Isaiah 9:6–7 and the Question of Corruption:

A Scholarly Response to Islamic Polemics

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Muslim apologists frequently charge that Christian translators have “corrupted” Isaiah 9:6–7 by interpolating exalted titles such as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” They contrast this with the Septuagint (LXX), which reads “Messenger of Great Counsel.” This paper demonstrates that the alleged corruption is a misunderstanding of textual criticism, translation history, and theology. By examining the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), this study affirms the integrity of Isaiah’s prophecy and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

---

1. Introduction

Among the most profound messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 9:6–7 stands as a cornerstone for Jewish and Christian theology. The child promised here is described as a Davidic ruler whose reign will never end. Christians have traditionally understood this prophecy as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Islamic critics, however, often argue that the Christian rendering of the text is the result of interpolation. They suggest that translators, particularly of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, added divine titles to support Christological doctrines. Instead, they claim, the Septuagint’s reading (“Messenger of Great Counsel”) represents the authentic text.

This paper will demonstrate that such claims are historically, textually, and theologically flawed.

---

2. Textual Foundations of Isaiah 9:6–7

2.1 The Masoretic Text (MT)

The MT, preserved by Jewish scribes, clearly reads:

“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, MT).

The Hebrew terms—peleʾ yōʿēṣ, ʾēl gibbōr, ʾaḇî-ʿaḏ, śar šālôm—unambiguously confer divine attributes on the promised child. This reading has been preserved consistently across Jewish tradition, predating Christianity by centuries.

2.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)

The DSS (150 B.C.–70 A.D.) provide critical pre-Christian evidence. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) contains Isaiah 9:6 with the reading El Gibbor (“Mighty God”).¹ This demonstrates that the exalted titles existed before Christianity and thus cannot be later Christian interpolations.

2.3 The Septuagint (LXX)

The LXX, translated into Greek ca. 250–150 B.C., renders Isaiah 9:6 more interpretively:

“His name is called Messenger of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him.”

This translation does not negate the MT’s reading but reflects a functional rendering of the child’s role as the bearer of God’s salvific plan.

---

3. Textual Variants and the Question of Corruption

Muslim polemicists equate textual diversity with corruption. However, textual criticism shows otherwise:

• Variants reflect translation philosophy (literal vs. interpretive), not falsification.

• The MT and DSS attest the divine titles long before the rise of Christianity or Islam.

• The LXX often paraphrases to make Hebrew idioms accessible to Greek audiences.²

To claim “corruption” is to impose an anachronistic Islamic lens on Jewish and Christian textual history.

---

4. Theological Implications of the Text

4.1 The Masoretic Witness

The MT emphasizes the divine identity of the child: He is Mighty God (El Gibbor) and Prince of Peace (Śar Šālôm). These titles exceed what would be expected of any mere Davidic king.

4.2 The Septuagint Witness

The LXX’s “Messenger of Great Counsel” is equally messianic. In biblical theology, God’s “counsel” refers to His eternal redemptive plan (cf. Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11). To be the “Messenger of Great Counsel” is to be the agent of God’s salvific will, fulfilled supremely in Christ as the Logos (John 1:1, 14).

4.3 Fulfillment in Christ

The New Testament directly applies Isaiah’s prophecy to Jesus:

• “He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign… forever.” (Luke 1:32–33)

• “For unto you is born this day… a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)

Both textual traditions—MT and LXX—find their climax in Christ, the divine King whose rule brings peace without end.

---

5. Critique of the Islamic Narrative

The Islamic charge of corruption fails on multiple grounds:

1. Historical – The MT and DSS predate both Christianity and Islam; divine titles existed in the Jewish text long before Jesus.

2. Textual – Variants in LXX and MT reflect translation strategy, not manipulation.

3. Theological – Both traditions affirm a messianic figure whose reign is eternal, incompatible with Islamic denials of Jesus’ divine kingship.

4. Comparative – Unlike the Bible, the Quran lacks early manuscript diversity, making Islam’s textual history more fragile by comparison.³

---

6. Conclusion

Isaiah 9:6–7 provides one of the clearest testimonies to the Messiah’s divine nature and eternal rule. Far from proving corruption, the MT, DSS, and LXX together illustrate the rich textual witness of the Hebrew Bible and its messianic fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

The Muslim charge of interpolation collapses when examined against the weight of historical manuscripts and textual evidence. Isaiah foresaw the coming of the divine Son who would bring peace, justice, and eternal rule—a prophecy realized in the birth and reign of Jesus Christ, centuries before Muhammad appeared.

---

References

---

Dr. Shimba, would you like me to also add a comparative section where I contrast Isaiah 9:6–7 with the Quran’s failure to provide similar messianic prophecy (showing Islam’s lack of predictive prophecy), so that this article also directly dismantles the Islamic polemic on theological grounds?

Footnotes

1. Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 97–99. ↩

2. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). ↩

3. Daniel Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011). ↩