Where Did Bible Verses Come From?

Historical, confessional Evangelicals love our Bibles and will contend tooth-and-nail for the principle of Sola Scriptura, which says that Scripture alone is the authoritative, necessary, and sufficient source of truth for all believers (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

There is a prominent feature of our Bibles that we don't really think about, however. It is the chapter and verse divisions. Today, this is a practically universal feature of Bible editions (whether produced by Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or cults. But did you know that the original manuscripts for the Greek New Testament don't have similar divisions? So why do our English/Tagalog/Ilocano/Cebuano/etc. Bibles have them?

The Old Testament

Interestingly, the most ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament already contained verse divisions, although the first Hebrews Bibles printed only marked each fifth verse with its Hebrew numeral. Later, when a similar system for dividing the New Testament was established, the practice of marking every OT verse became common.

The New Testament

Unlike the OT, the original manuscripts of the New Testament featured neither chapters nor verses.

The first Bible to be divided into chapters was a 13th-century edition of the Latin Vulgate. Credit for this goes to either to Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury (d.1228) or Cardinal Hugo of Saint Cher (c.1240).

It was another three centuries (and a Protestant Reformation) until another milestone was made. This time, it was a son of the Reformation, Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Robert Stephens), a Parisian publisher, who published the first versified New Testament in 1551. This system was so helpful to citation and memorization that its use quickly spread. Minor variations have been introduced over the centuries, but Estienne's innovation has proven the test of time. Virtually all Bible editions adopt these verse divisions.

Bane or Blessing?

Is this chapter & verse system helpful to the Church's study of God's Word?

Some would say No. For example, the Rev. Frederick Scrivener wrote,

the Genevan New Testament of 1557 unfortunately broke up the text into divisions at once so minute and so arbitrary as the verses invented by Robert Stephens. [Citing James Nourse] “The subdivision of the books of Sacred Scripture into chapters and verses, without regard to the sense, and frequently to its great injury, has thrown a most serious obstacle in the way of common readers.” It has given rise to “a very erroneous impression, that the Bible is rather a collection of apophthegms, or disconnected sentences, than composed of regular histories and treatises on religion, which have their separate topics and connexions.” “It is a method peculiar to the Bible, and confined to translations alone. Yet the word of God is not deserving of such an injurious peculiarity as this.”

Similarly, Walter Scott commented,

Can any one reasonably suppose that a man on horseback, or even resting in the inconvenient inns in these days, was competent, under such circumstances, to break up the text of Scripture into 7959 verses? How much better were the Bible sectioned off into paragraphs, according to the evident sense of the Spirit in the respective portions.

Maybe I'm just so used to thinking of the Bible in terms of chapters and verses, but I disagree. I really do think this is the best system for modern Bible readers. I share Robert Mackenzie's opinion that

The numbering of the Scripture writings by this ardent son of the Reformation [Robert Estienne] abides to this day. It has often been condemned as unsatisfactory; and so it is, chapters chopping up paragraphs meant to stand as one, and verses dividing thoughts that are knit by the closest ties Yet none have dared to produce anything better. Where the verse system has been modified or abandoned, the result has not proved satisfactory, at any rate from the point of convenience. Indeed stand it must, as practically the whole earth in its numberless tongues possesses the Scriptures, and with them Stephens' versicular division.

So, next time you think of a chapter and verse of Scripture (which will hopefully be sometime today, soon), keep in mind that these divisions are part of God's infallible Word (in the case of the the OT), or they aren't (in the case of the NT). Either way, they make Bible study and memorization so much easier, and are definitely a blessing we should be grateful for.

SOURCES:

1. A. Dana Adams, "Formation of the Bible and Languages," 4000 Questions & Answers on the Bible.
2. Frederick Schrivener, "Introduction," The Cambridge Paragraph of the Bible of the Authorized English Version.
3. Phillip Schaff, "The Civil Government,"  History of the Christian Church.
4. _____. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Reproduced in part in the Bible Researcher website. 
5. Walter Scott, "The Bible: Its Divisions, Chapters, Verses, Titles, and Subscriptions," The Story of Our English Bible. Reproduced in the Stem Publishing website.
6. Robert Mackenzie, "The Dictionary of the Bible," John Brown of Haddington.

Bible Translations: Dynamic or Literal?

Taken from http://weirdthinkers.files.wordpress.com/
2008/01/img_77751.jpg

In a previous post, The Bible Is Relevant, but not Relative, I proposed 4 reasons why we are so tempted to read the Bible with a careless, relativistic attitude. Here, I add a fifth one. I think one factor contributing to Evangelical's cavalier or irreverent attitude towards correct Bible interpretation is the existence of so many English translations. You could probably name a few off the top of your head, but do you know that there are about 20 in circulation today?! Why so many?

"Dynamic Equivalence" and the Explosion of English Translations

The Bible was first translated into English by the great John Wycliffe in 1380, and for the first time in many centuries, the word of God was once again accessible to the common people. This made possible the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, which in turn produced the legendary King James Version of 1611. For centuries, the KJV was the English Bible. But about 60 years ago, there was a sudden explosion of new translations. Hence, the baffling number of options we are faced with today.

