There is an undoubted and sustained theme of the substitutionary death of the servant of Yahweh throughout Isaiah 53. The servant by his death takes the place of and substitutes himself for those who have incurred guilt. The servant thus makes reparation for them and restore them to the LORD. Such is the implication of the Hebrew word אָשָׁם (asham), often translated 'guilt offering'. The servant offered himself as the 'guilt offering' to make reparation and atonement for his people for their sin, and the will of the LORD was to crush the servant and cause him to suffer (v. 10). So much is clear in the Masoretic Text (MT), the standard Hebrew Text of the Bible.
When we come to the Septuagint or LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made around 200 BC, while some scholars consider that the LXX minimizes the theme of the death of the servant in Isaiah 53 (Sapp: 1998, 186), the motif of vicarious atoning suffering which effects salvation remains unambiguous, even if it is a little weakened in the LXX:
The Servant’s vicarious suffering cancels the guilt of sin and brings salvation to his people (Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 124).
However, Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX emphasizes the justification of the righteous one in resurrection when compared to the MT. So Cyril of Alexandria, who worked off the LXX, says:
God the Father, I think, wishes to justify a righteous one who is serving many well, and he himself shall bear their sins (53:11). But no one should think that the righteous one who is serving many well (53:11) is any other than our Lord Jesus Christ […] Christ is a blameless and righteous one who is serving many well. (Wilken: 2007, 421)
The purpose of this article is to show how the LXX (1) legitimately renders the MT of Isaiah 53:10-12; (2) accents the resurrection as the event constituting the justification of the suffering servant; and (3) provided the background for the conception of the resurrection of the suffering Christ as his justification after his sin-bearing death as it is taught in the NT by Paul.
The following is my literal translation of Isaiah 53:10-12 in the LXX.
10And [the] Lord wills to cleanse (καθαρίζω) him with wounds when you (pl) present a sin offering, your life will see long-living offspring. Also, [the] Lord wills to take away 11from the labour of his life, to show him light (φῶς) and to form him with understanding, to justify [the] just one who is serving many well (δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς), and he will bear their sins. 12For this reason (διὰ τοῦτο), he will inherit many and divide [the] plunder with the strong, because (ἀνθ’ ὧν) his life was handed over to death (παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ), and he was reckoned among the lawless (ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη), and he offered himself up for the sins of many (αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν), and because of their sins he was handed over (διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη). (Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX)
The main verb in verse 10a MT features the fronted and emphatic divine name which is subject of the verb (וַיהוָה חָפֵץ). The verb חָפֵץ is the Qal perfect with the infinitive construct complement and personal suffix, דַּכְּאֹו. It can be translated, ‘and Yahweh willed to crush him’.
Verse 10a should be compared with verse 10e, where there is another instance of the divine name with the cognate noun to the main verb of verse 10a (חָפֵץ). Verse 10e features the conjunction with the emphatic fronted noun (וְחֵפֶץ, 'and the will') in construct with the divine name (יְהוָה, 'of Yahweh'), with the next prepositional phrase (בְּיָדֹו, 'in his hand') followed by imperfect verb (יִצְלָֽח, 'will prosper'). It can be translated ‘and the will of Yahweh in his hand will prosper’. For both constructions, the LXX of verse 10a and e uses present middle indicative verbs with aorist infinitive complements (e.g. 'καὶ κύριος βούλεται'). The LXX of verse 10a renders the infinitive complements (there are two, דַּכְּאֹו and הֶֽחֱלִי) with the plural articular noun, πληγή, a genitive of content, 'the cleansing consisting of wounds'.
Regarding verse 10b, the LXX requires that the subject of the plural verb δῶτε is implied, and that ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν functions as the subject of singular ὄψεται found in verse 10c. The MT of v. 10b has נַפְשׁוֹֹ with singular personal suffix (‘his life’), which functions as the object complement of the verb שִׂים, translating MT אִם־תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ as 'when he sets his life a sin offering’. The LXX rendering of verse 10b (ἐὰν + aorist subjunctive δῶτε) is a Hebraism, denoting time, ‘when’: so Thayer, against Brenton, who translates ‘if’.
In the MT, אָשָׁם (v. 10b) is a reference to the servant’s self-sacrificial offering as an 'asham' or guilt offering, using the metaphor of the Levitical sacrifices. The prepositional phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 'concerning sin', is a well-known LXX idiom denoting a 'sin offering' (cf. Rom 8:3; Wright: 1991, 220-225; Moo, Romans: 1996, 480).
