Talk:Chapters and verses of the Bible

Chapter and Verse Divisions Generally
While chapter and verse divisions are today primarily used for sacred texts, I believe this system of subdividing a text arose in a secular context in the Greco-Roman world. Since handwritten texts didn't have a uniform pagination from one copy to another, the chapter/verse system was developed to enable readers to find particular quotes in a book. Thus, authors such as Plato and Aristotle have had their works divided into chapter and verse, and it was only centuries later in the medieval world that similar divisions were imposed upon the Bible. I think this subject should be briefly mentioned in this article, and I also think there should be a separate article discussing the use of these divisions in secular texts in the Greco-Roman world. GnatFriend (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls are not punctuated and thus can't indicate verses. The section at the end about verses in Samuel is therefore suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since that point is in a section titled "Protestant Bible statistics," it seems clear that the statistics arise from imposing the modern verse numbers on the Dead Sea Scrolls. After all, none of the original texts had verse numbers; any statistic about verse numbering is, to a certain extent, anachronistic. That doesn't make it suspect, just not original. Chap0120 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Pitfalls
I have attempted to make the Pitfalls section sound less like a street preacher on his soapbox and more like a neutral description of the issue. It's not enough, but if you saw the previous version, then I hope you'll agree that it's a start. If someone would like to take on the next stage of this editing job, I'd appreciate it. (Being bold, as the author notes below, is a Wikipedia value, but being biased or preachy is not. Please use calm facts, and cite your sources, instead of dumping your polemical rantings here.)

"Chapters came about after the Bible had been divided into verses. Chapters were added by Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro between 1244 and 1248 A.D. He did this when he was preparing a concordance of the Bible."

"The modern chapter divisions came about through Stephen Langton, a professor at the University of Paris and afterwards an Archbishop of Canterbury. He put the modern divisions into place around 1227 A.D. Since the Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 this pattern has been followed."

These two paragraphs seems a bit incoherent.
 * If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone &mdash; including you &mdash; can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to.  Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes.  If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. &mdash; Matt 20:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Verification of verses, etc.
I removed the following line from the first paragraph, on the basis that it should be assumed that we've checked our facts: "A computerized check plus manual verifying have shown these values to be correct." It seems weird to have that in there, but if there's a good reason I won't object to it being put back in. Seqsea (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

a) There are a number of sources that claim that there are 31 173 verses in the Protestant Bible. I _think_ that either the talk page, or the main article should explain the discrepency.   [Half the reason I am on this page, is to find out how people get 31 173 verses.]

b) Versification Schemes are the bane of Computer Bible Study Programmers.  There are number of different v11n schemes.  AFAIK, none of them have 31 173 verses. It might be useful to list the different v11n schemes, and how they differ.  Or point to an external site that has that information. joanthon

Worldwide view
The article repeatedly cites English scholars and translators. Do other translations of the Bible use chapters and verses at all? Do they use completely different systems of versification? Or did everybody adopt the English system? Fishal 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but please note that this is the English Wikipedia. In my understanding, "worldwide view" means that the article should not be limited to just one country (e.g. the UK or Australia) while ignoring other countries. On an article concerning literature in the English Wikipedia, giving precedence to English-language views is entirely appropriate. Thus, I'm removing the warning notice.


 * However, I do agree with you that we should add perspectives from other languages, all the same, as soon as we can get them. So far, there are Suomi and Hebrew versions of this article. I can read a little bit of Biblical Hebrew, but not modern Hebrew, so unfortunately I can't benefit from their featured article to make improvements here. ~ Chitu 12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you wnat the discussion of Chapters and Verese to be limited to the protestant Bible, or include the Bible as used/defined by the different branches of Christianity? How fast will the article be vandalized/edited/deleted, if books like 3 Corinthians, or 2 Clement are included/discussed in the main text?

1 Enoch is more likely to make the article volatile. Clinkophonist 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1 Thes. 5:17 changed to 1 Thes. 5:16
According to the Textus Receptus and the 21st edition of Nestle's Greek text, verse 16 is shorter.

