;Þg"w> aF'²nIw> ~Wrôy" yDI_b.[; lyKiÞf.y: hNEïhi

WTT
Isaiah 52:13
BGT
Isaiah 52:13 ivdou. sunh,sei o` pai/j mou9 \ kai. u`ywqh,setai kai. doxasqh,setai
sfo,dra15\

BHT
\
Isaiah 52:14 Ka´ášer šämümû `älʺkä raBBîm9 Kën-miš•Hat më´îš mar•´ëºhû8 \ wütö´árô
miBBünê ´ädäm9
`~d'(a' ynEïB.mi Arßa]tow> Whae_r>m; vyaiÞme tx;îv.mi-!
Ke ~yBiêr; ‘^yl,’[' WmÜm.v' rv,’a]K; Isaiah 52:14 WTT

BGT o]n tro,pon evksth,sontai evpi. se. polloi,11\ ou[twj avdoxh,sei avpo.
Isaiah 52:14
avnqrw,pwn to. ei=do,j sou15\ kai. h` do,xa sou avpo. tw/n avnqrw,pwn11\

BHT \ \
Isaiah 52:15 Kën yazzè Gôyìm raBBîm `äläyw9 yiq•Pücû müläkîm Pîhem8 Kî ´ášer lö|´-suPPar

lähem rä´û9\ wa´ášer lö|´-šäm•`û hit•Bônäºnû9

`Wnn")ABt.hi W[ßm.v'-al rv<ïa]w: Waêr' ‘~h,l' rP:Üsu-al{) rv,’a]
yKiû ~h,_yPi ~ykiÞl'm. WcïP.q.yI wyl'²[' ~yBiêr; ~yIåAG ‘hZ<y: !KEÜ
Isa 52:15
BGT ou[twj qauma,sontai e;qnh polla. evpV
Isaiah 52:15 \ kai. sune,xousin
auvtw/|11
basilei/j to. sto,ma auvtw/n11\ o[ti oi-j ouvk avnhgge,lh peri. auvtou/ o;yontai15\ kai.
oi] ouvk avkhko,asin sunh,sousin11\

BHT \
Isaiah 53:1 mî he´émîn liš•mù`ätëºnû9 ûzürôª` yhwh(´ädönäy)`al-mî nig•läºtâ9

`ht'l'(g>nI ymiî-l[; hw"ßhy> [;Arïz>W Wnte_['muv.li !

ymiÞa/h, ymiî Isaiah 53:1 WTT

BGT ku,rie ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/n15\ kai. o` braci,wn kuri,ou
Isaiah 53:1
ti,ni avpekalu,fqh15\

BHT
Isaiah 53:2 wayyaº`al Kayyônëq lüpänäyw9\ wükaššöºreš më´eºrec ciyyâ9\ lö´-töº´ar lô4\ wülö´ hädär4\

wünir•´ëºhû4\ wülö|´-mar•´è4\ wüneH•müdëºhû4

`Whde(m.x.n<w> ha,Þr>m;-al{)w> Whaeîr>nIw> rd"+h'

al{åw> Alà ra;toï-al{ hY"ëci #r,a,äme ‘vr,Vo’k;w> wyn"©p'l.
qnE÷AYK; l[;Y:“w: Isaiah 53:2
BGT
avnhggei,lamen evnanti,on auvtou/ w`j paidi,on15\ w`j r`i,za evn gh/|
Isaiah 53:2
diyw,sh|8\ ouvk e;stin ei=doj auvtw/| ouvde. do,xa15\ kai. ei;domen auvto,n kai.
ouvk ei=cen ei=doj ouvde. ka,lloj15\
 4

BHT Isaiah 53:3 nib•zè waHádal ´îšîm8\ ´îš mak•´öbôt wîdûª` Höºlî8\ ûkümas•Tër Pänîm mimmeºnnû8 \
nib•zè wülö´ Hášab•nuºhû8

`WhnU)b.v;x] al{ïw> hz<ßb.nI WNM,êmi ‘~ynIP'

rTEÜs.m;k.W ylixo+ [;WdåywI tAbßaok.m; vyaiî ~yviêyai
ld;äx]w: ‘hz<b.nI Isaiah 53:3 WTT

BGT avlla. to. ei=doj auvtou/ a;timon10\ evklei/pon para. pa,ntaj

Isaiah 53:3
avnqrw,pouj10\ a;nqrwpoj evn plhgh/| w'n kai. eivdw.j fe,rein malaki,an15\ o[ti
avpe,straptai to. pro,swpon auvtou/10\ hvtima,sqh kai. ouvk evlogi,sqh10\
 5

BHT \ \
Isaiah 53:4 ´äkën Hóläyëºnû hû´ näSä´9 ûmak•´öbêºnû sübäläm 8 wa´ánaºH•nû4 \
Hášab•nuºhû4\ nägûª` muKKË4\ ´élöhîm ûmü`unnè4
`hN<)[um.W ~yhiÞl{a/ hKeîmu [;Wg°n" WhnUëb.v;x]
Wnx.n:åa]w: ~l'_b's. WnybeÞaok.m;W af'ên" aWhå ‘WnyE’l'x\
!kEÜa' Isaiah 53:4 WTT

BGT ou-toj ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n fe,rei11\ kai. peri. h`mw/n ovduna/tai9\
Isaiah 53:4
kai. h`mei/j evlogisa,meqa auvto.n11\ ei=nai evn po,nw| kai. evn plhgh/| kai. evn
kakw,sei15\

BHT
\ \
Isaiah 53:5 wühû´ müHöläl miPPüšä`ëºnû9 müduKKä´ më`áwönötêºnû9 mûsar šülômëºnû

`äläyw9\ ûbaHábùrätô nir•Pä´-läºnû9

`Wnl'(-aP'r>nI Atàr'bux]b;W wyl'ê[' ‘Wnme’Alv. rs:ÜWm
Wnyte_nOwO[]me aK'Þdum. Wn[eêv'P.mi ll'äxom. ‘aWhw> WTT

Isaiah 53:5
BGT
auvto.j de. evtraumati,sqh dia. ta.j avnomi,aj
Isaiah 53:5 \ kai.
h`mw/n15
memala,kistai dia. ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n15\ paidei,a eivrh,nhj h`mw/n8\ evpV
auvto,n tw/| mw,lwpi auvtou/ h`mei/j iva,qhmen15\

BHT \ \
Isaiah 53:6 Kulläºnû Kaccö´n Tä`îºnû 8 ´îš lüdar•Kô Pänîºnû8 wyhwh(wa|´dönäy) hip•Gîª` Bô

´ët `áwön Kulläºnû9

`WnL'(Ku !wOð[] taeÞ ABê [;yGIåp.hi ‘hw"hyw:) WnynI+P'
AKßr>d;l. vyaiî Wny[iêT' !aCoåK; ‘WnL'’Ku Isaiah 53:6 WTT

BGT
pa,ntej w`j pro,bata evplanh,qhmen11\ a;nqrwpoj th/| o`dw/| auvtou/
Isaiah 53:6
evplanh,qh11\ kai. ku,rioj pare,dwken auvto.n10\ tai/j a`marti,aij h`mw/n7\

BHT
Isaiah 53:7 niGGaS wühû´ na`ánè7\ wülö´ yip•TaH-Pîw7\ KaSSè la††eºbaH yûbäl7\ ûküräHël

lip•nê gözüzʺhä9\ ne´éläºmâ wülö´ yip•TaH Pîw9

`wyPi( xT;Þp.yI al{ïw> hm'l'_a/n< h'yz<ßz>gO ynEïp.li
lxe§r"k.W lb'êWy xb;J,äl; ‘hF,K; èwyPi-xT;p.yI al{åw>
éhn<[]n: aWhåw> fG:“nI Isa53:7
BGT
kai. auvto.j dia. to. kekakw/sqai10\ ouvk avnoi,gei to. sto,ma7\ w`j
Isaiah 53:7
pro,baton evpi. sfagh.n h;cqh10\ kai. w`j avmno.j evnanti,on tou/ kei,rontoj auvto.n
a;fwnoj17\ ou[twj ouvk avnoi,gei to. sto,ma auvtou/10\

BHT \ \
Isaiah 53:8 më`öºcer ûmimmiš•Pä† luqqäH8 wü´et-Dôrô mî yüSôHëªH8 Kî nig•zar më´eºrec

Hayyîm8\ miPPeºša` `ammî neºga` läºmô8

 6
`Aml'( [g:n<ï yMiÞ[; [v;P,îmi ~yYIëx; #r,a,äme ‘rz:g>nI yKiÛ
x;xe_Afy> ymiä ArßAD-ta,w> xQ'êlu ‘jP'v.MimiW rc,[oÜme WTT
Isaiah 53:8
BGT evn th/| tapeinw,sei h` kri,sij auvtou/ h;rqh11\ th.n genea.n auvtou/ ti,j
Isaiah 53:8
dihgh,setai11\ o[ti ai;retai avpo. th/j gh/j h` zwh. auvtou/15\ avpo. tw/n avnomiw/n
tou/ laou/ mou h;cqh eivj qa,naton15\