The MT of verse 10b has נַפְשׁ֔וֹ with singular personal suffix (‘his life’), which functions as the object complement of the verb with conjunction אִם־תָּשִׂים, thus, ‘when he sets his soul an asham’. However, in the LXX, the subject of the 2nd person plural verb δῶτε is implied, and ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν seems to function as the subject of singular ὄψεται (Brenton: 1851). This follows the possible reading of the MT verb form תָּשִׂים as 2nd person singular, though the LXX makes it second person plural (Oswalt: 1998, 2:401 fn 51).
The divergence of the LXX from the MT is probably explained by the fact that the verbal form תָּשִׂים can be either third person singular feminine, thus agreeing with נַפְשׁ֔וֹ as subject of the sentence, meaning, 'when his life sets a sin offering', or second person singular masculine, meaning 'when you [singular] set his life a sin offering' (Motyer: 1993, 439). Given that verse 9 highlights the servant’s death (בְּמֹתָיו || τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ), and burial (קִבְרוֹ || τῆς ταφῆς), the next two clauses (יִרְאֶה ז֖רַע: v. 10c; אֲרִיךְ יָמִים: v. 10d) of the MT then bring resurrection motifs to the fore, ‘he will see seed, he will prolong days’. The servant will rise again, and so see his progeny and extend his life.
The LXX seems to misread the personal suffix of נַפְשׁוֹ in verse 10b of the MT as plural in verse 10c of the LXX (if the MT represents the original accurately) and makes נַפְשׁוֹ the subject of the following sentence. The LXX goes on to translate the finite verbal clause (יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים) with adjective μακρόβιον, thus giving the sense ‘your soul will see long-lived offspring’ (cf. Brenton: 1851, 889). This takes σπέρμα μακρόβιον as an hendiadys (Oswalt: 1998, 2:401 fn 51). Again, if addressed to the servant, in the context of death and burial (v. 9), this speaks of life after death.
While the MT has a We-X-yiqtol, a X-yiqtol clause, 2 yiqtol clauses, followed by a We-X-yiqtol, the LXX has present indicative βούλεται followed by 4 infinitives (Sapp: 1998, 174; Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 126-7). Brenton adjusts the versification to include καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν in verse 11 (Brenton: 1851, 889). The final clause is a future (cf. ἀνοίσει).
Brenton takes the syntax of the LXX as four infinitive complements, thus:
the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well (Isaiah 53:11 LXX Brenton).
The first infinitive (vv. 10e-11a) of the LXX refers to God’s desire to provide relief for the servant from his labourious toil. The Lord cuts short the servant’s agony (Sapp: 1998, 182). The will of the Lord is to deliver the servant from the anguish of death (Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 128).
The second infinitive (v. 11b) is that the servant 'sees light', a reference to life after and beyond death. A significant difference between LXX and MT is φῶς in the LXX as the object of infinitive δεῖξαι. The equivalent אור is not read in the MT. However, the LXX reading is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which reads אור (‘light’) as the object of יִרְאֶה. Verb יִרְאֶה normally takes an explicit direct object. This suggests that the MT should be amended as indicated by the LXX and the DSS manuscripts 1QIsaa and 1QIsaa (The Great Isaiah Scroll online accessed at http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-44.htm on 1 May 2014; BHS, 760, Apparatus cites 1QIsaa [The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark’s Monastery] and 1QIsab [The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University]; Abela: 2006, 94; Harman: 2005, 368; Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 102; Sapp: 1998, 172; Petter: 2011, 175).
The third infinitive (v. 11c) is that the servant himself is formed by a new knowledge through what he suffered (Oswalt: 1998, 2:403; Petter: 2011, 176), rather than ‘the many’ know the servant, and by knowing him are justified. Regarding the MT, ‘The chiastic disposition of the first ([יִרְאֶ֣ה [אור: v. 11b) and second colon (יִשְׂבָּע בְּדַעְתֹּו: v. 11c) […] would suggest that the adverbial phrase bada’tô qualifies the verb yiśbā’ rather than the verb that follows, yasdîq […]’ (Abela: 2006, 93).
