{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/102/1020782.htm","path":"chr/ecf/102/1020782.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/102/1020782.htm","text":"Chapter 2.\u2014Rule for Removing Ambiguity by Attending to Punctuation.\n2. But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to p. 557 be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself.\n3. Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing, 1834 \u201cIn principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat,\u201d 1835 so as to make the next sentence run, \u201cVerbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum,\u201d 1836 arises out of unwillingness to confess that the Word was God. But this must be rejected by the rule of faith, which, in reference to the equality of the Trinity, directs us to say: \u201cet Deus erat verbum;\u201d 1837 and then to add: \u201choc erat in principio apud Deum.\u201d 1838\n4. But the following ambiguity of punctuation does not go against the faith in either way you take it, and therefore must be decided from the context. It is where the apostle says: \u201cWhat I shall choose I wot not: for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.\u201d 1839 Now it is uncertain whether we should read, \u201cex duobus concupiscentiam habens\u201d [having a desire for two things], or \u201ccompellor autem ex duobus\u201d [I am in a strait betwixt two]; and so to add: \u201cconcupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo\u201d [having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ]. But since there follows \u201cmulto enim magis optimum\u201d [for it is far better], it is evident that he says he has a desire for that which is better; so that, while he is in a strait betwixt two, yet he has a desire for one and sees a necessity for the other; a desire, viz., to be with Christ, and a necessity to remain in the flesh. Now this ambiguity is resolved by one word that follows, which is translated enim [for]; and the translators who have omitted this particle have preferred the interpretation which makes the apostle seem not only in a strait betwixt two, but also to have a desire for two. 1840 We must therefore punctuate the sentence thus: \u201cet quid eligam ignoro: compellor autem ex duobus\u201d [what I shall choose I wot not: for I am in a strait betwixt two]; and after this point follows: \u201cconcupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo\u201d [having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ]. And, as if he were asked why he has a desire for this in preference to the other, he adds: \u201cmulto enim magis optimum\u201d [for it is far better]. Why, then, is he in a strait betwixt the two? Because there is a need for his remaining, which he adds in these terms: \u201cmanere in carne necessarium propter vos\u201d [nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you].\n5. Where, however, the ambiguity cannot be cleared up, either by the rule of faith or by the context, there is nothing to hinder us to point the sentence according to any method we choose of those that suggest themselves. As is the case in that passage to the Corinthians: \u201cHaving therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Receive us; we have wronged no man.\u201d 1841 It is doubtful whether we should read, \u201cmundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus\u201d [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit], in accordance with the passage, \u201cthat she may be holy both in body and in spirit,\u201d 1842 or, \u201cmundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis\u201d [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh], so as to make the next sentence, \u201cet spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos\u201d [and perfecting holiness of spirit in the fear of God, receive us]. Such ambiguities of punctuation, therefore, are left to the reader\u2019s discretion.\nIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was.\n557:1836\nThis Word was in the beginning with God.\n557:1837 557:1838\nThe same was in the beginning with God.\n557:1839 557:1840\nThe Vulgate reads, multo magis melius, omitting the enim.\n557:1841\n2 Cor. 7:1, 2.\n557:1842","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II: On Christian Doc...","type":"page"}