Acts 8:27-35 compared to Isa. 53:7-8

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Mar 11, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The topic started by Will Kinney-"why not admit"-seems to have become focused upon the differences between Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 and Luke 4:16-21. I don't believe we could discuss this further proof of differing versions of the OT being used, in that thread, without it's becoming too unwieldy-so let's discuss it here.

    Here's Isaiah 53:7-8 from the KJV:

    7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
    8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

    And here's Acts 8:27-35 from the KJV:

    27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
    28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
    29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
    30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
    31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
    32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
    33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

    Now, let's see the differences between Acts 8:32-33 and the verses in Isaiah:

    Isaiah:He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth
    Acts: Not found. But that doesn't mean it wasn't in the scroll they read in Acts. Maybe this was not where the Ethiopian indicated to Philip he'd begun to read.

    Isaiah:he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
    Acts:He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

    Just as a boy is not a man, a lamb is not a sheep. But Jesus is the LAMB OF GOD. He called Himself that! Maybe the version they had was in past tense because it was written by a Christian after Jesus' resurrection. And besides the difference in tenses, there's a plain wording difference.

    Isaiah:He was taken from prison and from judgment:
    Acts:In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:
    Quite a bit of difference here! Isaiah says NOTHING about His humiliation, and there's a HUGE difference in taking Him FROM judgment & in taking His judgment away!!!And Acts says nothing about PRISON!

    Isaiah:and who shall declare his generation?
    Acts:and who shall declare his generation?
    An exact duplicate, showing exactly which verses were being read from Isaiah in Acts, also throwing water upon any language-differences arguments the KJVOs may have.

    Isaiah:for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
    Acts:for his life is taken from the earth.
    same thought; BI-I-G difference in WORDSSS...

    Isaiah:for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
    Acts:Not found. But again, maybe they quit reading before they reached this passage. However, this passage in Isaiah is VERY important, as it declares one of Jesus' reasons for becoming a man and suffering.

    There can be no sensible denying the fact that the Ethiopian had READ, and possibly read it aloud to Philip, as Philip plainly knew what Scriptures the Ethiopian had read-or Philip could have read it also at the time. The Ethiopian clearly had just read them, but didn't know their meaning, or to whom they referred, until Philip had preached about Jesus to him. Remember, V.32 says, "the place of the Scripture which he READ was this:..."

    The clear, logical explanation for the differences, taking the Scriptures at face value, as written, is that Philip & the Ethiopian were using another version of Isaiah besides the Masoretic version. Once again, this is Scriptural proof that the Apostles weren't limited to just one version of the OT, which they recognized as "the" Scriptures.

    Thoughts, anyone?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Isaiah 53:7 as quoted in Acts 8:32-33 is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the Septuagint (Greek OT)

    1. It uses the aorist "echthe" for the imperfect passive
    2. It uses "amnos" for the ewe (different gender)
    3. It uses the singular keirantos while the Heb is plural
    4. It uses an odd reading of "ouk anoigei"

    Isaiah 53:8 is ALSO IDENTICAL to the Greek LXX and not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. I'm afraid it will be lost on most of us.

    Acts 8 is simply recording, accurately, the translation of the Hebrew into Greek from which the man was reading. It was NOT a good translation in this case!

    But it shows the example of using the best translation of God's Word available (albeit imperfect and with faults). It was the ONLY Bible that most Jews and all Gentile converts had available.

    Parallel much today with, say, an NIV that is not as accurate and formal a translation. But it can and is used as a translation of God's Word (with faults and imperfections).
     
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, wrongo! All lambs are sheep, but all sheep are not lambs. [​IMG]
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thanx, Dr. Bob & Skan. I see your points.

    And I should've said a lamb is not an ADULT sheep. When we see the word sheep, we think of adult animals.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Last night for devotions I read the Dead Sea Scrolls 1-Isaiah-a text chapters 50-55. What a joy. Reading texts that Jesus Himself might have read.

    Very few differences with the Masoretic Hebrew text of a thousand years later. Couple of additions. Almost FULL agreement with the LXX, the contemporary Greek text Jesus read.

    Will share some of the slight (but wonderful) changes as time allows.
     
  6. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd only add that the usual dodge to avoid the plain meaning of Luke 4 -- namely, that "the Son of God had the right to change the text of Isaiah and he did so" -- doesn't apply here, since neither Philip nor the Ethiopian eunuch were the Son of God. [​IMG]
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Archangel7:I'd only add that the usual dodge to avoid the plain meaning of Luke 4 -- namely, that "the Son of God had the right to change the text of Isaiah and he did so" -- doesn't apply here, since neither Philip nor the Ethiopian eunuch were the Son of God.

    Shoot, I don't believe that theory either. There's not one hint in Scripture that Jesus altered the Scripture. Every time He fulfilled a Scripture, the narrator says so, and it's quite plain where He gave additional Scripture. He Himself said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law till ALL be fulfilled, and that Scripture cannot be broken. It's plain that He FULFILLED OT prophecy rather than changed it.

    I believe that when He said, "this Scripture" in Luke 4:21, that there could be no more compelling evidence that He READ that Scripture aloud verbatim. And there's certainly NO valid denial that both the Ethiopian and Philip READ a version of the Scripture that became Isaiah 53:7-8 in modern Bibles.

    I see the Onlyists won't touch this one with a ten foot pole. Wladislaw Wroczsewski, a six-foot, four-inch Pole, won't touch it either.
     

Share This Page

Loading...