BHT
\ \
Isaiah 53:9 wayyiTTën ´et-rüšä`îm qib•rô9 wü´et-`äšîr Bümötäyw7 `al lö´-Hämäs `äSâ7 \
wülö´ mir•mâ Büpîw7
`wypi(B. hm'Þr>mi al{ïw> hf'ê[' sm'äx'-al{ l[;… wyt'_moB.
ryviÞ['-ta,w> Arêb.qi ‘~y[iv'r>-ta, !TEÜYIw: Isaiah 53:9 WTT

BGT kai. dw,sw tou.j ponhrou.j avnti. th/j tafh/j auvtou/15\ kai. tou.j
Isaiah 53:9
plousi,ouj avnti. tou/ qana,tou auvtou/ 11\ o[ti avnomi,an ouvk evpoi,hsen10\ ouvde.
eu`re,qh do,loj evn tw/| sto,mati auvtou/15\
 7

BHT \ \
Isaiah 53:10 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî9 ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm nap•šô8 yir•´è

zeºra` ya´árîk• yämîm9\ wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH9

`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:
[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D;
#peÛx' hw"ùhyw: Isaiah 53:10 WTT

BGT kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j15\ eva.n dw/te peri.
Isaiah 53:10
a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n15\ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,rioj
avfelei/n10\

BHT
Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô6\ yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq9\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|
raBBîm8\ wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl8
`lBo)s.yI aWhï ~t'ÞnOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIÞb.[; qyDI²c;
qyDIîc.y: ATª[.d;B. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI ‘Avp.n: lm;Û[]me WTT Isaiah
53:11
BGT
Isaiah 53:11 avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j15\ kai.
pla,sai th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai11\ di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j15\ kai. ta.j
a`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.j avnoi,sei11\

BHT
Isaiah 53:12 läkën ´áHalleq-lô bäraBBîm9\ wü´et-`ácûmîm yüHallëq šäläl9\ TaºHat
´ášer he`érâ lammäºwet9\ nap•šô wü´et-Pöš•`îm nim•nâ9\ wühû´ H놕´-raBBîm näSä´8\
wülaPPöš•`îm yap•Gîª` s8
‘aWhw> hn"+m.nI ~y[iÞv.Po-ta,w> Avêp.n: ‘tw<M'’l; hr"Û[/h, rv,’a]
tx;T;ª èll'v' qLeäx;y> é~ymiWc[]-ta,w> ~yBiªr:b' Alå-qL,x;a] !keúl' Isaiah WTT

53:12
s `[:yGI)p.y: ~y[iÞv.Pol;w> af'ên" ~yBiär:-aj.xe
BGT Isaiah 53:12 dia. tou/to auvto.j klhronomh,sei pollou.j 11\ kai. tw/n ivscurw/n
meriei/ sku/la10\ avnqV w-n paredo,qh eivj qa,naton h` yuch. auvtou/15\ kai. evn
toi/j avno,moij evlogi,sqh10\ kai. auvto.j a`marti,aj pollw/n avnh,negken11\ kai. dia.
ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n paredo,qh15\

BHT Isaiah 54:1 ronnî `áqärâ lö´ yäläºdâ9\ Pic•Hî rinnâ wücahálî lö´-Häºlâ11\ Kî|-raBBîm Bü|
nê-šômëmâ8\ miBBünê bü`ûlâ ´ämar yhwh(´ädönäy)9
`hw")hy> rm:ïa' hl'ÞW[b ynEïB.mi hm'²meAv-ynEB>) ~yBiór;-
yKi( hl'x'ê-al{ ‘ylih]c;w> hN"ÜrI yxi’c.Pi hd'l'_y" al{å hr'Þq'[] yNIïr' WTT
Isaiah 54:1
BGT Isaiah 54:1 euvfra,nqhti stei/ra h` ouv ti,ktousa10\ r`h/xon kai. bo,hson h` ouvk
 8
wvdi,nousa10\ o[ti polla. ta. te,kna th/j evrh,mou10\ ma/llon h' th/j evcou,shj to.n
a;ndra10\ ei=pen ga.r ku,rioj6\
 9
How to Rebuild the Missing Hebrew Text from the Greek, in Isaiah 53:10-
12
Why we know text is missing: the Greek verbs in the LXX of Isa53:10-11 do not have ANY of the
corresponding Hebrew words in the same verses, which are normally used elsewhere in Bible.
We also know these verses have one or more gaps in the Isaiah scroll. NT writers all frequently
reference the LXX text of Isa53:10-11. Finally, the meter is off in the Hebrew of Isa53:11, at least
(compared to what Isaiah's been using), thus implying text is missing.

Most important is the fact that the Greek verbs do have Hebrew counterparts in Bible which are absent in
verses 10-11, but should not be. The verbs are too important, and the NT writers all frequently reference
these Greek verbs in these two verses. For example, Greek verb katharizw appears in the OT 94 times, and
always has an atonement/purification connotation. 'Mostly, as a translation for Hebrew verb kaphar, taher, or
hata, but not for dakah, which is used in Isa53:10. The latter is translated with many different Greek words,
all of which stress either the condition of being broken and crushed, or hitting/crushing action which causes
that condition. See for yourself: search both the BHS and the LXX texts. BibleWorks makes searching, easy.
I couldn't make this document without it.

Isaiah would not miss so important a Hebrew keyverb as kaphar or taher, especially here. So the LXX must
have been translating one of those verbs, if using katharizw. So one ought to back-translate the LXX
text and then test for Isaiah's meter. Same can be said for the other keywords which don't have the
expected Hebrew counterparts. Obviously what's concluded below is an educated guess. Here's what's not a
guess: the LXX words missing in the Hebrew are frequently referenced in the NT. Every one of the five
infinitives is played on by the Lord and the NT writers so much, I rarely find an NT verse which doesn't
reference one (directly or conceptually).

Also, Isaiah's dramatic style repeats a prior phrase and slightly changes its meaning, typical in Hebrew verse.
This style is well-known. Two paired statements, very close and repetitive, yet slightly differing, to highlight
some principle or celebrate the meaning exposited. You see that style in Psalms, which predate Isaiah; you
see it in Proverbs, in the prophetical writings. It's a kind of poetic discourse. So why is that doubling
suddenly absent in the Hebrew here? The Hebrew is too brusque, compared to prior verses in context. The
LXX insertions proposed below seem to restore that doubling style.

Next, in Hebrew poetic verse you'll find a lot of antiphony: a stylized presentation of two or more persons
talking to each other, not unlike an ancient (i.e., Greek) play. Often these "persons" are Father and Son.
Isaiah in particular specializes in antiphony (Isaiah 9, 63 are quick examples). David used antiphony a lot
(i.e., the famous Psalms 22, 40, 110). Father talking to Son. Son talking to Father. So given that in Isa53:10
you have the third person used in the Hebrew, and a 2nd person quotation in the Greek, probably means the
Greek follows the Hebrew, 'answering' it.

So let's pause to play devil's advocate. Counter-contention: one often finds the Greek text using the second
person when the Hebrew uses the third person in the OT. The LXX is generally translated idiomatically, not
literally. That is a better practice, and of course enough people were around who knew both languages, to
explain any differences as mere idiom. Then the Bible got 'lost', locked up in monasteries, churches, largely
inaccessible; for the better part of two millenia, you had to become a monk or a nun, if you wanted to have
ongoing access to an original-language Bible. Only in the 1800's did the original-language texts begin to be
collected, collated and published so any joe could get them (i.e., by Tregelles et al). Hence our more modern
preference for literal translation stems from not knowing either or both original languages, and we need those
literalistic benchmarks as we learn those languages, in our translations. Else we can't compare translation
and original text.

So (still playing devil's advocate) maybe the reason for the LXX difference in Isa53:10-12 is instead, idiomatic:
for example, the same meaning is expressed, but in Hebrew what you'd express in Third Person, in Greek
required the Second.

Ok: but one can't call it a mere difference in idiom, unless the Greek verbs in these verses are actually
translations of the Hebrew, elsewhere in Bible. An idiom is a recurring thing. So more than once in Bible,
you'd find the same construction 'translating' the Hebrew. Well: text here doesn't pass that 'test'. Neither
katharizw nor aphairew (LXX in 53:10) are ever translations of dakah or tsaleah, for example. All four verbs'
meanings are quite different, pan-Bible.
 10
And finally, you still don't resolve the meter being off in verse 11. Granted, the ellision assumptions made,
might be wrong. But notice how the basic metric pattern is 8's and 9's, breaking for dramatic effect into 4's
and 3's, such that they still ADD UP to 8's and 9's. Doctrine and "actor" define what meter Isaiah uses: 7's
are for the Lord's Own Action (vv. 7,9,12) and trebled (Trinity, bald). 8's denote man's action/attitude toward
Him, or God's plan/attitude re man in Him. 9's denote God's Decree/Unilateral Action (Trinity, very bald). It's
perfect: except in v.11. So what happened in verse 11? You must end meter at each clause (i.e., just before
the next waw/vav) or whole idea (subject/verb/object, if given). If verse 10 is whole in Hebrew, you could
insert the entire 53:10 in LXX following it, back-translate in Hebrew, yet keep to that meter. In any event,
one MUST solve the meter lacuna in v.11.
 11
Ok: then one must establish probable cause for the lacunae in the Hebrew, a kind of smoking
gun. And we have it: the posited 'missing' LXX text appears to grammatically belong between
naphesho and yireh, which TWICE occur in both verses. It makes sense that a copyist lost his place.
Could happen to anyone in any language where a lot of text is being hand-copied. You copy or add a column
of names, words, numbers, etc., and some are repeated. So you see a repeated name (word, number) and
think you're farther up or down than you are. Especially, if you have a huge scroll in front of you to
laboriously copy -- must have taken a good 30 seconds to even write one Hebrew letter! To make such errors
is more than excusable. We've all done it.

