O'Neill's Magic Marker Binge (Galatians)

O'Neill's Magic-Marker Binge

 In 1972, J. C. O'Neill published The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, (SPCK, 1972).  In it, he abandons conventional textual criticism entirely, and turns to the conjectural source-theories and the so-called historical-criticism of the 19th century.   We will look in vain for manuscript support for the many deletions O'Neill proposes.  His claim would be that all the real alterations took place in the first 150 years of copying.

What is perhaps most amazing to the ordinary Christian (student or scholar), is his attempt to re-instate the 'authority' of Holy Scripture on the basis of such a drastically mutilated 'original text'.    One can't help but suspect a lot of other baggage has been secretly brought into the decision-making process.

As expected, O'Neill (in 1972) wrongly imagines that the text has suffered mainly from 'interpolation' and 'glossing', rather than omission, as later studies indicate:

"If I am right, and if that history [of Galatians] was a history of continual expansion as explanatory and expository notes were added to the text, we may now understand more clearly that the incorporation of Paul's epistles into the canon at all was no arbitrary whim of the 2nd  century Church.  If I am right, Paul's epistles were regarded as in some sense regulative, authoritative, yes, canonical, from a very early date.  Only such [a class of] writings are reflected upon, preached from, interpolated, and glossed. Only law codes and revered writings suffer that sort of treatment.  

The original interpolators and glossators probably did not intend their reflections to be incorporated in to the text, but the Church, like the ancient lawyers, probably thought it wise to adopt the dictum, "Always take account of the gloss with the text.", and the scribes, in any case, would be careful to omit nothing, as they copied the sacred words."

( - O'Neill, p.12)

One can only be stunned by the ingeniousness of this attempt to both hack to pieces, and simultaneously praise the "authority" of Holy Scripture.  To note just a few of the more blatant absurdities,

(1)  The fact that "Paul's epistles were regarded as ...authoritative, yes, canonical, from a very early date" doesn't depend upon O'Neill being right in any meaningful way.  Most conservative Christian scholars manage to grant Paul early canonical status without having to hack Galatians to pieces. 
(2)  Most commentators have been noting that Paul's canonical status 'was no ordinary whim of the 2nd century Church' for hundreds of years before O'Neill's "insights" surfaced.
(3)  There is no evidence of any 'ancient lawyers' of the Church dictating what the text of Paul's letters should be so that manuscripts would then contain a controlled, uniformly edited text.  All early evidence indicates the opposite.
(4)  'in any case the scribes were [sadly not so] careful to omit nothing'.  In fact, omissions by homoeoteleuton appear 2 to 10 times more numerous than insertions and glosses.

In the same manner as others have graphically displayed the results of textual criticism by the modernist school, we have chosen to show the consequences of following O'Neill's conjectural emendations of Galatians by indicating his deletions with strike-through and color-codes below.  

A careful perusal of the verses and phrases O'Neill has chosen to delete reveals not only a hidden agenda with an apparent Unitarian bias, but a severe hostility toward some of the most famous and trusted passages of Paul's thought.  If O'Neill is'right', we are expected to abandon almost every argument and saying of Christian substance and Pauline distinction.  This would include:

(1)  history of Paul's prior persecution of the Church.(ch 1)
(2)  history of Paul/Peter in regard to Jews and Gentile missions (ch 2)
(3) Paul's famous line about Abraham (3:6)
(4) Paul's famous argument on a single Hebrew letter (3:16)
(5) Paul's description of the Law as 'schoolmaster' (3:23-25)
(6) Paul's famous equality statement (3:28)
(7) Paul's exposition on 'heir' (4:1-4)
(8) Paul's discussion of former idolatry (4:8-10)
(9) Paul's explanation of the motives of Judaizers (4:17)
(10) Paul's argument from the typology of Hagar/ Sarah (4:24-27,30)
(11) Paul's list of typical sins, (5:13-21)
(12) The Famous "Fruit of the Spirit/Love" passage (5:22-6:10)
(13) The "Israel of God" note. (6:16)

