221–230 of 308 posts
A decade ago (!) I worked on parsing bible searches. https://www.davidwparker.com/2010/03/04/parsing-bible-search... It was a neat little project at the time, but due to copyrights, I didn't get as far as I would have liked... I had planned on making a `diff` tool for bible verses between versions.
One of the most interesting things to happen to the scriptures is their balkanization into verses. We generally don't atomize other writings that way, and when folks read the scriptures as a series of disconnected logical propositions all sorts of wackiness ensues. What would it look like to have an API for the collected works of Jane Austen that returned snippets (some of which are not even complete sentences)? How…
Good observation, but I think it's overstated. I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions, they mainly read it in much longer sections covering some topic. Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. In this usage, it's very similar to the way we cite Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer…
> Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section.
It's also worth noting that the Bible is a text that pre-dates the printing press. Modern citation technology (cite edition and page number) depends on having standardized, mass-produced editions. It makes sense that closely-analyzed texts that only appeared in hand-made bespoke editions would need a different system.
Edit: This is a pretty interesting topic. Looks like the chapter/verse divisions were standardized after the printing press, but had roots in earlier systems of division [1]. Plato and Aristotle also got standardized sub-page-level citation systems around the same time [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bib...
[2] https://getproofed.com/writing-tips/citing-plato-and-aristot...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean, I agree it's dumb. I just don't see why it's not "Christian". Christians are what Christians do. But American evangelical Protestants are a small minority of global Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox take a different approach, one which emphasises the binding role of church Tradition in interpreting the Bible, an idea which Protestants reject.
On the one hand, I think the Catholic approach is more correct than the Protestant one, but I think if the papacy hadn't been so authoritarian during the MIddle Ages and the period leading up to the Reformation that the Protestants wouldn't have felt the need to be able to argue scripture inch by inch by inch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world, and cedes immense epistemological ground to the project of the enlightenment that is diametrically opposed to a Christian reading of the Scriptures, which emphasizes their unity and their role in liturgical worship. I just had to quote that sentence construction without comment. But to reply…
> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that pract…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even Jesus himself often referred to specific verses in the Old Testament: "Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)" "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” (Matthew 5:38)" So the Scripture must have been "Balkanized" before Christianity existed. Which is not so strange given that it served both…
> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.) So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.
My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I beg to differ. I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?
If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
I guess there's also something about this connection that's bugging me, and I don't know exactly what; sorry for the response that's indulging my questions and maybe paying less attention to your statements. I'm trying to edit, but I have to go to dinner.
If ethics and morality predate religion, it's hard to understand precisely why religion exists, at least if religion were reducible to its practice. (I don't take you to mean this, FWIW.)
Functionally, I suppose one might argue that religion is about justification--justifying the ability to execute judgment, for example, by infusing one's authority with divine imprimatur. This doesn't really sit well with me despite straightforward examples, because it doesn't explain why anyone would go along with this. Religion requires some kind of belief, and why would people buy into it? One needn't have religion to solidify political power, although that is the basic pattern prior to the 20th century. If it's mostly about power, how does one explain Christianity before Constantine? (It's an example I'm familiar with, but I don't know that it's unique.)
At the same time, religion is not all law, either. Law is about proscription (thou shalt not) and prescription (when thou doest, here's your punishment), an eye for an eye (not an arm and an eye for an eye). On the other hand, when someone says "Do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you," that is ... not the same. It's not even entirely clear on the face of it that this is a good idea? Why is it better to do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
> If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'. I guess there's also something about this connection that's bugging me, and I don't know exactly what; sorry for the response that's indulging my question…
Check out how eager people are to follow and propagate anonymous stuff that happens to coincide with their worldview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the upsides? What are the downsides? (And to whom?) Note that I'm not saying the downside is "declining Biblical literacy" - by many metrics I'd imagine that's increasing? I wonder how you'd measure that? And I wonder whether whatever scheme you came up with wouldn't presume some hermeneutic and really just measure the extent to which people buy into that hermeneutic? For example, who is more Biblically lite…
Are you aware of any movements that aim at solving the problem you are referring to? I am not a chapter and verse person, and almost my entire understanding of the Bible comes through my own remembrances, all paraphrasing now, of what I learned when I was younger. I often wonder if there's a great many people out there like myself. Seems like there is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make a good point, but I think your making the academic argument rather than the practical argument. Yes, scholars and avid Bible readers understand the exact location of a verse based on its Biblical coordinates, but plenty of others don’t. In practice, it is far more common to see the Bible quoted as a small snippet meant to re-enforce some other point. The Twitter feed of Senator Marco Rubio is a good example.
In practice, it is far more common to see the Bible quoted as a small snippet meant to re-enforce some other point. Any seriously complex work is very often quoted/cited as a small snippet meant to re-enforce another point. Speeches, books, statistics, other religious doctrines. In all of these cases, you can easily misinterpret the quote if you don't understand its origin. The only reason the Bible is slightly diffe…
The center cannot hold
The better angels of our nature