At the end of Isa53.htm (for the DDNA webseries), I treat the lacunae and resulting translation
differently. First lacuna is treated as occurring after yitslah (tsaleah, below) in 53:10; all of LXX
Isa53:10 is inserted after yitslah. The resulting amalgamation sounds more like Isaiah and Bible's
poetic repetition in translation (compared to similar OT text). I didn't know Isaiah's meter then, so
couldn't test it. Meaning ends up the same, though.

Then the second lacuna is treated as between naphesho and yireh, the "deixzai.. dikaiwsai" clause in
LXX's Isa53:11.

Next, I treated as a third lacuna, "dikaion..anoisei" in LXX verse 11; but it's just a translation of the
Hebrew already there.

Upshot, a Similar Smoking Gun: in Isa53.htm, repeated whole clauses rather than the merely
repeated "naphesho" and "yireh", are assumed to 'make' the copyist lose his place. Who's not made a
similar mistake? So what follows here is not like Isa53.htm in structure and translation, but has the
same meaning.

So, now on to the correction, amalgamating the LXX text with the Hebrew in Isa53:10-11. In Step
1 below, you end up with four "the Lord delights" clauses, not merely two. (Hebrew uses both verb and noun
constructions of haphets; Greek twice uses a verb, boulomai). Since Isaiah uses Bible numerical rhetoric, we
can test these results. Okay, "four" is Bible's numerical rhetoric for "completeness". Next test: total number
of resulting infinitives would be seven (Bible's number for "perfection"), in both languages:

1. dakah (hiphil, to be crushed/beaten -- different Greek verbs translate it, but never katharizw);
2. katharizw (make atonement/purify, usually standing for Hebrew kaphar or taher);
3. tsaleah (to be profitable, various Greek verbs translate it, but never aphairew; tsaleah is in the qal
imperfect, but plays an infinitive-of-purpose role);
4. aphairew (to carry off as plunder, standing for Hebrew verbs like gazal, asaph, qanah (quintessential
redemption verb), karat or abar, many verbs -- Isaiah crafts Chap53 around synonyms of plunder,
carry up, carry off, carry away, bear);
5. deiknumi (exhibit or make known, standing for naha, famous in Exo13:21 or more likely, the hiphil of
ra'ah, to see/display (resh aleph hey) -- which Isaiah often uses rhetorically in this chapter);
6. plassw (to form/fashion/sculpt, standing for yatsar, quintessential potter-making-a-body pregancy
verb, often used in Isaiah);
7. dikaiow (to make righteous, standing for yas'diq, maybe already in Isa 53:11).

Whether the LXX should be supplied with the clauses containing dakah, tsaleah, and the second ra'ah
clause (yireh yis'ba in v.11), I'm not yet sure. It could be said that tes plages in v.10 covers dakah
though in 53:5 malakizomai is used for dakah, the soundplay on dakah of mukkeh in v.4, is translated
einai.. plages, (see green font here in both verses). It could also be said that aphelein indirectly
references profitability in its plunder connotations, though other Hebrew verbs are used for it, in Bible.
Finally, not sure whether elegant Greek would repeat the second ra'ah clause (which seems necessary,
it's very dramatic), since deixzai might cover it.

Languages differ in 'philosophy' which the underlying structure and rules, reflect. In one language, you
stress the beginning of a thing to comprise the meaning and result of the whole; in another, you stress
the ending, to signify the same whole. So you must know both source and target languages' underlying
philosophies, as well as the author's style of expression.

LXX does summarize the Hebrew, rendering it into good Greek idiom; at other times, you find a word-for-
word translation of the Hebrew. The LXX sometimes reflects Isaiah's meter. So I'm not sure if one should
also back-translate the Hebrew into the LXX.
 12
Seven outcomes from His Soul's Labor are represented by these infinitives. The four "delighted" purpose
verbs have seven perfecting results. Makes sense to say Isaiah would craft these verses with such numerical
rhetoric, since he does so throughout the chapter.

In any event, we know the deixzai autoi phos kai plasai clause is missing, as some Hebrew texts
have "light" in them after yireh (which belongs before yireh, as shown below). Isaiah scroll is one of
these texts. One may still argue the two kai bouletai clauses are but translations of the two haphets
clauses, due to literal order (yhwh haphets, then haphets yhwh). But again, the other Greek verbs used
aren't elsewhere translated into the same Hebrew verbs here in Isa53:10-11. Since these LXX verses are
played on all over the NT, there had to be Hebrew equivalents from which the LXX was crafted, right?

In sum: since the Greek verbs are NOT used elsewhere in Bible for the Hebrew verbs they here
seem to parallel, it's more likely the extra two Greek clauses are wholly missing from the Hebrew
text, and are antiphonal (or at least doubling). That would mean a total of three clauses are
missing. You decide.
 13
Text below seeks to restore what's missing from both BHS and LXX in Isa53:10-11; the
restoration words are in purple font. Chosen restoration words are from Bible (i.e., from Hebrew words
used elsewhere for the same Greek words). Then one tests the restoration, for Isaiah's meter. If the
restoration tests plausible, the Greek text was likely translated from the Hebrew.

Restoration Step 1: insert the Greek text which the Hebrew lacks.
First Alternative, Isa53:10: assume only some of the Greek text is missing.
BHT
Isaiah 53:10 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm nap•šô yir•´è zeºra`
ya´árîk• yämîm wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH
Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D; #peÛx'
hw"ùhyw: Isaiah 53:10 WTT

kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j

`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:
[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI
kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n
or
Second Alternative, Isa53:10: assume all the Greek text is missing, on the grounds that it's an
appositive/antiphonal clause.

`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:

[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D;
#peÛx' hw"ùhyw: Isa53:10 WTT

+
BGT kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te
Isaiah 53:10
peri. a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai
ku,rioj avfelei/n
+
BHT Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm
wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl
‘Avp.n: lm;Û[]me WTT
Isaiah 53:11
dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai
`lBo)s.yI aWhï ~t'ÞnOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIÞb.[; qyDI²c;
qyDIîc.y: ATª[.d;B. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI
BGT
avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai
Isaiah 53:11
th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n
auvto.j avnoi,sei
Third Alternative: one might argue that only the "deixzai autoi phos kai plasai" clause is
missing, as shown above. To make that argument, one must assume yitslah, yetser and yireh confused
the copyist; that LXX here is an explanatory translation, rather than a literal one (which is reasonable), and
then specifically assume:
a) The "katharisai" clause translates results of dakah, rather than the action itself, to 'answer' the dakah
action in vv.4-5.
b) The "ean dwte" clause is Greek idiom converting third person into second. That also happens
elsewhere in Bible.
c) The "bouletai..aphelein" clause, like the "katharisai" clause, displays how the results of yitslah, occur.
There's a conceptual connection between aphairew and tsaleah, idea of profit, gain, booty. Isaiah
 14
builds the entire chapter on this concept.

We at least have a lacuna of the "deixzai" clause, whether or not Isa53:10 needs LXX insertion
and back-translation. For the "deixzai" clause plays off Gen1:3ff, Psalm 17:15 and like verses; so it deftly
explains why "yireh yisba" occurs. Moreover, its back-translation only 'costs' three Hebrew syllables. The
beginning of Isa53:11 would change to:
Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô ´ôr wüyëºcer9\ yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq9\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm8\
wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl8
rc,yE±w> rAa= ‘Avp.n: lm;Û[]me
The first poetic clause is made whole, keeps to Isaiah's style (he uses yatsar root 29 times). Translation
would read, "Out from His Soul's Labor, Light and Body-of-Thinking!" For often in the Hebrew OT, cognate
noun of yatsar denotes the 'shape' of man's thoughts. So the sins imputed and judged in HIM, change
'shape', to His. Propitiation. That's what the rest of the verse says, too (doubling): "By His Mastery of Truth
He will be caused to make Righteous/Justify" (Hebrew bedato yasdiq clause). So no wonder we have "yireh
yisba"= "He will see, be satisfied". Just like God the Holy Spirit, in Gen1:4. Light BECAME, for us. Notice how
napheshor is a spoken unity, ha! See how often deixzai is used for rAa= in Bible. We know rAa= ="or"
is missing in the BHS, from the Isaiah scroll. "Or" has the same root whether noun or verb. 'Replacing our
dark, puny thoughts.. with His. Ahhhh.
 15
Restoration Step 2: Back-translate the Greek text into the Hebrew.