The skeleton that O'Neill leaves behind can only be described as a 'nothing letter', written by a nobody, and offering neither the Galatians nor modern readers anything to boast about.  This finally, is the "authoritative, yes, canonical" substitute O'Neill would have us replace the cherished Epistle to the Galatians with:

	Galatians 1
1.	Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2.	And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3.	Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4.	Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5.	To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6.	I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7.	Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8.	But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9.	As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10.	For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11.	But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12.	For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13.	For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14.	And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15.	But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16.	To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17.	Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18.	Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19.	But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20.	Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21.	Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22.	And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23.	But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24.	And they glorified God in me.
.
	Galatians 2
1.	Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2.	And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3.	But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4.	And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5.	To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6.	But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7.	But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8.	(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9.	And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10.	Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11.	But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12.	For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13.	And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14.	But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15.	We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16.	Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17.	But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18.	For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19.	For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20.	I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21.	I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
.
	Galatians 3
1.	O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2.	This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3.	Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4.	Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5.	He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6.	Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7.	Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8.	And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9.	So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10.	For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11.	But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12.	And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13.	Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14.	That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15.	Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16.	Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17.	And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18.	For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19.	Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20.	Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21.	Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22.	But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23.	But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24.	Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25.	But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26.	For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27.	For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28.	There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29.	And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
.
	Galatians 4
1.	Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2.	But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3.	Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4.	But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5.	To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6.	And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7.	Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8.	Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9.	But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10.	Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11.	I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
12.	Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13.	Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14.	And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15.	Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
16.	Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
17.	They zealously seek you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might seek them.
18.	But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
19.	My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20.	I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21.	Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22.	For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23.	But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24.	Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25.	For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26.	But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27.	For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28.	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29.	But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30.	Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31.	So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
.
	Galatians 5
1.	Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2.	Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3.	For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4.	Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5.	For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6.	For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7.	Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8.	This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9.	A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10.	I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11.	And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12.	I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13.	For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14.	For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15.	But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16.	This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulful the lust of the flesh.
17.	For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18.	But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19.	Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20.	Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21.	Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22.	But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23.	Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24.	And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25.	If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26.	Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
	Galatians 6
1.	Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2.	Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3.	For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4.	But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5.	For every man shall bear his own burden.
6.	Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7.	Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8.	For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9.	And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
10.	As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
11.	Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
12.	As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13.	For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14.	But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15.	For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16.	And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
17.	From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
18.	Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

The Premature ABU Revised Version NT (1860)

Not to be confused with the American Sunday School Union, the American Bible Union (ABU) offered a series of books in the 1850-1880 period, notably:

1857 - The Book of Job ; the Common English Version the Hebrew Text and the Revised Version of the American Bible Union, by Conant,  (ABU, 1857)

1858 - The Gospel According to Mark translated from the Greek on the basis of the Common English Version. With Notes.

1860 - Notes on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, as the basis of a Revision of the Common English Version; and a Revised Version, with notes. (anon., apparently written by Horatio B. Hackett) (ABU, 1860).

1861 - Tne Meaning and Use of BAPTIZEIN philologically and historically investigated, by CONANT, T.J.(1861), 8vo.

1865 - The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ The Common English Version, Corrected By the Final Committee of the American Bible Union (1865, 2nd Revision, reprinted, 1873)

1868? - The Book of Genesis the Common Version Revised for the American Bible Union with Explanatory Notes, Conant (1868?)

1873 - Bible Primer, To Teach The Millions To Read God's Word. (Anon., ABU, 1873)

(A more complete list of these proto-Revised-Version attempts can be found here:
http://bibles.wikidot.com/abufirst-quartos
)

This earlier more conservative attempt at revision (pre RV 1881) shows more clearly what was originally intended by the Americans, and what sources were used.

Insight into the origin and intent of the American early revisers can be found scattered among the prefaces and introductions to these preliminary publications, as well in the the books independently published by these same authors.

