Recovery of sight to the blind

[Andrew]

In Luke 4:18 Jesus quotes Isaiah 61

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" Luke 4:18

But when I look up Isaiah 61 in my KJV bible which uses the revised hebrew Masoretic text, the phrase "and recovery of sight to the blind" does not appear in the verse.

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" Isaiah 61:1 (KJV)

Did Jesus misquote the passage?

I own a non-Masoretic Hebrew to Greek translation OT copy of the Septuagint that was used during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and when I looked up Isaiah 61 in this greek translation I found that missing sentence "and recovery of sight to the blind" that Jesus quotes!

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;" Isaiah 61:1 (LXX)

Anyone else find it interesting that the later 'revised' Hebrew text (Masoretic) that we use is missing a line from Isaiah that Jesus quotes in the NT?

Is your bible missing that line too?

I found some other anomalies where the NT quotes the OT but again is not found in my standard bible but is found in the hebrew to greek translation (Septuagint), so let's figure this out one at a time.

Regardless of possible "translation error" which do you believe to be correct? Jesus in the New Testament canon or the Masoretic Hebrew OT canon?

If Jesus just added this in spontaneously then is it just a coincidence that the non revised Hebrew Text (Septuagint) that was around at the time of Jesus and the Apostles say the same thing?

 

[Michael]

Hi Andrew. Good question.
Just a quick thought this morning...

I believe the answer lies in part in the understanding of the word "blind" in the passage.

Consider Jesus' example elsewhere, speaking of the Pharisees - "They are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matt 15:14 NASB)

That word "blind" in the Greek often refers to those who are 'mentally blind.' The Pharisees were the ones who were supposed to know the Truth and lead the people into the Light; but rather, being "blind" themselves to the understanding of God's Word, the people were not being set free from bondage to sin and would "remain in their sin." Jesus came to "give sight to the blind" to keep us from falling in the pit, and lead us into the Light, where there is fellowship with Him and true freedom from sin.

Blessings.


.

 

[Lamb]

Carm website has a good explanation that's worth reading https://carm.org/does-luke-4-18-misquote-isaiah-61-1

 

[Andrew]

Carm website has a good explanation that's worth reading https://carm.org/does-luke-4-18-misquote-isaiah-61-1

Thanks Lamm! This is exactly what I gathered when reading "those in prison that our bound", I realised that it IS another way of saying "recovery of sight to the blind"

I just find it interesting that Jesus must have been reading the Hebrew scripture that the Greek translations was based.

From your link...
"Jesus could have been reading from something like the Septuagint (or, far more likely, a Hebrew version similar to the one from which the Septuagint was translated) simply because that happened to be the version present at that particular synagogue. He was reading the scroll in front of Him. Such a scenario does not involve any error or deception on the part of Jesus (or Luke) and fits the historical context rather well. Thus, based on the LXX alone, we can already conclude that this is*not*a flaw in the*New Testament."

 

[Andrew]

Now for my next question concerning the house of Jacob. Is it 75 or 70?

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." Acts 7:14
Acts clearly says "75" but...

"And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten" Genesis 46:27 (KJV Masoretic)

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already" Exodus 1:5 (KJV Masoretic)

My KJV bible keeps saying "70" disagreeing with the books of Acts!

But the Hebrew source that the Septuagint was translated from and as we noted before, is very likely the text that Jesus read, says this..

"And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls." Genesis 46:27 LXX

"But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls of Jacob were seventy-five." Exodus 1:5 LXX

The Dead sea scrolls also agrees with the LXX Exodus 1:5 that there were 75 souls total

The Septuagint agrees with Acts that Jacobs house contained 75 total!

So the information and quotes from Acts and of Jesus seems to have been based on an earlier Hebrew text from which the greek Septuagint was founded on.

Is there any other explanation for why the Masoretic Hebrew source doesn't agree with Acts and the Hebrew text that Jesus was reading from?

 

[Lamb]

KJV is not the most accurate bible version.

 

[RichWh1]

The account in Acts includes the sons of Joseph, where Exodus 1;5 mentions only the sons of Jacob.

That might explain the discrepancy.

 

[Andrew]

The account in Acts includes the sons of Joseph, where Exodus 1;5 mentions only the sons of Jacob.

That might explain the discrepancy.

But Joseph is not included for he was already in Egypt, he called for Jacob and his household, who were 75 according to Acts

 

[Andrew]

KJV is not the most accurate bible version.

Well the NT in the KJV is accurate, the Old Testament in the KJV seems to come from a different Hebrew source and not the same Hebrew source that Stephen the Martyr and the Septuagint agree together on.

 

[Josiah]

Carm website has a good explanation that's worth reading https://carm.org/does-luke-4-18-misquote-isaiah-61-1

Good stuff (not frequent at CARM, lol)....


Probably not an issue here, but I think it 's good to remember as well that folks in Jesus' day did not walk about with floppy, leather bound Bible tomes with the words "HOLY BIBLE" on the cover, in genuine imitation gold letters. They had it MEMORIZED. They are speaking from MEMORY. And it was not critical that it be "word for word" - sometimes the substance of such was good enough. They weren't exaclty QUOTING in our very modern sense. Probably not an issue in this case, however.


Now, does Jesus (who seems to have memorized this in Greek.... or maybe the PENMEN is relating it to Greek readers in the Greek edition), does that mean He endorses the LXX or consider IT to be THE Bible? No. No more than Luther quoting a verse in Latin from the Vulgate Bible, as he often did. Nope. Sometimes something is just what it is - and nothing more.

 

[Andrew]

Good stuff (not frequent at CARM, lol)....


Probably not an issue here, but I think it 's good to remember as well that folks in Jesus' day did not walk about with floppy, leather bound Bible tomes with the words "HOLY BIBLE" on the cover, in genuine imitation gold letters. They had it MEMORIZED. They are speaking from MEMORY. And it was not critical that it be "word for word" - sometimes the substance of such was good enough. They weren't exaclty QUOTING in our very modern sense. Probably not an issue in this case, however.


Now, does Jesus (who seems to have memorized this in Greek.... or maybe the PENMEN is relating it to Greek readers in the Greek edition), does that mean He endorses the LXX or consider IT to be THE Bible? No. No more than Luther quoting a verse in Latin from the Vulgate Bible, as he often did. Nope. Sometimes something is just what it is - and nothing more.

Jesus must have been so good at memorizing Hebrew text that he quotes verbatim what Hebrew text says, which includes "and recovery of sight to the blind", he also went to Synagogues and spread open Hebrew scrolls that in His time would have read "and recovery of sight to the blind" because there was no such thing as the Masoretic text in those days.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[RichWh1]

Perhaps Jesus Quoted the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text.

 

[Andrew]

Perhaps Jesus Quoted the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text.

Exactly, he quoted the pre Christian Hebrew sources, the Masoretic is a post Christian Hebrew source for Jews who reject Jesus to use to declare loud and bold that the NT is not inspired.

Simply stating fact.