Early NT Texts

Elihu Online Papers
Presented by
Elihu Books, LLC
Elihu continued and said:
“Bear with me a little, and I will show you, for I have yet something to say on God’s behalf.”
—Job 36:1-2 (NRSV)
Elihu Online Papers No. 3 (September 4, 2010)
Punctuation in Early Greek New Testament Texts

Greg Stafford
For good reasons Phillip Comfort as recently as five years ago wrote about the “common myth
perpetrated about the ancient Greek New Testament,” that is, the myth “that the early
manuscripts had no punctuation marks.”1 Nearly one hundred and twenty-five years earlier, Ezra
Abbot made a similar observation, “Incorrect statements are often made in regard to the extreme
rarity of punctuation in our oldest N. T. MSS.”2 Why has so little changed among those who
study and interpret early Greek New Testament (NT) texts?

This article was revised on February 7, 2011. It was originally released on September 4, 2010, apart from the Elihu
Online Papers series, but as a draft intended to eventually be revised and included as the third Elihu Online Paper.

Greg Stafford is President of Elihu Books, LLC, a book, video, and audio publishing company related to the
educational and ministerial activities of Christian Witnesses of Jah around the world. For more on Stafford’s
activities and writings, see the menu links at http://www.elihubooks.com.
1
Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual
Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), page 53.
2
Ezra Abbot, “On the Construction of Romans ix. 5,” JBL 1 (1881), page 151. See also Abbot’s, “Recent
Discussions of Romans ix. 5,” JBL 3 (1883), page 107, where Abbot wrote in response to Edwin Hamilton Gifford:
On p. 36 of Dr. Gifford’s Letter, speaking of punctuation in MSS., he observes that “it is universally
acknowledged that no marks of punctuation or division were in use till long after the days of St. Paul.” This
remark, if intended to apply to Greek MSS. in general, is inaccurate, and indicates that Dr. Gifford has been
misled by untrustworthy authorities. If it is intended to apply to New Testament MSS., I do not see how the fact
can be proved, as we [at that time] posses no MSS. of the New Testament of earlier date than the fourth century.
In both of his referenced articles, Abbot also notes several marks of punctuation in some of the earliest and highest
regarded Greek NT manuscripts available, which I will cite and discuss throughout this paper. However, as correct
as Abbot’s above-quoted remarks are on the use of punctuation in ancient Greek texts, Abbot does not see the
obvious value in the use of these marks in NT texts when he writes (with my bracketed comments added):
The truth is, that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient MSS. is of exceedingly small importance, which
might be shown more fully, had not this paper already extended to an excessive length. In the first place, we cannot
infer with confidence the construction given to the passage by the punctuator [then Abbot is not following what the
text preserves and puts forth as the original understanding of the text], the distribution of points even in the oldest
MSS. is so abnormal; in the second place, if we could, to how much would this authority amount? [Abbot, “On the
Construction of Romans ix. 5,” page 152; see also Abbot, “Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5,” page 107.]
In his above remarks Abbot fails to note that punctuation in such texts amounts to an acceptance of the text’s
representation, right or wrong, as indicated/preserved by part of the NT textual and interpretational tradition existing
prior to and/or during the time when a copy of the original was made. Indeed, Abbot even concludes his section on
the punctuation of Romans 9:5 in ancient manuscripts by providing what is one of the most obvious explanations for
the use of such marks, namely, because “a pause after that word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural” (Abbot,
“On the Construction of Romans ix. 5,” page 152). Abbot’s failure to appreciate the importance and relevance of his
own observation on the likely reason for the use of punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts is likely because of
the misuse of the very same information (punctuation in Greek NT texts) in arguments by others during his day
2 Punctuation in Early Greek New Testament Texts
It is because popular and still-circulating Trinitarian apologetic works, Greek grammars, and
works on the language and text of the NT often fail to completely or accurately inform others
about significant occurrences and the likely intended use of punctuation marks in ancient Greek
texts. Consider the following example:
In ancient Greek there were no punctuation marks; indeed, all words were run together with
no spaces between them and using all capital letters.3
As Comfort writes on the same page of his 2005 book (quoted and referenced on page 1), “This
is far from the truth.” In fact, if Bowman had simply reviewed some of the very Greek grammars
which he cited two years earlier in one of his 1989 publications,4 he may not have so wrongly
stated the matter concerning punctuation marks in ancient Greek.
In his earlier publication Bowman references the shorter grammar by A.T. Robertson and W.
Hersey Davis5 which too broadly (“purely modern”) and wrongly states (with my emphasis):
“Our present system of punctuation is purely modern. Punctuation is the result of
interpretation.” The fact is, our “present system of punctuation” is not (and should not be)
“purely modern” because we have available to us actual marks of punctuation in early Greek
New Testament texts, marks which show us how those very same texts were understood by
different scribes or copyists of the same or earlier texts, perhaps even the original NT text, and so
not necessarily even the result of any “interpretation.”
Yet, even here Robertson’s and Davis’ short grammar refers its readers to “Robertson’s [larger]
Grammar … pp. 241-245,” for a “full discussion” of punctuation.6 Beginning on page 241 of
which clearly frustrated Abbot when it came to the quality of Greek NT texts which were alleged to contain the
point after “flesh” in Romans 9:5. Indeed, Abbot responded further to Gifford, picking up from where my first quote
from Abbot in this note left off from Abbot’s “Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5,” page107:
But the essential point in Dr. Gifford’s remarks is that the punctuation in MSS. of the New Testament is of no
authority. This is very true; and it should have been remembered by the many commentators (including Dr.
Gifford) who have made the assertion (very incorrect in point of fact), that a stop after saÈrka is found in only
two or three inferior MSS. in Rom. ix. 5, as if that were an argument against a doxology here.
Contrary to Abbot, I believe an attempt to ‘show more fully’ the possible occurrence and meaning of potentially
intentional marks of punctuation in early Greek NT texts will prove to be highly revealing and rewarding, in part, by
noting and then being able to further consider the different, likely interpretations indicated by various marks of
punctuation. But Abbot was clearly fighting against the tide of misuse of punctuations marks by Trinitarians in such
a way it appears to have limited his own appreciation for their actual or possible occurrence in early Greek NT texts.
3
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1991), page 98. Compare James White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian
Belief (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), pages 72-73 (underlining added), “We should remember that
punctuation did not exist in the most primitive manuscripts of the New Testament.”
4
On page 15 of his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Bowman recommends his book, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) to his readers, first of all other books for further
reading concerning the same subject (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
5
See Bowman, Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989 [1991
printing]), page 149, note 54.
6
See A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 10th ed. (Grand
Raids: Baker, 1977), page 48.
Punctuation in Early Greek New Testament Texts 3
Robertson’s larger Grammar,7 there is a discussion on “Punctuation” in which Robertson states