The fourth infinitive (v. 11d) in the LXX is this passage’s ‘boldest translation’ (Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 128). The verb δικαιῶσαι is the aorist infinitive of δικαιόω, 'to justify'. Anarthrous accusative δίκαιον could either be the accusative of respect of δικαιῶσαι, or in the alternative its object. To say it again, the accusative δίκαιον following δικαιῶσαι can be quite properly rendered not as the accusative of respect of δικαιῶσαι but as its object (Abela: 2006, 97).
This would appear to be how the LXX has been understood. So in the LXX, the Righteous One is the object of the verb, so that the Lord, the subject of the verb, does something to the Servant, the Righteous One, which is to vindicate or justify him. The servant is already righteous, δίκαιον), but the Lord shows him or proves him to be righteous, δικαιῶσαι (Sapp: 1998, 174-5).
Of the word, עַבְדִּי, 'my servant', Abela, following Dahood, reads this suffix not as first person singular, ‘my’, but third person singular, ‘his’ (Abela: 2006, 102). The requirement to emend the MT is a weakness in Dahood’s and Abela’s argument and in the LXX translation. However, it does not affect the argument here if Paul used the LXX, as it seems that he has regarding verse 12.
The LXX translates the noun for ‘my servant’ in the MT (עַבְדִּי) by a participle (δουλεύοντα), adding the adverb εὖ (perhaps erroneously for the 1st person singular suffix in ּעַבְדִּי such that the servant becomes ‘one who serves many well’ (Sapp: 1998, 175).
Anarthrous present accusative participle δουλεύοντα agrees with δίκαιον in case, number, and gender. Without the article, δουλεύοντα could be functioning adverbially, and thus modify aorist infinitive δικαιῶσαι, the present tense of the participle perhaps indicating contemporaneous time with the aorist infinitive ('to justify while he serves the many well'), or it could be instrumental, describing the means by which the servant justifies ('to justify by serving the many well'). Proximity to the adjective which it immediately follows suggests it is adverbial modifying δίκαιον, thus ‘the righteous one who serves many well’. So Brenton renders it, 'to justify the just one who serves many well’ (Brenton: 1851). The suffering servant must be justified through resurrection before sinners can be justified through him (cf. Rom 4:25, 5:18).
Since the translation of the Vulgate, לָֽרַבִּים (v. 11d) has been taken as direct object of the verb, despite prefixed preposition ל (Abela: 2006, 103; cf. GKC, 366 §117n). However, ‘the government of the noun by the verb SDQ in the hiphil never passes through this preposition or any preposition for that [sic: matter]; the verb governs the noun directly as it does in Is 5,23 and 50,8.’ (Abela: 2006, 97) Thus it is better to see the prepositional phrase in the MT (לָֽרַבִּים) as the indirect object of the verb.
In the LXX, the word for ‘many’, dative πολλοῖς (v. 11d) confirms that MT prepositional phrase לָֽרַבִּים is an indirect object, and that the ‘many’ are not the direct object of the verbal action (יַצְדִּיק || δικαιῶσαι), but those for whom the benefit is received. While lamed certainly can introduce the object (GKC, 366 §117n; Chisholm: 2012, 197) it more usually introduces the more remote or indirect object (GKC, 381 §11r-s; Abela: 2006, 102-3).
That is, the prepositional phrase in the MT and the dative in the LXX suggests the likelihood that it is not ‘the many’ who are justified, against the great stream of translations since the Vulgate (Abela: 2006, 90-29, 103), but that the object of justification is ‘the righteous one, my servant’ (צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי || δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα), and the benefit of the justification of the righteous servant then accrues to ‘the many’. So, as Sapp rightly recognizes, the sense of the LXX is:
The Lord desires […] to vindicate the righteous one who serves the many well […] The LXX has made the Lord’s vindication of the Servant and his righteousness the dominant theme in v 11b, not the Servant’s justification of sinners. (Sapp: 1998, 175-6, emphasis Sapp’s)
Similarly, Abela argues, based on the MT, that Yahweh is the subject, and the Servant, the object of the action spoken of in the clause, 'The Just One (Yahweh) will vindicate him [the servant] in front of the multitude’ (Abela: 2006, 104; Cf. Tångberg: 2001, 31-2). That this is also a possible reading of the MT is suggested by the JPS Translation (1917), though it switches the subject and object: ‘the servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One [Yahweh] […]’ (JPS 1917). However, as a modification of the rendering of both Alba and the JPS 1917, it is probably better to read צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי as ‘the righteous one, my servant’, being a single object of the cognate verb יַצְדִּיק, and thus finding with the majority that צַדִּיק constitutes a fronted attributive adjective in apposition to עַבְדִּי, its head noun (GKC, 428 §132b; Motyer: 1993, 441; Chisholm: 2012, 197), with the rhetorical reason of root repetition explaining the anomalous word order. Abela’s argument in response is that ‘adjectives functioning as attributives […] normally follow the head noun and share its definiteness’ (Abela: 2006, 93). However, there may be good rhetorical reasons for Isaiah reversing the normal order, such as root repetition, which emphasizes that the servant is justified because he was just, despite bearing punishment for sin according to Yahweh’s will.
