Perhaps it is because I was no good at rote memorization that I have never been fond of Bible drills where students are asked to spout out the correct chapter and verse of some Bible quote. Instead, our youth group had a variation whereby the teacher would begin reading a randomly chosen passage and continue until one of us could locate it in our Bibles. In that manner, we were taught to pay enough attention to the actual thoughts and overall context of what we were reading so that we could place it within the proper time frame and literary type. But I must admit that knowing the chapter and verse of a passage without having to search through the Bible for it is a huge advantage at times.
The problem comes in when we try to elevate those individual verse designations as the only sure guide to what the authors intended in the first place. As an example I have shared before, I visited a Sunday school class once where the teacher would absolutely not allow anyone to refer to a previous or subsequent verse for clarification when discussing each individual verse. By “atomizing” the text in that manner, it was treated as a series of unrelated verses which had to each stand on its own. This is an especially ridiculous way in which to approach the Bible since, for example, some of Paul's introductory sentences in his epistles encompass ten verses or more.
The first attempt to divide up the biblical text into chapters did not actually happen until 1227 AD when Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton came up with our present chapter divisions. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern. Since the Wycliffe Bible, nearly all Bible translations have followed Langton’s chapter divisions. Nathan, a Jewish rabbi, came up with verse divisions for the Old Testament in 1448. Robert Estienne basically combined Nathan's OT divisions with his own for the New Testament in the 1500's. The Geneva Bible incorporated all of these divisions in their 1560 edition and they still appear in almost all current Bible translations.
We should not treat these various divisions as if they were as inspired as the words themselves since they date from over 1,000 years after the writing of the Bible. In fact, in some cases these divisions can actually be quite misleading. I will just cite two example to prove that point.
Genesis 1-2
Just look at the very first chapter division in the Bible. Verses 1-3 of Genesis 2 really belong at the end of Chapter 1 instead. The reasons are fairly obvious.
1. The mention of the “seventh day” in 2:2 caps off the series of six days that precede it. Garrett notes that the 6+1 pattern that thus results by restoring the proper division is a perfect match to other 6+1 patterns seen in the Book of Revelation at 6:1-8:1; 8:2-11:19; and 16:1-21. This is one of many correspondences between the beginning of Genesis and the last book in the Bible.
2. An envelope is placed around the first major division in Genesis by the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 and 2:1. As Wenham points out, “The insertion of 'God created' into the phrase [in 2:2] produces slightly ungainly Hebrew, but more significantly harks back to 1:1, resulting in a fine inclusion indicating that the first section of Genesis ends here.”
3. Genesis 2:4 refers to “the generations” (toledoth), a word which introduces each of the subsequent major divisions of Genesis (see my post on “Genesis: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). Therefore it properly begins the second division of the book, not Genesis 2:1. Kline elaborates on this point: “Since the genitive in this formula is uniformly subjective, the reference is not to the origin 'of the heavens and the earth' but the sequel thereof, particularly the earthly history of the earthlings. The first part of this verse, therefore, must betaken not with the preceding, but the following account, which is not, then, presented as another version of creation.”
Almost all paragraphing in modern translations and comments by Bible scholars agree that the start of Genesis 2 more properly belongs at the end of Chapter 1 instead. In fact, the only true controversy concerns exactly where Chapter 2 should begin, with Genesis 2:4 or Genesis 2:3b (according to the Documentary Hypothesis of Source Critics). The former option is preferred by most commentators for several reasons, beginning with the observation by C.J. Collins that the narrative style of 1:1-2:3 “is exalted and formulaic” and “different from that of the rest of the book.”
In addition, it is highly unlikely that the well recognized chiastic arrangement of 2:3 was meant to be broken up:
These are the generations--
of the heavens
and the earth
when they were created
in the day that the LORD God made
the earth
and the heavens.
Then, there is the argument of A.P. Ross that the phrase “Yahweh God” is used exclusively in 2:4-3:24. “This fact would suggest connecting the contents of the passage with the title in 2:4.”
Hamilton discusses the pros and cons of both possibilities but also ends up not dividing 2:4 into two parts since 'these are the generations' elsewhere always is used as a superscription to begin a new section, never to conclude it.