For example, On page v. of the intro for the Gospel of Mark (1858), we get:

Critical Editions of the Greek Testament [consulted]:

1809 - Griesbach
1820 - Knapp
1830 - Fritzche GNT w. Comm.
1839[?] Bloomfield GNT w. Comm. [1839-1847]
1842 - Tittman, ed. Prof. Robinson NY
1846 - Lachmann [2nd critical ed]
1850 - Scholz (Bagster's)
1850 - Tischendorf [3rd ed.?]
1856 - Theile

As well as Five Editions of the TR:

1653 - Erasmus
1624 - Elzevir / 1707 - Mill (Bagster's)
1831 - Leusden (reprinted)
1831 - Prof. Wilson's ed.
???? - emendations from Robinson's Harmony of the Gospels.

IN that same edition, we are given the
General Rules for th Direction of Translators and Revisers employed by the ABU"

" 1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the
time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding words and phrases, so far as they can be found, in the vernacular
tongue of those for whom the version is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness.

" 2. Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with
the established phraseology shall be avoided ; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text
and the existing state of the language may require.

" 3. Translatious or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited, with known
errors corrected.

"SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REVISERS OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.

"1. The Common English Version must be the basis of the revision: the Greek Text, Bagster & Sons' octavo edition ['TR' = Scholz]
of 1851.

" 2. Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any authority additional to that of the reviser, such authority must
be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page or in an appendix.

" 3. Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which the phraseology of the Common Version is changed, must be
carefully examined in every other place in which it occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the reviser be given as
to its proper translation in each place."

-------------------

These rules seem to have allowed an unforeseen degree of freedom in regard to the original Greek, an ambiguity which other parts of the rules clearly intended to avoid (the potential for and real abuse of such well-intended rules in regard to the English Revised Version is well-documented).

But in spite of conservative sentiments and attempts to contain revision within reasonable limits, there was an ethos, a rather less precise and dangerously vague attitude among these early revisers, which left them and their work open to tragic errors in their handling of the NT text.

We can find revealing glimpses of some of this attitude in other publications, not directly under control of the ABU.

For instance, Horatio b. Hackett had already published:

1858 - A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles H.B. Hackett (revised 1858),


On the one hand, Hackett encourages a healthy Protestant historical/critical approach. In regard to Acts, he says,

"No person can be prepared to read the Epistles of the NT with the greatest advantage until he has made himself familiar with the external history of the Apostle Paul, and with his character and spirit, as Luke has portrayed him in his narrative.  Those portions...must be thoroughly mastered before any proper foundation is laid for exegetical study of the Epistles."

Again, Hackett explains,

"It is the object of these notes to assist the reader in the acquisition of this knowledge and discipline; to enable him to form his own independent view of the meaning of the sacred writer..., and at the same time, furnish himself to some extent with those principles and materials of criticism which are common to all parts of the Bible.  ...and to promote a habit of careful study and of self-reliance ...a result beyond any other which the writer has been anxious to accomplish. ...The grammatical references and explanations will enable the student to judge of the consistency of the interpretations given with the laws of Greek language.  The authorities cited will show the state of critical opinion on all passages that are supposed to be uncertain or obscure."

(- H.B. Hackett, Preface to Acts,  Newton Theol. Inst., Oct 31, 1851)


So far, so good.  But now let us turn to another book, perhaps where Hackett has expressed himself in a more unguarded fashion.  In his Notes on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, (ABU, 1860), Hackett explains more clearly his idea of Bible translation:

"An exposition of the text, as a mental process at least, on the part of the interpreter (though the results may not be written out), must precede a translation. The Notes, therefore, here laid before the reader, have the same interest and value as a means of understanding the text of the Epistle, as if they were unaccompanied by a revision of the Common English Version.
But the other portion of the work has also its separate claims on the attention of the Biblical student. An addition of this nature has become, within a few years, a common feature in the best exegetical works published in this country, and in
England.  The fact sets forth an important truth. It is felt more and more that critical attempts to explain the meaning of the Scriptures should, as the proper test of their definiteness and precision, terminate in an endeavor to express the sense as nearly as possible in our own language ; and furthermore, that they must assume this form, in order to render such studies available in any great degree to the bulk of English readers.
The topic last suggested here deserves a word further. This matter of the history of the current translation of the Bible, and a comparison of its renderings, with those of the preceding translations,* out of which the Common Version has arisen, are opening to us a range of study, comparatively new and attractive certainly to those who enter upon it. Some of the best scholars of the day are giving their attention to it. The student of English literature will reap profit as well as gratification from it. 

