O'Neill's Magic Marker Binge (Galatians)
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."
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,
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:
(continued...)
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)
(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. (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.
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: (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)
(continued...)