# El Gibbor LXX Translation Problem Defeater ## Intro The skeptic says: *"The Septuagint of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) does not call the child* Mighty God. *It compresses all four Hebrew names into one bland title,* Messenger of Great Counsel. *So the Christological reading of Isaiah 9:6 depends on a Hebrew text the pre-Christian Jewish translators did not have or did not endorse."* The defeater is that the same compound *El Gibbor* appears in [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) of YHWH and the LXX there does translate it literally (*theon ischyonta*), proving the translator knew the term and chose differently in 9:6; the Dead Sea Scrolls Great Isaiah Scroll (~125 BC) preserves the Hebrew exactly as the Masoretic Text; later Jewish-Greek translators (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) rendered 9:6 literally; and the most economical explanation of the LXX softening is translator caution in a polytheistic Hellenistic environment. The softening is itself evidence the Hebrew said *El Gibbor*. ## In full The objection attacks the Christological reading of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) on a textual-translation move. The Hebrew Masoretic Text gives four throne-names to the promised child: *Pele' Yo'etz, El Gibbor, Avi'ad, Sar Shalom* (Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace). The Old Greek Septuagint, however, at Isaiah 9:5 (LXX versification) compresses all four into a single descriptive title: *kai kaleitai to onoma autou Megales boules angelos* ("and his name is called Messenger of Great Counsel"). The skeptic concludes that *Mighty God* is either a Christian retrojection, a Masoretic corruption, or at minimum not the reading the pre-Christian Jewish translators recognized. The defeater operates on four converging axes. **Internal-LXX:** the same Hebrew compound *El Gibbor* appears in [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) applied unambiguously to YHWH, and the LXX there translates it literally as *theon ischyonta* ("the Mighty God"). The translator knew the term, knew its divine reference, and chose to render it literally just twelve verses later. The 9:6 softening is a deliberate translator-decision, not a lexical ignorance and not a different Hebrew Vorlage. **Manuscript:** the Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa^a from Qumran (~125 BC) preserves [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) with the Hebrew names exactly as the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew reading is pre-Christian by at least 150 years and predates Christian apologetic interest entirely. **Translational-historical:** the later Jewish-Greek translators Aquila (~130 AD), Symmachus (~200 AD), and Theodotion (~150 AD) all rendered the Hebrew of 9:6 literally; Origen's Hexapla preserved their columns alongside the LXX, and Christian patristic writers cited their literal renderings against the Old-Greek paraphrase. **Translator-motivation:** the most economical explanation of the LXX softening is translator caution. Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism faced a polytheistic environment where applying divine titles (*theos*, *gibbor*) to a Davidic figure could read as apotheosis (the deification of a human king, common in Ptolemaic court ideology). The Old-Greek translator softened the throne-names to avoid that misreading. The softening is itself evidence that the Hebrew said *El Gibbor*; you do not soften what is not already there. The argument is treated here in full debate-prep shape because the objection surfaces in rabbinic counter-missionary materials, Muslim polemic (where it is paired with the *Almah* objection as a "Christian-mistranslation" cluster), and Jehovah's-Witness and other anti-Trinitarian apologetics. ## Cheatsheet **30-second reply.** "Three problems with that objection. First, the very same Hebrew phrase *El Gibbor* appears twelve verses later in [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) of YHWH, and the LXX there does translate it literally as *theon ischyonta*, Mighty God. The translator knew the term. Second, the Dead Sea Scrolls Great Isaiah Scroll, copied around 125 BC, preserves the Hebrew of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) exactly as the Masoretic. The Hebrew reading is pre-Christian. Third, the LXX softening of 9:6 is itself evidence that the Hebrew said Mighty God. You do not soften what is not there." **Fast facts.