the matter clearly and in large part more correctly:
The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few signs of punctuation between sentences or
clauses in a sentence, though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient
inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point (:) occasionally ends the sentence. It
was Aristophanes of Byzantium (260 B.C.) who is credited with inventing a more regular
system of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the Alexandrian
grammarians. As a rule all the sentences, like the words, ran into one another in an unbroken
line (scriptura continua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by the use of
the full point. The point at the top of the line (.) (stigmhÉ teleiÈa, ‘high point’) was a full stop;
that on the line (.) (uJpostigmhÈ) was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (stigmhÉ
meÈsh) was equivalent to our comma. But gradually changes came over these stops till the top
point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became the full stop, the middle point
vanished, and about the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place. About this time also
the question-mark (;) or ejrwthmatikoÈn appeared. These marks differed from the stiÈcoi in
that they concerned the sense of the sentence. Some of the oldest N.T. MSS. show these
marks to some extent. B [Codex Vaticanus] has the higher point as a period, the lower point
for a shorter pause.8
One ancient Greek grammarian who lived shortly after Aristophanes of Byzantium (of the third
century BCE) was Dionysius Thrax, who lived and who wrote from between around 170 to 90
BCE.9 Here is what Thrax is credited with having written about punctuation in ancient Greek
several hundred years before the date of our earliest Greek NT texts:
7
A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1934), which is referred to by Bowman concerning other issues in his Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus
Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 145, note 13; page 149, note 53; and on page 152, note 6, for examples.
8
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, page 242 (underlining
added). Compare W.H.P. Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1939), page 24, note 4, and the similar but less convincing assessment of J.H. Moulton and W.F.
Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. II, Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1919), pages 46-47. As Robertson also indicates (large Grammar, page 242, note 5), some view the full point on the
line (uJpostigmhÈ) as “our comma” rather than as a semicolon. It is not yet entirely clear in all cases just how the
different points were used at different times in ancient Greek texts, though the uses can be better understood through
an attempt to evaluate each point’s use in a given text according to each scribal hand identified.
9
Dionysius’ work, or that work which is attributed to him, has associated with it the understanding quoted from his
grammar concerning punctuation marks used in ancient Greek since possibly as early as the middle or late second
century BCE through to the “third or fourth century AD,” according to Eleanor Dickey:
Dionysius’ authorship, however, has been doubted since antiquity and has recently been the focus of
considerable discussion; some scholars maintain that the entire treatise is a compilation of the third or fourth
century AD. While others defend its complete authenticity and date it to the end of the second century BC. There
is also a range of intermediate positions, which in recent years have gained much ground against both the more
extreme views: some portion of the beginning of the work could go back to Dionysius, while the rest of it was
written later, or the entire work (or sections of it) could be originally Dionysius’ but seriously altered (and
perhaps abridged) by later writers. Some argue that if the TeÈcnh [grammar] is spurious, we must revise our
whole view of the development of Greek grammatical thought, to put the creation of fully developed
grammatical analysis in the first century BC. Others maintain that Aristarchus and his followers already
possessed an advanced grammatical system and that the date of the TeÈcnh [grammar] therefore makes little
difference to our view of the evolution of grammar. [Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading,
and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the
Byzantine Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), page 78; compare page 191-192, Dickey’s item 98.]
stigmaiÈ eijsi trei'" teleiÈa, meÈsh, uJpostigmhÈ. kaiÉ hJ meÉn teleiÈa stigmhÈ ejsti dianoiÈa"
ajphrtismeÈnh" shmei'on, meÈsh deÉ shmei'on pneuÈmato" e{neken paralambanoÈmenon,
uJpostigmh deÉ dianoiÈa" mhdeÈpw ajphrtismeÈnh" ajll j e[ti ejndeouÈsh" shmei'on.10
There are three marks [or, ‘points’], a period [or, ‘a finished point’], a semi-colon/colon [or,
‘a middle point’], and a comma. On the one hand, the period mark is a sign for a complete
expression, but a semi-colon/colon [or, ‘a middle point’] sign is breathed according to those
who use it, while a comma is for what is not yet completely expressed; unlike the other
marks, it [the comma] is a sign for what is still unfinished.11
In the note to the last sentence from my quote of Robertson’s larger grammar on page 3 of this
paper, Robertson references the Greek grammar by Friedrich Blass. Dovetailing nicely with
Robertson’s earlier comments, the following must read like music to Comfort’s ears when
considered now in light of misstatements about punctuation marks in ancient Greek texts which
have been made by Bowman (quoted on page 2) and by others12 (with my underlining):
10
As cited in Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament, page 24, note 6, and online (link:
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante02/DionysiosThrax/dio_tech.html#04 [last accessed
February 7, 2011]), both of which are from G. Uhlig’s version of 1883 (Leipzig).
11
This is my personal translation. Compare the translation of Thomas Davidson, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax
(St. Louis, MO.: R.P. Studley Co., 1874), page 4:
There are three punctuation marks: the full stop, the semi-colon, and the comma. The full stop denotes that the
sense is complete, the semi-colon is a sign of where to take breath; the comma shows that the sense is not yet
complete, but that something further must be added.
Differences between the above and my translation of Dionysius relate in one instance to meÈsh, that is, whether it is
to be understood as either a colon or a semi-colon. Also, in my translation, “a semi-colon/colon [or, ‘a middle
point’] sign is breathed according to those who use it,” my intent is to express what seems to be an indication of a
more personally fluid use of the “middle point.” Or it may be as Davidson has it, namely, “a sign of where to take
breath,” according to a more fixed (and so less fluid) principle of reading/writing. Dionysius also adds, “At the full
stop the pause is long, at the comma, very short” (Davidson, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, page 4).
12
Compare the following descriptions of punctuation in (with my underlining) Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The
Language of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), page 12, “The oldest New Testament
manuscripts have few marks of punctuation of any kind”; Léon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An
introduction to New Testament textual criticism, Jenny Heimerdinger, trans., Second Edition (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), page 9, “[punctuation was] not unknown [or] of a very elementary nature” (no
examples are given which demonstrate what is claimed); Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New
Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism,
Erroll F. Rhodes, trans., Revised and Enlarged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), page 282, “The scriptio continua of
the original texts not only ignored the division of words, but naturally [!] also lacked any punctuation”; Jack
Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), pages 32, 128, “In the earliest NT manuscripts [there] is also little or no punctuation” (page 32,
“there is almost no punctuation”); Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament, pages 3 and 23,
“[in the] original manuscripts of the New Testament … there were no accents or breathings and only a few marks of
punctuation,” and, “Punctuation is scanty in manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries”; George Milligan (The
New Testament Documents: Their Origin and Early History [London: Macmillan and Co., 1913]), page 25, “there
would be no punctuation, unless it might be the occasional insertion of a dot above the line”; E. Nestle, Introduction
to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons, 1901), page 38, “Marks of
punctuation are hardly to be found in the earliest times. ... In the general absence of punctuation ... .” While such
comments are more accurate and so also more carefully worded than Bowman’s previously quoted characterization
of punctuation marks in ancient Greek, as noted by others and as I will show here again in this paper “continuous
script” (scriptio continua) did not keep punctuation from being added “in nearly every manuscript” (Comfort,
Encountering the Manuscripts, page 53 [underlining added]). Though based on my review of early Greek NT texts
As regards punctuation, it is certain that the writers of the N.T. were acquainted with it,
inasmuch as other writers of that time made use of it, not only in MSS., but frequently also in
letters and documents; but whether they practised [sic] it, no one knows, and certainly not
how and where they employed it, since no authentic information has come down to us on the
subject. The oldest witnesses (a and B) have some punctuation as early as the first hand; in B
the higher point on the line (stigmhÉ) is, as a rule, employed for the conclusion of an idea, the
lower point (uJpostigmhÈ ... ) where the idea is still left in suspense.13
In connection with the meaning of a particularly controversial NT text which in part involves the
correct use of punctuation, Bowman cites the article by Bruce Metzger, “The Punctuation of
Rom. 9:5.” Yet, if Bowman did in fact read Metzger’s article then it is difficult to understand
how Bowman could have subsequently claimed (which he did) that in “ancient Greek there were
no punctuation marks” (again, quoted and referenced on page 2 of this paper), for in the very
article which Bowman cites Metzger expressly states:
to date I would instead say that in many manuscripts punctuation marks are used. By contrast, and more in line with
the works quoted earlier in this note, consider this rather odd explanation by Keith Elliott and Ian Moir:
Our earliest manuscripts did not use marks of punctuation in any consistent or obvious way. So, although some
discussion about punctuation allows an appeal to the manuscripts, it is impossible to use manuscript evidence
alone when deciding on the punctuation of the NT in modern editing. [Manuscripts and the Text of the New
Testament: An Introduction for English Readers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), page 75 (underlining added).]
Who, though, has ever even suggested using “manuscript evidence alone,” that is, when deciding “on the
punctuation of the NT in modern editing”? Surely, however, the “manuscript evidence” should be considered and
used if possible. Therefore, the above comments appear to me to be little more than an easy way out of explaining
the poor quality of the United Bible Societies’ (UBS) Greek New Testament’s use of “various levels of punctuation
variants” which, though of “crucial importance for exegesis and for translation,” are “not text-critical variants as
commonly understood” (Elliott and Moir, Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament, page 75). Compare the
rebuke of the UBS publication process by Rykle Borger, “Remarks of an Outsider about Bauer’s Wörterbuch,
BAGD, BDAG, and Their Textual Basis,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, Essays in Honor of
Frederick W. Danker, Bernard A. Taylor, John A.L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker, eds. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), page 35:
In 1955 the United Bible Societies appointed an international and interconfessional committee consisting of five
scholars, including K. Aland. These five scholars were entrusted with preparation of a new edition of the NT.
First they selected – with a remarkable lack of sure instinct – about 5,000 passages that should be subjected to
further study. The truth was found – not without much controversy – by majority vote, even about grammatical
questions. The relative degree of certainty of the variant readings was rated by the letters A, B, C, and D. The
miraculous complete agreement of all ... was not attained by the UBS Committee. Finally, the Committee
produced the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies (1966). In the third edition (1975) several
changes were made in the text, for which Aland now invented the name “Standard Text.” Since that time “not a
letter, not a stroke” of the text has been changed. UNSGNT became the best-selling edition of the NT, in spite of
