vvart is basically right. Each translation uses its own system of notation. But, as a standard rule of thumb, brackets are usually used to indicate text not found in the original manuscripts, but rather text that was added in (I've not read the HCSB). The use of parenthesis and commas typically follow standard English grammar. For instance, in the previous sentence, I used parenthesis, but I could have started a new sentence, used a dash, broke it off with commas and some sort of conjoining phrase like, "although I can't speak for the HCSB . . ."
What the translator has to decide is what is the main point of the text. In both Greek and Hebrew, sentences are constructed in such a way that there is a main point and then every phrase modifies it in some way to help the reader better understand the idea. English is like this to a great extent as well. The problem in translating is the question: which phrase is the main idea? This leads to the question, how does this phrase modify that one? In some cases, you'll find phrases that a parenthetical, so you mark them off by some grammatical system (parenthesis, commas, brackets, whatever).
In any case, those aren't found in the manuscripts these translators worked from. It's all a matter of translating not only the words but also the grammar.
Hope that helps
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And
that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
My question is why they wrap texrt in ( ), [ ] and italic text?