Number of Books for the Orthodox
According to the Wikipedia article on the Old Testament, the Orthodox have more books of the Bible than the Catholics. According to the list on the right, the Eastern Orthodox have 4 more books than the Roman Catholics. The Russian Orthodox have one more book than the Eastern Orthodox because of 2 (or 4) Esdras, and the Oriental Orthodox have 2 more than the Russian Orthodox because of Jubilees and Enoch. All of these mean that the Eastern Orthodox have 77 books, the Russian Orthodox 78, and the Oriental Orthodox 80. (The figures for all of the Orthodox may be one less than real, though, because that list on the aforementioned article says that the Letter of Jeremiah is considered as part of Baruch in Roman Catholic Tradition. Does this mean that it is an extra book in the Orthodox traditions?)

I'm removing the statement that the Eastern Orthodox have 73 books in their canon for now. I'll add the above figures or their corrections in a few days or as soon as I find out where the Letter of Jeremiah is placed in the Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox canons. Hairouna 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the article Books of the Bible [as it currently stands), most Orthodox have 5 more books than Roman Catholics, so I'll put 78 into this article. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There may need to be some more clarification for "most orthodox Christians". "Orthodox" carries more than one meaning (as the link "orthodox" leads to proves) and the wording as is can make it difficult to determine which "orthodox" is meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.30.55 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an illogical comment in the segment above, but it may not be the fault of the author, as he is quoting another Wikipedia article. He contrasts the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not separate from it. There are only three eastern churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East. Any other names indicate only a subdivision of one of these three denominations. GnatFriend (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comprehension
Two problems with this section. One, the example of "There is no God" isn't as relevant as it could be (also, I'm not aware that it's "oft-quoted"). It would be better to give an example of a verse that, without context, is easily misinterpreted, or just not to bother with an example. Two, the last sentence:

"However, when the Bible was written, it was meant to be deeply pondered, sequentially studied, and fully considered."

A little preachy and unnecessary. FAL 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And long overdue, this POV-pushing lecture is now gone. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "last sentence" quoted above was removed some time ago. The remainder was long overdue for sourcing, but what POV did you consider it was pushing? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection
I think that this article should have semi protection as it is often subject to vandalism, by non-registered users. Bballoakie 23:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree Disagree
 * Bballoakie 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fayenatic london (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree 41.242.55.137 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
I thought this article was very useful, important, and of a pretty good level. I was just wondering if we could get some more references to many of the things in here. It would give it more foundation :-) JeopardyTempest 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about different numberings
As the introduction to this article correctly states, there are scattered places where the verse numbering in Christian Bibles differs from Hebrew editions.

An example is Jeremiah chapters 30-31, where the verse בעת ההיא ("At that time") is counted as the first verse in chapter 31 for Christian editions, while numbered as the last verse in chapter 30 in most Hebrew editions.

My question: Does anyone know of a complete, accurate list of these sorts of differences between the editions? I ask because we require such a list for technical reasons in our current attempt to set up an edition of the Bible at Hebrew Wikisource.

My thanks to anyone who can provide a reference! Dovi 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Study Bible, published by Oxford, has a chart in the back. Two pages of small print, but it's really half that, because the rest of the chapter is affected as well, of course. It's mostly Psalms, due to every superscription being counted as a verse or part of a verse by Jews, but not by Christians, and I think a few dozen others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The versification data in the documentation for STEP and OSIS specifications is probably the most comprehensive authoritative reference you'll find. jonathon 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I have no idea what there are. Could you explain and add links? Dovi 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * STEP documentation can be found at http://www.crosswire.org/bsisg/download.htm. jonathon 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OSIS documentation can be found at http://www.bibletechnologies.net/utilities/fmtdocview.cfm?id=28871A67-D5F5-4381-B22EC4947601628B

jonathon 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I found some info on OSIS, which is relevant to add to this discussion page anyway:

Open Scripture Information Standard (OSIS) is an XML schema for marking up scripture and related text.