its bad planning and inadequate realization.
As for Elliott and Moir’s apparent acceptance of the complete or near complete abandonment of any actual use of
ancient marks of punctuation in Greek texts “when deciding on the punctuation of the NT in modern editing”
(hence, the UBS’s non-use or non-citation of just such relevant textual material), from my perspective all marks of
punctuation identified confidently as such in the available texts should be evaluated individually (according to the
ink and scribal hand determined by good reasons to have been used) and also against the habits and indications of
other scribes of the same and of different texts.
13
Robertson references page 17 of Henry St. John Thackery’s 1905, Second Edition translation of Blass’ grammar. I
am quoting from page 17 of Thackery’s First Edition of Blass’ work, Grammar of New Testament Greek (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1898).
As is well known, during the earlier centuries of the transmission of the New Testament,
scribes used marks of punctuation rather sporadically, not to say haphazardly.14
Additionally, Bowman refers to the grammars of Robert W. Funk and F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, neither of which15 states the matter of punctuation in ancient Greek texts as does
Bowman, and both of these grammars contradict what Bowman did write concerning the use of
punctuation in ancient Greek texts!
14
Bruce M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, In Honour of
Charles Francis Digby Moule, Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds. (Cambridge: University Press, 1973),
page 97. Referenced in Bowman, Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 146, note 3.
Strangely, in spite of here providing a fairly accurate assessment (though his use of ‘sporadic’ is suspect [see
below]) of the “marks of punctuation” used “during the earlier centuries of the transmission of the New Testament,”
Metzger had previously written:
[U]ntil about the eighth century punctuation was used only sporadically [meaning it occurs occasionally or
irregularly] ... however ... scattered examples of punctuation, by point or spacing or a combination of both, are
preserved in papyri from the third century B.C. onward. ... the earliest manuscripts have very little punctuation.
The Bodmer papyri and the Chester Beatty papyri ... have only an occasional mark of punctuation, as do also the
uncial manuscripts. [Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, Third, Enlarged Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pages 13, 26-27.]
Though contradicting Bowman’s claim concerning punctuation marks in ancient Greek, Metzger also does not
accurately describe the use of punctuation in early NT texts. For example, Metzger claims that the Bodmer and
Chester Beatty papyri “have only an occasional mark of punctuation.” In fact, there are numerous examples from the
Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri which show obvious marks of punctuation, as I show and explain in part in this
paper on page 11. Further, in his Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1981), pages 31-32, Metzger acknowledges that a “high point ... equivalent to a full stop”
and a “point on the line” and a “point in a middle position ... were used with different values by different scribes.”
Metzger then concludes as he did previously, but with less apparent conviction, “Marks of punctuation occur only
sporadically or not at all in the most ancient manuscripts.” As Comfort notes and as I will show here in this paper,
Metzger’s assessments are inaccurate and in certain instances simply wrong, though Metzger does not go as far in
misrepresenting the use of punctuation in ancient Greek as have Bowman and others.
15
Bowman (in Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 153, note 10) references volume II of
Robert W. Funk’s, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek, Second Edition (Missoula, Montana:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1973). However, unless Bowman did not have or have access to volume I of Funk’s
grammar (which I would consider unlikely, in as much as Bowman did have volume II), then Bowman failed to
consider Funk’s remarks in volume I, page 45, section 076, “Punctuation”:
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books were written for the most part without benefit of punctuation or
even separation of words (s. Bl-D §16). ... However, some peculiarities of punctuation are old. The period,
comma, dash and parenthesis are employed as in English. [Underlining added.]
Funk refers to section 16 in the “Bl-D” grammar, which is Funk’s translation of F. Blass and A. Debrunner’s, A
Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961),
referenced in Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 153, note 15. That
Bowman failed to consider this grammar in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses is clear from a comparison of
Bowman’s earlier claim about there being no punctuation marks in ancient Greek (quoted on page 2) with “Bl-D
§16” (as referenced in Funk’s grammar), page 10, titled, “Punctuation and Colometry” (with my underlining added):
It is certain that the authors of the NT could have used punctuation just as other people did at that time, not only
in MSS, but sometimes also in letters and documents. ... The earliest MSS of the NT, P45, P46 (not P47), P66, S
[Codex Sinaiticus] and B [Codex Vaticanus], have already received some punctuation by the first hand ... In B,
among other marks, the point above the line (stigmhÈ) is used for a full stop, the lower point (uJpostigmhÈ: ...) for
pauses after thoughts which are as yet incomplete.
The matter involving the use of punctuation marks in ancient Greek texts has been so badly
misrepresented (for reasons which I will explain further later in this paper) that the most well-
known of those who view the use of punctuation marks in ancient Greek as Bowman does are
none other than Kurt and Barbara Aland! Consider their inaccurate description of the use of
punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts:
As the plates in this volume show (e.g., pp. 88-92), the earliest manuscripts were written in
scriptio continua, i.e., the uncial letters were written continuously, word after word and
sentence after sentence, without a break and with extremely few reading aids. ... [In the
uncials] the letters are written continuously and without punctuation (characteristically B2, a
later hand in Codex Vaticanus, clarifies the interpretation by a mark that was not available to
the first scribe).16
The Alands later repeat this same inaccurate view of punctuation in relation to what may have
been possible with the “original” texts, that is, based on the copies we have of what were likely
“original” or close enough to be used as “original texts” (but which are no longer extant outside
of the best available copies). They write, “The scriptio continua of the original texts not only
ignored the division of words, but naturally also lacked any punctuation”!17
Ironically, right after furthering an incorrect view of the use of punctuation in the “original
texts,” the Alands rightly note, “Occasionally this [the alleged lack of ‘any’ punctuation] can be
critical for the interpretation of a sentence.” It would seem that this should have underscored to
the Alands the importance of fully assessing and of rightly representing and then presenting
accurate information about the use of punctuation in the “original texts,” that is, based on the
best available texts’ use of any marks of punctuation (particularly where it may be “critical for
the interpretation of a sentence”) which are identifiable in the best available copies of these
“original texts” as representative of the original texts’ punctuated understanding.
In this light, and since many if not (according to Comfort [see my note 12, at the bottom of page
4]) “nearly every manuscript” of our earliest Greek NT texts contain marks of punctuation as
representative of the earlier or even of the earliest (“original texts”) of which they are copies,
further contradicting the Alands’ claims concerning punctuation in “original” or early Greek NT
texts are some of the very plates of these early Greek NT texts which are, in fact, representative
of the originals and so referenced by the Alands on pages 88-92 of their Text of the New
Testament book!
Indeed, on their pages 88-92 the Alands reproduce parts of P46, P66, P47, P72, and P75, at least two
of which (P66 and P75) clearly do contain marks of punctuation, even (as I wrote above) in the
very images provided by the Alands. These texts and others (see my illustrative listing below)
contain marks of punctuation indicating pauses, stops, or what I believe are best described as
“thought separations,”18 or perhaps at times simply as breathing or other natural pausing or
16
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, Revised and Enlarged, Erroll F. Rhodes, trans.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), page 282 (underlining added).
17
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, page 287 (underlining added).
18
Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts, page 53. Additionally, other marks indicating pauses or stops can be
seen in early scribal habits. For example, according to Lattey’s report (“The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus on Romans
ix. 5,” The Expository Times 35 [October 1923 – September 1924], pages 42, 43) on the use of punctuation marks in
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (fifth century CE) in Romans 9:5 (note continued on the next page):
stopping points. This apparent detachment from the use of punctuation in available copies of
early Greek NT texts, in the very publication in which the use of such marks of punctuation is
also expressly denied, speaks to some of the reasons for why there has been a continuing
deficiency, not simply where it pertains to the occurrence of marks of punctuation in early or
even “original” Greek NT manuscripts, but also when it comes to identifying and making good
use of those same marks since many of them are likely credible expressions or representations of
the understanding of the original or otherwise earlier and then later copied texts.19 This should
Between saÈrka and oJ w[n there is a space hardly greater than that between any two consecutive letters, but there
is quite clearly a small cross there, without any other sign or symbol. This small cross is very often found at the
end of a verse ... Père Bourdon’s conclusion from the above example is that the small cross, even by itself, is a
strong stop (marque une punctuation fote) and is equivalent to a colon, and he mentions M. Omont as an
authority who agreed with him upon being shown the verse in question [Romans 9:5] and some examples.
[Underlining added.]
Lattey tries his best to minimize the impact of Bourdon’s report, even ending his brief article (page 43) by claiming
(in spite of the likely indication he received from the report on Codex C), “In any case the evidence for the mere
comma remains overwhelming”! This gets us back once more to the issue of false assumptions involved with the use
and significance of punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts. See the description of punctuation marks in Codex A
below for more on Lattey’s attempts to jump ahead of the evidence, only to be later contradicted by it.
19
Hopefully, works such as some of those by Comfort and of papers such as this one, as well as through continuous
reference to and a thorough study of the availability of images and of any accurate transcriptions of ancient Greek
texts will lead to a more accurate understanding of the use of punctuation marks in these texts. Yet, even where such
knowledge is obtainable others have so discounted or misrepresented the evidence that it sits practically unused.
Ironically, back in 1928 F.C. Burkitt was drawn into a discussion concerning Romans 9:5 furthered in part by
Cuthbert Lattey, who at one point requested “a reliable record” of the punctuation of Codex C, which earlier (to
Lattey’s apparent dismay!) Père Bourdon and M. Omont had reported contained a “small cross” as “a strong stop”
after “flesh” in Romans 9:5. Writing under the name of the same article as Cuthbert Lattey, “The Punctuation of
New Testament Manuscripts,” JTS 29.116 [July, 1928]), on page 397 F.C. Burkitt writes:
The point raised by Fr Lattey [for a “reliable record” of Codex C] is important, but it is one that raises great
difficulties for an Editor of a critical apparatus. In a certain sense, the punctuation of an ancient Greek work is no
part of the original tradition. ... At other places, no doubt, the dot is intentional and significant.
How Burkitt understands such marks to be “no part of the original tradition” when they would, in fact, be the only
indicators of the original tradition, if any, and while one is expressed (by marks of punctuation), the other (the use of
such marks) is nowhere said of the best available texts to have been added later or to not, in fact, represent the
original any less than do the words of the text. Indeed, what we have in the earliest Greek texts are copies of what
we must argue for as the original tradition according to the best available reasons, absent the availability of better