** - Hebrew Masoretic [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/): *Pele' Yo'etz, El Gibbor, Avi'ad, Sar Shalom* (Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace). - Old Greek LXX [Isaiah 9:5](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) (LXX versification): *Megales boules angelos*, "Messenger of Great Counsel," collapsing all four names into one paraphrastic title. - [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) Hebrew: *El Gibbor* of YHWH. LXX Isaiah 10:21: *theon ischyonta*, "the Mighty God." Same translator, same compound, twelve verses apart, rendered literally. - Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) at Qumran, copied ~125 BC, preserves the Hebrew of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) exactly as the Masoretic Text. The reading is pre-Christian. - Aquila (~130 AD), Symmachus (~200 AD), Theodotion (~150 AD), all post-Christian Jewish-Greek revisers, render [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) literally, restoring *Mighty God*. - Origen's *Hexapla* (~240 AD) preserved the Old Greek alongside Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion in parallel columns; patristic writers cited the literal columns against the Old-Greek paraphrase. **Counter-moves.** - If skeptic appeals to the LXX as the authoritative Greek Bible of the early church: concede that the LXX is the church's Bible, then point out that the *Hexapla* preserved multiple Greek columns precisely because the church recognized the Old Greek's looseness here. The fact that the church kept the literal columns in active circulation is the answer. - If skeptic appeals to the LXX as the pre-Christian Jewish reading: concede that the Old Greek is one pre-Christian Jewish reading, then point out that the Hebrew Vorlage is *also* pre-Christian (Qumran, ~125 BC) and is what the Old-Greek translator was working *from*. The Hebrew predates the paraphrase. - If skeptic argues the LXX translator did not have *El Gibbor* in front of him: cite [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) in the same Isaiah scroll, where the same translator rendered the same compound literally. The "different Vorlage" thesis collapses on the internal-LXX evidence. - If skeptic argues Christians invented the title for Christological purposes: cite the Qumran scroll dating to ~125 BC, more than a century before any Christian apologetic interest in the verse. **Concessions.** - The Old-Greek LXX *does* paraphrase [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) differently from the Hebrew. Do not pretend otherwise. - The Old-Greek paraphrase was the form most Greek-speaking Jews and early Greek-speaking Christians first encountered. - Translator-motivation arguments (caution about apotheosis-reading in Alexandria) are reconstructive, not directly attested. Hold them as the *best explanation*, not as documented fact. **Closing line.** "The strongest skeptical conclusion from the LXX discrepancy is *the Old-Greek translator paraphrased Isaiah 9:6.* That is true, and we keep saying so. It does not entail *the Hebrew did not say Mighty God,* because the Qumran scroll and the Hebrew of [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) both prove otherwise. The softening is the evidence." ## Argument structure | # | Premise | |---|---| | **P1** | The Hebrew Masoretic Text of Isaiah 9:6 gives the child the throne-name *El Gibbor* (Mighty God), and the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a, ~125 BC) preserves this Hebrew reading exactly. The Hebrew is pre-Christian. | | **P2** | The same compound *El Gibbor* appears in Isaiah 10:21 of YHWH, and the LXX there renders it literally as *theon ischyonta* (Mighty God). The Old-Greek translator knew the term and its divine reference. | | **P3** | Later Jewish-Greek translators (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) rendered Isaiah 9:6 literally, and Origen's *Hexapla* preserved their columns alongside the Old Greek. The literal reading was the recognized correction within Greek-Jewish translation history. | | **P4** | The best explanation of the Old-Greek softening at Isaiah 9:6 is translator caution in a polytheistic Alexandrian environment, where divine titles applied to a Davidic figure could read as apotheosis. The softening is evidence the Hebrew said *El Gibbor*; you do not soften what is not there. | | **C** | The El-Gibbor LXX-translation-problem objection fails. The Christological reading of Isaiah 9:6 rests on a pre-Christian Hebrew text confirmed by Qumran, vindicated by later Jewish-Greek revisers, and explained (not undermined) by the Old-Greek paraphrase. | ## Form Defeater (defensive shape), with a reductio component at P4 (the LXX softening, taken as the skeptic's strongest evidence, is itself evidence for the Hebrew reading). The argument does not require any particular theory of LXX origins or any particular doctrine of inspiration of the Septuagint; it requires only the Qumran manuscript witness, the internal-LXX evidence at [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/), and the post-Christian Jewish-Greek revisions. --- ## P1, The Hebrew of Isaiah 9:6 is pre-Christian and reads *El Gibbor* ### Affirmative case (second-order arguments) 1. **The Masoretic Text reading is uncontested.