Section IV.

On the system of punctuation adopted in 1611, and modified in more recent Bibles.

“The question of punctuation,” to employ the language of the late Professor Grote2, “has two parts: one, respecting the general carrying it out for purposes of rhythm and distinction of sentences, independent of any question as to the meaning of the words; the other respecting the particular cases where different punctuation involves difference of meaning.” In regard to the first of these parts, much variety of practice will always exist, according to the age in which a writer lives, or the fashion which he has adopted for himself. Thus the edition of 1611 abounds with parentheses1 which are largely discarded in modern Bibles, wherein commas supply their place, unless indeed they are left unrepresented altogether. The note of admiration, which is seldom met with in the old black-letter copies (wherein the note of interrogation usually stands in its room: e.g. Prov. xix. 7) is scattered more thickly over Blayney’s pages than the taste of the present times would approve. Upon the whole, while the system of recent punctuation is heavier and more elaborate than necessity requires, and might be lightened to advantage, as in this volume has been attempted2; that of the standard of 1611 is too scanty to afford the guidance needed by the voice and eye in the act of public reading. “It is a torture to read aloud from, as those who have had to do it know3.” Grote contrasts it in this particular with a Cambridge edition of 1683, into which more changes in the stops were admitted than later books cared to follow, and whose punctuation differs in fact but little from that in vogue in recent times.

The case in which difference of punctuation involves difference of meaning cannot be thus summarily dismissed. Since interpretation is now concerned, rather than arbitrary liking or convenience, the principles laid down in the First Section are strictly applicable here (pp. x., xiv.). The stops found in the original ought not to be altered unless the sense they assign be not merely doubtful, but manifestly wrong4. Modern changes, if still abided by, should be scrupulously recorded, and their retention can be justified only by the consideration that it is at once pedantic and improper to restore errors of the standard Bible which have once been banished out of sight. The following list will be found to contain all divergencies of punctuation from that prevailing in recent editions, not being too insignificant to deserve special notice, which can be supposed to influence the sense. They naturally divide themselves into two classes, those which are, and those which are not, countenanced by the two issues of 1611.

I. The stops of 1611 are retained in preference to those of later Bibles, there being no strong reason to the contrary, in

