Why does Luke add a verse that is not there?

[searchinmyroots]

Why and how is it that "and recovery of sight for the blind" is added?

It clearly isn't written anywhere in Isaiah 61.

It actually was not so clear when Luke was writing. Joseph Blenkinsopp (full disclosure: one of my professors in college) notes in his commentary on Isaiah that this phrase in the Masoretic Hebrew (פְּקַח־קֽוֹחַ) occurs only once in the entire Hebrew scriptures, thus translators would naturally have difficulty with how to understand this phrase. Even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah found at Qumran differ on how to write this (פקחקוח or פ֯קחקח), and that in all but one occasion the verb פקח refers to the opening of eyes, the one exception being Isa 42,20 where it refers to the opening of ears of one who does not hear. The later Aramaic Targum translates this as the uncovering of light (אִתגְלוֹ לְנֵיהוֹר). Thus one should not be too surprised that the old Greek translates this as recovery of sight for the blind (καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν), which is the same translation that Luke has.

Another piece of evidence is the quotation/expansions of Isaiah 61 in 4Q521 (a text found at Qumran which dates to Hasmonean times) explicitly mentions פוקח עורים (opening [the eyes of the] blind). Clearly there were a couple of Jewish attempts to understand this text in the same way that is found in the gospel of Luke.

Rob,

Thank you for your insight.

I might suggest they may be two different things though or at least one may be taken out of context.

In my opinion, "opening the eyes of the blind" is quite different than "recovery of sight for the blind".

The first seems to be opening ones eyes to see things more clearly while the other seems to be alluding to healing a person from being blind.

And if one may say it can be the same, I might agree. Except I don't think, and I may be wrong, Christians don't read that verse to mean opening one's eyes, they see it as a miracle healing.