Thus, Isaiah 53:11 MT/LXX can be rendered not that the servant justifies many, but that the servant himself, the Righteous One, is justified, ‘for’ the many. Contextually, the way the servant is justified is, at least in part, for the Lord to show him light. All this suggests that the servant, on the reading of the MT provided by the LXX, is justified by his resurrection.
Thus, according to this interpretation, the Septuagintal reading of the poem, which views justification (or vindication) as something that the servant himself receives from Yahweh […] In the context of the poem in the LXX, it is Yahweh who fills him with understanding and justifies him. (Petter: 2011, 180-1 and fn 68)
Hengel and Bailey rightly observe of Isaiah 53:11 LXX:
Here lies the root of the New Testament idea of the resurrection as the justification or vindication of the crucified one (1 Tim 3:16; John 16:10; cf. also Rom 4:25) […] The ‘justification’ of 53:11 is the justification of the one who, although considered ungodly in the eyes of sinners, was in fact the only truly righteous one. It is therefore the precondition of the justification of the real sinners, which the servant of the Lord effects through his vicarious death. (Hengel & Bailey: 2004, 128)
The Righteous One is declared righteous by seeing the light. Then we have another link between Isaiah 53:11, Romans 4:25, and the traditional understanding of the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος in Romans 5:18. If Isaiah 53:11 stands behind Romans 5:18, as Schreiner and Wright suggest, this makes it more likely that it is Christ who is justified in the reference ἑνὸς δικαιώματος. The word ‘many’, πολλοῖς (v. 11d) also provides a connection with Romans 5:15-19.
The links of Isaiah 53:12 LXX with Romans 4:25a are further established with passive παρεδόθη twice in Isaiah 53:12 LXX, and preposition διά with the accusative. Even the cautious Hooker argues Romans 4:25 is "the one clear echo of Isaiah 53" (1998, 101). More confidently, Hofius says, Romans 4:25 "is a summary of the fourth Servant Song distilled to essentials" (Hofius: 2004, 180). Sapp argues, "Romans 4:25a already alludes the Greek text of Isaiah 53:12" (Sapp:1998, 187). Hofius goes further, taking Romans 5:15-19 as direct references to Isaiah 53 (Hofius: 2004, 182). This is also suggested by Wagner, who argues that Paul’s phraseology in Romans 5:15-19 echoes Isaiah 53:11-12(Wagner: 1998, 219).
Stuhlmacher argues that Paul must have been influenced by the Hebrew, as Paul uses παραπτώματα not ἁμαρτίαι (Stuhlmacher: 2004, 154; cf. Evans: 2012, 160). Sapp argues that it is "not a big step" to see that Romans 5:19b is an allusion to the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:11 (Sapp: 1998, 187-8). Against LXX influence, Stuhlmacher argues that if Paul had been influenced by Isaiah 53:11 LXX, he would have spoken of "the justification of the Servant himself (cf. 1 Tim 3:16) instead of the justification of the many" (Stuhlmacher: 2004, 154). But if Stuhlmacher will allow it, Paul has spoken about the justification of the Servant himself, in the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος through which (διά with the genitive) God justifies all/many (5:18). Paul has also spoken of the justification of the many (Rom 5:18b, 19). Hofius rightly sees not just a correlation between Isaiah 53:11 LXX and Romans 5:15-19, but ‘direct reference’ to Isaiah 53, in the δικαι— terminology, as the expressions δικαίωμα (v. 16b), δικαιοσύνη (v. 17b), δικαίωσις (v. 18b), δίκαιος καθίστασθαι (“to be established righteous”: v. 19b) all refer to the same subject matter’ (Hofius: 2004, 182).
