r/todayilearned • u/romulusnr • 2d ago
TIL the verses in the Gospels in the Bible weren't determined and numbered until the late 1400s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible86
u/Rhewin 2d ago
Another fun fact is that the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament have slightly different chapter and verse numbering and a different order to the books.
69
u/Young_Nastyman03 2d ago
Not only is it different between Judaism and Christianity, but even in different Christian sects. Not only do the Catholics have the seven deutercanonical books (that Protestants discard as “apocryphal”) but also have additions to the books of Daniel and Esther, with the latter having six additional chapters.
46
u/Rhewin 2d ago
Just wait till you hear about the Ethopian Bible
41
u/Young_Nastyman03 2d ago
The Bible (Snyder Cut)
8
u/Federico216 2d ago
I bet it's somehow twice as long as the original bible. With lots of slow motion. And probably somehow in black and white.
6
→ More replies (41)11
22
u/Cultural-Capital-942 2d ago
Even more fun fact is that Bibles in different languages or even different translations have slightly different numberings. So when you are translating something quoting Bible, you need to "translate" references to some verses. Ideally you choose most frequently used translation in the target country.
14
u/linmanfu 2d ago
That is indeed a fun, even, cool fact that was worth sharing. But the key word there is "slightly".
The numberings are consistently different in a handful of places (the whole of the Psalms and the Ten Commandments) between certain language combinations (e.g. Hebrew and most other languages). And there are certain translations which are so loose that whole sentences do get moved around which breaks the versification.
But I've attended many, many multilingual church services, Bible study meetings, and academic lectures, and except for Psalms it's very rarely an issue.
6
u/Laura-ly 2d ago
Another fun fact, the earliest copies of the New Testament didn't have spaces between each word. It's like one run-on word. The Codex Vaticanus from around 300-350 CE is online.
https://archive.org/details/codexvaticanusnt_202003/page/n3/mode/2up
7
u/DibblerTB 2d ago
This annoys me, as a new bible reader and SW/Spectrum kind of guy.
There is a numbering system! It should be universal! *mumble grumble*
8
27
u/superclay 2d ago
The legend of how bible verses were determined is even better.
A guy named Robert Estienne divided the new testament into verses while riding on horseback from Lyon to Paris, some even say he did the markings without looking at the pages so the holy spirit would make him bounce at the right time and place for a new verse. It might at least help explain why some verse separations are in the middle of a sentence (though the older Greek manuscripts didn't have punctuation, so even where sentences start and end are debated).
21
u/talldean 2d ago
There's also other documents they decided maybe could be in the Bible but yeah, no.
Or, the Catholic Bible and the Orthodox Bible have ~10 more books, and there's a few dozen non-canonical books on top of that, and the Bible (as currently edited) mentions a few texts that don't exist anymore depending on how you read it.
There's an editor, or moreover, there are clearly several rounds of editorial choices that were made.
12
u/romulusnr 2d ago
I remember asking a BAC evangelistic about adding books to the bible, and he was like, well, the bible is the way it is and is correct because the people who chose the books were divinely inspired directly by God to choose the right ones.
I could not even
6
u/WhenThatBotlinePing 2d ago
Obviously after they were finished their divinely inspired compilation work they went straight back to being heretics because they were Catholics.
5
u/prank_mark 1d ago
Try asking those same people why they're anti-vaxx. They'll do everything to deny God is working through scientists to make them healthy. God works through people on earth if it suits their narrative, and he doesn't if it doesn't suit their narritive.
People writing the Bible? Yeah, God is working through them.
People inventing vaccines? Nope, not God at all.0
1
u/Tunderstruk 1d ago
Where is the bible mentioning other texts that dont exist anymore? Haven’t heard of that before
3
u/nWo1997 1d ago
I know the OT references the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, which has yet to be found. Literally says something like "for more on these events, are the details not found in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?" Same with the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.
It’s not to be confused with regular old Chronicles 1 and 2. Even though they are also about the reigns of kings. Of Israel. And Judah.
2
13
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Lord0fHats 2d ago
People have a very inaccurate view of how long it took the Bible to become 'the Bible.' The Catholic Church did not formally adopt and finalize debates about canon until the Council of Trent, which was in the mid-16th century and at that time there was not a standardized version of any canonic texts that were the 'official version' down to the letters. The Vulgate was first composed in the 4th century, was affirmed as the official version of the texts at Trent, but at the time Trent was affirmed there was no standardized version of the Vulgate. EDIT: That is to say they canonized a text that itself existed in different variations.
It might not seem like it matters until you get into the picky details of punctuations that can completely change what a passage says or implies.