Gen. xxxi. 40, “Thus I was in the day, the drought consumed me,” 1611, after Masoretic stops, LXX., Vulg., against the Bishops’, 1638–1769, moderns, who have “Thus I was; (, 1638–1762) in the day the drought consumed me.” Lev. iv. 2, “(concerning things which ought not to be done).” Here 1769 and the moderns reject the parenthesis of the earlier books, which, though not found in vv. 13, 22, 27, tends to relieve a hard construction. Joshua iii. 16, “very far, from the city Adam,” 1611–1630. In 1629 Camb. and subsequent editions the comma after “far” is removed, but the other distribution is not less probable. 1 Kin. xii. 32, “and he || offered upon the altar (so did he in Bethel,) || sacrificing.” The moderns, after 1769, punctuate “and he || offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, || sacrificing:” against the Hebrew stops, Zakephkaton standing over both “altar” and “Bethel;” and rendering the margin (which provides for וַיַּעַל, being the Kal rather than the Hiphil conjugation) quite unintelligible. xix. 5, “behold then, an angel” (וְהִנֵּה־זֶה): “behold, then an angel,” 1769, moderns. Neh. ix. 4, “upon the stairs of the Levites,” (עַל־מַֽעֲלֵה֣ הַֽלְוִיִֹּם): “upon the stairs, of the Levites,” 1769, moderns. ver. 5, “Jeshua and Kadmiel,” (cf. Ezra ii. 40): “Jeshua, and Kadmiel,” 1769, moderns. Job xix. 28, “persecute we him?…found in me.” 1611–1617. But 1629 Lond., 1630 place (?) also after “me:” 1629 Camb., 1638, moderns, transfer the second clause into the oratio obliqua “persecute we him,…found in me?” xxxi. 30. This verse is rightly set in a parenthesis in 1611–1744, which 1762, moderns, remove. xxxiii. 5, “If thou canst, answer me,” as in ver. 32. The first comma is removed in 1629 Camb. (not 1629 Lond., 1630) and all modern books. xl. 24 marg. “or bore,” 1611: “or bore,” 1629, 1638, Bagster 1846. But 1744, 1762, moderns, “or, bore,” quite absurdly. Psalm ii. 12, “but a little: Blessed,” 1611–1744, “but a little. Blessed,” 1762 mod.5 lxxix. 5, “wilt thou be angry, for ever?” Cf. Ps. xiii. 1; lxxxix. 46. The comma is removed by 1616 (not 1617, 1630), 1629 Camb., &c. ver. 11, “come before thee, According to the greatness of thy power: Preserve thou.” Thus 1611–1744, following the Hebrew punctuation. “come before thee; According to the greatness of thy power (, 1762 only) Preserve thou” 1769, moderns, very boldly, though approved by Canon Perowne. lxxxix. 46, “How long, Lord1, wilt thou hide thyself, for ever?” The third comma is removed in 1629, London and Camb. (not 1630), 1638, 1744, 1769 mod. In 1762 this comma is strengthened into a semicolon. Prov. i. 27. The final colon of 1611–1630 is clearly preferable to the full stop of 1629 Camb., moderns. xix. 2. Restore the comma before “sinneth” discarded in 1762: also in xxi. 28, that before “speaketh,” removed in 1769: both these for the sake of perspicuity. xxx. 1 fin. The full stop is changed into a comma by 1769 mod. Eccles. ii. 3, “(yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom).” In 1769 mod. the marks of parenthesis are rejected, and a semicolon placed after “wisdom.” Cant. vii. 9, “, For my beloved, that” 1611, &c. (“, For my beloved that,” 1629 Lond., 1630: almost preferable; cf. Heb.): “For my beloved, that” 1769, moderns. viii. 2, “, of the juice” 1611–1630: “of the juice” 1629 Camb., 1638, &c. Isai. xxiv. 14, “they shall sing,”. The comma is found only in 1611 (Oxford reprint, not Synd. A. 3. 14), and acknowledged by Vulg. and Field (“jubilabunt;”) as representing the Hebrew Athnakh. xlviii. 12, “,O Jacob, and Israel my called;” 1611–1630. But 1629 Camb. 1638 place commas after “Israel,” 1769 and the moderns join “Jacob and Israel,” against the Hebrew stops. Lam. ii. 4, “pleasant to the eye,” (cf. Heb. stop): 1769 mod. remove the comma. iv. 15, “, when they fled away and wandered:” (, for : in 1769 mod.). Hosea vii. 11, “a silly dove, without heart.” In 1629 Camb. and the moderns, the comma (which represents the Hebrew accent) is removed, as if “without heart” referred exclusively to the dove. Hagg. i. 1, 12, 14; ii. 2, remove comma of 1769 mod. after “Josedech.” Cf. Zech. i. 1.

2 Esdr. viii. 39, “and the reward that they shall have.”(et salvationis et mercedis receptionis, Vulg., but et salutis, et recipiendœ mercedis Junius): but 1762 mod. place a comma after “reward,” as if receptionis of Vulg. belonged also to salvationis. xii. 2, “and behold, the head that remained, and the four wings appeared no more.” In 1762 a comma is inserted after “wings:” in 1769 mod. both commas are removed. There is a pause in the sense after “remained,” such as a semicolon would perhaps better represent, before the vision in ch. xi. 18, &c., is repeated. Judith iv. 6, “toward the open country near to Dothaim (κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ πεδίου τοῦ πλησίον Δωθαΐμ, LXX.). Here 1629 Camb., 1630, &c., insert a comma before “near.” viii. 9, 10. In 1769 mod. the marks of parenthesis are withdrawn, to the detriment of perspicuity. xiv. 17, “After, he went” (καὶ εἰσῆλθεν, LXX.): 1629 Camb. (not 1630), 1638 mod. remove the necessary comma. Ecclus. xxxvii. 8, “(For he will counsel for himself):” 1769 mod. reject the marks of parenthesis, setting a semicolon after “himself”. ver. 11, “, of finishing” (περὶ συντελείας, LXX.): 1769 mod. obscure the sense by rejecting the comma. Baruch vi. 40, “that they are gods?” In 1629, &c., “gods,” the interrogation being thrown on the end of the verse. But compare, the refrains ver. 44, 52, 56, 65, to justify our arrangement of the paragraph. 1 Macc. vi. 51, “to cast darts, and slings.” The comma is removed in 1638 mod.

