V. Determining Evidences on the Technical Side

This particular text (Luke 23:43) differs from all other problem texts in that it presents a technical side, involving not merely semantics (or the question of meanings of terms and the signification of the inspired words or forms), but also (1) the mechanical element of punctuation, which is purely man made, and was not in any way a part of the original manuscripts; (2) the position of the Greek adverb semeron (“today,” or “this day”). First note the matter of punctuation.CFF1 279.4

1. PUNCTUATION BASED ENTIRELY ON HUMAN AUTHORITY

Punctuation, as we have it today, was entirely absent in the original New Testament Greek manuscripts. The earliest manuscripts (the Rylands Fragment and the Bodmer Papyri) have only an occasional dot, or point, on a level with the top of the letters, sometimes a space. The text continues without any divisions between letters or words until manuscripts of the ninth century, when in the Codex Augiensis (in Cambridge) a single point appears separating each word—this dot being placed in the middle of the line. Often it was omitted.CFF1 280.1

Inasmuch as none of our modern marks of punctuation appeared until the ninth century, it is therefore evident that the punctuation of all modern editions of the Greek Text ^{11) The dating of the leading printed editions of the Greek text are: Erasmus (1516), Stephens (1546-1549) Beza (1624), Elzevir (1624), Griesbach (1774-1775), Scholz (1830-1836), Lachmann (1831-1856), Tischendorf 1841-1812), Tregelles (1856-1872), Alford (1862-1871), Wordsworth (1870), Reviser’s Text (1881), Westcott and Hort (1881-1903), Scrivener (1886), Weymouth (886), Nestle (1904)—Companion Bible, Appendix 94, p, 136.} rests entirely on human authority. ^{22) George R. Berry, editor of Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, says, “There is no authority anywhere for the punctuation.” “We are anxious that our readers should remember that [even] paragraphs have no authority” (Introduction, p. ii).} It was the work of transcribers and translators, inserted in accordance with their best judgment, but influenced at times by their theological concepts. Punctuation, as we know it, therefore has no rightful weight in determining, or even influencing, the interpretation of a single passage. (Nor is there authority for capital letters.) Consequently no legitimate argument can be made on the Position of the comma in Luke 23:43. Rather, it is to be placed where it comports with the demands of Scripture.CFF1 280.2

2. PUNCTUATION NOT INTRODUCED TILL TIME OF RENAISSANCE

And, as stated, there is no rule of the Greek language that determines the placing of a comma. It must be placed so as to be in harmony with the general tenor of the Word, and so as not to produce a conflict in its teachings. One part must never be arrayed against another. Modern punctuation, developed after the introduction of printing, was attributed to Aldus Manutius, learned printer of Venice, of the fifteenth century. So these markings are destitute of any determining authority. Punctuation, we must therefore conclude, has no weight whatever in determining the original intent of a single passage.CFF1 280.3

3. RELATIONSHIP OF GREEK ADVERB “SEMERON” TO PROBLEM

It should also be borne in mind that the Greek adverb semeron (“today”) stands between the verbs lego (“I say”) and ese (“you will be”), and might apply to either. It is also to be noted that this adverb, semeron (“today,” or better, “on this day”), occurs in the Septuagint Old Testament and the Greek New Testament 259 times. It is used as an adjective 24 times, and without a verb to qualify, 14 times. Of the remaining 221 times, it precedes the verb it qualifies 51 times but follows it 170 times.CFF1 281.1

Thus even from the angle of usage the preponderance is in favor of placing the comma after “today.” It is also to be noted that lego soi (“I say to thee”) is reversed in the Tischendorf and Tregelles texts to soi lego (“to thee I say”). But these are side lights.CFF1 281.2

In Luke 23:43 the “to day” should be connected with the Hebraism, “I say to thee,” to emphasize the solemnity of the occasion, not with the “shalt thou be.” Thus, instead of merely a remembrance of the penitent when Christ should come into His kingdom, Jesus pledges a presence and participation, then, in association with Himself. This explains why Jesus seemingly did not answer the penitent’s request merely on its own terms. It embraced much more.CFF1 281.3

The thief was not concerned primarily with when he would reach Paradise, but whether he would have a place in Christ’s kingdom—not when but whether. Jesus’ answer was an assurance that however undeserving he might be, or however impossible it might appear for the dying Jesus to bring His promise to pass, he was assuredly to be there. Indeed, it was Christ’s presence and approaching death on the cross that assured the fruition of such a hope.CFF1 281.4

Thus the problem text (Luke 23:43) harmonizes with the many texts of the Old Testament, declaring, “I say to you this day, ...”; “I testify to you this day, ...”; et cetera. See Deuteronomy 6:6; Deuteronomy 7:11; Deuteronomy 8:1; Deuteronomy 10:13; Deuteronomy 11:8, 13, 28; Deuteronomy 13:18; Deuteronomy 19:9; Deuteronomy 27:4; Deuteronomy 31:2, et cetera, where it is to be particularly noted, the Septuagint corresponds to the usage in Luke 23:43. Here are two examples from the Septuagint:CFF1 281.5

Moses did not mean that they should surely perish that day, but that they would surely perish if they turned away from the Lord.CFF1 282.1