BillMounce.com

As we know, there were not any punctuation marks in the original text, and yet modern convention requires some and in so doing raises some interesting questions.

Take John 3:16 for example. If a person's talking requires several paragraphs, modern conventions is to put a quotation mark at the beginning of each paragraph, but only one quotation mark is included, and that at the end of the last paragraph. In other words, all of the paragraphs except for the last one do not close with a quotation mark.

There is a subtle change from the NIV to the TNIV (simply as an illustration, not as a comment on the translations). The NIV does not include a closing quotation mark on John 3:15, and includes a starting quotation mark with John 3:16. In other words, Jesus is still talking. The TNIV, however, reverses this. It includes a closing quotation mark on John 3:15 and does not include a beginning quotation mark with John 3:16. In other words, Jesus is no longer speaking.

I don’t think I have ever been in a Greek class — either as a student or a teacher — in which punctuation was discussed as a tool for translation. We look at case and tenses and the meanings of words, but not how punctuation can help convey the meaning of the passage.

This is not a good thing. Because Greek uses endings (for the most part) to convey the relationships among words, Greek can insert words and even phrases between two related words (or phrases). English, on the other hand, uses word order and proximity to indicate relationships. In the sentence, “The black cat chased the little mouse,” we know the cat is black and the mouse is little because “black” is close to “cat” and “little” is close to “mouse.” But this does not work in Greek.

Consider Romans 3:25 (TNIV). “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.” Why the dash? Word for word the Greek reads, “whom he presented God a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” What do the two prepositional phrases modify? Are we to have faith in his blood as the King James translates?

I've been musing on the role of punctuation in translation, and last week we looked at the dash in Romans 3:25. In v 27 there is an excellent illustration of another effective use of punctuation: quotation marks.

Paul has been talking about righteousness coming not through law but through faith. He writes, "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the 'law' that requires faith" (TNIV). Notice the second use of law is in quotation marks. What's going on?

Even dynamic translation theory sees the value in what is called "concordance." (The terms change for "dynamic." Currently it is called "functional equivalence.") Concordance is the practice of using the same English word for the same Greek word throughout a passage.

Concordance is not always possible. No one English word has the same range of meaning as one Greek word; and when the meaning of a single Greek word varies within the passage, dynamic translations alter the English. Combine this with the fact that English style generally views the consistent use of the same word as poor style, it is common to find paragraphs where the same Greek word is translated by several different English words. This is not bad translation. If you accept the dynamic translation philosophy, it is good translation as it translates meaning and not words.

In a world of dwindling sentence length and complex sentence structures, the semi-colon has fallen on hard times. It is too bad. It has the ability to stop the reader ever so slightly, and indicate that while there is some sequence of thought (much like a comma), there is also a stop (but of less strength than a period).

Case in point is Romans 9:4. Paul is expressing his deep desire for the salvation of the Jewish nation. In reciting their privileges he says, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (ESV). It reads as a sequence, a series of privileges given to the Jewish nation.

But note the TNIV translation and the effect of a semi-colon. “… the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” The semi-colon marks the national “adoption” as a primary privilege, and extending from that adoption they receive glory, covenants, etc. Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, you can see the value of punctuation in translation, albeit a nuanced value in this case.