Re Isaiah 53:10: seems like the best candidates for back-translation are wuh lataharo (Lev13:59, where
katharisai used to translate tahar in the piel infinitive construct, third person masc singular suffix). Or,
meholal (Isa53:5 for the piercing, polal participle masc singular)? Isaiah would chain the verbs, style in
52:13.

For aphelein, use the qal infinitive of sur, a common verb in OT (302 times, in all forms). Aphairew=sur
often in Isaiah: close contender is kaphar. But sur is often used with the idea of removing a reproach/sin in
Isaiah. Yet kaphar, the result, parallels nicely with the back-translation of katharisai into tahar, here.
Depends on whether the third clause ought to stress His Nature, or what gets made out from His Nature.
Verse then parses as 9-9-8-9-9, rather poetic (see next page). Deut 17:20 qal inf, Job28:28, Jer32:40. Hiphil
inf const w/le, Job 33:17. See also Ps34:15,37:27,39:11, but especially Isa5:5. Maybe should use hiphil
instead? But the qal balances to yitslah (reality of successful outcome) in v.10, and to yisba in v.11.

53:10 is verb-heavy like 52:13 to which :10 ties back. 53:11 is noun-heavy. So need only to back-translate
the verbs for Isaiah's style; must assume the LXX translation is explanatory, so it doesn't follow the same
clause order as Hebrew, though the meaning is the same (not comfortable with that assumption since some
of the Greek words intend to match Hebrew order). Isaiah reserves climactic verbs for the end of a whole
idea clause whether noun- or verb-heavy. These are pretty climactic verbs. Beginning to doubt whether the
ean dwte clause in LXX is needed. So maybe not antiphonal repetition. The antiphony between Father and
Son is plain in verses 2, 10, 12, even in translation. Trinity doctrine positively screams from the meter alone.
So maybe repetition like ean dwte is overkill?

On the other hand, one can make a devastatingly-good argument for the LXX 53:10 as a
necessary additional clause, due to another commonality in Isaiah's running style: he always
stresses TRINITY. The verbs in the LXX 53:10 are all Holy Spirit activity. In the Hebrew, you 'hear' from
Father, in the first "haphets" clause: His Sovereign decision to impute and judge sins. You 'hear' from Son, in
the "im tasim asham naphesho" clause, since Son as God, would have to take on Humanity if He says "yes" to
it. The second "haphets" clause is also Son, now Humanity ("hand" as the dead giveaway); for the second
haphets clause is part of the contract, the two-sided deliverance offer of both offspring and prosperity. So
second haphets YHWH, is Son. Obviously, at Father's so Decreeing. Very clever, to switch from verb to noun
haphets to stress Identicality of Essence. No one but GOD is this witty, sorry!

Okay, where's the Holy Spirit? Isaiah never talks like this without also spending time on what the Holy Spirit
does. Isaiah 63 is a chapter showing how Father, Son and Spirit work together: Son is mentioned first,
through verse 9; then all Three Members, 9-10; Holy Spirit, 10-14; then the Father, 15-19. So too here in
Isa53, the verbs in the LXX are known Holy-Spirit-birthing-restoration verbs. So the Spirit is in view. We
could just back-translate the verbs though, with enough repetition of the Father-Son clause, to show Him.

For it's necessary to reference keywords in the prior verse for Father and Son, to show the Spirit's Party to
the Contract with Son, since the Son's upcoming Humanity would be wholly sustained BY the Spirit (doctrine
of true kenosis, Son won't use His Godness to benefit Himself). If Spirit is signing onto that Role in the
Contract, He must ratify it. Now repetition in Isa53:10, makes sense!

You're alerted to the LXX clause as additional, because katharizw and aphairew are never used for dakah and
tsaleah (respectively), elsewhere in OT. So these are additional Contract Provisions, which cover how He
goes from point A -- becoming sin for us (dakah, asham in Hebrew text) -- to OUR receiving point B -- the
atonement, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption (katharizw, aphairew, deiknumi, plassw and dikaiow
infinitives in the LXX -- dikaiow is already in the Hebrew text as yasdiq). Thus it's also easier to understand
why those LXX verbs are so frequently stressed in the NT, especially by the Lord, Paul, John, etc.

So in Step 3 below, back translation of Isa53:10 will have alternatives. First, akin to page 6 for verse 11,
we'll just back-translate the two missing verbs in verse 10, assuming that Isaiah chose to continue the prior
style of deft syncopation (noun-heavy or verb-heavy dramatic presentation). The words chosen below might
not be right, but PLAUSIBILITY is demonstrated. That matters, for the NT references the GREEK of Isa53:10-
11 almost constantly; the Greek in turn came from the Hebrew, since Isaiah wrote his book in Hebrew. So we
need a plausibility measure of how that Hebrew might have been written. It's a kind of "textual criticism"
function, to test the validity of Bible words. Not definitive until scholars have done their own testing. Maybe
someday, they will decide to do that. Meanwhile, my spiritual life can't go on hold until they do their own due
 16
diligence; for like every other brainout (nickname for believer), I'm in Royal Training to become a king under
the King of Kings. So I must do my own due diligence, before the Lord. This is it.

So Step 3 will also show a back-translation of the entire LXX 53:10, about the Holy Spirit's Role in the
Contract. Frankly, this second alternative seems the right one. It requires surprisingly few Hebrew words to
translate fully, if you use Isaiah's verb-heavy style.

Seems like the resulting Hebrew-with-back-translated-Greek of 53:10 must balance to 53:12 at seven clauses;
for verse 12 stresses the ultimate perfection of the contract, so of course is seven clauses long, 'answering'
53:10. While it's true that verse and chapter divisions are man's invention (College of Paris, 12th century),
the verse (not Chapter) divisions follow Isaiah's own clauses.

Finally, if the whole clause of 53:10 in Greek must be added to the Hebrew, then the Hebrew clause is missing
from the Greek, too. Actually, that might make a total of two missing Hebrew clauses, in 10-11:
• the haphets clause through yitslah (all the Hebrew of 53:10) would need to be back-translated into
Greek; but maybe also
• the yireh yisba clause of v.11. I'm not sure but what the Greek already references this clause with its
"deixzai" infinitive. But that infinitive is nowhere used for yireh, in Bible; it is used for other Hebrew
constructions of ra'ah, "to see".
So to back-translate the Hebrew into Greek, we'll maybe need a Step 4.

Restoration Step 3: Test the back-translated Hebrew for Isaiah's meter.

This is the hardest part, and will take a lot of rethinking; purple text here can change without warning. Many
possibilities. So at best one can only guess at how the Greek converted from the original Hebrew. Moreover,
one shouldn't do a word-for-word back-translation (LXX didn't always follow that modern convention, but
varied with incredible genius, idiomatic and word-for-word translation). The back-translated text is in
purple font.

First Alternative, Isa53:10: back-translate only 'missing' verbs, then test for meter.
Isaiah 53:10 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî9\ wülü†ahárô wasur `äläyw9\ ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm
nap•šô8\yir•´è zeºra` ya´árîk• yämîm9\ wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH9
`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y: [r;z<ß ha,îr>yI
Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai wyl'ê[ 'rWsw ArhEåj;lw yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D; #peÛx'
hw"ùhyw:
Notice both here and in v.11, the result of seeing (yireh) is easier to understand. Via the "weletaharo wasur"
clause, you see why there would BE seed: purified IN Him ('alayw, which Isaiah uses repeatedly, pregnancy
analogy throughout Isa53, climaxed here), and He carries away the sin reproach (reprised below in verses
11,12 and 54:1). Isaiah's point since 52:13 is that just as He was violated, that same process produces ALL
'children'. Hebrews 2's OT quote of "I and the children You gave Me" refers back here and to v.11 below. It's
very clever to place yireh just after naphesho. LXX of v.10 apes that cleverness, just as it does with dikaiwsai
dikaion in v.11. At the same time, to insert the missing verbs here 'makes' yireh look BACK at the verbs, too.
This duality-of-direction is a characteristic of Isaiah's writing, and of both Hebrew and Greek.

Second Alternative, Isa53:10: assume all the Greek text is missing, on the grounds that it's an
appositive or antiphonal clause which covers the Holy Spirit's Own Ratification of the Contract.
BHTIsaiah 53:10 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî9\ ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm nap•šô8\ yir•´è zeºra` ya
´árîk• yämîm9\ wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH9
`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:
[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D;
#peÛx' hw"ùhyw: WTT

+
Isaiah 53:10b wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc lü†ahárô9\ ´im-nätôn TiTTën ´e|t-nap•šükä9\ wayyäºsar
 17
lükaPPër `äläyw \ 9

wyl'([' rPEßk;l. rs;Y"Üw: ‘^v.p.n:-ta,( !TE±Ti !Atïn"-~ai

ArhEåj;l #peÛx hw"ùhy'w:
rendered from
BGTIsaiah 53:10 kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.
a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n

Hebrew here versus Step 2 choices: the "give" clause I took from Judges 11:30, compared to Jer45:5. The
doubling structure (of natan) matters as a play on Gen2:17's doubled muth. In verse 9, Isaiah uses muth in
the plural (bemotayw) to reference Gen2:17 being 'solved'; and he doubles His giving over His Soul to death,
in v.12 (two six-meter clauses). Also, Isaiah plays on natan in this Chapter -- giving, giving over, giving up,
giving attention (positive and negative). That would account for the Second Person translation here. Next, I
chose the hiphil of sur, imperfect 3rd masc sing (pasted from Gen8:13), idea of Him caused to BE cause of
removing sins. For kaphar, I chose the piel infinitive construct, pasted from Exo30:15. The use of alayw is
wordplay (and it frequently appears with kaphar in Bible); Isaiah uses 'al in this Chapter to stress up-ness
(smell of an offering going UP to God), which also functions as soundplay on El, ola, olam, verb ala: and on
whose behalf? Which "him"? Well, think: each "him" among mankind, but especially for Him-Father, and
Him-Son. Them.. and all of us. Ahhhh.