S. Matt. ix. 20–22, are inclosed in a parenthesis by 1611–1762, which 1769 rejects2. S. Mark iii. 17, and v. 41. The marks of parenthesis (of which 1769 mod. make too clean a riddance) are restored from 1611–1762. S. John ii. 15, “and the sheep and the oxen,” thus keeping the animals distinct from πάντας (“them all…with the sheep and oxen,” Bishops’). In 1630 (not 1638, 1743), 1762 mod., a comma intrudes after “sheep.” xviii. 3, “a band of men, and officers,” 1611–1762, thus distinguishing the Roman cohort from the Jewish ὑπηρέται (Archb. Trench). In 1769 mod. the comma is lost. Acts xi. 26, “taught much people, and the disciples were called,” 1611–1630: both verbs depending on ἐγένετο. Yet 1638–1743 substitute a semicolon for the comma, while 1762 mod. begin a new sentence after “people,” as if the editors had never glanced at the Greek. xviii. 18, “and Aquila: having shorn his head”, Paul being the person referred to in κειράμενος. By changing the colon into a semicolon, 1762 mod. render this more doubtful. Rom. i. 9, “, always in my prayers,” 1611, 1612, 1613. The first comma is removed in 1629 Camb. and London, 1630, &c.: the second changed into a semicolon by 1769 mod. Cf. 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4. iv. 1, “Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh,” 1611–1762. In 1769 mod. the comma is transferred from after “father” to before “our.” v. 13–17, were first inclosed in a parenthesis by 1769, which is followed by all moderns, even by the American Bible of 1867, though the American revisers of 1851 (see p. xxiii.) had removed it. It is worse than useless, inasmuch as it interrupts the course of the argument. viii. 33 fin. The colon of 1611–1762 is almost too great a break, yet 1769 mod. substitute a full stop. The semicolon of The Five Clergymen is quite sufficient. xv. 7, “received us,” 1611–1743. The comma is removed in 1762 mod. 1 Cor. vii. 5, “prayer,” 1611–1630. But 1638 mod. substitute a semicolon for the comma, as if to drive us to take the various reading συνέρχεσθε of Beza 1598 (see App. E, p. civ.), and the Elzevirs. viii. 7, “with conscience of the idol unto this hour,” 1611–1762, as if the reading ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου were accepted, (“with the yet abiding consciousness of the idol,”) or cf. Phil. i. 26, and Prof. Moulton’s Winer, p. 584. In 1769 mod. the comma is deleted. 2 Cor. xiii. 2, “as if I were present the second time,” 1611–1762. In 1769 mod. a comma is put in after “present,” through an obvious misconception. Eph. iii. 2–iv. 1 “of the Lord,” is wrongly set in a parenthesis by 1769 mod. (not American, 1867). Rather connect ch. iii. 1 with ver. 14. Phil. i. 11, “by Jesus Christ unto the glory…” In 1762 mod. a comma is inserted before “unto.” Col. ii. 11, “of the flesh,” the two clauses beginning with ἐν τῇ being parallel (cf. var. lect.), so that 1762 mod. wrongly remove the comma after “flesh.” 1 Thess. iii. 7 “, by your faith” 1611–1630, but 1629 London and Camb. and all after them wrongly omit the comma. 2 Thess. i. 8, “in flaming fire,” 1611–1762, connecting the words with ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, ver. 7. In 1769 mod. the comma is absent. Titus ii. 8, “sound speech that cannot…” The comma after “speech” in 1769 mod. obscures, rather than helps, the English. ver. 12, “teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live…” Thus the sentence runs in the Oxford reprint of 1611 and in 1612, and this is the safest plan in such a construction, but Synd. A. 3. 14 places a comma after “lusts,” and is followed by 1613 and the rest. In 1629 Camb., &c. another comma is set after “us,” which 1769 mod. do not improve upon by transposing it to after “that.” Heb. ii. 9, “lower than the angels,” In 1769 mod. this comma is removed, so as to compel us to take διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου with the preceding clause, to which it hardly seems to belong. iii. 7–11. Reject the marks of parenthesis introduced into modern Bibles in 1769. The American Bible of 1867 has them not. x. 12, “for ever, sat down.” So 1611–1630, plainly rejecting “is set down for ever” of Bishops’ Bible. This arrangement is supported by our standard Cambridge edition of 1858, and the American (1867), Bp. Christ. Wordsworth, &c., and is surely safer than “for ever sat down” of 1638–1769 and most moderns. xii. 23. Restore the comma of 1611–30 after “assembly”. xiii. 7. Restore the full stop of 1611 at the end of this verse, which 1762 mod. change to a colon. 2 Pet. ii. 14. The Greek compels us to reject the comma after “adultery” of 1743, mod. Jude 7, “the cities about them, in like manner…” The comma after “them” is injudiciously removed by 1638, 1699 (not 1743), while 1762 mod. increase the error by placing it after “in like manner.”