Paul may use παραπτώματα (Rom 4:25) not ἁμαρτίαι (Isa 53:12 LXX) because in Romans 5:12-21, Paul prefers to use the cognates of ἁμαρτία to describe the broader notion of sin, which apply to those who lived from Adam until Moses (Romans 5:13-14) prior to the giving of the Mosaic law. The immediate referent of the ἡμῶν of Romans 4:25, inclusive of Paul and his readers, are characterized in the 5:12-21 as those who commit παραπτώματα (Romans 5:15, 16) in the likeness of Adam (Romans 5:14). Παραπτώματα in Romans 4:25 thus highlights the ‘against law’ nature of the sin that both Adam and those with the law have committed.
Therefore, it is likely that Paul alluded to Isaiah 53:11 LXX in Romans 5:18, and that the δικαίωμα of Romans 5:18 expresses the ‘justification of the just servant’ (δίκαιῶσαι δίκαιον) of Isaiah 53:11 by God showing him the light in resurrection. On the supposition that Clement of Rome (fl. AD 96) was Paul’s companion Kλήμεντος (Phil 4:3), a further possible link between Paul and the LXX is suggested by 1 Clement 16:12, which quotes Isaiah 53:11 LXX in full. Certainly, Isaiah 53:11 LXX was well known to Christians in the last decade of the first century (Bird: 2007, 55).
Wright argues that the obedience of the Messiah was not his "amasing a treasury of merit through Torah obedience" because "obedience to the law would be beside the point" (Wright: 2002, 529). Rather, the Isaianic servant "was obedient to the saving purposes of YHWH, the plan marked out for Israel from the beginning […] to bring salvation to the world" (Wright: 2002, 529). However, obedience to the law of Moses was the means of Israel bringing salvation to the world (Deut 4:5-8,19:5-6). To imply that the Servant’s commission was different to Israel’s is a false dichotomy, for the Servant was faithful where Israel sinned as God’s servant (Isa 44:21-22, 48:1-11). "The servant’s obedience should not be limited to his sacrificial death […] His is a ministry of faithful obedience to Yahweh and his laws" (Petter: 2011, 183). Thus, a Suffering Servant background to Romans 5:18b does not limit Christ’s obedience to ‘passive’ obedience in Romans 5:19.
Christ’s resurrection as firstfruits brings about the harvest of those belonging to him (1 Cor 15:23), and the justification of the one man, Christ, by his own vindicating resurrection, brings about the justification of the many, through the general resurrection from the dead at the end of the age. Our resurrection "is not wholly separate from Christ’s resurrection, but each constitutes either earlier and later parts of the same event, with the earlier part serving as promise and guarantee of that which is yet to come" (Ciampa & Rosner: 2010, 761). "[T]he resurrection, instead of being a single event at the end of time, has broken into history already in the single instance of Jesus Christ"(Wright: 1991, 27). "Israel’s longed-for ‘resurrection’ has bifurcated" (Wright: 1991, 29). Our resurrection and Christ’s share an "organic connection" as "two episodes of the same event" (Gaffin: 1978/87, 35).
The justification of the One (ἑνὸς δικαιώματος) is the "representative beginning" (Gaffin: 1978/87, 34) and "actual beginning of the general event" (Gaffin: 1978/87, 35) of the believer’s justification of life (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς). "His resurrection and that of his people form an unbreakable unity" (Ridderbos: 1975, 538). "The rest must follow" (Garland: 2003, 706). The δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος (Rom 5:18) refers to the vindication of Christ through his resurrection, which then produces the ‘justification of life’ for those in Christ. This justification of life is enjoyed presently by believers by their being spiritually raised with Christ and seated in the heavenly realms with him now (Col 3:1-4; Eph 2:5-7), but it will be consummated by their bodily resurrection from the dead. In Paul’s inaugurated eschatology, the resurrection of believers is the implementation of their future justification (Rom 8:33-34) that has been declared in the present (Rom 3:21, 5:1, 8:1; Bird: 2007, 51; Moo: 1996, 310-11) but that will be consummated in their salvific bodily resurrection from the dead.