The different epochs of our language are well marked in the style of the different versions. We learn, thence, that the English race, even since the dawn of Protestantism, and during some of the most effective periods of the national development, have not been dependent upon any single translation of the Bible, but have received their knowledge of the gospel through various channels. It is no disservice to be taught that the power of Christianity resides in its doctrines and ideas, and not in any set of words or phrases which it may outgrow with the advance of Biblical science, and the mutations of language, and must then, or should, discard for other forms. It is seen from such recurrence to the past, to be the wisdom of the church, to which have been committed the Oracles of God, to open promptly every source of religious knowledge to the many as well as the few. The names of Wiclif, Tyndale, Frith, Coverdale, are witnesses how slowly this truth has made its way in the world, in regard to the use and treatment of translations of the Sacred word into the vernacular tongue of a people. The history of the English Bible has been, from first to last, a singular history of conflicts between an excessive conservatism on the one hand, and the promptings of a more expansive religious spirit on the other, and a history, at the same time, of victories on the side of truth and progress. It is well that the public mind is turning itself back to inquiries which are so interesting and adapted to reassert and enforce principles of vital importance.  

There is much misapprehension still, I imagine, respecting the precise nature of the enterprise, in the interest of which this volume has been prepared. The object is not to supersede, but revise the current Version of the English Scriptures. A new translation of the original text, and a revision of the translation of that text, are very diflferent things; and yet, different as they are, are confounded by many persons who would not be unfriendly to what is attempted, if they would keep in mind this important distinction. It is not proposed to discard the present Version; to cast away its manifold advantages ; to introduce rash and doubtful innovations ; to substitute a cumbrous Latinized style for the simple, nervous, idiomatic English, which brings the familiar Version so home to the hearts of the people ; but simply to do upon the work of our translators what they did upon that of their predecessors; to survey it afresh in the light of the knowledge which has been gained during the more than two centuries since they passed away ; to make such changes, and such only, as the general verdict of the best scholarship of the age has pronounced to be due to truth and fidelity ; to make these changes in a style of delicate harmony with the present language of the English Bible ; to confirm its accuracy, where it is correct, against false or unsupported interpretations, as well as to amend it where it is confessedly incorrect ; and thus, in a word, carry forward from our position, if we might, the labors of the revisers (for such they were) of James' age, as they carried forward the labors of the generations before them.
On some other occasion I may have an opportunity to speak of the Greek text on which the revision is founded, and some other kindred topics. I have endeavored to unfold the contents of the Epistle with candor and impartiality, and would hope that those who may examitie the work will judge of it in the same spirit. ...
------------------------------------
* It can not have escaped notice that the various English readings have began to form an important new material in our works of Biblical criticism. Professor Alexander of the Princeton Theological Seminary, whose recent death is a calamity to the cause of sacred learning, has enriched greatly his New Testament Commentaries by his copious illustrations of this character. "

The important idea here is the concept of  "dynamic" or idiomatic translation, although it is not yet articulated with any sensible scientific restraint.  The view promotes the idea of multiple forms of verbal expression, i.e., with all translations being somehow equal or equally inspired.  

Certainly accuracy and precision in translation indeed requires idiomatic forms, and may also require language updating as language evolves.  But the dangerous effect of free expression, namely corrosion of meaning and the authority of the written, inspired word of God, has simply not yet occurred to American Protestants (c. 1860s). 

The natural evolution of the unrestrained idea, is that if God's word can have many forms, and if some forms seem contradictory, or remove, or add to other forms, these forms can be and must be error-prone, if not error-ridden.  Its a short step from here to assigning an equally low priority and accuracy to ANY form of the word of God,   with the attendant consequences, namely that people will pick and choose what they perceive to be "the word of God", inevitably selecting what is convenient and appealing, while rejecting what is inconvenient or unappealing.   Which is precisely the state of confusion over modern 'versions' that we have now.

mr.scrivener

Very Early History of the English (Saxon) Bible

I'm posting this from a Russian blogsite, translated into English for readers:

 

