Chapter and Verse
It is important to note that the Bible, when originally written, did not have chapter nor verse. It was simply penned as history, literature, poetry, prophecy, epistle, etc. In the middle of the thirteenth century Archbishop Stephen Langton inserted chapters into the Bible as we know now them, though he retained the natural division of the Psalms into seperate poems.
In 1551 Robert Estienne divided the New Testament into verses in the Greek Bible. The same verse arrangement was later retained in the Geneva Bible.
The importance of this is that we cannot really read the Bible in Chapter and verse format (with the primary exception of the Psalms). Taking a verse out of context can destroy the entire meaning of the book or the intent of the author. That is a common technique used by people who want to prove the Bible says whatever they want it to say.
Thus are reading of the Bible as an entirety is really the only way to read the Bible. To break it apart and only read what intrests you is to dispose of the work as a whole. The Book of J is not really the Bible in any way shape or form. It's simply Bloom and Rosenberg's view of part of the Bible, and thus it becomes an independent work of litature. Imagine if somebody took every part of the Iliad that dealt with the gods and made another book out of that. We would not call that book part of the Iliad or critical to understanding it, so we can't do the same with the Book of J, at least while being intellectually honest.
And now for an etymological moment: contrary to what has been stated, Peter (Petros, rock) and Father (patri, patris) are not related. Peter comes from the Greek Petra, itself being drawn from the Indo-European root [per], meaning roughly the same thing.
Father, or Pater in the Latin, comes from the Greek pater (via the Latin) and is from the Indo-European root [p
ter], meaning father. Despite their apparent simularities, there is no connection. Peter's name comes solely from the fact that Christ said "You are Peter, and on this rock [petros] I will build my Church."
Actually, I should clarify. Christ was likley speaking Aramiac and therefore called Simon Bar-Jonah "Kepha" (see John 1) and said on this "Kepha" he would build his Church. Not Peter even involved until the Greek.
In 1551 Robert Estienne divided the New Testament into verses in the Greek Bible. The same verse arrangement was later retained in the Geneva Bible.
The importance of this is that we cannot really read the Bible in Chapter and verse format (with the primary exception of the Psalms). Taking a verse out of context can destroy the entire meaning of the book or the intent of the author. That is a common technique used by people who want to prove the Bible says whatever they want it to say.
Thus are reading of the Bible as an entirety is really the only way to read the Bible. To break it apart and only read what intrests you is to dispose of the work as a whole. The Book of J is not really the Bible in any way shape or form. It's simply Bloom and Rosenberg's view of part of the Bible, and thus it becomes an independent work of litature. Imagine if somebody took every part of the Iliad that dealt with the gods and made another book out of that. We would not call that book part of the Iliad or critical to understanding it, so we can't do the same with the Book of J, at least while being intellectually honest.
And now for an etymological moment: contrary to what has been stated, Peter (Petros, rock) and Father (patri, patris) are not related. Peter comes from the Greek Petra, itself being drawn from the Indo-European root [per], meaning roughly the same thing.
Father, or Pater in the Latin, comes from the Greek pater (via the Latin) and is from the Indo-European root [p
ter], meaning father. Despite their apparent simularities, there is no connection. Peter's name comes solely from the fact that Christ said "You are Peter, and on this rock [petros] I will build my Church."Actually, I should clarify. Christ was likley speaking Aramiac and therefore called Simon Bar-Jonah "Kepha" (see John 1) and said on this "Kepha" he would build his Church. Not Peter even involved until the Greek.
posted by J.M.R. Burgard @ 5:27 PM
1 Comments:
At 2:37 PM,
Miss MacNaughton said…
Considering that this class is named "Biblical Foundations to Literature" and we are trying to get a clearer idea of the sources writers ever since have been drawing upon (and especially their perhaps convoluted understandings of said sources), it is perhaps one of the most relevant posts I've read in any of the blogs.
For example, Thomas Hardy's choice to omit the second half of the verse "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" in the epigraph to his Jude the Obscure completely and radically changes the intent and latent meaning of the entire novel!
So yes, the later divisions of Chapter and Verse are relevant, not out in left field, and help immensely in understanding various readings and misreadings (to quote our "friend", Harold Bloom) of the Bible by later critics and authors. Please take the time to think about the true motive behind someone's post in the future before making assumptions about why they considered the subject matter relevant.
Post a Comment
<< Home