To keep things simple, I'll just say that the reason for the paradigm shift was a new theory of translation, that is, the "dynamic equivalence" theory. According to DET, it is not enough that the Bible be understandable to the common person, but that it should be easy to understand. Therefore, it is more important to capture the meaning of each verse, than to translate the actual words used in the original Hebrew and Greek (H&G, the languages in which the Bible was written). DET also prefers colloquial language over "high" or reverent language. Examples of DET translations are the NIV-TNIV-NIVI, Living Bible, MESSAGE, CEV, and TEV.

Standing in opposition to DET is the "essentially literal" tradition. ELT continues the tradition of the KJV, producing translations that are much closer to the original H&G, and tend to use formal/reverent English. Some modern ELT Bibles are the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and NET.

"Thus Says the LORD"?
I think the DET-ELT debate can be boiled down to this: Should God's word be paraphrased, if it will make reading the Bible easier? That's a tricky question, but my simple answer is, "Only in special cases, and not as a norm." When I read a book labeled "The Bible," I want to be sure that I'm actually reading God's very words. I want the real deal. I need the real deal. I don't want someone else's paraphrase of God's word, because when the prophets and apostles said, "Thus says the Lord," they meant it.

The problem with non-literal translations is that you're never really sure whether you're reading something "God-breathed" (2Tm.3:16), or someone's clever and possibly incorrect interpretation of God's word.

The Temptation to Use the Convenient Translation

With so many translations available to us, guess what we tend to do when we're too lazy to think long and hard over a difficult passage of Scripture? We choose whichever translation tends to suit our preferences best, right? Never mind whether the translation we use is actually faithful to God's inspired word. As long as we get to make our point, right? God forgive us!

The Bible Is Relevant, But Not Relative

I like the cartoon animation film, “Horton Hears a Who,” and I especially appreciated Horton the Elephant's motto (I'm quoting from memory):

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant,
An elephant is faithful, one hundred percent!

I wish all Evangelicals believed as much about God. But as it is, relativism still rears its ugly head within the church, and it is not uncommon to hear people say that the Bible can mean different things to different people. The following is a reflection on why relativism as an approach to truth is simply unlivable, and why in spite of this, Evangelicals (including myself) are tempted to approach God's word with a relativistic mindset.

Relativism vs. Universal Courtesy

It is the most basic rule of courtesy that we assume that a person means exactly what he/she says. When we offer a friend some food, and they say, “No thanks,” we shouldn't shovel our food onto his/her plate, anyway. And who hasn't experienced frustration when a parent/teacher/boss has reprimanded us mistakenly, but wouldn't listen to our explanation? We expect people to take us at our word. When they don't, and when we don't do the same, it's discourteous. Rude. Bastos. Mayabang.

So how can someone who claims to be Evangelical, who claims that the Bible is God's written, inspired, infallible, inerrant word... how can he/she say that God's word can mean different things to different people? Interpeting the Scriptures that way is outright disrespect to God's wisdom and intelligence. If I may adapt the words of Horton:

God meant what He said, and He said what He meant.
The Bible speaks clearly, one hundred percent!

We must not twist His words to suit our personal or cultural preference.

Why It's So Tempting to be Relativistic

1. It's easier. In order to understand what a passage of Scripture really says, one has to read carefully, keep the context in mind, analyze the words, do background research, and compare the passage with other passages, to name a few things. It's fairly hard work. And sometimes, let's be honest, it can get frustrating when the meaning doesn't jump out at us after the first few minutes of reading and re-reading the text. And so, making up our own interpretation is just the easiest thing to do.

2. It's faster. Doing all the stuff I mentioned above is time-consuming. It can easily turn a 15-minute devotion into an hour-long meditation. This isn't very easy for people of our culture to accept. Why spend so much time trying to figure out the correct meaning of the text, when I could be sleeping, or studying, or working, or playing video games?

3. It meets felt needs. I, just like any other Evangelical, believe with all blood-eanestness that God's word is powerfully, often painfully, personal. But I believe many Evangelicals conveniently ignore the other side of the coin, that God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts. The word of God wasn't made flesh (Jesus), so that we could stop being insecure with ourselves and start living happy, successful, and ulitmately selfish lives. Jesus bore God's wrath for our sins on the cross so that we would be ransomed from the wrath of God; so that we would be set free from the power of selfishness, pride, vanity, covetousness, lust, any every other petty pursuit that robs Him of our complete and utter devotion and faith; so that He could take us out of ourselves, beyond ourselves; so that we could know His righteousness, His ways, His glory! But sadly, we seem to be willing to set all this aside. Maybe we just want God to talk to us about being self-confident, positive, healthy, wealthy, family-oriented, society-loving, nationalistic, and (by the way) “God-fearing” people.

4. It caters to popular notions of tolerance, respect, and love. Many people object to the notion of absolute truth, because when you claim that you're right, you're implying that everyone else is wrong. That can't be loving, the modern mind reasons. In “Christianese,” it sounds something like this: “What does the passage mean for you?” or “It's ok that we all have different interpretations of the text.” Now while that may seem kind and inclusive, it is actually unloving. “The gospel is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes.” (Rm.1:16) To the extent we obscure the true meaning of a text, we also obstruct the work of God in the souls of men and women in desperate need of the Holy Spirit's transforming work.

Paul's Command to Timothy

In closing, God's word is living, active and more powerful than any human philosophy we might be tempted to put in its place (Heb.4:12). This is precisely why Paul commanded Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2Tm.2:15) May we who love God and the gospel cast aside all traces of relativism, and trust in God to work mightily in the lives and hearts of people as His word is faithfully shared.

See Also: Bible Translations: Dynamic or Literal?