PUNCTUATION AND INSPIRATION.
By W.
Nor infrequently we find people who seem to think that everything which may be bound between the lids of the Bible is inspired. Some people think that the references under the verses are a sort of inspired comment, forgetting that they only serve as a miniature concordance, and were never put into the Bible until A. D. 1611, and the last of them not till 1785. There are others who think that Usher's Chronology, which is placed in many Bibles, is inspired, and who would think it heresy to teach that Christ was crucified in the year 31, when the date in the margin of the Bible says 33. Indeed, we have seen some who seem to think that the pictures in the large family Bibles are inspired, and who cannot be made to believe that when Jacob fled from home he was an old man nearly eighty years old, because in the family Bible illustration of Jacob's dream he is represented as a curly-headed little boy sleeping upon a rock. But the most common error of this sort is in supposing that the punctuation of the Bible is inspired. A friend who writes to us from Illinois seems to labor under this misapprehension. He says that he has been reading the Signs for some time, and has had the most implicit confidence in it until he read the article in the Signs of May 26, entitled, "What and Where Is Paradise?" In that he found that in our quotation of Luke 23:43, we placed the comma after the word "to-day," whereas in the ordinary version it is after the word "thee." Again he notices that in 2 Cor. 12:2-4 the Revised Version and King James's Version each have the text punctuated differently, while the text as we quote it is punctuated differently from both. Consequently, our correspondent says, "Now if you are right, it will be easy for you to explain; if you do not explain, the conclusion will be that you have punctuated it to bring out your own idea regardless of truth." We are very happy to explain for the benefit of our brother and others who may be similarly troubled. We will consider the last text first. On this he can certainly have no more fault to find with us than with the revisers, for, as he himself says, the punctuation is not the same in the two versions. We will quote the text just as it is in both of the versions and just as it appeared in the Signs; for thereby a point may be illustrated. King James's Version has it as follows: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into Paradise," etc. The Revised Version has it thus: "I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradise," etc. Although there is some difference in the marks of punctuation used in those two verses, there is no difference in the sense. Punctuation marks are not used so freely as they were formerly, and the colon is seldom used in ordinary sentences. According to modern usage when words are inclosed in parentheses, the necessary marks of punctuation are placed after the marks of parentheses, and not within, and so the New Version conforms to this usage. All the other difference is that the New Version has a comma, instead of a semicolon, after the parenthesis as in the Old. The text as it appeared in the Signs was punctuated the same as in the New Version with the exception of the semicolon being used after the parenthesis instead of the comma. But this change was simply incidental, and it was not known at the time that there was any difference; but the matter is of no consequence anyway, as the meaning is not affected in the least by the difference in the punctuation. All the readers of the Bible should understand that at the time that the Bible was written, there were no marks of punctuation, and the words in the sentences were not separated by spaces as we now have them. For example, the first verse of the book of John was something like this:— INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWASWITHGODANDTHEWORDWASGODTHESAMEWASINTHEBEGINNINGWITHGOD. The American Encyclopedia says: "The modern points came into use very gradually after the invention of printing, the comma, parenthesis, notes of interrogation, and period, being the earliest introduced, and the note of exclamation last. It was not till sixteen centuries that an approach was made to the regular system by the Manutii of Venice." Modern punctuation has been a thing of growth. The marks have been invented and placed where the sense seemed to require them, to make it easier for the reader, and it follows, therefore, that punctuation would vary in some instances according as those who translated the Bible differed in their ideas of its meaning. In some instances the punctuation has been changed. Heb. 10:12 was formerly punctuated thus: "And this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." This would indicate that after making a sacrifice for sins, Christ sat down at the right hand of God never to leave that place. But this idea is contradicted by the whole tenor of the Scriptures, which teach that Christ is going to stand up and come to this earth again, and finally to reign upon this earth; therefore the punctuation has been changed so as to present the true idea, namely, that when Christ had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, that is a sacrifice once for all, he sat down at the right hand of God. This change has been made not to conform to anyone's theory of truth, but to the plainly expressed truth of the Bible. Again, Matt. 19:28 was once in some Bibles punctuated thus: "Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This punctuation would make the text mean that the disciples had followed Christ in the regeneration, that is, that505they had followed Christ in being born again; but such an idea is monstrous, as it would indicate that Christ, like the disciples, had been a sinner and had been obliged to be born again, and so in our version the comma is placed after the word "me" instead of after "regeneration," so that the text expresses what Christ meant, that those who had followed him, should in the regeneration, when Christ comes, that is, when all things are made new, sit upon twelve thrones. So in quoting Luke 23:43, we placed the comma after the word "to-day," not to bring out our own idea regardless of truth, but to make the text express what is evidently the truth, and make it consistent with the plain declarations of Scripture. As it stands in the Authorized Version, it seems to indicate that Christ told the penitent thief that he should be with him in Paradise that very day on which they were hanging on the cross. But this would be to make Christ contradict himself, because three days later he said (John 20:17) that he had not yet ascended to God, and he would not receive the adoration of Mary until he had ascended; but God's throne is in Paradise, therefore, when Christ said that he had not ascended to the Father, it was equivalent to saying that he had not ascended to Paradise. But since he had not ascended to Paradise, it is very evident that he could not have told the thief that he would meet him there three days before, because he could not tell an untruth. Perhaps it will be less objectionable if, instead of saying that we change the punctuation of the verse, we imagine ourselves living before the art of punctuation was invented. Let us strike out all punctuation from the verse, and then we shall have it just as it was written by the inspired historian. Literally thus:— "VERILYISAYTOTHEETODAYWITHMETHOUSHALTBEINTHEPARADISE." Now we read it through, and, being acquainted with the teaching of the Bible, namely, that Christ did not ascend to Paradise until three days after the crucifixion, and, moreover, that he could not have ascended until the third day, when he rose from the dead, because the dead know not anything and have no power of locomotion, we know better than to place the comma after the word thee. We therefore consider the circumstances under which the words were uttered. We consider that Christ was hanging upon the cross, condemned as a malefactor, despised by almost everybody, and his teachings doubted even by his own disciples, with no earthly prospect that any of his predictions could ever be verified, and we see how natural that Christ in making the promise to the thief should put emphasis upon the word "to-day." Verily I say unto thee to-day, notwithstanding these untoward circumstances, and that all my hopes and predictions seem to have come to naught, even to-day, I say unto you, that ye shall be with me in Paradise. But this, the only natural and consistent view of the text, would force us, in punctuating it, to place the comma after the word "to-day," because the voice, following the obvious meaning of the passage, makes a pause there whether one is indicated or not. It is unfortunate that the translators of the Bible did not have a perfect and consistent view of its teachings. And yet we do not know but that it was providential, for there are only a few passages where the meaning is in any way obscured by the translation or by the punctuation, and the meaning of those few can be easily determined from parallel passages; and the fact that the nature of man, the sleep of the dead, the seventh-day Sabbath, and similar unpopular truths, stand forth in bold relief in a Bible translated by those who believed none of those truths, makes it far more evident that they are unquestioned Bible truths, than if the Bible had been translated by men predisposed in favor of them.