CCEL/OSIS Reference Systems gives examples of other variations between numbering systems in Christian bibles. Psalm 9:22-39 in the Vulgate is Ps 10:1-18 in modern English bibles.

The OSIS Manual includes:

Every osisText also needs to specify what reference or versification scheme any osisRefs within it refer to. This may or may not be the same work. Depending on how finely you distinguish things, there are several major versification traditions, and countless finegrained variations. For the present, we identify and reserve names for these major traditional reference systems:
 * NRSVA New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha
 * NA27 Nestle-Aland, 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament
 * KJV King James Version or Authorized Version (AV)
 * LXX Septuagint
 * MT Masoretic Text. Hebrew tradition varies in several respects, the best known being that it numbers what is given as a title for Psalms in most English translations as verse 1, and the beginning of the psalm in such a translation as verse 2.
 * SamPent the Samaritan Pentateuch used a quite different numbering system.
 * Synodal Russian
 * Vugl Vulgate
 * Loeb This system is used for most classical literature, though many major works have other systems as well.

So... the plot thickens! I have not yet located a list of the major differences, which I think would be of encyclopedic value. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That list was/is part of The e-Sword Utility Program FAQ. There are copyright, author's rights, and similar intellectual property rights issues that would have to be dealt with, prior to putting it up on Wikipedia. jonathon 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Tanakh
The opening statement is in error. ("Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New Translation" published in 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society of America contains all 39 books of the Protestant 'Old Testament,' but organized differently)RodMorgan (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is claiming that the content of the Tanakh and that of the Protestant Old Testament is different. However, those two works use different versification schemes. Part of that difference is whether or not a book is counted as chapter in another book, or as a book in its own right.  Trei Asar is one book, using the traditional Jewish versification scheme, but 12 books using the KJV versification scheme. Such differences is why it is correct to say that 24 books for Jews.  jonathon (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Isaac Nathan
Does anyone know whether the "Rabbi Isaac Nathan" referred to, but not linked, in the text, is the Rabbi Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus, on whom we do have an article? (obviously, if it is the same person, it would be good to have the link). seglea (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=232&letter=I and http://www.jstor.org/pss/3259119 both refer to his work on the first Hebrew Bible concordance. Well done. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
The Statistics section was deleted by user:Jnothman on 1 December 2009, with the following edit summary: Having discussed the variability in chapter and verse divisions, let alone canon, in different bible versions, statistics are not appropriate.

I beg to differ with his conclusion, and believe that many readers will find some of these facts and the cited sources useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The statistical data is meaningless, because it omits up to 30 books, 600 chapters, and 10 000 verses, depending upon which Canon one uses, and which v11n scheme for that Canon is being used.jonathon (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "arbitrary", but not "meaningless", as it states which canon and translation is used. As for v11n, please could you add an explanation of it to this article or to versification? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * v11n is a numeronym. DFH (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "arbitrary" is probably not the right word either. It's just one "particular" v11n; there being no agreed "universal" v11n. DFH (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Length of Chapters
As far as I can see, most chapters are far less than "a page or two." Unless somebody can come up with statistics, I think this part of the sentence should be removed. 72.95.171.24 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 1189 chapters in a Protestant bible. Looking at various popular editions on Amazon, these are usually printed on 1150-1300 pages. The average chapter is therefore just over one per page. I'll change it to "a page or so". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged sections
On 5 June 2009, an editor (who has since been blocked) moved a section into this article from Bible translations. It is probably right to have only one article on the subject, but the material now needs to be rewritten and merged into the article, rather than going over similar ground again. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Table of biblical books is 1.) in need of cleanup and 2.) doesn't really belong here.
The table of the biblical books at the beginning of the article is in need of cleanup. In some places it leaves empty lines to align corresponding books, in some it doesn't. The ">" marks in the otherwise empty second columns (in the Maccabees part of the table) make no sense - the Roman Catholic Maccabees books are NOT combinations of several books from the Orthodox list. Or what else are those marks supposed to mean?

