When the Bible is translated into English, how do the translators decide what punctuation to use?

C.A. — You say then, Mr. C. that this is a parenthesis. What about the punctuation?,

C.C. — Well, in the first place, there are no punctuation marks at all in the early manuscripts. They have all been put in by later editors, and it is a question of spiritual understanding as to what and where punctuation should be placed. It largely depends on the spiritual understanding of the translator.

As to the much disputed comma in this verse, it is well to remember, as often pointed out, that the Greek language from which the New Testament was translated has no punctuation marks whatever. It is left to the translator to judge where and what should be added to give the sense in English. It raises the question as to whether the work, or the result of the work, is in view. In v. 11, we read of two things. First, the priest in the Tabernacle was ever standing — his work was never done. Then, he offered oftentimes, for there was no sacrifice offered in that day which dealt so effectively with sin that no other sacrifice was needed. "Standing" and "oftentimes" are the two characteristic words in this verse. Now the comma after "one sacrifice for sins" would refer to the "oftentimes;" the comma after "sat down" would refer to the "standing." Both are true and we judge that wherever it is inserted is right. He has "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever," and, so far as the work being done, never needing to be repeated, He has "for ever sat down." Hence we do not insist on where the comma should be; we are assured that both are right. Perhaps the best thing would have been to insert both commas and the sense may have been more clear.

Another point that added to the difficulty was that there were in the oldest copies few if any points. There are three in our specimen, but in other places they are entirely omitted. This also was a cause of passages being read differently, especially when the letters were not divided into words.

The introduction of points or stops, so as to mark the sense, is assigned to the era of Jerome. In the beginning of the fourth century, and through the progress of several centuries, the system of punctuation was gradually improved, as was also the style of writing. The earliest MSS., and up to about the 10th century, are termed Uncials (Latin, inch), so called from the size of the letters, and which were all capitals. Afterwards the cursive or small running hand was employed, as the word cursive, from the Latin, denotes. Hence Biblical and other MSS. are spoken of as "uncials" or "cursives" according to the style of writing which they present; an important factor too in helping to determine the probable age of a MS.

Given that the Greek manuscripts from which our Bibles were translated have no punctuation, how do we know that John used parentheses? We can see it quite clearly by looking at the main parenthesis that encloses verse 2. The thing that makes it clear is the repetition of '.seen and heard.' in verse 3. Why does John repeat himself? It is because he is returning from a diverted train of thought back to the main track. In communicating anything to others, whenever we divert from a theme and introduce a 'side-track', it is common when we return, to repeat some of the words from where we left off in order to indicate clearly to our hearers the connection with the original theme. Paul does this in Romans 3:25-26 and Colossians 1:20 (in both these passages the King James translators added the words 'I say' to further draw attention to the way Paul was returning to his original track after inserting parenthetical detail). John uses this technique in the same way here.

Those called the Uncial from uncia, 'an inch,' not that the letters were actually made as large as that, but they are all capitals, have no spaces between the words, and few if any points. A specimen is here given from the Codex Sinaiticus. It is John 6:14-15. It shows how the words were divided at the ends of lines without any mark being attached (at the end of lines 1, 3, 7 and 9), and sometimes without any regard to syllables, also how contractions were made, IC for Ιησοῦς (Jesus), the line showing that it was a contraction. In some instances the line became invisible in old MSS and then the reading became doubtful. The mark at the end of line 4 shows that a letter has been omitted: in this case it is the letter ν. The specimen also shows how corrections were often made by the writer or by later hands.

The Rosetta stone, now in the British Museum, and supposed to have been executed in the second century before the christian era, contains, besides the hieroglyphics, the record in Greek uncials, which gives a good specimen of the style of writing at that period, as it was done on stone. Its letters differ little from the specimen we are about to give from a Greek manuscript, except in the formation of three or four of the alphabet. The Rosetta stone does not divide the words, and has no breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation.

The ingenuity of criticism however, having neither various readings nor ancient versions to invoke, is not content with misrepresenting the testimony of the early christian writers and has strained itself in the most violent efforts to effect a diversion by the help of points; as it is well known that they are wanting in the most ancient copies. The Complutensian editors punctuate fairly. Erasmus, not in his earlier editions but later, suggested a period after σάρκα, as had been done before by the writers of two MSS. of the eleventh and twelfth centuries usually numbered 5 and 47 in the conventional list of Pauline copies. Lachmann and Tischendorf acted on this; and Vater clenched the rent quite as effectually by putting the cut-off clause or clauses within marks of parenthesis ended by a note of admiration. Now not only is this severance, however managed, in opposition to the mass of punctuated manuscripts, all ancient versions and citations, but, what is of more weight still, it is contrary to the invariable idiom employed to express such a blessing (or on the contrary a curse). The regular formula is to open the sentence with εὐλογητός or some kindred word. Here therefore to bear regularly the desired punctuation the words should have run: — Εὐλογητὸς ὁ ἐπί π. θ., the ὤν in this case being worse than useless. The only apparent exception produced is from the Septuagint of Psalm 67, (68) 19, κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός. But judging by the old Latin quoted in Holmes' and Parsons' note, "Dominus Deus benedictus est," it is no exception, because it is an assertion about God, not an ejaculatory blessing. The latter follows immediately; and then the usual order appears. The former clause may indeed be an interpolation; as there is no Hebrew text to found it on.

It may interest some to know that, even in so simple a passage as the last, men of learning have differed. Lachmann suggested, and Alford followed, a punctuation which yields the sense, 'I shall henceforth with a pure conscience go to the Gentiles.' Wakefield follows the Peschito Syriac in breaking it up thus: 'From this moment I am clean therefrom, I go to the Gentiles.' In his note he says, 'This disposition gives a degree of abruptness to the periods more suitable to an angry man'! The irreverence of the translator seems to my mind as manifest as his lack of judgment, and the ordinary division most consistent, dignified, and impressive.

A. — 1. Amongst the innumerable editions of the Greek Testament from the first published text (Erasmus 1516) down to the Revisers' (Cambridge 1882), I have not been able to discover one that inserts the comma, so that in this the Revisers' would seem to stand alone. Not but that Erasmus in his last edition (1535) departs in his Latin translation from the rendering of his first edition and gives "reconciliatorem per fidem, interveniente ipsius sanguine" in place of "reconciliatorem, per fidem in ipsius sanguine" (1516). But this, as well as Beza's, Wetstein's, and Bowyer's comments on the clause is interpretation. The grammar is not at stake in either case, and these editors did not therefore venture to introduce the comma into their respective Greek texts.