It would be endless, and answer no good purpose, to enumerate all the cases wherein minute but real improvements in the punctuation, introduced into editions subsequent to 1611, have been universally acquiesced in (e.g. Jer. xvii. 3; Dan. xi. 18; Bel & Drag. ver. 10; Matt. xix. 4; Rom. ii. 13–15; 1 Pet. v. 13). Some very strange oversights of the standard Bible, in this as in other particulars (see pp. x., xl.), were permitted to hold their place quite late. Thus in John xii. 20 “And there were certain Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the feast:” the intrusive comma lingered till 1769. The comma, which originally stood after “about midnight,” Acts xxvii. 27, was removed and set after “Adria” later than 1638. In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after “God” in Titus ii. 13 is fitly removed by 1769 mod., that “the great God and our Saviour” may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine Person. Luke xxiii. 32 affords us a rare instance of an important change in the stops subsequent to 1769 (we have not been able to trace it up earlier than D’Oyly and Mant’s Bible 1817) “And there were also two other malefactors,” where recent editors insert a comma before “malefactors”, in order to obviate the possibility of mistake in the meaning of a phrase which is rather Greek than English. They were rightly unwilling to adopt the alternative of changing the plural “other” into “others,” as the American Bible (1867) has unfortunately done1. The following chief additional changes in punctuation made in this volume, like those affecting the text itself (Appendix A, p. lxxxiii.), though usually sanctioned by respectable authority, occasionally by some of our own Bibles, must ultimately depend on their own merits for justification.

II. Passages in which the stops, as well of 1611 as of most later Bibles, have been altered in the present volume.

Ex. xi. 1–3 we have placed within a parenthesis, thus referring ver. 4 to ch. x. 29: Josh. vi. 1 might well be treated in the same manner. Josh. xv. 1, “even to the border of Edom” is better followed by a comma, as in 1762, than by the semicolon of 1611–1744: both stops are removed in 1769. 1 Kin. vii. 19, and xxi. 25, 26, should be set in parentheses, so as to connect closely the preceding and following verses in either case. xxi. 20. With 1617 (only) place a comma at the end of this verse, the protasis beginning with יַעַן ver. 20, the apodosis with הִנְנִי, ver. 21, just as in ch. xx. 36. Cf. also ch. xx. 42; xxi. 29. 2 Kin. xv. 25. Set a semicolon after Arieh, in place of the comma of 1611, &c. The “him” following refers to “Pekah,” not to “Arieh.” So Tremellius after Heb.2 Job iv. 6. See Appendix A. p. lxxiii. vi. 10, “Yea, I would harden myself in sorrow; let him not spare:” forms one line in the stichometry (Delitzsch). This does not appear in 1611–1744, which set a comma after “spare,” or in 1762 mod., which punctuate “: let him not spare.” xxviii. 3. Lighten the colon of 1611, &c., after “perfection” into a comma. “The stones” is governed by “searcheth out,” whether we consider לְכָל־תַּכִלית to be used adverbially, or no. Ps. cv. 6, “Ye children of Jacob, his chosen.” Unless the comma be inserted, “his chosen” would not be understood as plural. In 1 Chr. xvi. 13, a comma is inserted by 1769 mod. without much need. Ps. cvii. 35. End in a semicolon: yet all our Bibles have a full stop. Ps. cviii. 5, 6. All our Bibles except that of the Tract Society (1861) join these two verses, which seems an impossible arrangement (Perowne). Substitute a full stop for the colon of 1611 (which is made a semicolon by 1629 Camb. and the moderns) at the end of ver. 5, and a semicolon for the colon after “delivered,” as 1611 has in Ps. lx. 5. Prov. vi. 2. Since this verse, as well as ver. 1, is plainly hypothetical (Bp. Christ. Wordsworth), in spite of LXX., Vulg. and Tremellius, a comma must take the place of the full stop of 1611, &c. after “mouth.” viii. 2, “high places by the way.” Transfer the comma of 1611 from after “place” to after “way.” Eccles. iv. 1, “and behold,” 1629 Camb.—1762. In 1769 mod. the comma is removed though it is really wanted. Even the Hebrew has a distinctive mark (|) here. Cant. iii. 2, “In the streets and in the broad ways,” So LXX., the Hebrew punctuation and parallelism. In 1611, &c., the comma is transferred to a place after “streets,” thus joining the second clause with what follows. Isai. xi. 11, “his people, Which shall be left from Assyria,” So the Hebrew stops, the analogy of ver. 16 (recognized by 1611–1762, not by 1769 mod.), LXX., Vulg., Lowth, Field: “his people that shall be left, from Assyria” 1611–1762: in 1769 mod. another comma follows “people.” xxxii. 9. This verse is a distich, the true division of which after “voice” is plainer in Hebrew than in English. It is variously punctuated in our Bibles, but all agree in suggesting a false division into three lines, ending respectively at “ease,” “daughters,” “speech.” xxxviii. 10, “I said,” All insert the comma in ver. 11. Jer. xlviii. 29. Instead of the parenthesis which encloses “he is exceeding proud” in all our Bibles, substitute a semicolon before, a colon after the words, as in Isai. xvi. 6 in 1762 mod. Ezek. v. 6, “my judgments, and my statutes.” The comma, imperatively required by the Hebrew, was inserted in 1629 (both editions)—1762, discarded in 1769 mod. xxi. 29, “that are slain of the wicked.” The comma after “slain”, apparently employed by 1611, &c., to aid the voice, fails to represent the status constructus of the Hebrew. xlvi. 18, “by oppression to thrust them out” renders a single Hebrew word (oppressione deturbando eos, Trem.). Yet 1611–1630 separate the English by placing a comma after “oppression,” which 1762 mod. restore after it had been rejected by 1629 Camb., 1744. xlviii. 30, “of the city:” So the Hebrew stops. The Bishops’ Bible and 1611–1630 have a comma after “city,” which 1629 Camb. and the moderns omit altogether (cf. Wordsworth). Hosea ix. 15, “in Gilgal:” the colon of 1611 and the rest is too strong for the sense and the Hebrew accent. xii. 10. Remove the comma of 1611, &c., after “similitudes.” Cf. Heb. Micah vi. 5, “; From Shittim”, the inserted semicolon representing the Hebrew Athnakh (cf. Wordsworth). The Bishops’ Bible separates these words from the preceding, though only by a comma1.