It's important to notice that Greek "humwn" is plural, but "he psuche" is singular. Hence the Hebrew doubled-
giving clause fits for that reason, too. No doubt Christ-to-come is first God, okay? "Christos" is His Greek
Human Title in the OT, i.e., in Daniel 9. The Jews who translated into the LXX, thus knew of His God-Man-To-
Come, Nature. "YHWH" plays on it (hayah's second syllable + hawah's second syllable). Vowel points in the
middle are optional, lots of wordplay to make from what vowels you select. Not a secret, sorry.
 18
What's so cool about the above back-translation, is the ease with which Hebrew can express in a few
syllables, so much meaning. The verbs chosen at the end are designed to parallel 52:13, both of which Greek
aphelein represents in Hebrew of Isaiah (specifically, 6:7, 27:9, 28:18). That matters, because 53:10-11 'look
back' to 52:13, completing the purpose circle. Coupling the two COMPLETED verbs at the end of our putative
10b with "me amal naphesho" in v.11, makes its own clause, just like it does in the Greek.

Hebrew doesn't need to repeat a full clause just presented, but just the beginning words of it -- that's a type
of incorporation by reference. Frequently a second clause will slightly change the words used, to elaborate
on the first clause. Greek has a similar incorporation method. So I'm not sure how much of the Hebrew text
needs to be back-translated into the Greek; Greek wouldn't repeat the seed clause, either: it would be in the
middle, as in the actual LXX. So maybe only the dakah clause needs to be back-translated into Greek, going
in front of katharisai? Or, in front of "kai kurios"? Gotta think over what would NOT be repeated.

So too, since Greek "aphelein" is used in Bible (and Isaiah, especially) to translate both sur and kaphar, and
since in Greek it's inelegant to repeat the verb, one "aphelein" covers both Hebrew verbs: especially, as an
blanket infinitive.

Other Hebrew words (or constructions) could be used instead, to back-translate the Greek. Still, here you get
the flavor of the Second Alternative and its justifying rationale. SOMEHOW the Greek reflects the Hebrew we
see or which is missing, for the NT constantly refers back to these five Greek infinitives; since the first four
don't seem to fit the Hebrew text, one must explain why.

For all Three Alternatives, Isaiah 53:11's back-translation at the bottom of page 6, is the best
one. Here's the whole verse:
Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô ´ôr wüyëºcer9\ yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq9\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm8\
wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl8
`lBo)s.yI aWhï ~t'ÞnOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIÞb.[; qyDI²c;
qyDIîc.y: ATª[.d;B. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI rc,yE±w> rAa= ‘Avp.n:
lm;Û[]me
I can't improve on the verse 11 'fix' here. It seems to meet every test of Isaiah's style, his use of certain
words versus other ones, irony, sound, meter, cleverness (i.e., napheshor, showing He is the Light), the y-for-
Yahweh repetition (yireh yitslah yatser yireh yisba), his use of yatser throughout (i.e., the famous "potter"
theme), the fact we know "light" is missing in the BHS, the endless wordplay on plassw (Greek for yatsar) in
OT and especially NT -- all these and other tests seem met.

See, the point of yireh yisbah is to demonstrate that the purpose of creation, is completed. Hebrew verb
sabea is related to the seventh-day rest because the requirements (i.e., work) are satisfied, full. "Genesis" is
Greek for the Origin of The Man: Christ. The Holy Spirit's role in restoring the earth in Gen1:2ff, depicts what
would be done to save mankind. You know that, from the other uses of the Gen1:2 tohu wa bohu clause in
the OT (See "Creationism" entry in VERindex.htm for a listing of them). "Genesis" was given to the first book
of the Bible by the Jews who wrote the LXX. Matthew plays on the name, in Matt1, as does John (in all he
writes). Lots of wordplay is made out of the parallel between Genesis 1 and the Incarnation, in both OT and
NT.

For Moses is writing of the Genesis account in 1440-1400 BC, long after Adam. Everyone knew that material
already, as it had been passed down since Adam. But so far as we know, that story wasn't reduced to God's
Word in Writing, until Moses. So the purpose of Genesis, is not really to tell you how the world got here; the
topic receives peremptory treatment. Frankly you couldn't tell the difference between a baked potato which
is also microwaved; so too, you can't tell how long it took for the universe to get here, nor how long it took
for the Holy Spirit to restore it, after its own 'fall' (tohu wa bohu clause in Gen1:2). So while Genesis is a
literal account of the earth being restored in six 24-hour days (initial creation is summarized in Gen1:1) -- by
telling us, the story of Who does what in salvation, is depicted: Self-Chosen roles of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Son created the whole thing, in Gen1:1; Spirit restores, Gen1:2-25. All Three Agree to Create, in Gen1:26-27
-- same contract as in Isa53:10-11. That was the Plan; and Salvation here, is the Satisfaction of its
Completion: yireh yisba. God did it, and saw that it was good. Light first, then Sculpt or Form. Light first,
then Sculpt from His Body-of-Thinking, a Body to serve Father, forever. Get the witty parallel Isaiah makes?
See why the NT's incessant marital and pregancy analogies, are used? Isaiah 53 (52:13-54:1) is rhetorically
 19
founded on pregnancy and birth i.e., the plunder 'raping' at the Cross, which gave birth to our salvation.

So whether you pick the First or Second Alternative with respect to Isa53:10's back-translation, verse 11's
Greek-into-Hebrew, looks like what's above: LXX gave us the missing words. In Hebrew, you achieve the
same effect as deixzai autoi phos kai plasai, by clever placement of the words (Result of His Soul's Labor), in
front of the yireh yisba clause. Then the object of yireh which causes yisba, is first mentioned. Hebrew uses
heroic prolepsis, as does Greek. In English, for dramatic effect, we also put the object of a verb before the
verb. Thus Greek word placement apes the Hebrew, in this clause. So it's not much of a guess, to back-
translate into Hebrew. God tells us, by what He preserved in Greek.

The Third Alternative presumes that verse 11 is the only place where lacuna exists, and so the above back-
translation, supports that Alternative. But you decide for yourself, before the Lord.
 20
Restoration Step 4: Back-translate the Hebrew into Greek.

I'm not yet sure how to handle this Step. The big conundrum is that the Greek of Isa53:10-11 does SOME
aping of Hebrew word order, to preserve the same wit the Hebrew conveys. On the other hand, the Greek
language 'philosophy' would also construct the sentences similarly. So is the similarity due to aping, or
innate language rules? Let's focus on the main similarities and dissonances between the Hebrew and Greek.

1. As said earlier, the dakah clause in 53:10's Hebrew, is missing from the Greek. Since dakah is
routinely translated by other Greek verbs elsewhere in the LXX, why not translated here? Perhaps
relevant, is that the Greek uses multiples of Isaiah's meter, so truncates to keep within those
multiples? For example, in verse 10's Greek, multiples of 8, but beginning at "kai bouletai kurios
aphelein" it's a doubled 10 (ending at autou in v.11); and then reverts again to 8's (how clever), for
the rest of verse 11. This isn't classical Greek meter being substituted. This isn't the only verse
where such matching is attempted, either.

2. Verse 10 in both Hebrew and Greek place "His Soul" right next to an ACTION of His Soul (paying, then
seeing). Very clever. That construction is repeated again in the Hebrew of v.11, but NOT in the Greek
-- at least, not directly. Meaning in the Greek still conveys an action of the Soul Who is Light, seeing it.
The Greek word placement and use of the dative (without intervening preposition) stress the fact He is
Light. So I can understand the poetic omission of yireh, it would throw off the meter-matching. So if
yireh can be omitted for the sake of meter, then maybe yisba can be omitted, too.

3. Verse 10 in both Hebrew and Greek center the placement of the Contract clause of Him paying,
flanked by two "delight" clauses. However, Greek omits the "succeed in His Hand" clause, oddly
excludes it. That Hebrew clause would translate well in Greek, it's part of the overall Contract, so is
important; generally the LXX translates "hand" clauses, too. "Hand" is a common Bible term for
Ownership, Power, Authority, Grantor, Blessing Source. One must explain this anomaly.

