Restoring Apostolic Faith

Ancient Greek—and Hebrew—manuscripts were not written the way modern readers expect. From classical antiquity through the early centuries AD, most literary and sacred texts were written in scriptio continua: a continuous stream of letters with no spaces between words, no punctuation, no capitalization, and no paragraph breaks. All letters were written in uppercase (majuscule) form.

This was not sloppy writing or an early draft stage—it was the norm.

As a result, what modern readers perceive as an unreadable run-on sentence was, for ancient audiences, entirely functional. Texts were not primarily seen; they were heard.

How Ancient Readers Read

Because manuscripts offered no visual aids, meaning was supplied by trained readers—scribes, disciples, or community leaders—who knew how to parse the text aloud. Word divisions, sentence breaks, emphasis, and cadence were determined by:

• Context and grammar

• Familiarity with established phrasing

• Oral tradition and communal teaching

Scripture was meant to be performed and heard in synagogues and house churches, not silently skimmed in private. The reader’s formation ensured proper sense; the manuscript did not.

Consistent punctuation and spacing only begin to appear centuries later—roughly the 6th to 9th centuries AD—with fuller systems developing during the Byzantine period. Everything before that relied on informed interpretation.

Why Modern Punctuation Is an Editorial Decision

Because early manuscripts lack visual markers, modern punctuation is never neutral. Every comma, period, sentence break, and capitalization choice added by translators and editors represents an interpretive decision.

These decisions are not corruptions of the text—but neither are they original to it.

The earliest copies of the New Testament do not tell us:

• Where one sentence ends and another begins

• Whether a clause modifies what comes before or after

• Whether a phrase is declarative or doxological

Those determinations are made later, based on style, context, and theology.

How This Creates Real Interpretive Ambiguity

This helps explain why certain passages—especially those later used in Christological debates—remain contested.

Romans 9:5

The Greek text flows continuously:

“…from whom is the Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed forever amen”

Without punctuation, this can legitimately be read in two ways:

• As a doxology to the Father: “God who is over all be blessed forever”—a common Pauline pattern

• Or as a direct reference to Christ: “who is over all, God blessed forever”

Early manuscripts provide no visual guidance either way. Editors must decide based on Paul’s usual syntax, rhetorical habits, and broader context. Many scholars favor the doxology reading, noting Paul’s consistent restraint in explicitly calling Christ God in his undisputed letters.

Titus 2:13

“…the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

This passage is often cited using Granville Sharp’s rule to argue for a single referent. Yet the continuous script allows for either:

• “Great God” (the Father) and “Savior” (Jesus), or

• A single combined title applied to Jesus

Again, the ambiguity is not the result of textual corruption but of how ancient texts worked.

Scripture as Ancient Jews and Early Christians Heard It

This reality also explains why ancient Jews and first-century Christians did not approach Scripture with the modern Western concept of inerrancy.

They believed Scripture to be inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy for covenant life—but they did not require:

• Perfect semantic precision

• Modern historical or scientific exactness

• Visually fixed meaning divorced from community interpretation

Second Temple Judaism itself was diverse: multiple textual traditions, developing canon boundaries, and competing interpretive communities existed side by side. Oral tradition functioned alongside written texts.

Early Christians inherited this framework. They read Scripture through Christ, not through modern literalism—prioritizing faithfulness, mercy, and allegiance over technical precision. Authority resided in the divine message and its lived effect, not in flawless punctuation that did not yet exist.

A Feature, Not a Flaw

These ambiguities are not failures of Scripture. They reflect a world in which God spoke through trained readers, communal hearing, and living tradition.

Recognizing this preserves both humility and honesty:

• God speaks through human transmission

• Meaning was carried relationally, not typographically

• Precision came through formation, not formatting

This perspective aligns naturally with Jesus as the perfect shaliach—fully representing the Father without collapsing identities or forcing later metaphysical categories onto first-century texts.

Scripture does not need perfect commas to convey divine truth.

It never did.