Chapter Verse and Pericope

Chapter Verse and Pericope

The Chapter breaks seem to be not inspired. For example why are the verses Gen 2:1-3 not part of Genesis 1?    [Split by R. Salomon b. Ishmael ca. 1330 c.e. (OT)?]

Verse breaks also seem to be not inspired. For example why is the thought Mark 7:21-23 not one verse?      [First done by Stephens (or was it Elzevir) in about 1550]

pericope /pəˈrɪkəpi/     [WARNING SPELL CHECK changes into ‘periscope’ (spy glass)]
■ noun an extract from a text, especially a passage from the Bible.
–          origin 17th century: via late Latin from Greek perikopē ‘section’.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary

[And hoping that I have the correct word]
Are pericopes at the mercy of the translation committee?
Or is there a ‘standard list’ somewhere?

Looking for references in Logos [have platinum] so that I can study the history of all three.
[goal is to see how fixing the wrong end points can goof up our understanding of Scripture – that is when studying one should you check to see if you should include more then what ‘they’ told you to read?]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Praiser

Did you see http://blog.logos.com/2007/07/books_chapters/

JT (alabama24)

David -

You are correct but you need to go further. Chapter breaks don't just SEEM to be uninspired - they are late additions to be "helpful." You can always check the "bible text only" box and it will eliminate the pericopes and paragraph breaks for you. Unfortunately it is still broken down by verse.

Check out:

Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987. [Page 147]

MJ. Smith

Are pericopes at the mercy of the translation committee?
Or is there a ‘standard list’ somewhere?

Some dictionaries give the meaning of pericope as first used to refer to the readings of the lectionary as pericope which was then expanded to include the the divisions the translators add to the text by adding headings. The original meaning was a cohesive segment of text suitable for study,

A very good summary of how we got chapters and verses and what was used before (some of which are in Logos' Compare Pericope tool can be found at http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Divisions.html

Rosie Perera

[goal is to see how fixing the wrong end points can goof up our understanding of Scripture – that is when studying one should you check to see if you should include more then what ‘they’ told you to read?]

The verse and chapter breakdowns and numberings were added much later than the canon
was established, to help people locate readings in the text, but they were
never pretended to be an inspired part of Scripture.

Yes, you should always read the context around any pericope when studying it. Also learning Greek and Hebrew and reading in the original languages without regard to verse numbering or paragraph breaks is probably a good idea. Determining where the thoughts/ideas break is part of the process of exegesis. Some biblical writers such as Paul, with his run-on sentences, make it hard.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/254647#Comment_254647

Determining where the thoughts/ideas break is part of the process of exegesis. Some biblical writers such as Paul, with his run-on sentences, make it hard.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/254647#Comment_254647

Paul, with his run-on sentences,

You slamming Greek syntax - what's a good sentence to do if it doesn't span a page or two?[;)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/254677#Comment_254677

Paul, with his run-on sentences,

You slamming Greek syntax - what's a good sentence to do if it doesn't span a page or two?

I used the adjective "run-on" with no value judgment attached. It is indeed difficult to parse Greek syntax but that doesn't make it not a good sentence.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/254683#Comment_254683

I used the adjective "run-on" with no value judgment attached.

Sorry. My grade school teachers' always used it as a pejorative that we were to fix - in homework or essays

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/254647#Comment_254647

run-on sentences

I've also noticed that the old guys like Edwards and Owen never met a comma they didn't like.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/255040#Comment_255040

I've also noticed that the old guys like Edwards and Owen never met a comma they didn't like.

Rolling on the floor....that's going on a t-shirt!

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/255638#Comment_255638

Life is often interesting; I ask for advice on this subject and this week’s Scripture reading was John 14:1-3. But in the sermon we were asked to go back into the prior chapter. [And that got us into the prior Pericope] The pastor asked “How does Jesus do things?” He tells us of the problems as in John 13:21-38 [where Jesus Predicts His Betrayal] but then He immediately offers us Hope as in John 14:1-6 [where Jesus Comforts His Disciples].

Yes, we need to read more be it the prior [and next] Chapter, Verse or Pericope.

