13. I. AS TO LITERARY FORM (CHAPTER BREAKS)

In the same way the break between Rev. xxi. and xxii. is unfortunate, as the real chapter-break should correspond with the Structure and should come between verses 5 and 6 of ch. xxii.

Other examples may easily be found, but these will be sufficient to show the importance of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth," even as to the Chapter Divisions.

(d) The Chapter, and Running Page-Headings.—When these chapter divisions are combined with (1) the chapter headings, and (2) the running page-headings, they become positively mischievous, partaking of the nature of interpretation instead of translation. It is needless to say that we may absolutely disregard them, as always aggravating the chapter-break, and often misleading the reader.

The running page-headings are a fruitful source of mischief. Over Isa. xxix. (as we have said above) in an ordinary Bible we read "God's judgments upon Jerusalem." On the opposite page we read over Isa. xxx. "God's mercies to his church." The same may be seen in the concluding chapters of Isaiah, both in the running page-headings and in the chapter-headings. But there is no break or change in the subject-matter. It consists of all "the vision which Isaiah saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (ch. i. 1). Here is a "dividing" of the Word. But, the question is, can it be called "rightly dividing" when God's "mercies" are claimed for the Church, and His "judgments" generously given over to the Jews? Such "dividing" of the Word can hardly be said to be "without partiality."

(e) Punctuation.—One other mode of dividing the Word as to its Literary Form is by Punctuation; which is a still more important manner of dividing the Word, as it seriously affects the Text by dividing its sentences, and thus fixing its sense.

The importance of this will be seen when we note that its effect is to fasten the interpretation of the translator on to the Word of God by making his translation part of that Word. It thus comes to the ordinary reader as part and parcel of the Truth of God, whereas it is

· III. RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD absolutely arbitrary, and is wholly destitute of either Divine or human authority.¹

The Greek Manuscripts have, practically, no system of punctuation: the most ancient, none at all; and the later MSS. nothing more than an occasional single point even with the middle, or in line with the top of the letters. Where there is anything more than this it is generally agreed that it is the work of a later hand.

So that in the Original Manuscripts we have no guide whatever to any dividing of the Text, whether rightly or wrongly. Indeed, in the most ancient MSS. there is not only no division at all, but there is not even any break between the words! So that we can find no help from the MSS.

When they came to be collated, edited, and printed, a system of punctuation was introduced by the respective Editors. Each one followed his own plan, and exercised his own human judgment. No two editors have punctuated the text in the same way; so that we have no help from them.

When we come to the English Authorized Version we are still left without guidance or help.

The Authorized Version of 1611 is destitute of any authority; for the Translators punctuated only according to their best judgment. But even here, few readers are aware of the many departures which have been made from the original Edition of 1611; and how many changes have been made in subsequent Editions.²

Some of these differences arise doubtless from oversight, but other changes have been made undoubtedly with deliberate intent. Who made them, or when they were introduced, no one can tell. A few, however, can be traced.³

¹ Sometimes a change of punctuation may be made through inadvertence or through ignorance. We have heard of 1 Cor. ix. 24 being read aloud thus: "They that run in a race, run. All but one receiveth the prize." The ignorance that perpetrated this failed to see the bad grammar which resulted in the last clause.

² These changes affect not merely punctuation, but the marginal notes and references, the uses of capital letters and italic type, orthography, grammatical peculiarities, etc.

³ A full account of these may be seen in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Queen's Printers' Patent, 1859, a Blue Book full of interesting information; also in DR. SCRIVENER's Preface to The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873.

i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

The Edition of 1616 was the first edition of the A.V. which shows any considerable revision. The first Cambridge Editions of 1638 and 1639 appear to have been a complete revision, though done without any authority.

The Edition of 1660 added many marginal notes. That of 1701 was the first to introduce the marginal dates, tables of Scripture measures and weights, &c.

