The Bible when written had no capitalization, no periods, no commas, no punctuation of any kind. Think its hard to understand now?
Well, technically, some of the early drafts of the New Testament did include punctuation marks. But punctuation at that time was kind of an optional extra, and copyists omitted it to save space and ink. As far as I am aware, the Old Testament was written without punctuation, word breaks, or, indeed, vowels.
But in both cases, unpunctuated text was standard. Readers didn't really
expect punctuation, and were perfectly comfortable interpreting texts that omitted it. That's not the same as leaving out the punctuation in modern English, where readers do expect and rely on it.
An analogy: Aristophanes of Byzantium invented a set of diacritics (accents and breath marks) to help non-native speakers read Greek texts. The accents marked where a speaker would use a rising or falling tone when pronouncing a word. A rough equivalent in English would be if it became the practice to mark word stress and dieresis* in written text.
We don't do that. If someone introduced it in the future, só thát áll óur próse inclúded diäcrítics, wóuld thát méan thát éarliër, unmárked téxt wás "hárd tó understánd"?
Also, we are breezing
right by any discussion of the content of the Bible in this room. There are other rooms on AW for that.
----
* Note that in Dutch, dieresys is marked using a "trema":
Daniel is spelled
Daniël, because
ie is a very different sound in Dutch than
i+e. Indeed, English used to mark it as well:
coöperative only lost its diacritic very recently.