More importantly, the table doesn't even really belong here. This is supposed to be an article about chapters and verses in the bible, not about the differences and similarities of the biblical canon in several denominations. Therefore I'd suggest removing it and all info on the canon question from this article, except as far as it is really needed for the subject. What do you think? -- 77.187.146.6 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks – other editors agreed with you and this was done. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistics
Someone needs to compile the statistics of the Catholic Bible as well, as it's used by the vast majority of Christians around the world. As the King James is used for Protestantism, the statistics should be taken from the equivalent Catholic version, the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision. Also, statistics should be compiled for the Eastern Orthodox Bible (that is, the Septuagint combined with the Ecclesiastical Text, which is much like the TR, a Byzantine type-text) with 3,4 Maccabees, Esdras A, etc., although I don't know which version should be used (the Orthodox Study Bible has notoriously bad versification, and the EOB is turning out poorly, and only the NT is done). Maybe the use of the New English Translation of the Septuagint combined with the KJV NT? If no one takes this up, I'll eventually get it done, but I could use some help.JohnChrysostom (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view revisited
The question was "The article repeatedly cites English scholars and translators. Do other translations of the Bible use chapters and verses at all? Do they use completely different systems of versification? Or did everybody adopt the English system? Fishal 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)".

The answer is: The verse numbering system is worldwide and independent of denominations. Even the Jews (who invented the texts, after all) use the Christian scheme for identifying Bible verses in the Tanakh. Smaller deviations do occur, though, such as the Chronicles example.

Only the habit of excluding the psalm headlines from the numbered verses seems not to be a worldwide tradition. I have seen it in an English, Spanish, and Swahili Bible, but not in German, French, and Russian ones. I see no pattern in that distribution of languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantani (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Eras
Under the verses heading in the History section, one era is indicated with "A.D." While this article has a generally Christian tone to it, the paragraph that date is in deals with Hebrew texts and Jewish traditions, it seems odd to use "A.D." (a Christian era divisor) instead of "C.E." (a slightly-less Christo-centric divisor). Is there any objection to changing "A.D. 915" to "915 C.E."? Chap0120 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(Oops---I originally put this at the top of the page; edited to move it to the bottom.) Chap0120 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chapters and verses of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828035123/http://www.breakthechain.org:80/exclusives/midbible.html to http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/midbible.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Some things to be corrected in this article (as of 11 Feb 2023)
1. Less than optimal division of the material. The “History” section gives a good overview of the topic, the “Jewish tradition” section has nothing to say about the current division into chapters and verses, and the “Christian versions” section partly duplicates the “History” section. Proposal: reorganize all of this material into 3 sections: “Early subdivisions of the Hebrew text”, “Early subdivisions of the Greek text”, and “The current subdivision into chapters and verses”.

2. Statistics about chapters in the Bible. The number of chapters in a Bible will depend on the number of books in that Bible, and that depends on the canon used by that Bible. But the subsection in this article is only about the KJV, an English translation using the Protestant canon. Why that one and no others? Inevitably there are calls for similar statistics about the Catholic Bible, the Eastern Orthodox Bible, etc. And why not the Septuagint and the Masoretic text (since modern editions of these versions have the chapter divisions retrojected into them)? I see 2 solutions to the narrow focus of the current statistics on chapters. (1) Include the statistics for all the main canons, within a huge table with multiple columns, one for each canon. Does anybody seriously want to undertake such a task? (2) If no one is interested, then simply delete the current statistics about chapters in the KJV as POV.

3. Statistics about verses in the Bible. Most of this material has a broader focus than the statistics about chapters, since various canons are discussed. But the first and second entries need to be corrected to indicate they are about Protestant Bibles. And the link for the last entry about the verse most read at funerals is dead. (Seriously.) MDJH (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"reason for edit"
In my 22 June 2023 minor edit, I entered "typo" for an explanation, but the history says "top." 伟思礼 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)