Isaiah 53:5 stands as one of the most powerful messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. The verse reads in the English Standard Version (ESV), which is based on the Masoretic Text: “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” However, a debated clause in this verse, often translated as “with his stripes we are healed,” has raised a critical textual issue: does the original Hebrew speak of a single stripe or multiple stripes? The difference is not merely grammatical—it touches on the interpretation and theological understanding of the Servant’s suffering.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the Hebrew term in question, the underlying textual evidence from key manuscripts, the historical development of translation choices, and the proper interpretation based on the conservative principles of Old Testament Textual Criticism.

The Hebrew Word: חַבּוּרָה (chabburāh)

The word in question is חַבּוּרָתוֹ (chabburāṯō), a construct form of חַבּוּרָה with the third masculine singular suffix, literally “his chabburāh.” The root חָבַר (ḥābar) conveys the idea of joining or binding, but in this noun form, it refers to a mark left by striking—i.e., a bruise, wound, or stripe resulting from beating.

The singular form is used here in the Masoretic Text, which reads:

וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא־לָנוּ
u·va·ḥă·ḇu·rā·ṯō nir·pā-lā·nū
“And with his stripe we are healed.”

The term chabburāh appears in other passages in plural form, such as in Proverbs 20:30: “Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.” There, the plural form חַבּוּרוֹת (chabburōṯ) is used.

The Masoretic Text Tradition

The Masoretic Text, preserved meticulously by the Masoretes between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E., is unanimous in using the singular form חַבּוּרָתוֹ in Isaiah 53:5. This includes both the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex. The vocalization and consonantal tradition both clearly indicate the singular.

Given the high reliability of the Masoretic scribes and the conservative principles of Old Testament Textual Criticism, we give primacy to the Masoretic reading unless overwhelming manuscript evidence compels a deviation. No such evidence exists for a plural reading in the Hebrew tradition.

The Septuagint and Ancient Versions

The Greek Septuagint (LXX), dating as early as the 3rd century B.C.E., translates the term with the plural τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν (tō mōlōpi autou hēmeis iathēmen)—“by his bruise we were healed.” The Greek term μώλωψ (mōlōps) refers to a bruise or wound from a stripe. It is singular, matching the Hebrew.

Interestingly, though often less literal, the LXX here follows the singular reading, supporting the Masoretic text rather than offering a divergent plural interpretation.

The Latin Vulgate (4th century C.E.), translated by Jerome from the Hebrew, renders the phrase as “livore eius sanati sumus”—“by His bruise we are healed.” Again, the singular livore (bruise) aligns with both the MT and LXX.

The Syriac Peshitta also uses a singular term, and the Targum Jonathan, although more paraphrastic, supports a singular concept in its interpretive rendering. Thus, all the primary ancient versions—LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targum—affirm the singular reading.

Theological and Exegetical Considerations

The question arises: Why is the singular used when the context implies multiple acts of violence against the Servant? The singular form functions as a collective singular, a common feature in biblical Hebrew. It denotes the totality of the suffering with one representative term. This literary device emphasizes the completeness of the inflicted pain in one collective concept—“the stripe” representing the total affliction.

This aligns with the conservative grammatical-historical method of interpretation. No allegory or typology is involved. The singular “stripe” is a synecdoche, a part representing the whole, emphasizing the sufficiency and totality of the Servant’s suffering to bring about healing.

Influence on English Translations

Older English translations such as the King James Version (1611) use the plural “stripes”: “and with his stripes we are healed.” This translation reflects less on the Hebrew and more on the idiomatic English of the time, possibly influenced by readings in 1 Peter 2:24 in the Greek New Testament, where Peter uses the singular μώλωπι (mōlōpi) but translators rendered it in the plural for stylistic reasons.

However, modern translations like the ESV, NASB, and CSB more accurately reflect the singular nature of the Hebrew: “with his wound” or “with his stripe.” This trend toward linguistic precision is a corrective to past translation traditions not rooted in textual evidence.

Evaluation of Translation Choices

These translations share a common feature—they replace the singular “stripe” (חַבּוּרָה) with the plural “wounds” or a generalized term like “scourging”. While their choice is understandable from a dynamic equivalence or interpretive standpoint, it departs from the strict grammatical and lexical sense of the Hebrew text.