reasons, since 1) there are no “original” copies of the NT texts and 2) a copy of an original or of what is as close as
we can come to an original are both quite credible and so also usable, that is, (again) unless there are overriding
good reason(s) to doubt what is represented in the best available copies. The NT textual tradition should now and it
always should have included the entire written tradition communicated in those texts which can credibly lay any
claim to being “original” or to being a true representation of an original or even earlier text. It should have long ago
included a full presentation of all relevant punctuation along with an attempt to evaluate its use in each text,
according to each scribal or other hand identified. Indeed, such marks along with the words are what the scribes
represented in their texts as the then-accepted or then-known (or both) tradition for how the text should be read and
understood. If there are any accidental points then, absent any other credible argument(s) suggesting they are
intentional (which should then be considered), the existing marks should be presented as what they appear to be and
then for what they might be. True, there can be and there are likely some accidental marks in some of our early
Greek NT texts. But decisions about where there is punctuation in an ancient Greek text should not be first presented
or captioned according to as accidental but, rather, first for what can confidently be understood from their use as
marks of punctuation in the text in question. Burkitt gets to this in part when he later writes, “the value, or lack of
value, in the punctuation of that verse in any MS depends very greatly on the critical weight of the punctuation in
that MS,” adding that this “value can only be determined by a study of its punctuation elsewhere, in uncontroversial
contexts” (Burkitt, “The Punctuation of New Testament Manuscripts,” pages 396-397).
prove particularly helpful when it comes to understanding how the text being studied today was
understood when it was first written, whether as an original or as a copy of an earlier text.
Yet, even today in certain text-critical circles there is little to nothing at all said about
punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts, or about how this might impact our prior and
currently growing knowledge and understanding of ancient Greek documents and of the
interpretation of early or even possibly “original texts.” Indeed, to quote Daniel B. Wallace:
What is particularly needed is an analysis of the scribal habits of our more important MSS.
Only a few have been so analyzed. If we could know the predilections and habits of every
scribe, we would have a good sense of their contribution to any given textual problem. Until
we have an analysis of individual scribal habits, we do not have a comprehensive “knowledge
of documents.”20
But nowhere does Wallace speak to the importance or even of the potential importance of the
marks of punctuation which are in the “more important MSS” when Wallace mentions the work
involved in noting all of these “differences.” True, Wallace does rightly note the need for “an
analysis of individual scribal habits.” But Wallace does not define it as expressly inclusive of a
study of the marks of punctuation used by these scribes according to their texts. One might think
Wallace implicitly means to include punctuation when he writes as quoted above, but Wallace is
the one who indicates that the differences being noted by the INTF [Münster Institute for New
Testament Textual Research] and CSNTM [Wallace’s own non-profit institution] are limited to
“the individual letters.” Punctuation is nowhere mentioned as of any specific interest or import.
Yet, how can that be if until we “have an analysis of individual scribal habits, we do not have a
comprehensive ‘knowledge of documents’”? To not include the use of punctuation marks in
nearly any study of early scribal habits is to remove from the discussion of relevant textual
material what could amount in many cases to a very helpful “contribution to any [or to many]
given textual problem[s].”21
20
Daniel B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,” JETS 51.2
(March, 2009), page 97.
21
Yet, Wallace is not the only one to highlight the subject of early scribal habits but without significantly involving
or highlighting these same early scribes’ habits when it comes to their use of marks of punctuation. Indeed, one of
the largest works recently completed on the subject of early scribal habits (James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early
Greek New Testament Papyri [NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2007]), in spite of its title, openly accepts the near
complete omission of the occurrence of punctuation marks in its discussion of early scribal habits:
[I]n order to reduce the material involved in the present study to a more manageable level, I have decided to
ignore certain common orthographic variations throughout the collation ... as well as breathings, accents,
punctuation, iota adscript or subscript, and other clear forms of abbreviations or writing conventions. [Royse,
Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, page 81.]
In spite of the above, Royse does comment on the occurrence and the non-occurrence of marks of punctuation in
several places throughout his large volume (for examples, see Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament
Papyri, pages 31 [note 102], 110 [note 35], 137 [note 170], 147 [regarding P45 (quoting Zuntz)], 156 [note 256], 247
[regarding P46; Royse here notes “breathings and punctuation occur occasionally”], 353 [note 849], 361 [regarding
P47], 420 [regarding P66; Royse’s item 3.], 616 [regarding P75; here Royse notes the scribe “fairly frequently uses
marks of punctuation and rough breathings”], and 745). However, at times the information presented is not always
as accurate as it could be in light of the evidence from the texts in question. For example, on page 106, writing about
the scribe of P45, Royse notes that “the use of breathings and punctuation is, as would be expected in a papyrus of
such antiquity, sparse” (underlining added). But P45 is dated to the first part of the third century CE, and so it is quite
within the time and well beyond the start of the use of marks of punctuation in Greek texts and, in fact, P45 contains
It seems, then, that a proper study and presentation of punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts
is destined to suffer still, in large part where it concerns any attempt to define or to explain the
different, identifiable marks used according to early scribal habits, perhaps because of its
importance in certain texts which are more impacting to correct Christian doctrine. Examples of
such texts include Luke 23:43, John 1:3, and Romans 9:5. Indeed, the handling of the
punctuation in Romans 9:5 has been nothing short of a near complete failure by many in
Christendom to fully or even (in some cases) rightly assess the textual evidence. Luke 23:43 is
disappearing entirely from certain text-critical publications,22 and the punctuation of John 1:3 in
early Greek NT texts is at times ignored or wrongly represented.23
what appear to be regular uses of punctuation marks (see, for examples, my brief evaluation of such marks in P45 on
page 11 of this paper).
22
Notice how in both editions of Bruce Metzger’s, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart:
United Bible Societies, 1971 and 1994), pages 181-182 and page 155, respectively, while Metzger does note some
textual matters connected with this verse he does not mention anything having to do with the presence or absence of
any marks of punctuation in one or more ancient Greek texts. Instead, where it concerns the possible ways to express
the Greek text where Jesus speaks to the criminal next to him, Metzger refers only to the Curetonian Syriac and
rather strangely states that it “rearranges the order of the words, joining [‘today’], not with [‘with me you will be’],
but with [‘Amen, to you I say,’ and so with the meaning] (“Truly I say to you today that with me you will be ...”).
Not only is Metzger misleading in his use of “rearranges” (Metzger would not likely have also considered his “Truly
I say to you” translation of amen soi lego to be a ‘rearranging of the words’ from “Truly to you I say”!), there is not
even a listing for Luke 23:43 (let alone of any of its textual or versional variants) in the most recent adaptation of
Metzger’s work by Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible
Societies, 2006). This change was made in spite of the fact that Codex B has a mark of punctuation (see pages 21-
25) after “today” which could have been mentioned along with the Curetonian Syriac, rather than delete some of the
only material in print which gives some indication of another reading based on early versional (in this case, the
Curetonian Syriac) support but which differs from the more traditional English translation, “Truly I say to you,
today you will be with me ... .” Yet, Omanson deletes Luke 23:43 from consideration entirely, and Omanson does
not mention the use of punctuation in ancient Greek texts at all in his Preface or in his Introduction to his Textual
Guide. Only barely does Omanson mention the use of punctuation on his pages 8-9, and here only as it relates to
modern editions and translations of the Greek text; there is nothing of any meaningful import provided to the reader
about the actual or possible punctuation in early Greek NT texts.
23
See Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, page 163, where he writes: “The oldest manuscripts
have no punctuation here [in John 1:3-4]; and, in any case, the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as
well as in versional and Patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical
understanding of the meaning of the passage.” Yes, that is in fact what it reveals and so since the texts available
which have punctuation claim to represent the original or at least an earlier copy of the original, the “current
exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage” is the same and so the punctuation and any significant
variants of it should be sought out and presented just as the letters of the text which claim to come from the original
or from copies of the original text are sought out and presented according to what should be the best available
reasons. To not fully appreciate and express to some meaningful extent the importance of punctuation in early Greek
NT texts, in a volume which is a fairly longstanding (beginning with Metzger’s editions) Guide to the Greek New
Testament, is surprising to say the least, particularly since in many cases the punctuation of such texts may very well
represent what was used in the original documents when it comes to punctuation marks which were used during the
time when the original NT texts were produced. In our evaluation of the same, the use of marks of punctuation in
our earliest and best NT Greek texts should be seen first in “its syntactic function,” serving “like other aspects of
orthography, to convey meaning ... by identifying lexical elements and clausal, phrasal, and sentential structure”
(Robert J. Scholes, “Prosodic and Syntactic Functions of Punctuation: A Contribution to the Study of Orality and
Literacy,” Interchange 21.3 [Fall, 1990], page 13 [Scholes then immediately discusses the use of punctuation marks
in Greek texts from the fourth century BC to Aristophanes in the first century BC]). Conversely, Omanson not only
attempts to downgrade the importance of punctuation in ancient Greek texts, he misstates facts which one would
think are readily available to him when it comes to his discussion of John 1:3-4 (see Omanson, A Textual Guide to
the Greek New Testament, page 163), for in the “oldest Greek manuscripts” there is a mark of punctuation. For
example, as noted on my page 11, in P66 there is a full point right after egeneto and before kai in John 1:3.
According to Comfort, in P75 there is also a “midpoint” added by a corrector after en in verse 3 (see Philip W.
My review of the use of punctuation and other symbols and markings of similar import in early
Greek texts will continue as I continue to study early Greek texts of the NT as well as other
ancient Greek sources. I will continue to discuss my results overall and according to specific
texts such as Luke 23:43, John 1:3, and Romans 9:5 in the near future, or as soon as possible.
Here I will provide a further (but by comparison with my ongoing work rather brief) evaluation
of some of the uses of punctuation marks in several early Greek NT texts:
P23/P.Oxy. 1229 (third century CE): In James 1:15 there is a full point placed after
qanaton but before mh (and so: qanaton∙mh) to end what is now our verse 15.
P45 (third century CE): In John 10 there is a full point (low) indicating a stop after
probatwn in verse 7 and before pantes (the start of our verse 8), as well as in verse 10
after ecwsi (note: no moveable-n) and before kai (and so: ecwsi∙kai), and then again
after ecwsin (note: moveable-n) there is a middle or low point ending or pausing before
egw, which begins our modern verse 11. There is also a full point (middle or high) indicating a
pause before kai in verse 9 three (3) times when enumerating the consequences which follow
entering “through the door” and which, together with kai, provide natural pausing points. Other
obvious, explainable punctuation marks occur throughout P45, including a middle or a high point
after the nomina sacra form for “Father” and before kai in verse 15, a middle point after
probatwn at the end of verse 15 and before kai at the start of our verse 16, as well as a
middle or (more likely) a lower mark after the natural pausing point following tauths and
before kakeina. Other obvious and explainable marks of punctuation occur throughout this
papyrus.
P66 (around 200 CE): There is a full, middle or high point after egeneto and before kai
(and so: egeneto∙kai) in what is now our John 1:3. There is also an obvious middle or high
point after farisaiwn and before kai (and so: farisaiwn∙kai) in what is now our John
1:24-25. There is also a middle or lower full point after legwn and before egw in 1:26, and
there is a middle or a high point after baptizwn at the end of what is now our 1:28. Other
obvious and explainable marks of punctuation can be seen throughout this text.
P75 (early third century CE): There is a middle or a high point after estin and before kai
at the end of what is now our Luke 14:17 (and so: estin∙kai). There are obvious marks of
punctuation in the form of a high point after the contracted form of the words for “Israel” and for
“man” but before apekriqh in John 1:49-50, as well as before the kai which begins our
John 2:1, marking a full stop at the end of what is now John 1:51. There are other obvious and
explainable marks of punctuation throughout this text.
Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts [Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 2001], page
567). Therefore, the two earliest papyri which contain John 1:3-4 both contain marks of punctuation, though
according to Omanson they do not. Metzger put the matter even worse for, though Omanson clearly borrows
Metzger’s language here, what Omanson omits is Metzger’s parenthetical reference, namely, (with my underlining
of the omitted part), “The oldest manuscripts (P66, 75* a A B) have no punctuation here” (see Metzger, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament [1971], page 195, and [1994] page 167). Metzger and Omanson are both
wrong, however, and in the forty (40) years since Metzger’s first edition of this Textual Commentary the United
Bible Societies has failed to get the matter right concerning the use of punctuation in this text, even regressing from
the subject rather than improving its Textual Commentary by including more information about what the early Greek
NT texts actually contain as far as accepted marks of punctuation, or by at least not continuing to present
information about its occurrence or use in important (or in any) texts which is clearly incorrect.
Codex a/Sinaiticus (fourth century CE): In John 6:14 there is a middle point after elegon
and before the demonstrative outos (and so: elegon∙outos). Note also that the middle
point appears to take the place of o{ti which is used in B and in P75 and which indicates a pause.
Also departing from B and P75, a uses a middle or a high point after ercomenos, which a
uses as the last word to end what is now our verse 14.
Codex A/Alexandrinus (fifth century CE): One of the more notable examples of punctuation
in this text is in Romans 9:5, where there is not only a full point indicating a pause or a stop after
the word for “flesh,” but there is even a noticeable space after the point (and so: sarka∙ o).24
See also Luke 12:54, where there is a middle or a high point after oclois indicating a pause
prior to Jesus speaking.
Codex B/Vaticanus (fourth century CE): As noted earlier, the 1961 English translation of the
Greek grammar by Blass and Debrunner (quoted and referenced in my note 15, page 6), the
“earliest MSS of the NT, P45, P46 (not P47), P66, ... and B [Codex Vaticanus], have already
received some punctuation by the first hand.” Earlier in this past twentieth century Frederic
Kenyon put the matter a bit differently, deemphasizing but not eliminating original marks of
punctuation from the first hand of Codex B with the words: “Unfortunately its appearance has
been spoilt by a corrector, who thought it necessary to trace over every letter afresh, only sparing
those which he regarded as incorrect and therefore better allowed to fade away. ... There appear
to be no accents, breathings, or stops by the first hand.”25
Using nearly the exact same language and wording as Kenyon, but with a conclusion concerning
the “first hand” of B that is more in agreement with Blass-Debrunner, Metzger wrote the
following concerning Codex B:
24
Both the point and the space are apparent to me after viewing the facsimile edition of the British Museum’s The
Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS. 1 D V-VIII) New Testament and Clementine Epistles (London, 1909). In response to
some (including W. Sanday) who appeared to express doubt as to the use of punctuation in Codex A after “flesh” in
Romans 9:5, G. Vance Smith, “Additional Note on Romans IX. 5,” The Expositor 10 (July, 1879), page 233, wrote:
May I beg the two doubters (if they are such) to take the first opportunity of going to the British Museum to look
at the Manuscript for themselves? They will easily gain access to it; and, if their eyesight be tolerably good, I
venture to say they will be perfectly satisfied (from the colour of the ink and from the existence of the space) that
the stop is a real stop, and from the first hand. [Underlining added.]
Compare Sanday’s reply to this point in the same journal’s article, “Additional Note on Romans IX. 5,” page 235:
Since I last wrote I have had an opportunity of examining the Codex Alexandrinus, and I quite agree with Dr.
Vance Smith that there can be no doubt as to the punctuation. It is altogether plainer than I had expected to find
it. The point is clearly marked, and it is evidently by the first hand. Future critical editors should take note of this,
and the fact should be credited, so far as it goes, to Dr. Vance Smith’s side of the argument. There seems now to
be less danger of its importance being exaggerated. [Underlining added.]
I can only imagine what Sanday would think (if he were alive today) about the danger of its importance having since
been lessened! Consider how many translators are likely under-informed by the judgments of those responsible for
UBS4 (The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993]), which on page
543 fails to cite even one single Greek manuscript’s punctuation of this text, preferring to instead list various
modern translations’ choice of punctuation! Similarly, NA26 (Novum Testamentum Graece [Stuttgart, 1979]), page
425, fails those who use it by not providing any reference to the punctuation of this text in any Greek manuscripts.
25
Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co.,
1901), page 65 (underlining added).
Unfortunately the beauty of the original has been spoiled by a later scribe who found the ink
faded and traced over every letter afresh, omitting only those letters and words that he
believed to be incorrect. A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of
the first hand. There appear to have been two scribes of the Old Testament and one of the
New Testament, and two correctors, one (B2) about contemporary with the scribes, and the
other (B3) of about the tenth or eleventh century. ... Accent and breathing marks, as well as
punctuation, have been added by a later hand.26
Though noting there are some “passages” remaining which “show the original appearance of the
first hand” in B, Metzger here puts the use of punctuation in the light of what Metzger claims
was “added by a later hand.” The Münster Institute’s “report” through Metzger was apparently
sufficient for Murray J. Harris to simply accept “the second hand” (though without noting which
of the “two correctors” is meant!) as the cause of the obvious middle or high point after sarka
(and so [as in Codex A, also]: sarka∙ o) in Romans 9:5.27 This makes more relevant the
comments by Kenyon written over a century ago, namely, “certain questions as to the distinction
between the hands of correctors and the original scribe must always necessitate a reference to the
original.”28
From the comments of Kenyon (repeated in large part by Metzger) there is reason to believe the
corrector(s) of B traced over only what was felt to be correct, leaving the incorrect marks to
“fade away.” If the original punctuation in Codex B in Romans 9:5 is lighter or fading in
comparison with the corrected or added marks, then it should be accepted as the original
punctuation used in the text since the ink used by the corrector(s) is darker than the original
brown ink.29 While I have not had the opportunity to view the original Codex B in order to
26
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, page 74. Compare also Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” page
97, where in Metzger’s review of the manuscript evidence involved with Romans 9:5 Metzger writes (with my
underlining), “A point standing in a middle position with respect to the line of writing (a colon [in Metzger’s view])
is present after [‘flesh’] in A, B (sec. man. [= secundus manuscript (‘secondary manuscript’)]). See also the quote
from Metzger regarding punctuation in early Greek texts in my note 14, page 6. Compare John McClintock and
James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1981 [repr. of 1867-1887]), page 731, “It has been doubted whether any of the stops are by the first hand; and the
breathings and accents are now generally allowed to have been added by a second hand.”
27
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1992), page 149. See my discussion in this paper starting on page 18 and following for further review of the
“Münster report.” See also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, page 282, where (with
my underlining) it is first wrongly stated that in the uncials “letters are written continuously and without
punctuation” and then it is further wrongly claimed that “characteristically B2, a later hand in Codex Vaticanus,
clarifies the interpretation by a mark that was not available to the first scribe”! Not only are some of the marks of
punctuation in B likely by the original hand (see the discussion in this paper beginning on page 12) but the “mark”
which the Alands claim “was not available to the first scribe,” if any of the full points in use and defined by Greek
grammarians several hundred years prior to the writing of Codex B are meant (see pages 3-4), then the Alands are
again incorrect in their assessment.
28
Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, page 64.
29
Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts, pages 127, 128: “Each page is written in brown ink ... One
corrector went through the manuscript very soon after the time of the original writing. A second corrector worked at
a much later date, probably tenth or eleventh century. The latter traced over the pale letters with fresh ink.” Compare
McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X, page 731:
[A]pparently about the 8th century [a second hand] retraced, with as much care as such an operation would
admit, the faint lines of the original writing (the ink whereof was, perhaps, never quite black), the remains of
determine the color of the point used in Romans 9:5, the fact is a point is used and that is what
relates most of all to the subject of this paper, namely, a review of the use of punctuation marks
in early Greek NT texts. I can, however, go a bit further where it concerns the potential
originality of the marks in B in both Romans 9:5 and Luke 23:43, that is, by using evidence from
those who appear to have inspected and subsequently reported on the use of punctuation in these
texts in Codex B.
As with Codex A (similar also to Codex C and to a host of other Greek texts30), Codex B uses a
full point in Romans 9:5 after the word for “flesh,” which appears to indicate a pause or a stop,
for breathing or for reflection on the part of the scribe or the reader, that is, before proceeding
with the balance of the text or with the rest of any connected thought. So there is no disputing the
fact that, once again, in one of the earliest and best witnesses to the Greek text of the NT there is
a mark of punctuation. But is this mark original, or was it made by early or by later correctors to
Codex B? That this question is not new can be seen from Smith’s remarks:
In regard to the Vatican (B), I readily admit, the age of the stop may be fairly considered
doubtful. Cardinal Pitra, by whom on one occasion the Manuscript was shewn [sic] to me,
and to whom I pointed it out, observed at once that it might be of later date than the writing.
On the other hand, Tischendorf holds that many of the stops in B are a prima manu [= “first
hand”]; and I do not know of any good reason why this particular point [in Romans 9:5]
should not be one of them.31
Apparently, the ink color did not come up during the showing of B by Cardinal Pitra to Smith,
otherwise Smith would not conclude as he does above by noting he has ‘no good reason’ to
discount the originality of the point. Therefore, consider Abbot’s remarks regarding the color of
the point:
The facts as to the Vatican MS. are these. ... The later hand, of the tenth or eleventh century,
has but rarely supplied points. ... The original scribe indicates a pause, sometimes by a small
space simply; sometimes by such a space with a point, and sometimes by a point with very
small space between the letters or none at all. ... It is expressly stated by a gentlemen who
recently examined the MS., and whose letter from Rome I have been permitted to see, that the
point after saÈrka [in Romans 9:5] “is of lighter color than the adjoining letters,” and that it
was certainly much fainter than a point in the space after hmwn on the same page, “which was
as black as the touched letters.”32
which can even now be seen; and, at the same time, the reviser left untouched such words or letters as he wished,
for critical purposes, to reject, and these still express the original condition of the MS., being unaccented.
30
Abbot, “Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5,” page 107, wrote:
I can now name, besides the uncials A, B, C, L, ... at least twenty-six cursives which have a stop after saÈrka
[“flesh”], the same in general which they have after aijw'na" or jAmhÈn. In all probability, the result of an
examination would show that three-quarters or four-fifths of the cursive MSS. containg [sic (‘containing’)] Rom.
ix 5 have a stop after saÈrka.
Abbot’s conclusion has been accepted almost without qualification by Metzger (see “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,”
page 97) and by Harris (see Jesus as God, page 149).
31
Smith, “Additional Note on Romans IX. 5,” page 233 (underlining added).
32
Abbot, “On the Construction of Romans ix. 5,” pages 150-151 (underlining added). This provides further support
for my contention that the difference in point color is essential to determine before attempting to broadly brush all
Here is where the mishandling of other marks of punctuation by Trinitarians from Lattey, to
Metzger, to Harris really got the discussion about punctuation marks in early Greek NT texts
really far off track. Nearly ninety years ago Lattey attempted to dismiss a part of the evidence
against his preferred view of Romans 9:5, which evidence was in the form of punctuation marks
(and spaces!) which are evident in Codex A and Codex B by writing, “in any case the Vaticanus
presents no more difficulty than the Alexandrinus”!33 Lattey then further explains what he
means:
I have inspected carefully the Vatican phototype of 1889, and find a similar colon without a
space after saÈrka at the end of Ro 93, after both occurrences of jIsrahÈl in v.6, after jAbraaÈm
in v.7, JRebeÈkka in v.10, and aujtou' in v.22. These instances will doubtless be judged sufficient
to settle the point.34
What point is that? That there is really no point to all these points! Note Metzger’s near complete
restatement and furtherance of Lattey’s above assessment fifty years later:
In estimating the significance of the preceding data one should also take into account the
quite erratic punctuation contained in early manuscripts for other verses of chap. 9. Thus,
codex Vaticanus has a colon at the end of 9:3, after both occurrences of jIsrahÈl in verse 6,
after jAbraaÈm in verse 7, JRebeÈkka in verse 10, and aujtou' in verse 22! Codex Alexandrinus
has a colon after megaÈlh in verse 2, one between Cristou' and uJpeÈr and another after
saÈrka in verse 3, and one after jIsrahli'tai in verse 4.35
More recently Harris has also repeated Lattey’s argument and Metzger’s additions in support of
Harris’ own conclusion that “in the early centuries the scribes responsible for the transmission of
the NT used marks of punctuation in an inconsistent and erratic fashion.”36 Yet, Lattey, Metzger,
and Harris do not present a sufficient case for or against an “inconsistent and erratic” use of
punctuation according to each text, according to each evident hand in each text, and according to
each separate color ink which may be attributable to different scribes during earlier, during the
same, or during later periods.
Lattey (followed by Metzger and by Harris) refers to “a similar colon without a space after
saÈrka at the end of Ro 93,” but this is the same pausing or stopping point as we find in verse 5
(katasarka∙), though the point in B in both places is nearer the top of a and also a natural
place to draw a breath before continuing with the reading (even reading as one is copying for
other readers) since the breath is released at the end of saÈrka and it is drawn in again before
beginning the (rough breathing) pronunciation of both oi{tine" in verse 4 and before breathing
out and pronouncing oJ w]n in verse 5.
marks in a particular text as if they are by the same hand or for the same reasons; rather, they should be evaluated
according to each determinable hand’s reading, writing, re-inking, or other discernable but related scribal practice.
33
Cuthbert Lattey, “The Codex Vaticanus on Romans ix. 5,” The Expository Times 34 (1922-1923), page 331. See
also page 7, notes 18 and 19, for Lattey’s obvious disappointment in the outcome of his inquiry concerning the
punctuation of Romans 9:5 in Codex C.
34
Lattey, “The Codex Vaticanus on Romans ix. 5,” page 331.
35
Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” page 99.
36
Harris, Jesus as God, page 149.
Lattey, Metzger, and Harris all consider the point “after both occurrences of jIsrahÈl in verse 6”
to be a further “inconsistent and erratic” (Harris) use of punctuation. But they are all three wrong
about the use of the first mark, which is a rough breathing mark added to the start of ou|toi,
while the point after the second occurrence of “Israel” in verse 6 is quite appropriate in ending or
pausing the thought. Therefore, any argument to the contrary should have to show otherwise by
good reasons rather than or before simply dismissing as of little or even as of no value the use of
points, marks, spaces, or other symbols related to the reading or punctuation of early Greek NT
texts.
Further, Lattey, Metzger, and Harris all three consider the point after jAbraaÈm in verse 7, the
point after JRebeÈkka in verse 10, and the point after aujtou' in verse 22 to be further examples of
an inconsistent/erratic use of punctuation here in Codex B. Yet, not one of these three even
attempts to make any sense out of their examples by considering the potentially different hands
and inks used to punctuate the text in different places, for example, by considering the possible
reading or breathing patterns discernable by the hand of each scribe.37 Lattey, Metzger, and
Harris all three basically throw up their hands in resignation of the matter after citing a plethora
of examples they do not even try to understand meaningfully, leaving it to the likely much less
educated reader to try and make sense out of what they appear to consider nonsense, that is, if the
use of such points is taken seriously in early Greek NT texts!
The fact is, there is nothing so obviously “inconsistent and erratic” with the placement of these
marks according to the practice of the scribe(s) who used them that we should essentially
abandon their potential (even likely, in many cases) importance for a proper interpretation of
specific texts according to one or more scribal hands which may be identified as involved in
some way with a particular text’s transmission. Today, with the growing availability of early
Greek NT texts online and in print, no one can credibly dismiss marks of punctuation as if they
are of little or no importance for our interpretation of that same text, nor can we any longer
consider such marks as too “erratic,” and so effectively useless when it comes to translation or
interpretation. Further, such marks should not be considered alone, that is, apart from the other
indications of meaning in the text. Yet, these appear to be the views associated in large part with
37
And even if they did these things, Harris would not care much for it at all it seems. Consider his rather astounding
conclusion:
Even if consistency were apparent, one could not move with any degree of confidence from the presence of a
punctuation mark in a manuscript to the exegetical view of the scribe. Nor is there manuscript evidence of a
colon after saÈrka before the fifth century. At most one may say that many ancient scribes regarded a pause after
saÈrka as natural or necessary. [Harris, Jesus as God, page 149.]
“At most”? That is what most have said and do say about the use of such marks and, if “many ancient scribes” used
such marks for “a pause” that was considered (with my underlining) “natural or necessary” then why is it not also
considered “necessary” in many places in our modern Greek NT texts and in text-critical studies of them today?
Further, notice that when Harris writes there is no “manuscript evidence of a colon after saÈrka before the fifth
century,” he relies on the assumed “second hand” of Codex B when, as I have shown through my citation and my
evaluation of those who have seen the original Codex B in this text, it is more likely by the first hand due to the
color of the point in comparison with the ink color used by later scribes (see pages 12-14). Indeed, in his remarks
Harris makes of little importance Codex A and Codex C (even removing the cross and the small space from his main
text’s listing of the texts on page 149 down to Harris’ note 14 on that same page [in Harris’ Jesus as God]), both of
which support the reading in B. For the understanding of Christian Witnesses of Jah concerning the use of terms for
“G-god” in the Bible, see Chapter 2 of my Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, Third
Edition [Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009]). See also my Second Edition (2000), pages 143-152 for my previous
discussion of Romans 9:5, and page 144, note 39, of my Second Edition for some of my earlier observations on the
use of punctuation marks in some early Greek texts.
the use of punctuation marks in ancient Greek in some of the more well-known, established, or
otherwise popular works on Greek grammar, NT text critical and exegetical works and journals,
and Trinitarian apologetics (for some examples, see pages 2-10 of this paper).
Returning to the examples given by Lattey, by Metzger, and by Harris, to have a pause or stop
indicated after jAbraaÈm in verse 7 of Codex B is quite easy to accept as natural for the scribe
who, absent the assumption that the point is an accident (for which the burden of proof is entirely
on the one who makes such a claim, as its location suggests the mark was intentional), used a
mark of punctuation here and elsewhere in Codex B. Indeed, the same middle or high(er) point is
used in the same place after abraam in Codex A; therefore, both scribes had the same or a
similar thought separation or other moment of pause at the same spot in the same verse.
The mark in this text appears to me clearly to provide a natural pause point for a full (mental or
audible) reading of spermaabraam (with heavy accent on the ultima of abraam)
which is then restated more expressly and (potentially) reflectively on the part of the scribe by
pantestekna, and which naturally terminates into a pause or a stop before what is also an
a-vowel beginning, superordinate conjunction (all’) introducing a more important but very
much connected thought.
Since the point after aabraam is middle or high, with the point after tekna by contrast
being low, it appears (without knowing for sure the color of each mark) that Codex B separates
“the seed of Abraham” in the first part of verse 7 from “the seed” in the latter part as it relates to
the promise fulfilled through his descendant (Isaac). After the scribe of B paused with a middle
or a high point after israhl, he used the equivalent of a colon after spermaabraam,
which then makes perfect sense of the following pantestekna, and which quite naturally
makes for another pause with the middle or high point before all’, the first part of a separately
introduced but connected thought. This is also precisely what we have in verse 8!38
Similarly, in our verse 10 the point makes good sense indicating a pause after JRebeÈkka before
the scribe/reader (after the final, short release of breath at the end of the preceding proper name)
proceeds with ejx eJnoÉ" and with what follows, which provides a natural pausing point in both
thought and in writing. Finally, the point after aujtou' in verse 22 is also an obvious pausing point
with aujtou' as the last word in the first part of the sentence setting up a contrast with what begins
with h;negken, and so it becomes a natural place (that is, after aujtou') to indicate a pause before
pronouncing the first word of the next part of the sentence or thought.
Metzger also points to Romans Chapter 9 in Codex Alexandrinus and he questions several marks
in it, namely, the points after megaÈlh in verse 2, between Cristou' and uJpeÈr and after saÈrka in
verse 3, as well as after jIsrahli'tai in verse 4. But, again, each instance mentioned by Metzger
is easily explainable according to the text and a reasonably discernable scribal practice. For
example, a short pause after megaÈlh in verse 2 fits quite well with the release of breath following
the final syllable and, in fact, I believe it is required here at this part in the sentence before
proceeding with kaiÉ (try reading it without a short pause). The same is true when pronouncing
the abbreviated genitive form of “Christ” which immediately precedes the rough breathing
required for uJpeÈr. This is also apparently, at least in part, why there is a pause indicated after
38
