RandallButh wrote:καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, [this is Septuagintal wording for a Hebrew phrase the was ambiguous]
That is not an easy post for me to follow.
It seems that the ambiguity is that פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ in the phrase; וְלַאֲסוּרִ֖ים פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ׃ , "to those who are bound, the opening of prison" could be used literally of eyes. Keeping that part of the phrase literal and holding that it refers to eyes, leads to the need to ask who are the people whose eyes are bound - the blind. If however, the אֲסוּרִ֖ים is literal and referring to prisoners, the action of opening is something that must be situationally appropriate to that, and a metaphorical interpretation of פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ as freedom (opening of a prison) can be made.
RandallButh wrote:Luke's wording is accomodated to LXX of Is 58
The only way that can take this with a meaning is, "Luke's wording of καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, accommodates the same interpretation of the Hebrew of the last phrase of Isaiah 61:1 as the LXX did in translation."
Now ... If I have understood you correctly, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew reading follows the same school interpretation (situational extended interpretation of אֲסוּרִ֖ים "those bound" -> "the blind") as the LXX did when they translated it into Greek. Then there is the insertion of ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει from Isaiah 58:6, the gzera shava, a Jewish method given as the second of Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen rules. That far I can follow with confidence, but am I correct then in understanding that Jesus quoted / used the ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει as a justification or explanation for the choice that was made in the interpretation of the passage as it was read in Hebrew, and you are saying that because Luke is using the Greek that follows that interpretation anyway, there was (a) no need to use the gzera shava in Greek, and (b) it shows that Jesus read from the Hebrew where he needed to make the interpretation of an ambiguous passage clear?
RandallButh wrote:[This יום רצון יהוה ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is the rhetorical link with Isaiah 58:5,
AND IT IS MISSING IN THE LXX to Is 58, so LXX could not have generated the rhetorical link between Is 61 and 58!]
Sorry, I am quite lost in regard to this part of your post. This what I guess you are getting at:
The phrase "[καλέσαι (LXX) / κηρύξαι (Luke)] ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν לִקְרֹ֤א שְׁנַת־רָצֹון֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה is the first part of Isaiah 61:1. Is the close similarity in phraseology of the οὕτως καλέσετε νηστείαν δεκτήν וְיֹ֥ום רָצֹ֖ון לַיהוָֽה the basis for the interpretation based on parallelism of the ambiguous phrase near one of them, and the lucid phrase near the other one? Is it because the Hebrew has two words for periods of time שְׁנַת and יֹ֥ום that would allow for a gzera shava analogous interpretation, but having the LXX interpretation of יֹ֥ום as νηστεία to make it clear that it was referring to a day of fasting, just not obvious enough to build a gzera shava on in Greek.
RandallButh wrote:... such a practice was a Hebrew practice based on the Hebrew Bible, not a Greek practice.
I'm sorry to say that perhaps I've misunderstood your tone here. It seems to not allow for other interpretations. There may be other right answers to the same problem. Being in Greek, doesn't necessarily change the way people do things. It is entirely probable there were not only Greeks, who were unaware of rabbinical modes of exposition, but also some Jews taking about and interpreting the Bible to other Jews in the synagogue. If it was read to / by Luke in Greek with the gzera shava included from habit (or now as a justification for the interpretation rather than as the interpretation by analogy itself), that may be evidence for a continuation of a reading tradition despite the change in language. Ways of doing things can sometimes stay the same even when languages change.