While clearly Jesus’ death is foundational to justification (Rom 3:25-26, 4:25a, 5:6-9), Paul has also brought Christ’s resurrection into close relationship with justification (Rom 4:25b), and salvation and reconciliation (Rom 5:9-10). Moo regarded Paul’s connection between Jesus’ resurrection and our justification in Romans 4:25b as ‘puzzling’ (Moo: 1996, 289), but in fact it may well be that Romans 4:25b, rather than a puzzling anomaly, is the key to unlocking Romans 5, which then serves to illuminate Romans 4:25. Bird is quite right to observe Romans 4:25 "makes the risen Christ the instrument of eschatological salvation (though without saying how)" (Bird: 2007, 52). Bird rightly sees "Rom 5:18 contains a similar pattern to the cause/result model of 4:25" (Bird: 2007, 52). However, the interplay between Romans 4:25b and 5:18b may be greater than Bird allows. That is, the completed δικαίωμα of the Christ, being the justification of the one man Jesus Christ (Rom 5:18b) by his resurrection (cf. Rom 4:25b), is that which produces our δικαίωσις (Rom 4:25b), which is likewise our δικαίωσις ζωῆς (Rom 5:18b). Compare:
ὃς [...] καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. (Rom 4:25b)
δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς· (Rom 5:18b)
If the correlation above is correct, Jesus (ἑνός) was raised to life as his justification. Christ's resurrection (ἠγέρθη) has brought about our justification (διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν: Rom 4:25b) and led to the justification of life (εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς: Rom 5:18b) for all people (in him). The δικαίωσιν in both Romans 4:25 and 5:18 refers to the same event, being the resurrection of believers (cf. Rom 5:1, cf. 1 Cor 15:23) at the eschaton. The universality of εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους is a mode of expression indicating a group co-extensive with the many (οἱ πολλοί). Romans 5:18b adds to 4:25 explicitly what is implicit there, that Christ’s resurrection is his ‘justification’. As his justification, Christ’s δικαίωμα is a court-approved decree or declaration that Jesus Christ is ‘righteous’, and that this status is appropriate, earned, and deserved (i.e. merited) by Christ’s personal righteousness (δικαιοσύνη).
Abela, A, ‘When Tradition Prevails over Good Parsing: Reconsidering the Translation of Is 53:11B’, in H M Niemann & M Augustin (eds), Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, Frankfurt/New York: Lang, 2006, 89-104.
Bird, M F, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective: PBM, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.
Brenton, L C L, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, 1851: Reprint Peabody: Hendrickson, 2011.
Chisholm, R B, ‘Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53’, in D L Bock & M Glaser (eds), The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012, 191-210.
Ciampa, R E, & Rosner, B S, 1 Corinthians: Pillar, Grand Rapids/Cambridge/Nottingham: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2010.
Cyril of Alexandria, 'Commentary on Isaiah 52:13-53:11' in Migne, PG, 70:1164D-1189C in Robert Louis Wilken, Angela Russell Christman, Michael J Hollerich (trs & eds), Isaiah: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 421.
Evans, C A, ‘Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, and John’, in D L Bock & M Glaser (eds), The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012, 145-170.
Gaffin Jr, R B, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, Grand Rapids/Phillipsburg: Baker/P&R, 1978/1987.
Garland, D E, 1 Corinthians: BECNT, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Great Isaiah Scroll online, accessed at http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-44.htm on 1 May 2014.
Harman, A, Isaiah: FOTB, Fearn: Christian Focus, 2005.
Hengel, M, & Bailey, D P, ‘The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre Christian Period’, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 75-146.
Hofius, O, ‘The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters’, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 163-188.
Hooker, M D, ‘Did the Use of Isaiah 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus’, in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer (eds), Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 88-103.
Janowski, B, & Stuhlmacher, P, (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004.
Moo, D J, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996.
Motyer, J A, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, Downers Grove: IVP, 1993.
Niemann, H M, & Augustin, M (eds), Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, Frankfurt/New York: Lang, 2006.
Oswalt, J N, Isaiah: NICOT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 2 Vols.
Petter, T D, ‘The Meaning of Substitutionary Righteousness in Isa 53:11: A Summary of the Evidence’, TRINJ 32NS (2011) 165-189.
Sapp, D A, ‘The LXX, 1Qisa, and MT versions of Isaiah 53’ in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer, Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 170-192.
Stuhlmacher, P, ‘Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 147-162.
Tångberg, A, ‘The Justification of the Servant of the Lord: Light from Qumran on the Interpretation of Isaiah 53:11’, TTKk 1-2 (2001), 31-36.
Wagner, J R, ‘The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51-55 in Romans’, in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer (eds), Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 193-222.
Wright, N T, ‘The Meaning of περὶ ἁμαρτίας in Romans 8:3’ in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, 220-225.