Thanks for supplying the Greek Septuagint version and your helpful commentary,
which I trust as a simple matter of translation:
Here's the Greek text:
12 διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη· καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη.
The bolded verb paredhothi means "handed over", or "gave up". It shares the root of paradhosi, whuch means tradition (that which is handed down). Both words carry the notion of a free and unconstained giving. not a giving under sufferance/obligation.
I especially note here that the word παρεδόθη
is used twice in the same same verse you cite.
The King James Version reads:(53:12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out(Hebrew verb "heerah") his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession (Hebrew verb "yapgia") for the transgressors.
The Septuagint reads:(53:12) Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.
To me, the Masoretic version fits better with the image of the lamb as an image of the Servant making atonement earlier in Isaiah 53, as well as the context of the Servant being killed- cut off from the land of the living- for the people's sins.In the Masoretic,
the Servant is rewarded for apparently pouring out his soul to death- the culmination of the process of the deliverance unto the Servant's death.
Plus, the Servant's spirit could be considered "poured out," as Leviticus says the life is in the blood, and during the sacrifice, the animal's blood is poured.But in the Septuagint,
the Servant is apparently rewarded merely for being delivered to be killed, with no mention of a reward specifically for being killed.
Plus, it wasn't just the Servant's soul that was delivered to death, like the Septuagint says, but his body too.
So the Masoretic appears like a better fit, because the culmination of the Servant's suffering is his death, and it makes sense the rewards would go most strongly for this part of the Servant's travail. Plus, the Masoretic's image of the Servant's soul being poured fits better with the sacrifice image than the image of the soul being delivered to death.Secondly, in the Masoretic,
the Servant makes intercession because of the people's sins. This is a clear match to the chapter's earlier idea of the Servant taking the blow due to the people.But in the Septuagint,
merely being "delivered" for someone else's transgressions doesn't capture the idea of substitionary atonement as clearly. The term "delivered" when put by itself doesn't as strongly show what kind of situation the person was delivered into and how this deliverance relates to those the Servant interceded for.So in conclusion, the Masoretic makes better sense in the context of the Servant's atoning role. Since "handed over" and "delivered" are close synonyms, the same conclusio is reached whether either of those translations are used for "paredhothi."
Paredhothi's translation "gave up" especially carries "the notion of a free and unconstrained giving. not a giving under sufferance/obligation."
Unlike the term "His soul was delivered to death", the term "His soul was given up to death" in the sense of a free giving suggests to me a closer image of the Servant being killed than merely being delivered to death. Still, it doesn't appear as clear an expression of the Servant's death itself as the image of the Servant being poured out.
Additionally, the image of the soul being given up is reminiscient of an offering, which is a strong image in the context of the Servant's sacrifice. And it's true that the Servant's body was also sacrificed, but this objection can be dealt with by the fact that earlier it said "of the travail of his soul he shall see (some mss. add "the light")"
So the servant's soul can be a special point of focus when discussing the Servant's sacrifice.
Still, the term "He was given up because of their iniquities"
is not as clear an image of the atonement on behalf of others as is the phrase "He made intercession for the transgressors." Merely being given up, even in a free will sense, is not as clear about the sacrificial, atoning nature of the "giving up", as "intercession," which directly acts to intervene regarding the transgressions.
Finally, although giving up the Servant in a donative sense is more reminiscient of an offering than merely delivering the Servant, it has a problem that "was delivered" doesn't: in the context of Isaiah 53, it appears to be the Servant who is giving himself up in bearing the stroke due to others. That is, it is the Servant who is making the offering. Yet saying in the passive tense that the Servant "was given up" because of their transgressions in a donative sense, as this view would apparently mean, suggests that someone else was giving up the Servant. I imagine one can say that God or the people were giving up the Servant, but at least such an idea isn't clear in the context of Isaiah 53 itself, as it appears the Servant who is giving himself up, as people reject him and it pleases God to crush Him.So my conclusion is still that the Masoretic sounds like a better fit.
Your mention of the word "tradition" helps to give an understanding of the Greek Septuagint's word for "delivering" or "giving up" here. That is, it shows that the verb sense of the Servant being "handed over" or "given" is similar to a tradition being "handing down" or "given."Thanks for sharing your information. Be Good.