Catalogue of Old English revision of the Bible

Posted on July 7, 2010

Click to Enlarge

by Dr. Teol. Dony K. Donev 

The formation of the English version of the Bible is inevitably linked to the presence of the Latin Vulgata in northern England. Old English biblical texts developed in two literary center: Uearmaut and Dzharou.Leading scientists have Kelfrid, Bidi [Bede] and Alkuin. Kelfrid manuscripts brought from Italy, which were used in the manufacture of Codex Amiatinus. Bidi (674-735) was the first English historian and Alkuin (735-805 years) in the history inextricably linked to the Latin Vulgata in the Middle Ages.The above two literary schools are the main motivators of the development of the English Bible, a process which involved the following writers and manuscripts:

 Aldhelm (639-709) was the first author staroanglisyki translation of the Psalms.
 Kedmon mentioned by Bidi is the author of Old English songs with biblical themes.
 Reverend Bidi translated the Gospel according to John in the English shortly before his death in 735, the
 Vespasiyanskia interlinearen gloss is Psalm of Psalms, written around 850, of mersianski dialect.
 Edvinskiyat Psalter Kanabara and 10 other gloss on the Psalms, dating from the ninth century, have reached today.
 Around 900, King Alfred ordered translation and transcription of many biblical texts such as the Ten Commandments, parts of the Pentateuch and Psalms. It is assumed that the translation us in Psalms Paris Psalter was made by order of King Alfred.
 Between 950-970, the, Alfdred added gloss written in nortambskiya staroanglisyki dialect.
 At the same time, a monk named Pharma gloss wrote the Gospel according to Matthew, which is still preserved in a manuscript known as Rashuartskoto gospel.
 Around 990, theAppears Tetraevangelia full translation of the West Saxon dialect, known today as Veseksko gospel.
 At the same time dorsetshirskiyat monk Alfrik end independent translation of the Pentateuch books accompanied by Joshua and Judges.
 Kedmonskite manuscripts are written in the period 700-1000, theand contain biblical texts speak English language.

(apologies: autotranslated from Russian online)

mr.scrivener

Bias against the PA

In his expose' of James White (a notable KJVonly Opponent), Jesse Boyd takes him to task for his shifty handling of the textual evidence regarding the PA (Jn 7:53-8:11):