** Every extant Hebrew manuscript of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) gives the four throne-names: *Pele' Yo'etz, El Gibbor, Avi'ad, Sar Shalom*. There is no Hebrew textual variant tradition that omits or alters *El Gibbor*. 2. **The Great Isaiah Scroll confirms the reading at ~125 BC.** 1QIsa^a, recovered from Qumran Cave 1 in 1947, is the oldest complete Hebrew Isaiah manuscript. It was copied roughly 1000 years before the earliest medieval Masoretic codices. It preserves [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) with the four throne-names intact, including *El Gibbor*. 3. **Pre-Christian dating.** 1QIsa^a is paleographically dated to roughly 125 BC, more than a century before any Christian apologetic interest in the verse. The Hebrew reading cannot be a Christian retrojection or a post-Christian Masoretic alteration. 4. **The LXX translator was working from this Hebrew.** The Old-Greek Isaiah was translated in Alexandria roughly in the 2nd century BC, from a Hebrew Vorlage substantively identical to the Qumran-Masoretic tradition (cross-checked across hundreds of cases). The "different Vorlage" hypothesis would have to overturn the cumulative manuscript witness. ### Anticipated objections 1. *"The Masoretes corrupted the Hebrew to support Christian readings."* Anachronistic: the Masoretic textual tradition stabilized centuries after Christ, but the Qumran scroll is centuries *before* Christ and matches the Masoretic. The Masoretes did not invent *El Gibbor*; they preserved it. 2. *"1QIsa^a has many small variants from the Masoretic."* True for spelling and minor word-order; not true for the four throne-names of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/), which are preserved intact. ### Rebuttals 1. The Qumran witness eliminates the "Masoretic corruption" charge in principle: the Hebrew reading is fixed at least 250 years before the rabbinic Masoretes existed. 2. The relevant question is whether the specific phrase *El Gibbor* is preserved at Qumran, and it is. Other minor variants in the scroll are irrelevant to this defeater. ### Live-cite kit - 1QIsa^a (Great Isaiah Scroll), Qumran Cave 1, paleographic date ~125 BC. - Emanuel Tov, *Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible* (4th ed., Fortress, 2022), the standard reference on Qumran-Masoretic relationships. - Eugene Ulrich, *The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible* (Eerdmans, 1999). ### Tactical notes - Lead with Qumran. Most skeptics know the Dead Sea Scrolls exist but underestimate how thoroughly they vindicate the Masoretic Hebrew of Isaiah. - Do not let the conversation drift to "Masoretes were tendentious." The dating eliminates the charge. --- ## P2, The same translator knew and used *Mighty God* at Isaiah 10:21 ### Affirmative case 1. **Same compound, same book, twelve verses apart.** [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) reads: *"A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God"* (Hebrew *El Gibbor*). The compound is identical to the throne-name at [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/). 2. **The LXX renders 10:21 literally.** LXX [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/): *kai estai to kataleiphthen tou Iakob epi theon ischyonta*, "and the remnant of Jacob shall be on the Mighty God." *Theon ischyonta* is the standard literal Greek of *El Gibbor*: *theon* renders *El*, *ischyonta* (participle of *ischyo*, "to be strong") renders *Gibbor*. 3. **The same translator handled both verses.** Isaiah-LXX shows internal stylistic consistency across the early chapters. Whoever rendered [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) literally as *theon ischyonta* also rendered [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) paraphrastically as *Megales boules angelos*. The translator knew the term and chose differently at 9:6. 4. **"Different Vorlage" collapses.** The most charitable skeptical move (the LXX translator had a different Hebrew at 9:6 that did not say *El Gibbor*) cannot account for the same translator handling the same compound literally at 10:21. The Vorlage was the same; the translator-choice was different. ### Anticipated objections 1. *"Isaiah-LXX may have multiple hands, so 9:6 and 10:21 might be different translators."