2 Esdr. ii. 15 marg. “, as a dove,” with 1629–1744. In 1611 we have “as a dove:” in 1630 “, as a dove:” against the Latin. In 1762 mod. “, as a dove”, but our way seems safer. vii. 42, “is not the end, where…” Without the inserted comma, our version is hardly intelligible; in eo sc. sœculo, not fine. Judith viii. 21, “if we be taken, so all…” Junius and 1611, &c., join οὕτως closely to the preceding words. (Cf. Moulton’s Winer, p. 678.) Wisd. xiii. 13, “the very refuse among those, which served to no use,” (τὸ δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπόβλημα εἰς οὐδὲν εὔχρηστον). If, with 1611, &c., we omit the comma, “those” will inevitably be taken as the antecedent to “which.” xvii. 11–13. Place these verses within a parenthesis. Prayer of Manasses, ll. 17, 18, “: Thou, O Lord,…” The very long English sentence is so constructed (differently from the Greek, this Prayer having been rendered from the Old Latin, see p. xxvii.), that the apodosis does not begin before this point; yet 1611 and all its successors put a full stop before “Thou.” We have adopted a colon from the Bishops’ Bible. 1 Macc. vi. 36, “every occasion, wheresoever the beast was:” far preferable to “every occasion: wheresoever the beast was,” of 1611, &c. ix. 34 marg. “understood on the sabbath day,” 1629–1744. In 1762 mod. the false punctuation of 1611–1630 is revived (“understood, on the sabbath day”), against the Greek, which is not in the same order as in ver. 43. We have set ver. 35–42 in a parenthesis. x. 1, “Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes” ὁ ἐπιφανὴς, the comma after “Antiochus” distinguishing the text from that of Josephus, namely τοῦ ἐπιφανοῦς, as mentioned in the margin. 2 Macc. x. 29, “men upon horses with bridles of gold” (ἐφʼ ἵππων χρυσοχαλίνων ἄνδρες). In 1611, &c., a comma, worse than idle, is set after “horses.” xiii. 2, “a Grecian power, of footmen, &c.” In 1611, &c., we have “a Grecian power of footmen”2.

S. Matt. xix. 28, “which have followed me, in the regeneration, when, &c.” So 1630 alone of our old Bibles, with Nourse (Paragraph Bible, Boston, 1836), Bagster 1846, Scholefield (English), Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. This is at any rate the safest course. The second comma is wanting in 1611, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629 London, most modern Bibles, D’Oyly and Mant (1817), Tract Society’s (1861), Blackadder (1864), American (1867), Newberry (1870), and Alford’s. The first comma is absent in the Bishops’ Bible, the books from 1629 (Camb.) to 1769, and Scholefield’s Greek text. S. Luke i. 55, “(As he spake to our fathers)”. Thus with Nourse, the Tract Society, and Blackadder (see last note), indicate by a parenthesis the change of construction. Ver. 70 is also parenthetic3. Acts xxiii. 8, “neither angel nor spirit:” Even though the true reading be μήτε … μήτε instead of μηδὲ … μήτε, angel and spirit comprehend together one class, resurrection the other, the two classes together comprising ἀμφότερα. The comma after “angel” in 1611–1630, abolished by 1629 (both editions)—1743, is restored in 1762 mod. Rom. viii. 20, “, in hope.” We can hardly do more in this doubtful passage, than relax the connection of ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι with what precedes, by inserting the comma before it, and lightening the stop after it from a colon to a comma, as in 1769 mod. xi. 8, from “according” to “hear” is rightly set in a parenthesis in 1769, as approved by the Five Clergymen. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. See Appendix A, p. lxxxii., note 4. 2 Cor. v. 2, “we groan, earnestly desiring…” The adverb is doubtless intended to represent the intensive force of the preposition in ἐπιποθοῦντες (rendered coveting by Wickliffe, but simply desiring by the later versions), so that this punctuation, first found by Prof. Grote in Field’s small 8vo. (not in his 12mo.) Bible of 1660, but afterwards lost sight of, is that to be received, although through mere oversight, rather than with a view to render ingemiscimus of the Vulgate, the comma is placed after, not before, “earnestly” in 1611–1762, the final correction being due to 1769, from which the moderns adopt it. ver. 19, “God was in Christ reconciling…” All the Bibles from 1611 downwards, except that of 1743, insert a comma after “Christ”. Eph. iv. 12, “for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for…” (πρὸς … εἰς … εἰς). The comma of 1611, &c., after “saints” would be tolerable if the three prepositions were truly parallel. Phil. ii. 15, “the sons of God without rebuke,” The comma set after “God” in 1611, &c., would inevitably suggest a different gender for ἀμώμητα or ἄμωμα. Col. ii. 2, “of God and of the Father and of Christ.” The received text can hardly stand here, but the translation (taken verbatim from the Bishops’ Bible) is unquestionably very inferior to that of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible and Geneva (1557), “of God the Father, and of Christ.” The Bishops’ and our own Bibles from 1611 downwards, make bad worse by adding a comma after “God”. Heb. iv. 6, 7, “unbelief, again…” The apodosis begins with πάλιν. This is not so apparent if with 1611, &c., we set a colon after “unbelief”. vii. 5, “they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of the priesthood…” The comma set after “Levi” by 1611, &c., might suggest the inference that all Levites were priests. 2 Pet. i. 1–5. All our Bibles, following 1611 in their arrangement, place a comma at the end of ver. 2, a full stop at the end of ver. 4. Yet it seems evident that vv. 1, 2 form a separate paragraph, as Nourse, the Tract Society, Blackadder (see above), Wordsworth, and Tischendorf represent them; and if ver. 3 must be connected with ver. 5 (Moulton’s Winer, p. 771), a colon suffices at the end of ver. 4. ii. 22, “and, The sow”, a new proverb beginning. Thus 1638–1762, American 1867, but 1769 mod. return to “and the sow” of 1611–1630. Rev. viii. 12. Remove the stop, whether colon (1611–1630) or comma (1638 mod.), after “darkened”, since the following verb also is governed by ἵνα.

As the result of his investigations on this subject Prof. Grote infers that “With respect to the punctuation in general, independently of its affecting the meaning of particular passages, it is, in the editions before 1638, comparatively little graduated, colons and semicolons being much fewer in number than commas, and full stops……That edition made the punctuation much more graduated, and introduced one practice not common in the earlier ones, that of a full stop in the middle of a verse.” “The graduation of the punctuation; i.e. the placing of colons and semicolons, is not materially different in Blayney’s edition (1769) from what it was in that of 1683. This latter (which is pointed, as printers say, very low) improved greatly in this respect upon 1638, as 1638 had improved upon the earlier ones1.”