1. It is apparent that White takes his list of manuscript evidence straight out of the UBS4. However, he fails to include an asterix with mss. 1424. According to the UBS’ abbreviation system, the asterix refers to the original hand of the manuscript. Apparently, 1424 has the pericope in the margin. White does not want anyone to know that.
2. White includes Codices L and Δ in his list of evidence, but he fails to mention that both mss. exhibit a blank space after John 7:52. It is clear that the scribes were aware of the fact that they were leaving something out.
3. White argues that the pericope is absent from the majority of Lain versions. This is simply untrue. It is found in the Vulgate tradition and numerous mss of the Old Itala dating back to the second century. The UBS4 lists four italic mss hostile to the pericope, but seven plus the Vulgate that include it. White’s majority does not exist. Besides, there are thousands of Latin mss. that have not been examined by anyone, especially James White.
4. White claims that the pericope is missing from the majority of Syriac mss. also. However, he fails to mention that it is found in the Palestinian Syriac and numerous later mss. of the Peshitta and the Harclean Syriac (even the UBS4 admits this). The pericope is also found in certain mss. of the Philoxenian Syriac. White’s assertion is misleading.
5. White argues that the pericope is missing from the majority of lectionaries. Most assuredly, White has never seen an ancient lectionary in his life. John Burgon, on the other hand, personally handled over sixty of them. According to him, the passage was found rubricated in every one of them.. In other words, there were liturgical directions that instructed the reader to skip from 7:52 down to 8:12. This is hardly an omission of the pericope, for the pericope served no purpose on Pentecost Sunday when John 7:37-52; 8:12 was read. White also conveniently fails to mention that the Church selected nine out of the twelve disputed verses to be read on October 8. This reading, according to Burgon goes all the way back to the earliest of times in the Christian Church.
6. White gives more credence to ten minuscules that place the pericope in different place in the Gospels than he does to the hundreds of them that retain the passage in the traditional place. His use of the exclamation point at the end of the sentence containing the aforementioned assumption indicates that he considers these witnesses to be great evidence against the passage. What White doesn’t promulgate is that the four mss. that place the pericope after Luke 21:38 come from a common archetype and are known for reworking the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 22:43 is removed and thrust into Matthew 26 between verses 39 and 40. White claims, “such moving about by a body of text is plain evidence of its later origin and the attempt on the part of the scribes to find a place where it ‘fits.’” This situation proves nothing of the sort save that a few irresponsible scribes wished to remove the passage from the Pentecostal Lesson because they believed it to treat the sin of adultery too leniently. Or, perhaps the mss. they were copying did not include the passage, but the scribe wished to include it where he had space (e.g. at the end of Luke or John).
7. White says that some scribes included the pericope after John 7:44. It is apparent that White gets this information from Metzger who get it from Eberhard Nestle. In a footnote, Metzger promulgates that Nestle mentioned some Georgian mss. that placed the pericope after John 7:44. However, Nestle provided no specific mss. How do we know Nestle did not just make this up out of thin air.
8. White says that John 7:52 and 8:12 go together. Are we to believe that “out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” is immediately followed by “Then spake Jesus again to them saying” without a word of explanation. As Edward Hills asserts, “Such impressionistic writing might possibly be looked for in some modern author. It is unthinkable in the simple narrative of John.” ⁶⁸ Besides, what does White do with the fact that Jesus is nowhere in the vicinity in 7:45-52? Also, what is the purpose of the word “again” in 8:12? Without the pericope, there is no “again.”
9. White says, “aside from issues of vocabulary and style.” What issues is he referring to? Of course, White gives absolutely no examples to back his claim. J.P. Lange, a scholar far more learned than White, says that the pericope exhibits the same “mystic twilight” that is common in John’s Gospel. ⁶⁹
10. White says, “The story of the woman taken in adultery interrupts the flow of the text.” How? The average reader does not see this.’
11. White says that it is a “near certainty” that the pericope is not an authoritative part of the Bible. His “near certainty” is based upon one-sided evidence that is promoted with no documentation whatsoever.
12. White claims that the story itself represents an oral tradition about Jesus that came to have its part in the Gospel of John over time. There is no concrete evidence for such a tradition whatsoever apart from the Gospel text itself. If all of this is true, why would a scribe insert the passage right in the middle of the passage preached from on the most important Sunday of the year--Pentecost?
13. White does not provide a single sliver of documentation for the claims he makes on the pericope. Is the reader supposed to believe what he says simply because he says it. Apparently, White never consulted writers such as John Burgon, J.P. Lange, or Edward Hills.
14. It is interesting to note the striking similarity between White’s words and those of Bruce Metzger in his Commentary on the Greek New Testament. White uses the term “earmark” as does Metzger. ⁷⁰ This word is so uncommon that it is very doubtful it came from White’s vocabulary when Metzger was obviously sitting right in front of him.
15. Concerning internal evidence surrounding the pericope, White writes, “aside from issues of vocabulary and style.” Metzger writes, “the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably . . .” ⁷¹ White writes, “interrupts the flow of the text.” Metzger writes, “it interrupts the sequence.” ⁷² Concerning the external evidence, White takes his list of witnesses straight out of Metzger. Also, he writes, “Both A and C most probably did not contain the passage, though both are defective in this section of John . . .” Metzger writes, “Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope.”⁷³ What is going on here? White is taking information from Metzger, changing a few words, and offering no documentation. That is called “plagiarism” Mr. White, not scholarship.

 Conclusion: Fifteen counts of misrepresentation of evidence have been cited on one page of White’s book, The King James Only Controversy. This fact is scary. One can only wonder how much White bends the truth in the other 285 pages. This work is not scholarship. It seeks to trash the King James Bible through deception. Believe James White if you will, but I choose to believe God’s promise in Psalm 12:6-7. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
_________________________________

---

68. Hills,89.

69. Lange,268.

70. see Metzger, 188.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.,187.