Chapter 1. Summary of the Foregoing Books, and Scope of that Which Follows.
I. The man who fears God seeks diligently in Holy Scripture for a knowledge of His will. And when he has become meek through piety, so as to have no love of strife; when furnished also with a knowledge of languages, so as not to be stopped by unknown words and forms of speech, and with the knowledge of certain necessary objects, so as not to be ignorant of the force and nature of those which are used figuratively; and assisted, besides, by accuracy in the texts, which has been secured by skill and care in the matter of correction — when thus prepared, let him proceed to the examination and solution of the ambiguities of Scripture. And that he may not be led astray by ambiguous signs, so far as I can give him instruction (it may happen, however, that either from the greatness of his intellect, or the greater clearness of the light he enjoys, he shall laugh at the methods I am going to point out as childish) — but yet, as I was going to say, so far as I can give instruction, let him who is in such a state of mind that he can be instructed by me know, that the ambiguity of Scripture lies either in proper words or in metaphorical, classes which I have already described in the second book.
Chapter 2.— Rule for Removing Ambiguity by Attending to Punctuation.
-
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 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.
-
Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing, In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat, so as to make the next sentence run, Verbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum, 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: et Deus erat verbum; and then to add: hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
-
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: What I shall choose I know not: for I am in a strait between 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. Now it is uncertain whether we should read, ex duobus concupiscentiam habens [having a desire for two things], or compellor autem ex duobus [I am in a strait between two]; and so to add: concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo [having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ]. But since there follows multo enim magis optimum [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 between 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 between two, but also to have a desire for two. We must therefore punctuate the sentence thus: et quid eligam ignoro: compellor autem ex duobus [what I shall choose I know not: for I am in a strait between two]; and after this point follows: concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo [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: multo enim magis optimum [for it is far better]. Why, then, is he in a strait between the two? Because there is a need for his remaining, which he adds in these terms: manere in carne necessarium propter vos [nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you].
-
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: Having 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. It is doubtful whether we should read, mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit], in accordance with the passage, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit, or, mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh], so as to make the next sentence, et spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos [and perfecting holiness of spirit in the fear of God, receive us]. Such ambiguities of punctuation, therefore, are left to the reader’s discretion.