The Edition of 1762 contained serious attempts at improvements made by Dr. Paris. He was the first to substitute a full stop for the colon of 1611 in Zech. xi. 7, after "staves." This edition considerably extended the use of Italic type; and incorporated Bishop Lloyd's chronological notes.

Dr. Blayney's Edition of 1769 introduced many changes and many glaring errors which, unfortunately, have been followed without enquiry and without suspicion. These imperfections led to a great controversy, and a Public Enquiry, which included the policy of the Royal Patent and the working of the University Presses.

A Revision of the American Bible Society (1847–1851) prepared the way for our English Revised Version (1881–1885).

The "Advertisement" to the Universities' Edition, called "The Parallel Bible" (of the R.V. and A.V.), fully endorses all we have said:—

"The left hand column contains the text of the Authorized Version *as usually printed*, with the marginal notes and references of the Edition of 1611, the spelling of these being conformed to modern usage. In the left hand margin are also placed, in square brackets, *the more important differences* between the edition of 1611 and the text *now in use*, whether these differences are *due to corrections* of the edition of 1611 or to errors which have subsequently crept in."

In spite of all these facts many ill-informed readers of the English Bible take the punctuation as "Gospel truth;" and not only build their own theories, and bolster up their traditions upon it, but treat as heretics, and cast out almost as apostates any one who dares to question the authority of this human interference with the Word of truth, if it should run counter to their Traditions, which are generally based on such human foundations.

In view of this indefensible attitude we shall have to show its utter groundlessness.

It is beside our present object to enumerate all the cases where the punctuation has been changed, though all are of interest, and many are of importance.

These changes may be classed under three heads.

(1) Where the Edition of 1611 is to be preferred to the later Editions.

(2) Where the changes in the later Editions are improvements; and

(3) Where there are other proposed changes which we suggest as being most desirable.

We shall proceed to give a few examples under each of these three heads.

(1) Changes in punctuation where the Edition of 1611 is certainly to be preferred to the later Editions.

1 Kings xix. 5, "And as he (Elijah) lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold then, an angel touched him." In 1769 this was altered to "behold, then." This comma after "behold" has continued to the present day.

Neh. ix. 4, "Then stood up upon the stairs of the Levites, Joshua, &c." In the Edition of 1769 this was changed to "Then stood up upon the stairs, of the Levites, Joshua."

Ps. lxxix. 11, "come before thee, according to the greatness of thy power: Preserve thou, etc.": instead of "come before thee; according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou." This change was made in 1769.

Ps. lxxxix. 46. "How long, LORD, wilt thou hide thyself, for ever?" instead of "How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever?" The third comma of 1611 was removed in 1629, 1638, 1744, 1769, and in the current editions.

In Prov. i. 27, the final colon of 1611—1630 after "cometh upon you:" is preferable to the present full-stop, introduced in 1629, and retained in the current editions.

Not 1630. In 1762 this comma was replaced by a semicolon.

i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

In Prov. xix. 2, the comma before "sinneth" should be restored, which was discarded in 1762.

In Prov. xxi, 28, the comma before "speaketh" should be restored, which was removed in 1769.

Hos. vii. 11, "a silly dove, without heart" instead of "silly dove without heart," since 1629; as though the last two words related to the dove, instead of to Ephraim.

John ii. 15, "and the sheep and the oxen." In 1630,¹ 1762, and current editions, a comma was introduced after "sheep."

John xviii. 3, "a band of men, and officers." In 1769 the comma after "men" was dropped; hence, the Roman cohort is not distinguished from the Jewish officers.

Acts xi. 26, "taught much people, and the disciples were called." This was so from 1611 to 1630, both clauses being dependent on the verb "it came to pass." Two things came to pass, (1) that the people were taught, and (2) that the disciples were first called Christians. But in 1638-1713 the comma was replaced by a semicolon, and in 1762 by a full stop: the latter being quite against the Greek.²

2 Cor. xiii. 2, "as if I were present the second time." This was so pointed from 1611-1762. But since 1769 a comma is inserted after "present," connecting "the second time" with the foretelling, instead of with the being present.

