tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post7693656059261055815..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: John Owen on the LXX: "Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit measure to correct the original by"Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-59511697021725953302016-03-11T00:58:50.037-05:002016-03-11T00:58:50.037-05:00Owen writes (in his Hebrews commentary, pp. 67-68)...Owen writes (in his Hebrews commentary, pp. 67-68):<br /><br />Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. . . . [T]his boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. . . . [I]t is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle's citation of it. And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.Hugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.com