That event, with which the conversion
of the Gentiles is here immediately connected, had already taken place
in Christ, at least as to the germ, which contained within itself the
whole substance which afterwards displayed itself. But it was the main
thought only which came into consideration in ver. 11, and therefore it
is somewhat abbreviated. In the quotation, the translation of the LXX.
evidently forms the foundation.

The quotation of ver. 12 agrees, almost _verbatim_, with the LXX. It
follows them in their important deviation from the Hebrew text. Instead
of, "In order that they may occupy the remnant of Edom," the LXX. read,
[Greek: hopos an ekzetesosin hoi kataloipoi ton anthropon me] (instead
of [Greek: me] Luke has [Greek: ton kurion], which is found in the
_Cod. Alex._ also, but has very likely come in from Luke). It is of
very little consequence to determine in what manner the translation of
the LXX. arose; whether they had a different reading, [Hebrew: lmeN
idrwv warit adM], [Pg 397] before them; or whether they merely read
erroneously; or whether, according to _Lightfoot_ (in his remarks on
Acts xv. 16, 17), they intentionally thus altered the words; or
whether it was their object to express the sense only generally and
approximately (in the last two cases we should be obliged to suppose
that, by a kind of play, and in order to represent, in an outward
manner, the substantial agreement of the thought, they chose words
exactly corresponding to the Hebrew text, with the exception of a
change of a few letters,--a thing which frequently occurs in the
Talmud, and even in Jeremiah when compared with the older prophets);
only, we must set aside the idea of a really different reading,--a
reading resting on the authority of good Manuscripts, inasmuch as such
an idea would be irreconcilable with the deviations of the LXX.
elsewhere, and with the unanimity of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the
passage before us. The assertion of _Olshausen_, however, that, in the
Hebrew form, the passage would not have been suitable for the purpose,
and that therefore it is probable that, on this occasion, Greek must
have been spoken in the assembly, does indeed deserve our attention.

Whether or not the latter was the case, we leave undecided. That it was
probable, may be proved from other grounds, but it by no means follows
from the reason stated by _Olshausen_. The passage was suited for the
proof, as well according to the Hebrew text