BKMitchell

The Chapter breaks seem to be not inspired. For example why are the verses Gen 2:1-3 not part of Genesis 1? [Split by R. Salomon b. Ishmael ca. 1330 c.e. (OT)?]

Not, only do they 'seem' to be not inspired, they are not original to the text! See:

"[quote]The system of breaking up the Biblical text into verses
may seem, both in the original and in the versions, to go hand in hand
with its division into chapters. In truth, however, the chapter-division
and the verse-division
are of different origin. The division into chapters was employed first
in the Vulgate, perhaps by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury (d.
1228). It was adopted by Jewish scholars for purposes of reference —
not only by Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus in his great concordance, "Meïr Netib" (Venice, 1523), but, not long after its introduction into the Vulgate,by
Solomon b. Ishmael (see "Theologisch Tijdschrift," 1878, p. 104)—and
was introduced into the printed editions of the Hebrew text, from the
Bomberg Bible of 1521 downward. On the other hand, verse-division,
with the elaborate systems of accentuation resting upon it, is in
itself essentially a part of the Masoretic tradition, although notation
by means of figures in the text, or on the margin, was employed first in
the Latin Bibles of 1528 and 1555, and somewhat later (1571) by Arias
Montanus in the Antwerp Bible: a figure on the margin corresponded to a
cross in the text at the beginning of each verse. The Athias Bible (1659-61) was the first edition with verse-notation that could be used by Jews." (link)

Masoretic verse divisions (according to the accents) and those found in christian bibles do not always match in fact they are often at odds with each other. Unfortunately it is not possible to search on accent patterns in Logos, at this time! For more about accents check out this article (link) and the following:

[quote] In general, each word in the Tanach has one cantillation sign. (There
are two types of exception. A group of words joined by hyphens is
regarded as one word so they only have one accent between them.
Conversely, a long word may have two, e.g. a disjunctive on the stressed
syllable and the related conjunctive two syllables before in place of meteg.) This may be either a disjunctive, showing a division between that and the following word, or a conjunctive,
joining the two words (like a slur in music). Thus, disjunctives divide
a verse into phrases, and within each phrase all the words except the
last carry conjunctives.

The disjunctives are traditionally divided into four levels, with lower level disjunctives marking less important breaks.

The first level, known as "Emperors", includes sof pasuq / siluq, marking the end of the verse, and atnach / etnachta, marking the middle.
The second level is known as "Kings". The usual second level disjunctive is zaqef qaton (when on its own, this becomes zaqef gadol). This is replaced by tifcha when in the immediate neighbourhood of sof pasuq or atnach. A stronger second level disjunctive, used in very long verses, is segol: when it occurs on its own, this may be replaced by shalshelet.
The third level is known as "Dukes". The usual third level disjunctive is revia. For musical reasons, this is replaced by zarqa when in the vicinity of segol, by pashta or yetiv when in the vicinity of zakef, and by tevir when in the vicinity of tifcha.
The fourth level is known as "Counts". These are found mainly in
longer verses, and tend to cluster near the beginning of a half-verse:
for this reason their musical realisation is usually more elaborate than
that of higher level disjunctives. They are pazer, geresh, gershayim, telishah gedolah, munach legarmeh and qarne farah.

The general conjunctive is munach. Depending on which disjunctive follows, this may be replaced by mercha, mahpach, darga, qadma, telisha qetannah or yerach ben yomo.

One other symbol is mercha kefulah, double mercha. There is some argument about whether this is another conjunctive or an occasional replacement for tevir.

Disjunctives have a function somewhat similar to punctuation in Western languages. Sof pasuq could be thought of as a full stop, atnach
as a semi-colon, second level disjunctives as commas and third level
disjunctives as commas or unmarked. Where two words are syntactically
bound together (for example, pene ha-mayim, "the face of the waters"), the first invariably carries a conjunctive.

