BRITISH AND FOREIGN EVANGELICAL REVIEW.

JULY 1869.

ART. I.-The Exegetical Punctuation of the New Testament.*

THE

HE COMMA.-The circumstances are, however, widely different when we investigate the use, or the effect of the presence and the position of the comma. In such cases the interpretation is sometimes very materially affected. We propose to illustrate this point (to which Trench has not adverted in his admirable treatise on The Authorised Version of the New Testament, &c.), by adducing a number of cases furnished by the Epistles; and shall again compare the punctuation of the English, German, and two French versions.

Rom. xi. 13. The punctuation of the English version, of Erasmus (Greek and Latin), and of the Textus Receptus, that is, three commas, embarrasses the reader. Does Paul speak to the Gentiles, because he is the apostle of the Gentiles (which would be the first impression made on the mind of the reader by the repetition of the word "Gentiles"), or does he magnify his office, because he is the apostle of the Gentiles? Even in some German editions (Stier's, for instance, but not Teubner's) the same uncertainty is occasioned by the punctuation. In other German editions a semicolon precedes "inasmuch as (denn dieweil)," and in the Greek text of Stier, Knapp, Lachm., Tisch.; in accordance with this interpretation a colon is placed after IV. The sense is then perfectly clear; i.e. Paul magnifies his office because he is the apostle of the Gentiles. Martin unequivocally adopts this exegesis, by both pointing and trans

* Continued from page 169 of January number. VOL. XVIII.-NO. LXIX.

A

lating in accordance with it. Ostervald, whose translation differs considerably from that of Martin, as far as the mere words are concerned, appears to take the same view; but as he employs only commas, his version is nearly as indefinite as the English. Stuart very decidedly concurs with the latter view, by even placing "inasmuch as office" in a parenthesis. Such too, is the opinion of De Wette and Lange. Olshausen, who adopts the same view, connects, however, in his Commentary and translation, the conclusion of v. 13 with v. 14, more closely than the English version, by placing a comma at the end of the former verse, and thus expressing more distinctly Paul's object in magnifying his office as the apostle of the Gentiles.

1 Cor. vii. 34. The punctuation of the English, German, and Ostervald's French version is the same; the sentence begins with Mauigiora (Textus Receptus; Erasmus, vs. 33). But the Vulgate and Martin's French version connect that word (prefixing xaí, with some manuscripts) with the foregoing verse. Various readings, different admissible modes of placing the points, and other internal difficulties, have combined to convert this passage into a crux criticorum. A summary of the conflicting views of editors and commentators may be found in Kling's (Lange's Bibelwerk) Commentary.

Gal. ii. 20. The punctuation, and consequently the sense also, of this important passage, which is designed to give a view of the believer's Christian life, are encumbered with difficulties. The English version is the following:-"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," &c. The German version (Stier, Teubner, &c.) appears in the following form:-(v. 19) "I am crucified with Christ. (v. 20) But I live; yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me. For the life which I now live in the flesh," &c. Stier's Greek text exhibits the following:-(v. 19) "I am crucified with Christ. (v. 20) But no longer do I (oùxér) live, but Christ liveth in

me.

But the life which I now live in the flesh," &c. Ostervald: "I am crucified with Christ, and I live, no longer I myself, but Christ liveth in me," &c. Martin :-"I am crucified with Christ, and I live, not however I, but Christ liveth," &c. Schmoller (Lange's Bibelwerk):-"I am crucified with Christ. But I do not live unto myself, but much rather (vielmehr) Christ liveth in me," &c. Ought a comma to be placed after a dé, separating these words from cixer with Beza, Knapp, &c., or with others, be omitted? The editor must decide, and thus determine the shade of thought which Paul intended to express. Eph. vi. 6, 7. Two questions here arise. First, do the words ἐκ ψυχῆς belong to ποιοῦντες or to δουλεύοντες ? Secondly, do the words er' suvoías belong to the former or the latter par

Difficulties in Determining the Punctuation. 455

ticiple? The English, German, and two French versions concur in connecting TOUTES with ix uxs; they exhibit: "doing . . from the heart." As to the latter question, the English and the two French versions assign er svoías to the second participle: "with good will doing service." The German, in accordance with the interpretation of Theophylact, assigns μer evvoías also to the first participle: "doing the will of God from the heart, with good will." Lachmann's and Knapp's punctuation, in accordance with the interpretation of Chrysostom, assigns both ix uxs and μar' suvoías to the second participle, so that the translation would be: "from the heart with good will doing service, as to," &c. This is also the view

which Harless and De Wette take of the case.

προς

Col. i. 3. "We give thanks .. Christ, praying always for you." The English, German, and both French versions (with Chrysostom, Calvin, &c.) connect άvrors with gosSUXóμEVO, and so Olsh. understands the passage. Others, however, place a comma before goçeuxóμsvor, or as Knapp does, immediately after Távrore, and connect this adverb with Euxagorouμev (to which there is an analogy in Eph. i. 16). The passages 1 Cor. i. 4 and 2 Thess. i. 3 demonstrate, in the opinion. of De Wette (who enumerates many commentators entertaining the opposite view), that rάvrors can belong only to ExagroTouμev. In that case the translation should be: "We give thanks always to," &c. A similar case occurs in Philem. 4. Here the modern versions connect closely Távrors with the two following words, whereas recent editors and commentators place a comma after Távrors, according to which the translation would be: "I thank my God always, making mention," &c. Even if no fundamental doctrine is endangered by either mode of punctuation, it would still be desirable to know with precision which one of two facts Paul really intended to state. The exegetical instinct of the editor may here decide for him.