4. The two "delight" clauses don't match; not only is Hebrew text missing in the Greek as described
above; but text supplied in the Greek, is quite different. That strongly implies lacuna at the
point of haphets/bouletai in one or both texts. If the idea of success was meant to be
summarized in Greek rather than word-for-word quoted from the Hebrew's colorful expression (see
wordplay in Ps15:11 in LXX, which is 16:11 in BHS), we'd still have the problem of the directional
etymology of tsaleah verses aphairew: tsaleah has to do with cleaving wood, "success" in the sense of
going in, penetrating, accomplishing an objective. But the directional etymology of aphairew is a
taking OFF, removal: again with plundering or rescuing success as a result. They're orientational
opposites, these Hebrew and Greek verbs.

5. Clearly there's a lacuna between naphesho and yireh in Hebrew of v.11. The wit of yireh
directly following would not be diminished by supply of the nouns which represent the 'children' of His
Soul's Labor, one of which we know is Light, because those nouns would still be 'looked back to' by
yireh, explaining yisba. Furthermore, the Greek text makes witty use of placement of phos right next
to autos, which denotes an equality between the two nouns; to put autos in the dative with no
preposition conveys conduit and on whose behalf the deixzai occurs.. and of course, He is Light, and
this happens FOR Him (another meaning of the dative case is who's the beneficiary). Very clever.
Now you just know Isaiah could easily demonstrate the same meaning by simply putting "or" (aleph
waw resh) after naphesho. The sound runs together, as shown above in v.1l's back translation. So it's
kinda plain what words belong to verse 11 in Hebrew, to 'cure' its meter in the first clause.

6. Which returns us to the question of why the Greek lacks "yisbah" of the Hebrew, since that verb is so..
um, pregnant with meaning (see Luke 1:57's use of pimplemi). Well, one could argue its omission
from the Greek renders the 'satisfaction' concept implicit or finessed; due to meter excluded safely,
because Soul already sees and obviously what it sees, is satisfying. Then there's the problem of
porting over the seventh-day Hebrew wit inherent in sabea. Problem is, Greek verb pimplemi is
routinely used for sabea perhaps over 100 times in the OT; always with witty meaning, very portable
from one language to the other; pimplemi also is the kind of 'filling' of the Spirit OT believers got
(lower level than the plerow of the NT, see Luke 1:15, compare to how the Lord got plerow, the NT
Church legacy). So sabea should be translated into Greek, it seems. Especially, since LXX Psalm
90:16 (91:16, BHS) is referenced in Isa53:11.
 21
7. Verse 11's Hebrew wit of yatsdiq tsaddiq is emulated in the Greek dikaiwsai dikaion. Same witty
prolepsis in both languages. What happened to Him, makes Him a Hero, so God makes Him INTO us.
Blows me away.

8. Everything from tei sunesei forward in Greek, parallels the Hebrew from bedato yatsdiq forward, word
for word, same order. kai plasai tei sunesei kai dikaiwsei is a very clever phrase, balances to deixzai
autoi phos (the parallelism is on the datives, on Him being the Agent of it all); so where in Greek one
would put the equivalent of yireh yisba, it wouldn't go between plasai and tei.

9. Dramatic Greek, like Hebrew, drops objects, switches normal constructions (i.e., from verbs to
participles to nouns). The changes do not mask the meaning but instead heighten it. Key is, if you'll
drop a word, to use another word so the ellipsis is clear. So Isaiah in Hebrew, drops nouns in verb
heavy clauses; so does the Greek. So that's drama, not lacuna.

Overall, despite all these 'excuses' to claim the text we have is whole, it doesn't make sense that
the LXX would be so careful here to match the Hebrew, then suddenly STOP doing so, then start
matching again -- unless Hebrew text is also missing from the Greek. Until I can resolve these
issues, I'm stuck.

So let's go on an expedition to the NT and examine whether the Hebrew which seems to be missing from
the Greek, is incorporated by reference in the NT. Obviously if it is, then maybe we can know what Hebrew or
Greek words might have been in the LXX of these verses at the time God deployed the NT writers. For the
Hebrew and Greek texts they had, would have been better than what has come down to us. We still have the
perfect Divine Writ, alright, but it's in puzzle format, so to speak. Their 'puzzle' would have been far less
fragmented, than ours. Between then and now, many a Bedouin nomad or 'civilized' merchant has torn up
manuscripts to get higher sales from scraps, than he thought he could get from a whole manuscript.
Humanity is always grasping.

First stop in our NT expedition: how dakah is referenced. Greek of Isa53:5 uses the term also. It's in
green font, back on page 2. Greek verb used to render it, is malakizomai. In the OT, it's not used for dakah
anywhere else, but is used for hala, to become sick. It's not used in the NT, at all. Hebrew hala is used in
53:10, along with dakah. Greek words used for dakah vary much. Up through say Job 6:9. Job 19:2, 22:9,
each verse uses different Greek verbs or nouns for dakah, none of which seem stressed in the NT with
reference to Our Lord. But beginning in Job 34:25, and continuing thereafter in Psalms and
Proverbs, we find tapeinow used: that's a famous verb in the NT. Peter plays on tapeinow
incessantly with his hupo prefixes, and of course Paul wrote 2Phili2:5-10. So tapeinow is a poetic and
dramatic verb. Seem to remember John using it also. Point is, it's a common and stressed NT verb.

In Isaiah, kataischunw (to disgrace or disappoint, often in the sense of miscarriage-of-justice) is used
(3:15); next, dakah is converted to the Greek noun ódune, grief (19:10); suntribw, to be battered,
mauled, broken(-hearted), is also used (57:15). It's a good alternate verb for dakah. NT uses it
seven times, and famously in John 19:36 (prophecy of His Bones not being broken, see also Exo12:46,
Num9:12, Ps34:20). Romans 16:20 uses suntribw as a synonym for terew, recalling Gen3:15 to the
reader's mind; terew has the root meaning of grasping something and holding it close, zealously --
terew is used famously for the upcoming Savior grabbing Satan's heel in Gen3:15 (so of course Jacob's
name is presaged). Verb terew is a favorite of the Lord's and John, Jude, so bear that tie in mind.
Rev2:27 rounds out our tour of suntribw -- recalling Isaiah's potter metaphor, which of course is being
played on in Isa53:10-12! Who but God is so smart with language! Don't you just wish you never had
to do ANYTHING else, but study Bible? It would be worth the shame of a catheter and intravenous
drip, if one could thus study Bible all the time. Of course, that wouldn't be fair to the caregivers...

Jeremiah 44:10 uses pauw (but that verb's meaning varies much by context); Lam3:34 uses tapeinow
again: one can see why. Looks like the Hebrew concept of dakah had many different meanings; so
when translating, there were special Greek words to extract out whatever nuance of dakah was
stressed in that Hebrew. (KJV and NASB (and modern) translation philosophy was often the opposite: to preferably-always
use the same English word, never mind how misleading it might be: so the student of Greek or Hebrew can know what original
word, is there. See, they didn't expect common people to want to read Bible for themselves! So when you see someone tout
"literal" translation, that's the kind of "literal" it is, and the common reader of that translation will be QUITE mislead as to what
Bible actually SAYS.) All the Greek words in these indented paragraphs are used in the NT, and often
enough to see their meaning 'dimensions'.
 22
Using tapeinow, Matthew 18:4, 23:12 and Luke 3:5, 14:11, 18:14 all play on Isaiah 9 and 40; the latter
OT chapters were made famous in modern times by Handel's Messiah. Isaiah himself plays on both
those prior chapters, in chapter 53, with stress on up-ness and down-ness, birthing from dying, peace
(reconciliation, Levitical term for peace-with-God) from violence. 52:13 is the up-ness prediction,
53:12 is the ultimate fulfillment of it, and 53:10-11 is the mechanism, the 'how' you go from 52:13, to
53:12. So in using tapeinow, the entire context of Isa53 is referenced: Paul is quite bald about it, in
Phili2:5-10, with the tapeinow being in v.8, and huperupsow in v.9 (clever play on upsow in Isa52:13).
That makes tapeinow the best candidate to use for dakah. Isaiah uses some form of that verb 26
times in his book.

Day of Atonement uses tapeinow (see Lev16:29) for the Hebrew ana, the quintessential abuse verb
Isaiah uses in 53:7. That verb has a connotation of raping (euphemistic, of the captors 'busying'
themselves with afflicting the captives, kakow in Greek translates it in 53:7, same idea). So tapeinow
is a shoe-in. Next choice would be suntribw. Probably would use malakizomai for hala in Isa53:10, if
translating each verb separately. Wouldn't need to do that.