Col. ii. 11. The comma was removed after "flesh," in 1762, thus making one statement instead of two. The two clauses beginning with $\tilde{e}\nu \tau \tilde{\gamma} (en t\tilde{e})$—"by the putting off," and "by the circumcision of Christ." That is to say: "In whom [Christ] ye are circumcised with a circumcision not done by hand, by the stripping off of the body (i.e., the flesh), by the circumcision of Christ." Thus, this comma after "flesh" makes the last clause explanatory of the one preceding it: and shows that in Christ there is something more than the stripping off the old nature which is *sinner ruin*; even the flesh itself which is involved in *creature ruin*.

1 Not 1638 and 1743.

2 The R.V. goes back to the semicolon, but not to the comma of 1611.

3 All the textual critics with R.V. omit "of the sins."

4 Genitive of apposition.

2 Thess. i. 8, "in flaming fire, taking vengeance." By removing this comma in 1769 the "fire" is wrongly connected with the "vengeance," instead of with the being "revealed" in v. 7.

Heb. ii. 9. The comma was removed in 1769 after the word "angels," compelling us to connect "for the suffering of death" with Christ's humiliation, instead of with His crowning. If we rightly divide these words, the suffering will be practically put in a parenthesis by the two commas, thus: "We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, (for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour), that he by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." This comma is wrongly replaced in the R.V.

Jude 7, "the cities about them, in like manner." The comma after "them" was removed in 1638 and 1699; while in 1762 it was placed after "in like manner," thus increasing the error.

(2) Changes in punctuation where the later editions of the A.V. are improvements.

These hardly need enumeration, seeing that they are not likely to be missed. We may, however, note a few:—

Matt. xix. 4, 5. In 1611 the mark of interrogation was placed at the end of verse 4, but for many years it has been removed to the end of verse 5.

John xii. 20, "And there were certain Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the Feast." This needless comma after "them" was not removed till 1769.

Titus ii. 13, "The appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." This misleading comma, after "God," lingered till 1769; thus hiding the fact that only one Being is spoken of, viz., "God even our Saviour:" i.e. our great Saviour-God, Jesus Christ.

Luke xxiii. 32, "And there were also two other male-factors, led with him to be put to death." This of course

¹ I.e., every, without distinction, not without exception.

² Not 1743.

98888

I. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

practically classed the Lord Jesus as being one of three malefactors. But since 1817 a comma has been placed after the word "other," to avoid this implication.¹

Acts xxvii. 27, "as we were driven up and down in Adria about midnight, the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country." Not until after 1638 was the comma removed from after "midnight," and placed after "Adria"—"driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed," &c.

(3) *Changes of punctuation which are now proposed as being most desirable.*

These proposed changes we consider to be improvements not only in the punctuation of the Edition of 1611 but of the subsequent editions. These suggestions are made from a better understanding, closer study of, and respect for the Context, as modifying or correcting traditional interpretations.

That we are more than warranted in such an attempt is shown by the Revisers in a note they affix to Rom. ix. 5. In this passage, in all the editions, the full stop is placed after the word "ever," thus: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

This text, being so weighty in witnessing to the God-head of the Lord Jesus, was evidently distasteful to the Socinian member of the Company of Revisers: and, judging from the note placed in the margin, one can imagine what line the discussion had taken. All other marginal notes in the R.V. refer either to alternative *renderings* which affect the Translation, or to ancient manuscript "Authorities" which affect the Text. There is no example, so far as we have seen, where *interpretation* has been introduced; or where there is any reference to the interpretations of commentators. But here, there is the following lengthy marginal note, which exhibits the compromise reached by the Revisers and the Unitarian. They evidently declined to touch the Text; and

¹ This is far better than changing "other" to "others," as is done in the American Bible, 1867. This antiquated plural is continued in the American Edition of the R.V. of 1884.