1. ESV, CSB, LEB, NASB 2020 – “Wounds”:
These translations render חַבּוּרָתוֹ as “wounds,” pluralizing what is clearly a singular noun in Hebrew. Their rationale likely stems from the context of the Servant’s suffering, which is indeed multifaceted. However, this is an interpretive move, not a lexical or grammatical necessity. The singular form chabburāh serves as a collective singular, representing the totality of the Servant’s infliction. This device is common in Hebrew and does not justify a plural translation unless plural nouns are present in the text—which they are not.

This shift introduces an interpretive gloss that, while theologically sound and contextually reasonable, fails to represent the exact Hebrew expression. It leans toward a homiletic application rather than preserving the inspired word choice.

2. NASB 1995 – “Scourging”:
This translation stands apart by rendering the term chabburāh as “scourging.” While scourging is certainly a valid historical context of punishment, especially in Roman practice, it is not a lexical equivalent for chabburāh. The Hebrew word refers to a mark left by a blow, not the act of scourging itself. The NASB 1995 appears to borrow terminology from New Testament context (e.g., Matthew 27:26) and reads that context back into Isaiah 53:5, which is anachronistic and exegetically inappropriate when striving for a literal Old Testament rendering.

3. UASV – “Stripe”:

Isaiah 53:5 (UASV Revised):
“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our errors; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and with his stripe we are healed.”

Footnote (Isaiah 53:5 – “stripe”)
Heb. חַבּוּרָתוֹ (chabburāṯō), lit. “his stripe”; singular noun referring to a mark or bruise from striking. All major Hebrew manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaa), the Masoretic Text, and ancient versions (LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta), attest the singular. Renderings such as “wounds” or “stripes” in other versions are interpretive rather than textual.

Grammatical and Textual Integrity

The Hebrew וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ is definitively singular both in form and in the Masoretic pointing. There is no variant in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaa confirms the same reading), and none of the ancient versions (LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate) offer a plural form. The LXX, in particular, uses μώλωπι (mōlōpi), also singular, which matches the Hebrew exactly.

Therefore, to render it as “wounds” imposes a theological or contextual assumption upon the text rather than allowing the original form to speak for itself. From a conservative, grammatical-historical perspective, this is an overreach.

Why This Matters

Accurate translation is not just an academic concern; it bears on our doctrine of inspiration and the verbal accuracy of Scripture. When the Holy Spirit led Isaiah to use a singular noun, He was not imprecise. The use of the singular may intentionally function as a collective representation of the Servant’s suffering, focusing on the holistic effect rather than counting the individual lashes or wounds.

Rendering it as “stripe,” though unfamiliar in modern English, better preserves the inspired grammar and allows interpretation to occur in exegesis, not in the translation itself.

The shift from “stripe” to “wounds” across multiple modern translations represents a move toward interpretive clarity at the cost of textual precision. While these translations are not heretical or fundamentally flawed in this case, they do not reflect the exactitude that the Masoretic Text, supported by the LXX and DSS, clearly presents.

Implications for Textual Transmission

This case offers a compelling example of the fidelity of the Masoretic scribes. Over centuries, despite repeated copying, the specific and consistent transmission of חַבּוּרָתוֹ reflects both the scribes’ commitment and Jehovah’s providential preservation of His Word.

There is no indication from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this verse was in dispute or variant in the Qumran tradition. While Isaiah 53 is present in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), this scroll also uses the singular reading. Despite its orthographic variations, the content confirms the consistency of this textual detail.

Conclusion: Stripe or Stripes?

The evidence overwhelmingly favors the singular reading, “stripe,” in Isaiah 53:5. The Masoretic Text is supported by all major ancient versions—Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targums—and even confirmed in the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts such as 1QIsaa from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The plural rendering “stripes,” while popular in older translations, lacks manuscript support and likely arose from interpretive tendencies rather than textual foundations. Theologically, the singular form does not diminish the scope of suffering but encapsulates it as a unified whole, making the expression all the more poignant: by the one unified act of suffering, represented as a singular stripe, we are healed.

This analysis not only affirms the Masoretic Text’s precision but also reinforces the reliability of Scripture, preserved accurately through divine providence and the diligence of faithful scribes.

You May Also Enjoy

The Critical Role of the Demonstrative Pronoun in Leviticus 1:17: Textual-Critical Implications and Hebrew Linguistics

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS