PerryDox – BeJustAChristian

Punctuation changes the meaning. Consider these two well-known examples:
[ ] Let’s eat, Grandma.
[ ] Let’s eat Grandma.
Commas save lives, so goes the joke. That second one is dangerous for grandma! To understand further Interpretation by Punctuation, lets begin by laying the foundation:
[ ] For those who don’t know, when the OT and NT books were being written, punctuation was not used. That’s why translations differ, sometimes importantly, via punctuation.
[ ] The way the translators punctuate can change the meaning. That means, whether we admit to admit it or not, translators must be interpreters.
[ ] Paying attention to punctuation, and not just words, helps us become a more critical reader and better interpreter of what we read.
Building upon that foundation, let’s look at some Biblical examples which show how important it is to check different translations:
[ ] Whether the period comes before or after “in love” determines what it modifies (Ephesians 1: 4). The KJV and CSB read, “before him in love” (which I prefer). The ESV and NASB read, “before him. In love” (with the sentence then continuing into verse 5).
[ ] Whether there are 1 or 2 commas in Ephesians 4:12 determines how many purposes the gifts of v.11 serve. In the KJV, the verses read, “…For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” Notice three purposes for the work of the gifts listed. In the NKJV, the passage reads, “…for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” In this version, there is only one comma in verse 12, indicating a two-fold purpose.
[ ] One of the most notorious examples is called “the anti-Semitic comma” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. Here’s the NASB (among many) includes a comma: “14) For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15) who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men….” The comma after “the Jews” (v.14) can be grammatically interpreted generally to mean all Jews are guilty of killing Jesus. When a translation such as the CSB removes it, the only Jews under consideration are the specific ones who killed Jesus – “the Jews who killed Jesus”. I don’t think the NASB and others are anti-Semitic, but that is an example of how punctuation can change the meaning.
[ ] NET Jn 7:37-38: “On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, ‘From within him will flow rivers of living water.’”” Now compare that to this more common way of punctuation and interpretation – NASB John 7:37-38: “Now on the last day, the great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. ‘”” What’s the difference in interpretation? Who is Jesus referring to that has the Spirit (v.39) flowing within? Is he Jesus, or the believer?
All of the above leads to the following examples. Let’s look at one of the most controversial verses concerning the qualities or qualifications of overseers – Titus 1:6.
[ ] CSB’17 Titus 1:6: “An elder must be blameless: the husband of one wife, with faithful children who are not accused of wildness or rebellion.” Did you notice the colon after “blameless:”? That punctuation means all the qualifications are applications of being blameless. It’s not “blameless and”, but rather “blameless is….” While most translations have “blameless,” with a comma, that means it can be understood either way.
[ ] HCSB Titus 1:6: “one who is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion.” Did you notice there is no comma after “faithful children”? That lack of punctuation means “not accused of wildness or rebellion” modifies “faithful.” Look at it again: WITH – “having faithful children, not accused of wildness or rebellion.” WITHOUT – having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion.” Being faithful is not different than not being wild or rebellious which means “faithful” refers to the child’s character and not necessarily being a Christian.
The two above examples are not followed by every translation because punctuation is interpretation; and those interpretations are not the only ones. However we do see they are possibilities. This whole exercise shows that punctuation in a sentence decides how it should be read and makes the meaning clear. Become a critical reader. Read both the words and punctuation.