The cantillation signs are often an important aid in the interpretation of a passage. For example, the words qol qore bamidbar panu derekh YHWH (Isaiah 40-3) is translated in the Authorised Version as "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord". As the word qore takes the high-level disjunctive zaqef qaton this meaning is discouraged by the cantillation marks.^{[citation needed]} Accordingly the New Revised Standard Version translates "A voice cries out: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord'," while the New Jewish Publication Society Version has "A voice rings out: 'Clear in the desert a road for the LORD'." (link)

However, it is possible to search on some the Masoretic notation! For example with the WIVU database in the SESB it is possible to search on the 'sof pasuk' a colon like marker that marks the end of a verse according to the Masorah. And one may also run queries on the 'open' and 'close' markers in the Hebrew Bible that mark paragraphs and thought units. Here is a description of those found in Logos:

[quote] פ“Open.” Abbreviation for פתוחא (cf. סתומא). This refers to the short paragraphs (פרשיות) into which the entire Bible (except Psalms) was divided. Such paragraphs could be either “open” (פתוחא) or “closed” (סתומא). An open paragraph (indicated by פ placed between two verses) had to commence at the beginning of a new line, with the preceding line left partly or wholly blank. The first paragraph in a book is assumed to be open without a written פ, since it begins on the first line of the manuscript. These rules applied to handwritten texts but are no longer valid for printed Bibles, since their line and paragraph divisions are of necessity different from those of ancient manuscripts. However, the original format of L is indicated in BHS by the printing of either ס or פ in the space before the beginning of a new paragraph.

Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., & Crawford, T. G. (1998). The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and annotated glossary (167). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Logos/Libronix edition.

Here are the first sevenפתוחא /Petuhah markers (notice any interesting coincidences here?):
1:1-5 Petuhah marker(1)

1:6-8 Petuhah marker(2)

1:9-13 Petuhah maker(3)

1:14-19 Petuhah marker(4)

1:20-23 Petuhah marker(5)

1:25-31 Petuhah marker(6)

2:1-3 Petuhah marker(7)
In addition Pentateuch/ Torah section of the Hebrew Bible is also divided up into a lectionary type system:

[quote]Abbreviation for סדר. Plural: סדרים. Literally: “order, sequence.” This was the name assigned to the sections into which the Torah was divided for the Sabbath readings in the synagogues. In Palestine, where the custom was to complete the reading in three to three and a half years, the Torah was divided into 154 or 167 סדרים (sedarim). BHS has 167 Torah sedarim (Gen. has 45; Exod. has 33; Lev. has 25; Num. has 33; Deut. has 31). The beginning of each is marked by ס֡ printed in the center margin on each page (in the same column as the verse numbers), so as not to interfere with Mp notes on the outer margin (cf. Gen. 1:1; 2:4; 3:22; etc.). In Babylonia, the custom was to complete the reading of the Torah in one year, which led to the Torah’s being divided into 54 larger sections, known as פָּרָשׁוֹת (see פרש̇). The beginning of these sections in BHS is indicated by פרש̇ printed in the center margin of the page (cf. Gen. 6:9; 12:1; 18:1; 23:1; etc.). The number of the sedarim is indicated in notes placed at the end of each of the books of the Torah, but the number of the parashot is not so indicated. The Babylonian custom of reading the Torah in one year eventually became the norm in Palestine, even though the sedarim divisions continued to be indicated in the margins of manuscripts like L.

Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., & Crawford, T. G. (1998). The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and annotated glossary (155). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hendrik de Beer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/255841#Comment_255841

I've tried dividing the Bible up in chapters and verses on my own. It's much more difficult than what people think. There's nothing particularly wrong with the way the divisions are made, especially the division at the end of Genesis 1. It's more a matter of the divisions not splitting where we expect it to split. If you read carefully and try and do some divisions yourself, you will see they didn't make bad choices.

I wouldn't know if they are not inspired, but I wouldn't make the argument that they are not just because they are recent. If people accepted that argument in the first century we would have had to throw away the New Testament. I would also not make the argument that they are not inspired because they were not written with the intention of being inspired. If that is a good argument, then what should we do with Song of Solomon, Daniel chapter 4 and Philemon? Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who made these divisions who ever officially said these divisions should never be considered inspired.