Next, is sabea in Isa53:11. Greek pimplemi is used for sabea throughout the OT; of the 120 or so
forms of sabea used in the OT, pimplemi must stand in for over 100 of them. Of course, pimplemi is
common in the NT, but never in the same context as used in Isa53:11. Sabea connotes satisfaction, first.
It's a kind of satisfaction due to the fullness of a meal, the fullness of prosperity. An at-ease REST you get,
from having come to the place where you have 'enough'. Greek verb pimplemi, on the other hand,
references the fullness itself; the satisfaction is often assumed, but needn't be. Sufficiency is stressed by
pimplemi. So we need another word in the Greek? Maybe not. After all, both the Hebrew and Greek were
known back then, so the cross-reference between the two verbs would be well-known. So at that point,
pimplemi would come to MEAN what sabea means, to the reader of both texts. Aha.
 23
Oh, but next is tsaleah, last word in Hebrew of Isa53:10! And baby, here we hit paydirt! It's used
65 times in the OT, according to my BibleWorks search on the root. Like dakah, it's a multi-purpose verb, so
the Greek uses varying verbs to focus on the nuance stressed in a given verse. Most interesting is
Genesis 39:3 and :23, which uses the prosper-in-his-hand construction, which the Greek literally
translates. Greek verb there is euodow; it means to make a successful journey (eu + odos), and it's
commonly used (think of the times) for tsaleah, both literally/materially, and figuratively/spiritually. Journeys
on roads were hazardous, and so is the journey through life. Joshua 1:8, Isa55:1 tell you the principle:
believe in Him, follow the Law, and you shall have success. Moreover, if you look at the Hebrew of :23, Greek
adds "hand" a second time, for sense! So it's very Greek to use "hand".

Ok, so this verb and the "hand" usage, are well-known; so there's no excuse for the
"hand" clause to be missing from the Greek of Isa53:11, UNLESS it refers to what was said
prior, so is not to be repeated. To end at makrobion would be okay, ONLY if it's a requote: for in
Greek you don't requote the entire passage, but just the key clause or beginning of a list. Looks like
we got a smoking 'lacuna' gun! See a similar hand verse in Daniel 8:25.

The dead giveaway that Isa53:10 in Hebrew is missing in the Greek: the Greek is quoting a verse
which USED to be there, and cleverly, too! For it's good Greek to truncate a quote just presented, to
select from it the operative clause on which one will expatiate: and from "makrobion" onward, the
WAY in which the offspring WILL BE MADE, is given in the LXX. It's a perfect fit! So it has to be a
requote. The Greek syntax is complete; dramatic ellipsis in using only infinitives is good Attic style,
you can practically hear a Homeric actor saying the lines. So it's a deliberate clause. So the lacuna,
is a whole verse. No doubt about it. That's not so easy to tell from the Hebrew, due to Isaiah's style.
But it's VERY clear from the Greek style. Again, to end the quote of the contract at "makrobion" tells
you it's a requote, not an initial quote being truncated, because the syntax and meaning flows
DIRECTLY from that clause. That's why the hand clause is left out. The Greek after makrobion is
EXPLAINING HOW the contract gets completed.

So now we know for sure that all of the Hebrew of 53:10 is missing, and all of the Greek of
53:10 is missing from the Hebrew. No longer guesswork.

Now, the similar-to-eyes verb tsalah means "to rush upon", connotation of flooding, penetrating,
enemy troops overrunning: and THAT is played on in the OT to signify the Power of the Spirit. It too is a
multi-purpose verb which LXX more narrowly translates to suit context. So you have allomai used to translate
tsalah, in Judges 14:19; power of the Spirit is depicted with that verb (Spirit 'rushing' upon), in Judges15:14,
1Sam11:6 (epallomai), etc. Demons 'rush', too (verse is missing from LXX, but is in 1Sam18:10 of the BHS).
Obviously it ties to pimplemi, in the Greek, for Joel 2:28ff's 'rushing' prophecy (3:1, in Heb and Greek texts) is
used by Peter to explain Pentecost in Acts 2. Hebrew shapak and Greek ekchew are synonyms for tsalah,
idea of the pouring-out.

Heh: of course there would be a sound tie! The Holy Spirit's Power is referenced in Isa53:10 in the LXX,
playing on tseleah! Another smoking gun! This is exactly what Isaiah loves to do, make soundplays
(especially on Trinity). All this becomes relevant for v.11.

Ok, now it will be easy to back-translate Hebrew of Isa53:10, into Greek. We already have the Hebrew
and most of the Greek!
BHT
Isaiah 53:10 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî9\ ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm nap•šô8\ yir•´è zeºra` ya
´árîk• yämîm9\ wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH9
`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:
[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D;
#peÛx' hw"ùhyw: WTT

becomes
Isaiah 53:10akai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai eiv
u`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion
kai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/
+
 24
BGT
kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.
Isaiah 53:10
a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n

Judges 16:19 used for tapeinwsai, aorist infinitive (for dakah, used also in Isa53); Gen42:38 for malakizomai
(for hala, but also in 53:5 for dakah), again aorist infinitive; hupotassw future 3rd from 1Cor15:28, though
maybe one should convert that to a participial phrase, and make it subjunctive: but it's Hebraic to make it
future 3rd indicative (tense Greek uses for the Commandments). In that 1Cor, Paul is playing on words, so I'd
bet money hupotassw is used here in Isa53; see also Heb2, and Peter's frequent usage. Hupotassw is a
stressed NT word. Plemmeleia is taken from Lev7:5, the official name in Greek for asham, guilt (i.e., red
heifer) offering. He psuche clause comes from LXX of Isa53:10; the (gnomic/aoristic use of) present infinitive
of euodow comes from 3Jn1:2, and the hands clause comes from Gen39:3. Have to rethink whether these
should be the right words, but they seem to match the Greek and Hebrew we have. With ellision, our
putative v. 10a parses at 17, 17, 8 and 17 syllables, so ties to the 8's and 9's Isaiah uses -- see how Greek
uses 17 syllables in Isa53:7 to balance to a 10+7 construction. The chosen words here also fit that goal and
that verse, but I didn't know they would fit like that, when choosing them. I didn't think to count the Greek
syllables, until afterwards.
Now, onto verse 11. The big challenge is where to place the yireh yisba clause from the Hebrew, into the
Greek. First, let's look at the back-translated Greek of the putative verse 10a, coupled with the real LXX,
coupled with its v.11 'as is':

Isaiah 53:10akai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai eiv

u`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion
kai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/
+
BGT
kai. ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j eva.n dw/te peri.
Isaiah 53:10
a`marti,aj h` yuch. u`mw/n o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n
+
BGT
Isaiah 53:11 avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai. pla,sai th/|
sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.j
avnoi,sei

Where should the yireh yisba clause go? In the Hebrew, it follows what in Greek would be "autou" in v.11.
But when we back-translated the Hebrew we put in "or wa yetser" in front of yireh (reprinted below from page
9):
Isaiah 53:11 më`ámal nap•šô ´ôr wüyëºcer9\ yir•´è yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq9\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm8\
wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl8
`lBo)s.yI aWhï ~t'ÞnOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIÞb.[; qyDI²c;
qyDIîc.y: ATª[.d;B. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI rc,yE±w> rAa= ‘Avp.n:
lm;Û[]me
Should we just do the same, in the Greek? Yep. Watch how cool this is...
Isaiah 53:11 avpo. tou/ po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/ cortasqh,setai dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j kai.
pla,sai th/| sune,sei dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n
auvto.j avnoi,sei

Xortazw is a synonymal verb for sabea in the OT and is a favorite of the Lord in the Gospels. It stresses the
SATISFACTION, and it's in the 3rd person future passive aorist, famously used in Psalm 103:13, 16, and
Lam3:30 (i.e., cedar from Lebanon was used to build Solomon's Temple, which depicted Messiah-to-Come).
You need to look at those verses, because they are all prophetic of the Cross, and tie back to the restoration
of the earth in Gen1:2ff. Moreover, the etymology of xortazw is fabulous: sheep being fatted up for the
slaughter on grass, same as what David talks about in Psalm 23. Better still, xortazw is a kind of kindred verb
to pimplemi, so you see the prediction of the Holy Spirit tied in. Best of all, the sacred "He" doubles for both
the satisfaction (synonym for propitiation!) of Father, Son, Spirit as a result of Son's Soul Labor.
 25
Placement looks back and forward, as elegant Greek requires; you can't put xortazw in front of tei sunesei,
because tei sunesei is the result of plassw; hence xortazw must precede the entire deixzai clause (which runs
as a grammatical unit from deixzai through the end of v.11). The placement naturally leads into the deixzai
clause, as the third person singular of a satisfaction verb, must have an object. Heroic (proleptic) object is
His Labor, mentioned BEFOREHAND; but the OUTPUT of that Labor follows next, in its natural order (as a
clause of infinitive effects, rather than nouns). Notice how the xortazw also stands alone, just as yireh yisba
does, yet you know WHAT is satisfactory, due to word order. That preserves the wit of the infinitives in the
actual Hebrew and LXX we have, along with their results. For there's a distinct separation between the
clauses, since of course He is apart from sin yet being made a Substitute for sin. You don't need a separate
"see" verb, because "deixzai" covers that, especially as an infinitive 'explaining' the 'He will be satisfied' just
preceding.

Notice the resulting parallelisms: the finite verbs parallel, and the infinitives parallel. Greek is famous for
that. See how John constructs parallelisms so carefully, in 1John, right down to word order so it's like a tic-
tac-toe to see what's paralleled. Same thing here. Since this is a legal contract, the repetition of "bouletai"
becomes important. Stresses Trinity, too -- which Isaiah loves to do. There are synonyms in both Greek and
Hebrew for "delight", whether verb or noun. Maybe a synonym was used. You decide.

