Why does Luke add a verse that is not there?

[searchinmyroots]

Luke 4:16-18 -

16 - He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read,
17 - and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

19 - to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

20 - Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21- He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”


Isaiah 61-1 from where it was said he was reading from -

The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.

To declare a year of acceptance for the Lord and a day of vengeance for our God, to console all mourners


Serious question -

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

It clearly isn't written anywhere in Isaiah 61.

Why does the Christian bible say "Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:" when something was added that is not written there at all?

[Chavak]

good question. only thing I can think of is that they added that line into try to prove Jesus was the messiah. manipulation of the text to make it seem to support their beliefs.

[searchinmyroots]

good question. only thing I can think of is that they added that line into try to prove Jesus was the messiah. manipulation of the text to make it seem to support their beliefs.

Not sure how that would prove a messiah though.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hebrew bible that seems to indicate miracles will prove the person is a messiah.

There are several other places where the text was changed or added to in the Christian bible where it says "where it is written".

That does seem to be a manipulation. I'm sure Christians wouldn't care too much for a later written text that added or changed things that is in their bible.

[Chavak]

good question. only thing I can think of is that they added that line into try to prove Jesus was the messiah. manipulation of the text to make it seem to support their beliefs.

Not sure how that would prove a messiah though.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hebrew bible that seems to indicate miracles will prove the person is a messiah.

I agree. However, my understanding is that Christians do believe the messiah will prove himself via miracles.

[robrecht]

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.

[Blue Bird]

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.

That's an interesting thing Robrecht, I didn't know that!

It took me a while to realize your full disclosure. When I was at school, we had an exchange student from this area. When asked where she was from, she would show us the outline of Lake Michigan with her index finger and thumb and point at the joint of her thumb.

[Blue Bird]

There are several other places where the text was changed or added to in the Christian bible where it says "where it is written".

That does seem to be a manipulation. I'm sure Christians wouldn't care too much for a later written text that added or changed things that is in their bible.

This morning I was reading 2. Timothy 3 and thought you might find it interesting to see how a Christian views (or should view) the Hebrew Bible. This is Paul speaking to his student Timothy.

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise ...

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."  (v. 15-17)

[searchinmyroots]

Hello Blue Bird, hope you are doing well and thank you for sharing your reading.

While I would agree that scripture given to prophets and others may be "for reproof, for correction", I do believe the Torah is not.

With that said, the verse I questioned is in Isaiah so Paul seems to be covering his bases.

But in my opinion, I really don't see it as a reproof or correction, I see it as adding something that clearly is not there.

Either way thanks for the verse, it helps me to better understand the Christian bible.

[searchinmyroots]

Well, I thought about this a little more and want to make these comments -

I don't think what is written is open for reprove or correction. I think it is open for interpretation which is something completely different.

Also, what Paul wrote doesn't take away from the fact that words were added to what the Christian bible says is written on the scroll when they clearly are not there.

That's not reproving or correcting, that is adding.

The way I see it, if Paul wants to use those words to correct what is written as he says, then it should read something like -

It is written .................................. and what is left out is........................

or, what should also be written is................................

Again, just stating my opinion which is just that.

[Blue Bird]

As I read Timothy this morning, I thought about your suggestion that Christians don't care what is in their Bible, whether it is quoted correctly. I just wanted to show that it's not correct that Christians don't care. Paul says scripture is holy and inspired by God. It's the opposite of don't care.