Note the contrast here (with underlining added but with no line over the abbreviation of the nomina sacra [which
is in the text]), outateknathssarkosta[uta]teknatouqu∙allatatekna, which continues
with, thsepaggeliaslogizetaieissperma, at the end of which is a high point ending this thought.
saÈrka at the end of our verse 3. As I explained earlier, the breath is released at the end of saÈrka
and it is drawn in again before beginning the rough breathing pronunciation of oi{tine" in verse
4 and also before breathing out while pronouncing oJ w]n in verse 5.
As for the use of a mark of punctuation in Codex A in verse 4 after jIsrahli'tai, it is hardly
“quite erratic” (so described by Metzger, followed by Harris). A mark of punctuation here in
verse 4 appears to me to be very natural and explainable, used as it is where there is a natural
release of breath following jIsrahli'tai, but where it also seems required before taking in the
breath needed before proceeding with what is in Codex A a double rough breathing in w|n oJ.
In addition to questioning the use and the importance of marks of punctuation found in the above
examples, Metzger went even further than Lattey in attempting to dismiss other explainable uses
of punctuation marks or points in early Greek NT texts. Metzger (followed by Harris) wrote:
According to information supplied by the Münster Institut[e], FP also has a point in the middle
position after pateÈra", after the first oJ, after w[n, after eujlogou'nte", after eij", after touÈ",
and after aijw'na", as well as a high point after the second w|n, a low point after the second oJ,
and a cluster of two points and a comma after ajmhÈn. GP, besides having a point in the middle
position after saÈrka, has a similar point after pateÈra", after the first oJ, after w[n, after qeoÈ",
and after aijw'na". K has a low point after pateÈra", two points (:) after saÈrka, followed on
the next line by commentary, and two points (:) after ajmhÈn, followed by commentary. L,
besides having a high point after saÈrka, has a point in the middle position after pateÈra", a
comma after qeoÈ", and a point in the middle position after ajmhÈn, followed by teÈlo" in the
next line. P has a lacuna [missing text] from 8:8 to 9:11. 056 has a high point after
pateÈra" and another after ajmhÈn, followed by a space and commentary. 0142 has a point in the
middle position after pateÈra" and a high point after ajmhÈn, followed by commentary. 0151 has
two dots (:) after ajmhÈn, followed by commentary on the next line.39
But neither Metzger nor Harris even attempt to make sense out of the points used in the above
cited examples, even though there is a difference between them and the earliest Greek NT texts
containing Romans 9:5 of over four-five hundred years!40 Indeed, all of the texts referred to by
Metzger above as containing marks of punctuation are from a time when the system of
punctuation was also, apparently, radically changing.41
39
Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” page 98. Harris, Jesus as God, pages 148-149.
40
All of the above texts cited by Metzger are from the ninth century CE or later, and so nowhere close to the type of
punctuated texts which we have in the uncials and papyri of the fifth and earlier centuries CE. Metzger cites FP (also
known as F2 and as Codex Augiensis) and GP (also known as G3 and as Codex Harleianus), both from the ninth
century CE, and “both of them probably go back one or two generations to a common archetype” (Metzger, The Text
of the New Testament, page 53). Metzger’s “Münster report” also refers to Codex L (though he must have meant Lap
[L2], since L contains the four Gospels) also of the ninth century CE, as well as to uncial 056 of the tenth century, to
uncial 0142 of the tenth century, and to uncial 0151 of the ninth century, none of which have marks in the places
noted by “the Münster report” which cannot be reasonably explained according to possible or even likely scribal
practices associated with each discernable hand.
41
See Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, page 242, who
writes: “gradually changes came over these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became
the full stop, the middle point vanished, and about the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place. About this
time also the question-mark (;) or ejrwthmatikoÈn appeared”; and Hatch (The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the
New Testament, page 24 [compare also Hatch’s note 2], “This system of punctuation [including the use of three
types of points], like the breathings and accents mentioned above, is commonly ascribed to Aristophanes of
There is, therefore, no good reason to consider marks of punctuation which are so obviously
different from those used hundreds of years earlier as if they are or as if they should be viewed as
of the same or of similar import, purpose, or quality. The scribe of B is clearly a professional and
so it should be distinguished not only from other texts of less quality from around the same
time,42 but also from texts such as both FP and GP , texts in which the “dot is most freely used,”
so much so that in 1 Timothy 3:16 in “F ... each word [is] divided from the next by a dot”!43
Again, these are hardly the types of texts with which to compare in any sense with B or with
other earlier uncials and papyri of similar quality.44 But not comparing the right texts or by not
evaluating more closely the texts in question, the inks used, and the likely marks of punctuation,
has for far too long led to the advancement of erroneous opinions about the use of punctuation in
ancient Greek. These erroneous beliefs have in turn helped stifle deeper study into these possible
marks of punctuation, even when it comes to the possible meaning of several important texts
(such as Luke 23:43, John 1:3, and Romans 9:5). Amazingly, the Alands’ greatest obstacle to
accurately assessing different marks of punctuation in Greek texts may have been the quality of
their own microfilm copies. According to Wallace (with my underlining), “the microfilms in
Münster are, to put it charitably, of very poor quality, at times even illegible.”45 Whether “the
Byzantium. The comma (,) came into use in the ninth century, and the interrogation point (;) was introduced in the
eighth or ninth century.”
42
See P.M. Head and M. Warren, “Re-inking the Pen: Evidence from P.Oxy. 657 (P13) concerning unintentional
scribal errors,” online version (link: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Reinking.htm [last accessed
on February 7, 2011]). Note the opening words of their section III.:
The best scribes clearly took care that the process of re-inking their reed pen did not adversely effect the
presentation of their document. Among less competent scribes, however, the gradual fading of the letters is
sometimes followed by a dramatic bolder word or two. In the early period very clear examples of this can be
found in P.Oxy. 657, a manuscript containing portions of Hebrews and dated to around AD 300. Various lines of
evidence suggest that the scribe responsible for this manuscript should be classified as ‘non-professional’. In the
first place, an analysis of the manuscript reveals a distinct lack of discipline in column width and a wide variation
in the number of lines per column, neither of which would characterise [sic] a professional scribe paid by the
line.
Clearly, P.Oxy 657 is nothing like B in its textual quality or scribal hand(s)! Yet, even in P.Oxy 657 there are a
number of locations of “re-inking” which “occur at natural divisions in the text, often corresponding with
punctuation marks of one form or another” (Head and Warren, “Re-inking the Pen: Evidence from P.Oxy. 657
[P13],” online version, section III., paragraph 3).
43
Moulton and Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. II, Accidence and Word-Formation, page 47.
44
Yet, Moulton-Howard (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. II, Accidence and Word-Formation, page 47
[underlining added]) conclude by repeating Gregory’s claim, “no argument towards a right punctuation can be
drawn from the barrenness of the earlier or the abundance of the later signs.” This is similar to Abbot’s near-
concluding remark in his “On the Construction of Romans ix. 5,” page 152. But Abbot there also distinguishes
between punctuation that is of “exceedingly small importance” where “we cannot infer with confidence the
construction given to the punctuator” (but if we can with confidence do so, it is certainly not of “exceedingly small
importance”), with what Abbot “argued from the point after saÈrka in A B C L, &c.,” namely, “that a pause after
that word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural.” Such a pause here is not “exceedingly small” in “importance,”
for it is the representation of some of the best available texts. Those responsible for these texts should, at the very
least, indicate the more ‘confident’ uses (by the first, by the second, or by any later hands) of punctuation in textual
studies and materials, and then continue to try and better understand the possible or likely indications of these marks
of punctuation. Denying or misrepresenting the existence of marks of punctuation in ancient Greek is not an
acceptable alternative.
45
Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,” page 97.
Münster report” fell victim to the poor quality of its own microfilms, it very well may have kept
the Alands from at times rightly assessing the original hands or inks used, particularly in Codex
B (see my page 13, note 27).
In addition to sharing an unfortunate history with others regarding the use of punctuation marks
in early Greek NT texts, the further shortcomings of the Alands’ and of the United Bible
Societies’ concerning the text of the New Testament and of related literature have been revealed
by Borger. Allow me to string together some comments from his recent article, comments which
hold nothing back but behind which are much learning through history and experience with those
whom many of us know only through the writings and texts which bear their name:
In ... [1982], K. Aland and B. Aland denounced BAG as on “öffentlicher Skandal” [public
scandal] — apparently either they did not know BAGD (1979) at all, or they had condemned
it a priori. Clearly this attack was written from memory, without having the corpus delicti
[the “dead body”] at hand. ... In the second edition, K. and B. Aland have silently withdrawn
the “public scandal” and admitted that they did not understand their enigmatical sentence. ...
Concerning NA26 and “Bauer-Aland,” Aland’s left hand did not know what his right hand
was doing. That may be in agreement with Scripture, but it has caused a lot of trouble. Aland
should have checked his own selection of variants against NA25, Tischendorf’s Octava (at
least the Octava minor) and Merck9. The de facto meaning of “Hss.” is: “Sorry, here the
critical apparatus of NA26 lets you down, but have a look at Tischendorf, etc.” Aland had a
rather strained relationship to secondary literature (especially from beyond the boundaries of
Germany) and was apparently proud of having removed a considerable number of Bauer’s
bibliographical references. Needless to say, this destruction of Bauer’s labors is inexcusable.
... While working on my GGA article, I tried to find out which writings from early Christian
literature had been quoted by Aland (and Bauer). The manner in which the POxy. 1081
(Sophia Jesu Christi) was dealt with by the Alands particularly horrified me. The whole
Münster Institute had not managed to establish the Greek papyrus from the Coptic version
before quoting it in the dictionary. ... Too often ecclesiastical dignitaries—Roman Catholic
and Protestant—have authoritatively pronounced opinions about questions of biblical
philology that were totally wrong, thereby abusing the trust of their believers. When Bishop
Kunst had published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung his optimistic thesis about “NT
regained,” in a letter to him I formulated the following pessimistic thesis of my own:
New Testament textual criticism from the time of Erasmus onward has been detrimental
to Christian virtues. It has turned out to be a breeding-ground of rabbies theologorum. It
should be abolished for ethical reasons. Fortunately, even comprehensive NT
commentaries do care very little for textual criticism anyhow.46
It is hard to closely consider the above without also thinking of the long-standing deficiencies47
in many works on textual criticism, in Greek grammars, and in other works which comment on
46
Borger, “Remarks of an Outsider about Bauer’s Wörterbuch, BAGD, BDAG, and Their Textual Basis,” pages 33,
34, 44, 45, 46-47 (bracketed comments are mine).
47
Compare the sentiments expressed over eighty (80) years ago by Cuthbert Lattey, “The Punctuation of New
Testament Manuscripts,” JTS 29.116 (July, 1928), page 396 (with underlining added):
I take this opportunity to refer to a matter which I feel to be of considerable importance. An admirable enterprise
is on foot, of editing a reliable record of all New Testament readings up to date. I would plead that this ought to
include a reliable record of the punctuation also, at least of the more important manuscripts which are
punctuated. The precise value of the punctuation is still rather uncertain, but in some cases it may well be very
early.
[Note 47 is continued on the next page.]