It's 44 syllables ((9*4)+8)) from our putative word to the end of the verse. Ha! Ok, I can't improve on the 'fix'
in this Greek verse 11, either. If you can, email me?
 26
Here's the putatively-corrected Greek, all in one 'go':

Isaiah 53:10-11 kai. ku,rioj bou,letai tapeinw/sai auvto,n kai. malakisqh/nai17\ eiv
u`potagh,setai peri. plhmmelei,aj h` yuch. auvtou/17\ o;yetai spe,rma
makro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,rioj euvodou/sqai evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/17\ kai.
ku,rioj bou,letai kaqari,sai auvto.n th/j plhgh/j15\ eva.n dw/te peri. a`marti,aj h` yuch.
u`mw/n15\ o;yetai spe,rma makro,bion8\ kai. bou,letai ku,rioj avfelei/n10\ avpo. tou/
po,nou th/j yuch/j auvtou/10\ cortasqh,setai dei/xai auvtw/| fw/j10\ kai. pla,sai th/|
sune,sei dikaiw/sai11\ di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j15\ kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n
auvto.j avnoi,sei11\

Now, the presumably-corrected Hebrew, also all at once, but only the 2nd+3rd Alternatives, together:

Isaiah 53:10-11 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc DaKKü´ô he|Hélî9\ ´im-TäSîm ´äšäm nap•šô8\ yir•´è zeºra` ya
´árîk• yämîm9\ wüHëºpec yhwh(´ädönäy) Büyädô yic•läH9 wyhwh(wa´dönäy) Häpëc lü†ahárô9\ ´im-
nätôn TiTTën ´e|t-nap•šükä9\ wayyäºsar lükaPPër `äläyw 9\ më`ámal nap•šô ´ôr wüyëºcer9\ yir•´è
yiS•Bä` Büda`•Tô yac•Dîq9\ caDDîq `ab•Dî lä|raBBîm8\ wa`áwönötäm hû´ yis•Böl8
`xl'(c.yI Adðy"B. hw"ßhy> #p,xeîw> ~ymi_y" %yrIåa]y:
[r;z<ß ha,îr>yI Avêp.n: ‘~v'a' ~yfiÛT'-~ai yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D;
#peÛx' hw"ùhyw:
wyl'([' rPEßk;l. rs;Y"Üw: ‘^v.p.n:-ta,( !TE±Ti !Atïn"-~ai
ArhEåj;l #peÛx hw"ùhy'w:
`lBo)s.yI aWhï ~t'ÞnOwO[]w: ~yBi_r;l'( yDIÞb.[; qyDI²c;
qyDIîc.y: ATª[.d;B. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI rc,yE±w> rAa= ‘Avp.n:
lm;Û[]me
Again, there are additional alternatives. But I can't beat this. Maybe you can. Yet the purpose of this rtf is to
show plausibility, to demonstrate that the LXX is unfairly given short shrift in translations -- at least here. For
even here, see how PLAUSIBLE it is, that the text was missing in one language, which GOD PRESERVED in the
other? See how much more sense it makes, once amalgamated? God keeps His Word. God Keeps His Word
Perfect. God keeps His Word Intact. We know it's the devil's world, and the devil would of course want to rip
to shreds, this Word. So, we have it in pieces -- MANY pieces. So many, we can tell the counterfeit from the
true, by testing CONTENT. We merely need to learn His 'tongues', which anyone can, even a mere brainout --
by using 1Jn1:9 in God's System. For it takes GOD's Brains, anyway, to phanerow -- Make Himself Known.

Many thanks to the BibleWorks people for inventing their software. This document would have taken a year
or two, minimum research time -- had not the searching been so easy via BibleWorks. God knew we'd need
it!

Next, I need to do a metered translation of the whole chapter, to show the rhythmic flavor of the Hebrew
better. It will be placed in Isa53trans.htm, so you can view the meter here and the translation, side-by-side.
Next page is the 'shape' of the Hebrew meter for the entire chapter, without inserting missing text. Verse 11
is broken into its existing meter, therefore. It might prove helpful to see the 'shape'. Uses of prepositions 'al,
and upness, 'et substitution/progeny, and min plus birthing are each highlighted, each category of metaphor
in a different color so you can see how Isaiah uses them. All the down-nesses -- the bearing, carrying,
dragging, being assaulted vocabulary -- are not highlighted, though should be, as they are evocative of His
Soul's Labor, giving birth to our salvation. There are too many such words.
 27
Isaiah 52:13 - 54:1
~Wrôy" yDI_b.[; éhn<[]n:
lyKiÞf.y: hNEïhi 13 aWhåw> fG:“nI 7
`dao)m. Hb;Þg"w> èwyPi-xT;p.yI
aF'²nIw> al{åw>
~yBiêr: ‘^yl,’[' lb'êWy xb;J,äl;
WmÜm.v' rv,’a]K; 14 ‘hF,K;
Whae_r>m; h'yz<ßz>gO
vyaiÞme tx;îv.mi-! ynEïp.l
Ke ilxe§r"k.W
`~d"(a' ynEïB.mi `wyPi( xT;Þp.yI
Arßa]tow> al{ïw>
wyl'²[' ~yBiêr: hm'l'_a/n<
~yIåAG ‘hZ<y: ! xQ'êlu
KEÜ 15 ‘jP'v.MimiW rc,
~h,_yPi ~ykiÞl'm. [oÜme 8
WcïP.q.yI x:xe_Afy> ymiä
Waêr" ‘~h,l' ArßAD-ta,w>
rP:Üsu-al {)rv,’a] ~yYIëx;
yKiû #r<a,äme
`Wnn")ABt.hi ‘rz:g>nI yKiÛ
W[ßm.v'-al{) `Aml'( [g:n<ï
rv<ïa]w: yMiÞ[; [v;P,îmi

Wnte_['muv.li ! Arêb.qi
ymiÞa/h, ymiî 53:1 ‘~y[iv'r>-ta, !
`ht'l'(g>nI ymiî-l[; TEÜYIw: 9
hw"ßhy> [;Arïz>W wyt'_moB.
wyn"©p'l. ryviÞ['-ta,w>
qnE÷AYK; l[;Y:“w: 2 hf'ê[' sm'äx'-al{
hY"ëci #r<a,äme l[;…
‘vr<Vo’k;w> `wypi(B.
Alà ra;toï-al{ hm'Þr>mi
rd"+h' al{åw> al{ïw>
 28
Whaeîr>nIw> yliêx/h,( ‘AaK.D:
ha,Þr>m;-al{)w> #peÛx'
`WhdE(m.x.n<w> hw"ùhyw: 10
~yviêyai ld:äx]w: Avêp.n: ‘~v'a'
‘hz<b.nI 3 ~yfiÛT'-~ai
ylixo+ [:WdåywI ~ymi_y"
tAbßaok.m; vyaiî %yrIåa]y: [r;z<ß
WNM,êmi ‘~ynIP' ha,îr>yI
rTEÜs.m;k.W `xl'(c.yI Adðy"B.
`WhnU)b.v;x] hw"ßhy>
al{ïw> hz<ßb.nI #p,xeîw>
af'ên" aWhå ‘Avp.n:
‘WnyE’l'x\ !kEÜa' 4 lm;Û[]me 11
~l'_b's. [B'êf.yI ha,är>yI
WnybeÞaok.m;W qyDIîc.y:
Wnx.n:åa]w: ATª[.d:B.
WhnUëb.v;x] ~yBi_r:l'( yDIÞb
hKeîmu [:Wg°n" .[; qyDI²c;
`hN<)[um.W `lBo)s.yI aWhï
~yhiÞl{a/ ~t'ÞnOwO[]w:
Wn[eêv'P.mi ~yBiªr:b' Alå-
ll'äxom. ‘aWhw> 5 qL,x;a] !keúl' 12
Wnyte_nOwO[]me èll'v' qLeäx;y>
aK'ÞdUm. é~ymiWc[]-
wyl'ê[' ‘Wnme’Alv. ta,w>
rs:ÜWm hr"Û[/h, rv,’a]
`Wnl'(-aP'r>nI tx;T;ª
Atàr"bux]b;W Avêp.n:
Wny[iêT' !aCoåK; ‘tw<M'’l;
‘WnL'’Ku 6 hn"+m.nI
WnynI+P' ~y[iÞv.Po-ta,w>
AKßr>d:l. vyaiî af'ên" ~yBiär:-
`WnL'(Ku !wOð[] aj.xe ‘aWhw>
 29
taeÞ ABê s `[:yGI)p.y:
[:yGIåp.hi ~y[iÞv.Pol;w>
‘hw"hyw:)
hd"l'_y" al{å
hr"Þq'[] yNIïr" 54:1
hl'x'ê-
al{ ‘ylih]c;w>
hN"ÜrI yxi’c.Pi
hm'²meAv-
ynEB>) ~yBiór:-
yKi(
`hw")hy> rm:ïa'
hl'ÞW[b.
ynEïB.mi