* Possible in principle, but the standard scholarly view (Joseph Ziegler's Göttingen critical edition; Ronald Troxel's *LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation*) treats Isaiah-LXX as a single-translator unit. Even if multiple hands worked the book, the translator of 9:6 was reading the same Hebrew text the translator of 10:21 was reading. 2. *"Perhaps the Old-Greek of 9:6 reflects a now-lost paraphrastic Hebrew Vorlage."* No manuscript evidence supports such a Vorlage; the Qumran scroll witnesses the standard Hebrew. The "lost Vorlage" hypothesis is ad hoc. ### Rebuttals 1. Multiple-hands hypothesis does not rescue the objection: whichever hand rendered 9:6 was capable of literal-translating *El Gibbor* (10:21 demonstrates the capability in Greek-Isaiah), and chose not to. 2. "Lost Vorlage" carries no evidence and is post-hoc rationalization to preserve the skeptic's reading. ### Live-cite kit - Joseph Ziegler, *Septuaginta: Isaias* (Göttingen critical edition, 1939; standard reference). - Ronald Troxel, *LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation* (Brill, 2008). - [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) LXX text: *kai estai to kataleiphthen tou Iakob epi theon ischyonta*. - [Isaiah 9:5](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) LXX text: *kai kaleitai to onoma autou Megales boules angelos*. ### Tactical notes - This is the load-bearing move. The internal-LXX evidence at [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) cannot be dismissed. Bring the verse text ready. - Pronounce *theon ischyonta* slowly and link the morphology: *theon* equals *El* (God), *ischyonta* equals *Gibbor* (mighty). Make the lexical equivalence undeniable. --- ## P3, Later Jewish-Greek translators restored the literal reading ### Affirmative case 1. **Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion all translated literally.** The three post-Christian Jewish-Greek revisers (Aquila ~130 AD, Theodotion ~150 AD, Symmachus ~200 AD) produced fresh Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. At [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) all three rendered the throne-names literally, restoring *theos ischyros* or equivalents for *El Gibbor*. 2. **Origen's *Hexapla* preserved the witness.** Around 240 AD, [Origen](/codex/origen/) compiled the *Hexapla*, a six-column edition of the Old Testament: Hebrew, Hebrew-in-Greek-letters, Aquila, Symmachus, Old-Greek LXX, Theodotion. The literal renderings of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) sat alongside the Old-Greek paraphrase in parallel columns. The early church had the literal Greek option in active circulation. 3. **Patristic writers cited the literal columns.** [Justin Martyr](/codex/justin-martyr/) (*Dialogue with Trypho*, c. 155-160 AD), [Eusebius](/codex/eusebius-of-caesarea/) of Caesarea (*Demonstratio Evangelica*), and others cite [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) with the Mighty-God title intact, drawing on the Hebrew or the Hexaplaric columns. The Christological reading was not invented; it was the obvious reading of the Hebrew that the literal Greek columns also confirmed. ### Anticipated objections 1. *"Aquila and the others were reactive, correcting the LXX for Jewish anti-Christian polemic."* Aquila in particular was famously literal across the entire Bible, not selectively at messianic texts; his rendering of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) reflects his translation policy, not a polemical correction. 2. *"The literal Greek columns were minority readings."* They circulated in the Hexapla, were known to Origen and Eusebius and Jerome, and were cited in patristic exegesis. They were not minority readings within learned Christian use. ### Rebuttals 1. Even granting the "reactive" framing, the Jewish-Greek revisers had no incentive to *add* a Mighty-God reading to a messianic passage if the Hebrew did not say it. Their literal rendering confirms the Hebrew Vorlage they were translating. 2. The relevant point is that the literal Greek reading was *available* to the church and was used. The Old-Greek paraphrase was never the church's only Greek option for this verse. ### Live-cite kit - Aquila of Sinope (~130 AD), preserved in Hexaplaric fragments. - [Origen](/codex/origen/), *Hexapla* (~240 AD), preserved in patristic citations and Syro-Hexaplaric translation. - [Justin Martyr](/codex/justin-martyr/), *Dialogue with Trypho* 76, 126 (Mighty-God title cited as Christological). - Eusebius, *Demonstratio Evangelica* VII.1 (extended exposition of Isaiah 9:6 throne-names). - Frederick Field, *Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt* (Oxford, 1875), the standard collection of Hexaplaric fragments. --- ## P4, The LXX softening is best explained by translator caution ### Affirmative case 1. **The Old-Greek translator faced a polytheistic environment.** Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism worked in Ptolemaic Egypt, where divine titles applied to human kings (apotheosis, the ruler-cult) were a live cultural pattern. Rendering a Davidic figure as *theos ischyros* would have read against the grain of Jewish anti-apotheosis instinct. 2. **The paraphrase chosen reflects the caution.** *Megales boules angelos* ("Messenger of Great Counsel") preserves the messianic and counsel-bearing dimensions of the throne-names while avoiding any divine-title language. It is exactly the kind of compression a cautious translator would produce. 3. **The compression collapses all four names, not just the divine ones.** *Wonderful Counselor* and *Prince of Peace* are also softened or omitted, indicating a general flattening of the throne-name pattern, not a targeted theological excision. This pattern fits translator caution, not doctrinal opposition. 4. **You do not soften what is not there.** The softening presupposes the Hebrew *El Gibbor*. If the translator's Vorlage had read something else (a generic "great counselor" or no throne-name pattern), there would be nothing to soften. The fact of softening is evidence the Hebrew said exactly what the Masoretic and Qumran texts say. ### Anticipated objections 1. *"The translator may simply have had a paraphrastic style."* Isaiah-LXX is more paraphrastic than Pentateuch-LXX, but it is not so loose that it freely invents new throne-name titles where the Hebrew has four specific compounds. The targeted compression at 9:6 is unusual within Isaiah-LXX's style. 2. *"Translator-motivation is speculative."* Granted: P4 is the best-explanation move, not direct evidence. The defeater does not require P4. P1, P2, and P3 alone are sufficient; P4 explains the LXX softening so it is not a residual puzzle. ### Rebuttals 1. Isaiah-LXX's paraphrastic style does not extend to inventing titles or excising specific divine-name elements freely; the 9:6 compression is anomalous within the book and calls for a specific explanation. 2. Concede the reconstructive nature of P4; the defeater stands on P1-P3 even if P4 is held as merely plausible. ### Live-cite kit - Martin Hengel, *The Septuagint as Christian Scripture* (Baker Academic, 2002), on LXX translator-motivation in Alexandrian context. - Ronald Troxel, *LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation* (Brill, 2008), on Isaiah-LXX's translation policy. - Ptolemaic ruler-cult sources for the polytheistic-environment claim (Ptolemy II Philadelphus deification, etc.). ### Tactical notes - Hold P4 lightly. If the skeptic presses on motivation, concede the reconstructive nature and fall back to P1-P3. - The "you do not soften what is not there" move is the rhetorical hook. Use it after establishing P1 and P2. --- ## Master objections The recurring counter-attacks and the structural reply. 1. **"The LXX is the older Greek and the original Christian Bible, so its reading governs."** Concede that the Old Greek is the older Greek translation and was the early church's first Bible. Reply: the Hebrew text the Old-Greek translator was working *from* is older still and is what Qumran preserves. The Old-Greek paraphrase is a translation of the Hebrew, not a rival textual witness to it. 2. **"The LXX translator did not have El Gibbor in his Vorlage."** Reply: [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) in the same book has the same compound *El Gibbor* rendered literally by the LXX as *theon ischyonta*. The same translator knew the term. The "different Vorlage" hypothesis cannot survive the internal-LXX evidence. 3. **"Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion are post-Christian, so their literal renderings are reactive."** Reply: their literal rendering of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) is evidence *for* the Hebrew Vorlage they were translating. Even on the reactive framing, they had no motive to *add* a Mighty-God reading to a messianic verse if the Hebrew did not say it. 4. **"Christians invented the title to fit Christ."** Reply: 1QIsa^a (Great Isaiah Scroll, ~125 BC) preserves the Hebrew *El Gibbor* in [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) more than a century before any Christian apologetic interest. The reading is pre-Christian. 