Col. ii. 14. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took," &c. English version. The German is as follows:-"And blotted out the handwriting, that was against us, which arose through ordinances and was contrary to us," &c. There is here less conformity to the Vulgate than the English exhibits. Martin, whose revision Ostervald adopts with two non-essential alterations, translates thus (as far as we can reproduce the French in English words): "Having effaced the obligation which was against us, which consisted in the (Ostervald: des for Martin's les) ordinances, and was contrary to us," &c. The English version is exposed to the objection that it apparently charges Paul with a tautology ("that was against us, which was contrary to us"), which he is always very careful to avoid. The whole difficulty may be removed, as Olshausen be

lieves, by placing a comma after χειρόγραφον, introducing τοῖς δόγμ. as an epexegetical parenthesis, and translating thus: "Blotting out the handwriting that was against us (which was, in consequence of its ordinances, opposed to us), and took," &c. But others adduce very serious objection to this punctuation. The English translation takes rois doyuan as equivalent to a genitive, assuming that the preposition prefixed before it without manuscript authority (ou in one minuscule; in in some Latin church Fathers,) gives this dative the force of "consisting of," which is, however, regarded by some as inadmissible. No explanation, of the inany which commentators suggest who omit the comma after xg6y., is free from the objection that it obtrudes on the passage a grammatically harsh construction. Here, too, an editor decides to a certain extent as to the exact exegesis, by the position which he assigns to the comma.

Col. ii. 21-23. A grave question is here presented, which the punctuation of the editor is required to answer. The words in v. 21 are confessedly those of false teachers. But is it Paul who expresses his own thought in the words, "which all are to perish with the using," or are these latter words, as the parenthetical mark in the English version after "using" implies, the continuation of the words of the false teachers? The German and the two French versions omit the parenthetical marks altogether; the German, however, introduces v. 21 with the words supplied, "die da sagen"; Martin supplies "Savoir;" Ostervald, "en vous disant.' The words "which using" (v. 22) are regarded by many (by Knapp, for instance, who inserts Touch handle not" between marks of quotation) as those of Paul. He exposes (if this is the correct view) the folly of such prohibitions, by referring to the fact that the objects forbidden to be touched, tasted, and handled were made to be consumed, and thus to perish; that here the question of the salvation of the soul is not involved; and that, therefore, these Jewish prohibitions had no ethical foundation (Chrysostom, Luther, Olsh., &c.). One objection to this exegesis is the unusual sense which it assigns to plogáv. Others (Ambrose, Augustine, Calvin, &c.) believe that Paul, to whom they also ascribe the words, intended to say that such "ordinances," when used (obeyed), lead to destruction. In this case, the relative & at the beginning of v. 22 refers to the prohibiting words. But as dróxenos seems to be used only in the sense of abuse, misuse, others, again, take v. 22 without any break by a parenthetical mark, but also as Paul's words in the sense; All these things are morally ruinous by an abuse which the commandments and doctrines of men sanction (De Wette). But then, apparently, the relative & could have no definite antecedent, and the prohibiting words un ä‡n, &c., no

Difficulties in Determining the Punctuation.

457

object. Hence other interpreters include the words "which using" in the parenthesis, and suppose that the false teachers, to whom these words in that case belong, forbid not only the abuse, but even the use, of the objects to which they refer. Here, accordingly, the punctuation of the editor may absolutely decide whether the whole or only a part of the English parenthesis belongs to the false teachers.

Col. iii. 16. The English version indicates that it places a comma between πνευματικαῖς and ἐν χάριτι, and hence, attaching the latter to dovres, translates: "spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The German version, on the other hand, with Calvin and many others, places the comma only after iv xág, and accordingly exhibits, "hymns and spiritual pleasing (lieblichen) songs, and sing to the Lord in your heart." Ostervald (French) differs from both versions. He translates, "spiritual songs, singing from the bottom (du fond in italics, as words supplied) of your hearts to the Lord, with thankfulness," for he so translates iv xágTI, ἐν χάριτι, i.e. avec reconnaissance; and this is the definition which Robinson assigns to xágs in this passage (Lex. New Test. ad verb. no. 4, p. 779). Wahl (Lex. p. 511) defines the word here, and in Eph. iv. 29, venustas, suavitas (Germ. Anmuth), &c., but also refers to Harless, who discusses the point elaborately in his Commentary, on Eph. iv. 29, and decidedly objects to such definitions. Martin seems undecided; he translates and points: "spiritual songs, with grace, singing from your heart to the Lord." The position of "avec grâce" between commas imposes the task on the reader to decide whether Paul's true meaning requires "with grace" to be connected with the words that precede, which is the impression which his version makes to some extent, or with those that follow. Knapp creates the same perplexity by an opposite course; for he omits the comma altogether.

1 Thess. ii. 13. "The word of God, which effectually worketh also in you," &c. English version. Although it might at first seem uncertain whether the word "which" refers to "God," as in Matt. v. 9, or to word," the comma after "God" appears to indicate that the translators connected with Xóyou as the antecedent. This is is very plainly the interpretation of Martin and Ostervald (la parole de Dieu, laquelle aussi agit, &c.). In this case a comma should, in the Greek, follow θεοῦ. This punctuation, with its corresponding exegesis, is adopted by Olsh., Winer (sec. 38, 6, influenced by the Pauline usus loquendi of vegye), Grotius, &c. The German version differs thus: "the word of God who (welcher, masculine, referring to Gott,' and not welches, neuter, as it is sometimes erroneously printed, referring to Wort,' a neuter noun) also