Why does Luke add a verse that is not there?

[searchinmyroots]

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.

Blue Bird,

I think you may be misquoting me as I do not recall ever saying Christian don't care what in in their bible (if I am mistaken, then please let me know). I may have mentioned they don't seem to care if it is quoted correctly and that is from my personal experience.

If I'm not mistaken, Paul is referring to the Hebrew scriptures, correct?

If so, then I agree, they are holy and inspired by G-d.

[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.

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.

[Blue Bird]

It seems to me that some Jews mangle their own texts and prophecies just to distinguish themselves sharply from everything related to the gospel.

[searchinmyroots]

I wouldn't say they "mangle" their own texts, that really is not what is happening.

If you know Judaism, you know there are many "thoughts, descriptions, allegories and stories" that relate to the original text.

A classic example is the "70 Faces of Torah".

But that never changes the plain meaning of the text.

[Blue Bird]

It's just my impression and I find it a little sad (limiting is perhaps a better word than mangling).

[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.

[robrecht]

It's hard to say exactly what the Greek translator of Isaiah 61 had in mind. This word 'seeing again' (ἀνάβλεψις, anablepsis), appears only here in the LXX and Old Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures. I wouldn't say that Luke deliberately twisted the meaning, as it is indeed one reading of the Greek, perhaps the more plain reading. But the verbal form (ἀναβλέπω, anablepo) can be even more literal, ie, 'to look up', eg, when Abraham is told to look up at the sky and count the stars. It is also certainly possible that the Greek translator was speaking of those who are 'blind' in a figurative or spiritual sense. 

The author of 4Q521 (the paraphrase text found at Qumran which dates to Hasmonean times) also interpreted Isaiah 61 as both messianic and as miraculous (raising the dead, healing the sick, opening [the eyes] of the blind). So it can easily be argued that Luke was merely following a common interpretation by some Hebrew and Greek speakers of his time.

As for the actual meaning intended by the author of this text in Deutero-Isaiah, Roman Catholic Christians (as an example that I am most familiar with) officially only consider the Hebrew original text to be inspired, thus they are not be bound by the Greek translation, the Hebrew paraphrase at Qumran, or even Luke's interpretation. While they would also consider Luke's Greek text inspired, there are plenty of disagreements of different authors of the scriptures. They should simply defer to Hebrew scholars and their discussions of the possible meanings of Isaiah 61. 

Personally, I do not think Deutero-Isaiah is speaking of miraculous healings of blind people. Nor is he speaking of recovery of sight to the spiritually blind. Rather he is generally speaking about the vengeance of God against the Babylonians wrought by Cyrus, the Lord's 'anointed', and especially his favor to the Judeans and others previously defeated by the Babylonians. As for the Greek translator, who knows, perhaps he was thinking of a symbolic reversal of the blinding of King Zedekiah by King Nebuchadrezzar?

[veil23]

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?

It is written explicitly in Isaiah 35 and 42 and again in 49 (in context).  When Yeshua read Isaiah 61 he added the line because it was indeed written (yes elsewhere in Isaiah) and I have heard that "it is written" can be used when talking about the fulfillment of prophecy as opposed to a "line by line" exact representation.  Whether you agree with Yeshua or not He is citing Isaiah and the Hebrew scriptures correctly, in what they say.

[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?

It is written explicitly in Isaiah 35 and 42 and again in 49 (in context).  When Yeshua read Isaiah 61 he added the line because it was indeed written (yes elsewhere in Isaiah) and I have heard that "it is written" can be used when talking about the fulfillment of prophecy as opposed to a "line by line" exact representation.  Whether you agree with Yeshua or not He is citing Isaiah and the Hebrew scriptures correctly, in what they say.

That's not what is actually happening here.

Sine when do we "add a line" to a portion we are reading?

Luke doesn't say "I have heard that it is written", it says "and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written".

Where is that weeks portion written? In Isaiah 61. It doesn't say "as it is also written in ..............."

You are grasping at straws. And they have holes in them so you're getting too much air.

[Blue Bird]

You are grasping at straws. And they have holes in them so you're getting too much air.

Air can save your life when you are underwater.