5. **"Even if El Gibbor is in the Hebrew, it does not mean the child is YHWH; it could be an honorific."** Concede that the title alone is not a complete proof of full deity; reply that the title is one piece of a cumulative cluster including *Avi'ad* (Everlasting Father), the eternal-throne language of [Isaiah 9:7](/codex/isaiah-9-6/), and the explicit YHWH-reference of *El Gibbor* at [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) just twelve verses later. The cluster, not the single title, carries the deity reading. ## Tactical opening line *"The same Hebrew compound* El Gibbor *appears in [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) of YHWH, and the Septuagint there translates it literally as* theon ischyonta, *Mighty God. Same translator, same book, twelve verses apart. So the LXX's softening at 9:6 is not lexical ignorance, it is a translator choice. The question is why."* ## Tactical closing line *"You do not soften what is not there. The LXX paraphrase at [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) is evidence the Hebrew said* Mighty God, *because that is what is being softened. The Qumran scroll confirms the Hebrew at ~125 BC. The later Jewish-Greek translators restored the literal reading. The objection is an artifact, not a defeater."* ## Connection to Scripture - [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/), the throne-names passage under attack - [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/), the same compound *El Gibbor* applied to YHWH, with literal LXX rendering - [Isaiah 7:14](/codex/isaiah-7-14/), the companion Christological Isaiah prophecy attacked on parallel LXX-translation grounds (see [Almah vs Bethulah Objection Defeater](/codex/almah-vs-bethulah-objection-defeater/)) - [Isaiah 9:7](/codex/isaiah-9-6-7/), the eternal-throne language extending the deity-of-the-child reading - [Deuteronomy 10:17](/codex/deuteronomy-10-17/), *El Gibbor* of YHWH ("the great, mighty, and awesome God") - [Jeremiah 32:18](/codex/jeremiah-32-18/), *El Gibbor* of YHWH (covenant-God formula) - Nehemiah 9:32, *El Gibbor* of YHWH (post-exilic prayer) ## Patristic and scholarly note - **[Justin Martyr](/codex/justin-martyr/)**, *Dialogue with Trypho* 76, 126 (c. 155-160 AD). Cites [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) with the Mighty-God throne-names against Trypho, working from Hebrew or Hexaplaric-equivalent reading; demonstrates the literal-Greek reading was available to mid-2nd-century apologetics. - **[Origen](/codex/origen/)**, *Hexapla* (~240 AD). The six-column edition preserved Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion alongside the Old Greek; the literal renderings of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) sat in active circulation within Christian learned use. - **Eusebius of Caesarea**, *Demonstratio Evangelica* VII.1. Extended exposition of the [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) throne-names with the Mighty-God title intact, treating each name as Christologically loaded. - **John Oswalt**, *The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39* (NICOT, Eerdmans, 1986). Standard evangelical critical commentary on the throne-names and the textual-translation question. - **Edward J. Young**, *The Book of Isaiah, Volume 1* (Eerdmans, 1965). Conservative critical commentary; treats the LXX paraphrase as translator caution, not a different Vorlage. - **Michael Brown**, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus*, vol. 3 (Baker, 2003). Comprehensive engagement with rabbinic counter-missionary use of the LXX-paraphrase objection. - **Martin Hengel**, *The Septuagint as Christian Scripture* (Baker Academic, 2002). On the Old Greek's translator-motivation in Alexandrian Hellenistic context. - **Joseph Ziegler**, *Septuaginta: Isaias* (Göttingen, 1939). The standard critical edition of LXX Isaiah; documents the Old-Greek text and Hexaplaric variants. ## See also - [Almah vs Bethulah Objection Defeater](/codex/almah-vs-bethulah-objection-defeater/), the companion LXX-vs-Hebrew Christological dispute in Isaiah - [Failed Messianic Prophecy Objection Defeater](/codex/failed-messianic-prophecy-objection-defeater/), the parent-defeater for the broader "Christians misread OT prophecy" charge - [Bible Contradictions Objection Defeater](/codex/bible-contradictions-objection-defeater/), the meta-defeater shape - [Trinity](/codex/trinity/), the doctrinal hub the title pressures toward - [Trinity OT Stack (Five Texts)](/codex/trinity-ot-stack-five-texts/), the related Old-Testament-deity-of-the-Messiah cluster - [Two-Stage Messianic Prophecy](/codex/two-stage-messianic-prophecy/), the near-and-ultimate fulfillment framework relevant to Isaiah 7-9 - [Messianic Prophecy](/codex/messianic-prophecy/), the parent hub - [Septuagint](/codex/septuagint/), the LXX hub - [Dead Sea Scrolls](/codex/dead-sea-scrolls/), the manuscript-witness hub - [Justin Martyr](/codex/justin-martyr/) and [Origen](/codex/origen/), patristic anchors - [G2316 - theos](/codex/g2316-theos/), Greek lexicon entry for *theos* - [G3686 - onoma](/codex/g3686-onoma/), Greek lexicon entry for *onoma* (name) ## Common questions this page answers **Q: Does the Septuagint say "Mighty God" in [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/)?