Appendix C: Cross-Version Comparison

This appendix provides a side-by-side comparison of the four key passages in the healing-in-the-atonement debate across seven major English translations and the Septuagint. For each passage, the comparison is followed by notes on key divergences, translation philosophy, and significance for the debate.

The translations compared are:

Translation	Date	Philosophy	Notes
KJV	1611	Formal equivalence	Primary translation for this study
ESV	2001	Essentially literal	Widely used in Reformed and evangelical circles
NASB (1995)	1995	Formal equivalence	Known for strict literalness
NASB (2020)	2020	Formal equivalence (updated)	Same committee; significant changes in Isa 53:4
LSB	2021	Formal equivalence	Produced by The Master’s Seminary; cessationist/Reformed perspective
NIV	2011	Optimal equivalence	Thought-for-thought; the world’s most widely read English Bible
NLT	2015	Dynamic equivalence	Prioritizes readability and clarity of thought
LXX	c. 3rd—1st century BC	Interpretive translation	The Greek OT; critical for understanding NT quotations

Passage 1: Isaiah 53:4

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” --- KJV

Comparison Table

Translation	First clause	Second clause	Third clause
KJV	Surely he hath borne our griefs	and carried our sorrows	yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted
ESV	Surely he has borne our griefs	and carried our sorrows	yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted
NASB (1995)	Surely our griefs He Himself bore	and our sorrows He carried	yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted
NASB (2020)	However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore	and our pains that He carried	yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, struck down by God, and humiliated
LSB	Surely our griefs He Himself bore	and our sorrows He carried	yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted
NIV	Surely he took up our pain	and bore our suffering	yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted
NLT	Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down		And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins!
LXX	This one bears our sins (ἁμαρτίας)	and suffers pain (ὀδυνᾶται) for us	yet we supposed him to be in toil and in affliction and in ill-treatment

Key Divergences

1. The critical split: “griefs/sorrows” vs. “sicknesses/pains.” The Hebrew words choli and makob can mean either “sicknesses/pains” (their primary OT usage) or “griefs/sorrows” (a secondary meaning). The KJV, ESV, NASB (1995), and LSB all render these as “griefs/sorrows.” The NASB (2020) renders them as “sicknesses/pains.” The NIV uses “pain/suffering” --- a middle position. The NLT uses “weaknesses/sorrows.”

2. The NASB changed its translation between 1995 and 2020. This is one of the most significant translation shifts in modern Bible publishing. The same translation committee, working from the same Hebrew text, moved from “griefs and sorrows” to “sicknesses and pains.” This reflects a growing scholarly consensus that choli and makob should be rendered with their primary meanings. The change does not represent a theological agenda; it represents a textual judgment about the best rendering of the Hebrew.

3. The LXX introduces an entirely different word. Where the Hebrew has choli (“sickness/grief”), the Septuagint has hamartias (“sins”). This is not a translation; it is an interpretation. The LXX translators read Isaiah 53:4 as being about sin-bearing. Matthew 8:17 explicitly rejects this rendering, choosing astheneia (“infirmity”) and nosos (“disease”) instead.

4. The LSB retains “griefs/sorrows.” The Legacy Standard Bible, produced by The Master’s Seminary under the leadership of John MacArthur, retains the KJV/NASB (1995) rendering. This is consistent with a cessationist/Reformed hermeneutic that reads Isaiah 53:4 primarily in terms of spiritual suffering rather than physical sickness. The LSB’s rendering is a legitimate translation choice, but it is worth noting that it diverges from the NASB (2020) --- the very translation the LSB was built upon.

Passage 2: Isaiah 53:5

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” --- KJV

Comparison Table

Translation	Line 1	Line 2	Line 3	Line 4
KJV	he was wounded for our transgressions	he was bruised for our iniquities	the chastisement of our peace was upon him	with his stripes we are healed
ESV	he was pierced for our transgressions	he was crushed for our iniquities	upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace	with his wounds we are healed
NASB (1995)	He was pierced through for our transgressions	He was crushed for our iniquities	the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him	by His scourging we are healed
NASB (2020)	He was pierced through for our transgressions	He was crushed for our iniquities	the punishment for our well-being was on Him	by His wounds we are healed
LSB	He was pierced through for our transgressions	He was crushed for our iniquities	the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him	by His wounds we are healed
NIV	he was pierced for our transgressions	he was crushed for our iniquities	the punishment that brought us peace was on him	by his wounds we are healed
NLT	he was pierced for our rebellion	crushed for our sins	He was beaten so we could be whole	He was whipped so we could be healed
LXX	he was wounded (ἐτραυματίσθη) for our sins	was weakened (μεμαλάκισται) for our sins	the discipline of our peace (εἰρήνης) was upon him	by his wound (μώλωπι) we were healed (ἰάθημεν)