(or which omit entirely, but for no good reasons) the use of punctuation marks in ancient Greek
and in early Greek NT texts.
On page 12 I mentioned Luke 23:43 together with Romans 9:5 as examples of where in Codex B
marks of punctuation are used. While the lower point after “today,” before the word for “with”
(and so: shmeron.met) is easily viewable in nearly any available copy of Codex B, because
this text comes up often in discussions concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses and the punctuation of it
in the New World Translation, on November 8, 1994, a Witness named Nelson Herle, Jr., wrote
to the Vatican and asked about the ink color of the lower point used after the Greek word for
“today” in Luke 23:43. On page 22 I have provided a copy of Herle’s letter along with the
Vatican’s handwritten response which was given directly on Herle’s letter, and which I have
transcribed diagonal from the right of the handwriting (indicated by an arrow) along with
providing a copy of the postmark for the return reply from Rome.
Following the reply by the Vatican, Herle sent out copies to many people interested in this
subject, one of whom was a gentleman named Rudy Carmona. Being interested in textual studies
as well as with the interpretation of biblical texts, Carmona wrote to the Vatican to question the
correctness of the first response from Rome to Herle which, though dating the mark to the
“Fourth century,” also indicated that the mark “seems to be the same as that of the letters of the
text.” Carmona understood from his studies on Codex B that more than one hand was involved in
the transmittal of the text, and so he wrote to the Vatican to further question the originality of the
mark of punctuation on February 24, 1995.
On the pages 23-25 I have reproduced the letter from Carmona to the Vatican which also
contains Rome’s reply, again handwritten on the received letter, along with underlining,
checkmarks, and with other marks as part of the Vatican’s response to Carmona. A transcription
of the Vatican’s reply to Carmona in the order of the handwriting’s appearance is provided after
the copy of the letter and it is enclosed in brackets. As the response from Rome states clearly, the
color of the lower point in Codex B in Luke 23:43 after the Greek word for “today” is brown, not
black or dark, as is the ink of the second or even the much later corrector.
Even if it were a mark by one of the other two, later scribes it would still serve as an indication
of the belief of the scribe identified about how the text was understood at the time it was later
“corrected.” But since the point is apparently of the original “brown” color, then the mark after
“today” in Codex B in Luke 23:43 should be included as part of the good reasons which indicate
the correct understanding of Luke 23:43, according to one of the best available texts. Again, this
is no “exceedingly small” matter. Therefore, separately I will return to a discussion of this text as
it appears in Codex B and in other Greek NT texts and early versions, and provide what I
consider the interpretation of Luke 23:43 which follows from the best available evidence.48
Lattey is then immediately contradicted under the same article heading by C.F. Burkitt, who in doing so expresses
the same type of error still continued by some today, namely (with my underlining and bracketed exclamation):
The point raised by Fr Lattey is important, but it is one that raises great difficulties for an Editor of a critical
apparatus. In a certain sense the punctuation of an ancient Greek work is no part of the original tradition [!]; a
properly written Greek paragraph goes in theory from the beginning to the end without punctuation, the
beginnings and the due subordination of the several sentences being sufficiently indicated by the appropriate
particles. [Burkitt, “The Punctuation of New Testament Manuscripts,” page 397.]
48
See also my prior discussion of Luke 23:43 in my Appendix A in Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to
Scholars and Critics, Second Edition (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), pages 545-560.
November 8, 1994
Letter from Nelson Herle, Jr., to the Vatican, Rome, Italy, with Handwritten Response
February 24, 1995

Letter from Rudy Carmona to the Vatican, Rome, Italy, with Handwritten Response
BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION OF HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE BY VATICAN TO CARMONA LETTER:
[What is yours?
The person in question

Is a member of the Academic staff of the Library, and is a Greek Patristics specialist
brown
many (after crossing out “most” and adding a line [GS])
It is rather obvious!
it is (with line added to the word “faded” [GS])

No
No
No
A complete color facsimile of Codex B will be published shortly (but

exactly when is still up in the air) by the Istituto Polifratico
dello Stato, the Italian State publishing house. We have
no idea what the price will be, but it will be hefty.]
[END OF THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE BY THE VATICAN.]

Early NT Texts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early NT Texts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early NT Texts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elihu Online Papers

Elihu Books, LLC

Elihu continued and said:

Punctuation in Early Greek New Testament Texts

Robertson’s larger Grammar,7 there is a discussion on “Punctuation” in which Robertson states

[Note 47 is continued on the next page.]

February 24, 1995

BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION OF HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE BY VATICAN TO CARMONA LETTER:

The person in question

it is (with line added to the word “faded” [GS])

A complete color facsimile of Codex B will be published shortly (but

[END OF THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE BY THE VATICAN.]

You might also like