** No. The Old Greek Septuagint at Isaiah 9:5 (LXX versification) collapses all four Hebrew throne-names into a single descriptive title: *Megales boules angelos*, "Messenger of Great Counsel." It does not render *El Gibbor* as *theos ischyros* (Mighty God) at this verse. This is a real translational difference and Christian apologetics should not deny it. **Q: If the LXX softened the title, doesn't that undermine the Christological reading?** No, for three reasons. First, the same Hebrew compound *El Gibbor* appears twelve verses later in [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) of YHWH, and the LXX there translates it literally as *theon ischyonta* (Mighty God). The translator knew the term. Second, the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (~125 BC) preserves the Hebrew of [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) exactly as the Masoretic Text, more than a century before any Christian apologetic interest. Third, the LXX softening is itself evidence the Hebrew said *Mighty God*; you do not soften what is not already there. **Q: Why would the LXX translator soften the throne-names?** Best explanation: translator caution in a polytheistic Alexandrian Hellenistic environment. Ptolemaic ruler-cult culture treated divine titles applied to human kings as apotheosis (the deification of a ruler). A Jewish translator rendering Davidic-throne-names as *theos ischyros* would risk reading as endorsement of that pattern. The paraphrase *Messenger of Great Counsel* preserves the messianic and counsel-bearing dimensions while avoiding any divine-title language that could be misread. **Q: What about Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion?** All three post-Christian Jewish-Greek translators (Aquila ~130 AD, Theodotion ~150 AD, Symmachus ~200 AD) rendered [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) literally, restoring *theos ischyros* or equivalents for *El Gibbor*. [Origen](/codex/origen/) preserved their columns alongside the Old Greek in the *Hexapla* (~240 AD), so the literal Greek reading was in active Christian circulation. Even granting the "reactive correction" framing, the Jewish-Greek revisers had no motive to add a Mighty-God reading to a messianic passage if the Hebrew did not say it. Their literal rendering confirms the Hebrew Vorlage. **Q: Did Christians invent the Mighty God title later?** No. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a), recovered from Qumran Cave 1 and paleographically dated to roughly 125 BC, preserves [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/) with all four Hebrew throne-names intact, including *El Gibbor*. This is more than a century before any Christian apologetic interest in the verse. The Christological reading rests on a pre-Christian Hebrew text, not a Christian retrojection. **Q: Does *El Gibbor* alone prove the deity of the Messiah?** Not by itself. The title is one piece of a cumulative cluster: *Avi'ad* (Everlasting Father), the eternal-throne language of [Isaiah 9:7](/codex/isaiah-9-6-7/), and the explicit YHWH-reference of *El Gibbor* at [Isaiah 10:21](/codex/isaiah-10-21/) just twelve verses later. The cluster carries the deity reading; the single throne-name is evidence within that cluster, not a standalone proof. See [Trinity OT Stack (Five Texts)](/codex/trinity-ot-stack-five-texts/) for the broader Old-Testament case. **Q: Is the Septuagint untrustworthy as a translation?** No. The Septuagint is generally a careful and faithful translation, and it was the church's Bible for the first several centuries. Specific passages (like [Isaiah 9:6](/codex/isaiah-9-6/)) reflect translator-choices that can be evaluated on their merits. The Old-Greek paraphrase here is a defensible cautious rendering in its Alexandrian context, not a corruption or a Christian-undermining variant. Where the Old Greek paraphrases, the literal Hebrew and the Hexaplaric Greek columns supply the more direct rendering.