Key Observations

1. All translations agree on “healed.” Every version --- KJV, ESV, NASB, LSB, NIV, NLT, and LXX --- renders rapha/iaomai as “healed.” There is no disagreement about the translation of this word. The debate is entirely about the scope of the healing, not the word itself.

2. “Wounded” vs. “pierced.” The KJV renders mecholal as “wounded”; modern translations prefer “pierced” or “pierced through.” The modern rendering is more vivid and violent, evoking the specific wounds of crucifixion. Both are within the semantic range of the Hebrew chalal.

3. “Stripes” vs. “wounds” vs. “scourging.” The KJV’s “stripes” has become the most iconic English rendering. The ESV, NASB (2020), LSB, and NIV use “wounds.” The NASB (1995) used “scourging” --- a more interpretive choice that specifically evokes the Roman flogging of Jesus. The variety reflects the range of the Hebrew chaburah: a mark left by a blow.

4. “Peace” vs. “well-being.” The KJV, ESV, NIV, and LXX render shalom as “peace.” The NASB (both editions) and LSB render it as “well-being” --- a broader translation that captures more of shalom’s comprehensive range. The NLT renders the concept dynamically: “beaten so we could be whole.”

5. The NLT’s dynamic rendering is striking. The NLT breaks Isaiah 53:5 into two statements: “He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.” This rendering makes the healing language maximally clear and accessible, but it also makes interpretive choices that more literal translations leave to the reader.

Passage 3: Matthew 8:17

“That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” --- KJV

Comparison Table

Translation	Fulfillment formula	Quotation
KJV	That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying	Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses
ESV	This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah	”He took our illnesses and bore our diseases”
NASB (1995)	This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet	”He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases”
NASB (2020)	This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet	”He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases”
LSB	so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled	”He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases”
NIV	This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah	”He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases”
NLT	This fulfilled the word of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah, who said	”He took our sicknesses and removed our diseases”

Key Observations

1. Every translation uses physical-sickness language. Without exception, every major English translation renders Matthew 8:17 in terms of physical illness: “infirmities/sicknesses” and “diseases.” This is because Matthew’s Greek (astheneia and nosos) is unambiguously physical. There is no divergence here.

2. The contrast with Isaiah 53:4 renderings is revealing. The same translations that render choli as “griefs” in Isaiah 53:4 (KJV, ESV, NASB 1995, LSB) render Matthew’s quotation of that verse using physical-sickness language. This creates an interesting situation: the reader encounters “griefs and sorrows” in Isaiah 53:4 and “infirmities and sicknesses” in Matthew 8:17 --- and yet Matthew is quoting Isaiah 53:4. The English translations make the two passages look more different than they are in the original languages.

3. The NASB (2020) creates consistency. Because the NASB (2020) now renders Isaiah 53:4 as “sicknesses and pains,” the connection between Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17 is more immediately visible. The reader can see that Matthew is quoting the same verse, using the same categories.

4. The NLT’s “removed” is interpretive. Where other translations say Jesus “bore” or “carried away” diseases, the NLT says He “removed” them. This rendering emphasizes the result of Jesus’s action (the diseases are gone) rather than the process (bearing/carrying). It reflects a legitimate reading of bastazō in a disease context, where the word can carry the sense of removal.

Passage 4: 1 Peter 2:24

“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” --- KJV

Comparison Table

Translation	What Christ bore	Purpose	Healing clause
KJV	bare our sins in his own body on the tree	that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness	by whose stripes ye were healed
ESV	bore our sins in his body on the tree	that we might die to sin and live to righteousness	By his wounds you have been healed
NASB (1995)	bore our sins in His body on the cross	so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness	for by His wounds you were healed
NASB (2020)	bore our sins in His body on the cross	so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness	by His wounds you were healed
LSB	bore our sins in His body on the tree	so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness	for by His wounds you were healed
NIV	bore our sins in his body on the cross	so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness	by his wounds you have been healed
NLT	personally carried our sins in his body on the cross	so that we can be dead to sin and live for what is right	By his wounds you are healed

Key Observations

1. Every translation renders hamartias as “sins.” Peter’s language is unambiguous: Christ bore our sins, not our sicknesses. This is the opposite of Matthew 8:17, where the language is unambiguously about physical sickness. The divergence between the two passages --- both quoting Isaiah 53 --- is the heart of the debate.