Why is any of this important? From the above, we can see that restoring the proper division accomplishes the following:
It points out the close correspondence between the start of Genesis and the Book of Revelation.
It explains the awkward Hebrew construction in Genesis 2:2.
It restores the symmetrical pattern in Genesis 2:3
It helps to disprove the liberal Documentary Hypothesis.
It properly begins the pattern with “These are the generations” at the start of major sections of the book.
It recognizes the inclusion used to encapsulate the first major section of the book.
It indicates that the bulk of Genesis 2 is not a mere repeat of material in Genesis 1, but introduces a brand new series of events.
Hosea 6-7
Whereas the current separation between Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a poor chapter division, the break between chapters 6 and 7 of Hosea not only misrepresents where the chapter headings belong but also divides up the individual verses improperly. In this case, there are even more than just two options to consider, but all commentators are in agreement that the current chapter division is in error. And to complicate the picture, there is some doubt as to whether Hosea 6:11a even properly belonged to the original text.
Here is how the pertinent verses read in the NRSV:
6:10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing; Ephraim's whoredom is there, Israel is defiled.
6:11a For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed.
6:11b When I would restore the fortunes of my people,
7:1a When I would heal Israel,
7:1b the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,
7:1c and the wicked deeds of Samaria;
7:1d for they deal falsely,
7:1e the thief breaks in,
7:1f and the bandits raid outside.
Andersen and Freedman lump together 6:10a-7:1a as a single unit but admit: “Judged by traditional canons, the poetry in 6:7-7:2 is not well developed; it is hard to find a single well-formed bicolon.” Other commentators such as Dearman and Davies have no such problem. Admittedly, some of this text is difficult to decipher, but at least in the NRSV it is quite easy to see which parallel lines belong together:
6:10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing
Ephraim's whoredom is there
Israel is defiled.
6:11a For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed
6:11b When I would restore the fortunes of my people,
7:1a When I would heal Israel
7:1b the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,
7:1c and the wicked deeds of Samaria;
7:1d for they deal falsely,
7:1e the thief breaks in,
7:1f and the bandits raid outside
When seen in this manner, several points become clear.
As Andersen and Freedman state regarding 6:11b, “Infinitival constructions like this one do not generally constitute a complete utterance. They usually begin a paragraph and supply a time reference for what follows.” Thus, more properly, the chapter break should have been placed between 6:11a and 6:11b.
By connecting the thought of 6:11a with that of the previous verse, it explains the word “harvest” as being a symbol of judgment, not blessing, in agreement with V.H. Matthews. In contrast to this understanding, D. Stuart connects all of 6:11 with what follows in 7:1a since “harvest” generally means something positive sent from God. However, he admits that the word can also symbolize punishment.
The common contention that 6:11a is a later addition to the text does not appear to be very persuasive since it in no way disrupts the poetic pattern. In addition, if one counts the number of times that “Judah” appears in Hosea 6, it is exactly seven, as is the number of times “Israel” is utilized. In addition, Hindley notes: “The Lord is waiting to bless His folk but their condition prevents it and their misdeeds intervene.” He points out that “Judah” is used exactly 14 times in the whole book of Hosea – hardly a coincidence since such multiples of 7 (or 12) similarly appear throughout the Bible as literary devices to help identify the boundaries of individual sections.
Although practically everyone agrees that 6:11b and 7:1a belong together, there is much less agreement concerning how the other verses in the vicinity of the present chapter break should be grouped. So if the chapter and verse division is properly placed after 6:11a, what does the following unit beginning at 6:11b tell us?
“6:11b-7:2 show how God's efforts to heal expose the corruption of all Israel, Ephraim and Samaria alike.” (Polkinghorne)
“Even the forms of Yahweh's speech reveal an anguished heart, pondering how to deal with his wayward people, showing a powerful impulse to compassion yet frustrated by their fickleness (6:11b-7:1)...Yahweh's strong desire to 'restore the fortunes' of his people and 'heal' them looks like a repeated movement toward them, always met by their obduracy.” (McConville) He calls it “a tone of passionate love.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments