Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Since ancient Greek had no punctuation and translators must decide where sentences begin/end, how should that affect the tone and certainty with which we argue doctrinal points from heavily punctuated English translations?

Another way to ask: Since ancient Greek had no punctuation, translators have to choose where sentences start and stop. How should that affect how strongly we argue doctrine from punctuation-heavy English Bibles?

Direct Answer Bercot’s teaching suggests we should argue more cautiously and modestly when a doctrinal point depends heavily on punctuation choices in English, since Greek manuscripts had none. Our tone should reflect that some “commas” and sentence breaks are judgments, not inspired punctuation.

Support from Transcript:

He states: “ancient Greek was written without any punctuation. There were no commas, periods, parentheses, or quotation marks.”
He asks readers to imagine writing today “without any punctuation” and the “confusion” it would cause.
He observes translators “don’t always agree on where to place commas and where to end and begin sentences.”
He insists this is “not the fault of the translators,” but “the limitation of ancient Greek.”
Earlier he emphasizes Greek’s “ambiguity,” which means punctuation decisions can shape how meaning is perceived.

Discussion Follow-ups When you debate a passage, are you treating an English punctuation mark as if it were part of the original text? What would it look like to say, “This doctrine might not stand or fall on where we place the comma”?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10