2. “Stripes” (KJV) vs. “wounds” (all others). The KJV stands alone in using “stripes” --- its most familiar rendering. All modern translations use “wounds.” The underlying Greek (mōlōps) supports both.

3. Tense variation: “were healed” vs. “have been healed” vs. “are healed.” The KJV, NASB, and LSB use “were healed” (simple past). The ESV and NIV use “have been healed” (present perfect, emphasizing ongoing result). The NLT uses “are healed” (simple present). The Greek aorist passive (iathēte) points to a completed past event, but English translators make different choices about how to convey that sense. All three renderings are defensible.

4. The spiritual context is consistent across all translations. No translation introduces physical-healing language into 1 Peter 2:24. The context is uniformly about sin, death to sin, and living for righteousness. The “healing” clause is embedded within this spiritual framework in every version.

Translation Philosophy and the Healing Debate

The cross-version comparison reveals that translation philosophy plays a role in how readers encounter the healing question:

Formal Equivalence (KJV, ESV, NASB, LSB)

These translations prioritize word-for-word accuracy. They tend to preserve ambiguity where the original is ambiguous, allowing the reader to interpret. In Isaiah 53:4, the KJV/ESV/LSB rendering of “griefs and sorrows” preserves a certain ambiguity --- the words could be physical or emotional. The NASB (2020)‘s shift to “sicknesses and pains” represents a judgment that the Hebrew’s primary meaning should take priority.

Dynamic Equivalence (NLT)

The NLT prioritizes clarity and readability. Its renderings make interpretive choices that more literal translations leave to the reader. In Isaiah 53:5, the NLT’s “He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed” is a vivid, accessible rendering --- but it also makes the healing promise more prominent than in literal translations.

The LSB and Theological Perspective

The Legacy Standard Bible, produced under the oversight of The Master’s Seminary, represents a cessationist/Reformed theological perspective. Its translation choices in Isaiah 53 are worth noting:

It retains “griefs and sorrows” in Isaiah 53:4 (against the NASB 2020’s “sicknesses and pains”)
It renders shalom as “well-being” in Isaiah 53:5 (broader than “peace”)
It follows the NASB closely in all other respects

The LSB’s retention of “griefs/sorrows” in Isaiah 53:4 is a defensible translation choice, but the reader should be aware that it diverges from the very translation it is based on (the NASB, which changed to “sicknesses/pains” in its 2020 update). This choice has the effect of softening the connection between Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17, which every translation renders in physical-sickness terms.

The LXX as Interpretive Witness

The Septuagint is not a modern English translation, but it functions as the earliest interpretive witness to the Hebrew text. Its rendering of choli as hamartias (“sins”) in Isaiah 53:4 represents a pre-Christian Jewish judgment that the verse is about sin-bearing. Matthew’s rejection of this rendering in favor of physical-sickness language is one of the most important textual observations in the entire study (see Appendix B for the full analysis).

Summary: What the Cross-Version Evidence Shows

Observation	Significance
All translations agree on “healed” in Isa 53:5	The debate is not about the word; it is about the scope
Translations split on “griefs” vs. “sicknesses” in Isa 53:4	The translation choice shapes the reader’s perception of the entire passage
The NASB changed between 1995 and 2020	Reflects growing scholarly recognition of choli’s primary meaning
Matthew 8:17 is unanimously physical	No translation renders Matthew’s quotation in spiritual terms
1 Peter 2:24 is unanimously spiritual in context	No translation introduces physical healing into Peter’s application
The LXX renders choli as “sins”	The spiritual reading has pre-Christian Jewish roots
Matthew rejects the LXX rendering	The physical reading has inspired apostolic support

The cross-version comparison demonstrates that the healing debate is not a product of English translation ambiguity. It is embedded in the original languages, in the LXX’s interpretive choices, and in the New Testament authors’ own divergent applications of Isaiah 53. Faithful translations reflect this complexity; they do not resolve it.