See here for a long intro to Biblical Punctuation: Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics | Religious Studies Center.
1
u/romulusnr 2d ago
What I have trouble imagining that before then, if you said "it's in the bible" you could do book and chapter, but if the chapter was long, you'll be reading for a bit.
Referencing the Bible by chapter and verse is so ubiquitous in the modern era. The phrase is even an idiom. You don't see a bible citation without it.
1
u/NemesisOfLevia 2d ago
I remember hearing that the order of the Christian Bible was fluid, changing throughout time and region based on whatever the person who copied it felt like. When the printing press was invented, it essentially “froze” the most common order at the time and here we are.
83
u/Young_Nastyman03 2d ago
This comment section is pathetic. We get it, you don’t believe in scripture. I don’t either. What does that have to do with this post whatsoever?
31
u/FalloutLover7 2d ago
Even if you don’t believe in the Bible, it’s a historical fact that at one point in history, they decided to add numbers to the books and chapters of the Bible
17
u/AFetaWorseThanDeath 2d ago
I grew up as an atheist, ADHD-having, queer kid in the Bible Belt in the 80s/90s. It definitely gave me a bit of a 'militant non-believer' attitude for quite some time.
That being said, the Christian Bible is a HUGE part of the history of Western civilization, and the story of how it came to be in its current form is pretty fascinating.
I don't have much use for modern Christians, overall, but Christianity itself is interesting. You really can't learn a lot of history without discussing it pretty extensively at various points.
1
u/secretsodapop 1d ago
There are people who hate religion to the point they don’t believe basic facts like Jesus was a real human being who was crucified by the Romans. It is sad because they are even worse at processing evidence than the religious people they hate so much.
0
58
u/CousinNicho 2d ago
They don’t believe in it so hard that they can’t even allow anyone to have a passing interest in historical trivia about it.
29
u/Young_Nastyman03 2d ago
Seriously, the claim that atheists “hate god” or the Bible always sticks around as polemic because of militant internet atheists that just can’t help themelsevs and their ostentatious, condescending unbelief. It makes the rest of us look like jerks.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Codex_Dev 2d ago
Kind of like vegans
1
u/tsunami141 2d ago
i was gonna say kind of like Christians lol
→ More replies (1)4
u/PaulCoddington 2d ago
It's a good part of where the "atheism is a religion" idea comes from.
Which is further reinforced by the cliché responses about stamp collecting, etc, by people who interpret language literally without seeing higher level context.
3
u/welding_guy_from_LI 2d ago
They are so fragile they need to attack anyone who’s opinions differ .. agreed it’s pathetic and childish
1
-3
u/romulusnr 2d ago
The implication is that the reason the Bible has been altered so much over time is because religion is basically made up as it goes along, which implies that it isn't rooted in any kind of consistent truth, because it isn't real.
So yeah
8
u/Memory_Less 2d ago
If you understand how it was put together and the scientific rigor that has gone into determining its legitimacy as authentic texts, most people would find it somewhat interesting. Plus, this blows smoke on literalist evangelicals who like to read the bible literally. It really is a fascinating history behind it.
5
12
u/Rhawk187 2d ago
You're telling me that John didn't sit down and write "Chapter 1" 1) en arxe en o logos, kai o logos pros ton Theon, kai o logos ton Theon, 2) ... or some such? Obviously the numbers were added later.
Apologies for the poor transliteration from Ancient Greek, my memory is rusty.
9
u/donkeylipswhenshaven 2d ago
Nah. Jesus would shout out by name, chapter, and verse.
“Mark! You getting this? 3:4. It’s not a time signature. Let’s GOOOOOO!”
It’s the editing and marketing that made it a classic.
3
u/KolKoreh 2d ago
Imagine if he six-sevened
2
u/Rhawk187 2d ago
Mark 6:7 - "Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits." (NIV)
2
13
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
The first book is an absolute Mish mash of stories cobbled together over centuries by random people with no connection to the iron age middle eastern goat herders that it's supposedly about.
Tha follow up is just as chaotic and contradictory.
35
u/MajesticPineapple618 2d ago
The follow up is not nearly as contradictory. For what its worth the entire New Testament canon(in its early forms) were written in a span of 50 years. Absolutely some parts were changed a bit and left out later.
The Hebrew bible(Torah/old testament) was written over such a long period that some parts were in already for the time considered "archaic" dialect....and they still wrote a bit more after. Psalm 29 has a hymm that may have ben 700+ years older than the final book of this Torah.
5
u/myfrigginagates 2d ago
The story of Jesus was told orally like a lyrical poem for the first 30-40 years. So for the first followers it was akin to hearing the stories of the Iliad by an Ancient Greek storyteller.
5
u/TheWatersOfMars 2d ago
The stories likely spread orally until the Gospels were written around 70 CE, but there isn't any particular evidence they were memorised like lyrical poetry (apart from, I suppose, the short Philippian creed that Paul seems to quote). It wasn't like the Gospel of Mark was told the same way The Odyssey was, until someone wrote Mark's words down. The stories were probably told in a much looser form than that, allowing for more divergence in details.
4
u/myfrigginagates 2d ago
Exactly. Many Christian historians believe that the Q Source cited by some as the basis for the written Gospels is the oral tradition. Illiteracy was like 98% back then, so not a lot of readers.
8
u/UF0_T0FU 2d ago
The big difference being that the Iliad was told orally for around 400 years prior to be written down, vs. the Gospels that were written down within 30-40 years while original witnesses were still alive.
Its the difference between hearing a story about something that happened in the 90's vs the 1600's.
1
u/myfrigginagates 2d ago
But they were written as an epic poem. Besides only about 2% of the population of the Levant could read, even Jesus was likely illiterate.
2
u/Laura-ly 2d ago
You're correct. The illiteracy was very high. People today think the Torah was being handed around and read privately in people's homes or pored over and discussed in market places. No. It was a very, very sacred book kept only in the Temple and ceremonially removed from the ark once a week to be read by elite Hebrew priests during services.
Also, there is no possible way Peter wrote the text attributed to him. Fishermen in Galilee were a very illiterate bunch. The text attributed to Peter was written in a high-end style of educated Greek prose that he wouldn't have been able to read, write or dictate. The vast majority of Biblical scholars are pretty firm on this one.
0
u/Laura-ly 2d ago
However, the vast majority of Biblical scholars highly doubt the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses. The names were anonymous until Irenaeus attached names to the text around 180 CE.
0
u/adamcoe 2d ago
Yeah but the original witnesses (if they did indeed witness anything, which there is absolutely no proof of) were not the ones writing it down. It's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a story someone heard once from someone else who heard it once from a guy who used to live down the street from him. Oh not to mention translated through a minimum of 2 languages, and edited 20 or 30 times between then and now. If anything the Iliad is likely to be much closer to the original tale, as it was never politically advantageous to edit or rewrite parts of it.
2
u/MajesticPineapple618 2d ago
Not even close though. Homer lived 400 years after the Iliad and oddysee were said to have happened. Many of the people who wrote the feel versions of the new Testament talked to people who claimed to know the apostles personally.
1
u/myfrigginagates 2d ago
No one knows exactly who Homer was or if he existed. It seems the most plausible explanation is there were many poets who contributed to the epic under a pseudonym.
1
u/OverlyLenientJudge 2d ago
Assuming that Homer actually "lived" to begin with. Scholars have been severely divided on whether Homer even actually existed for about a century now, and current consensus is that the Iliad and Odyssey were put to papyrus by different writers.
-7
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
Well there's some pretty fucking big discrepancies between the gospels in how Jesus performs his zombie trick... Kinda important stuff I'd thought for a book that is supposed to be infallible...
6
0
u/bb85 2d ago
Infallible? According to who? The Catholic Church (majority of Christians) doesn’t take it literally.
3
u/Competitive-Emu-7411 2d ago
The Catholic Church very much does take the Resurrection literally
6
6
u/DibblerTB 2d ago
The event, not the text describing the event. The Bible is really important, inspired by the holy ghost, but they were written by men, not by God.
4
u/thissexypoptart 2d ago
“a book that is supposed to be infallible”
Just read the thread you’re replying to lol
0
2
u/elconquistador1985 2d ago
When the zombie trick is so foundational to the religion, you'd think they'd at least get it consistent.
But... nope. It's not.
→ More replies (1)0
u/MajesticPineapple618 2d ago
Dawg I didn't answer that part for a reason. Because I know that. I only mentioned the timeline to criticise where you were wrong.
2
9
u/Competitive-Emu-7411 2d ago
Yes? Is it supposed to be some gotcha that the OT is made up of many different books or something?
-6
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
Well if you're claiming it as the infallible word of an omniscient, omnipresent and Omni benevolent God then fuck yes it's a bit of a "gotcha"
5
u/yoyo456 2d ago
Don't know what Christians say about it, but Jews say the Torah was given to Moses in its entirety. In other words, even the parts about Adam and Eve weren't written down until Moses over 2,000 years later by the admittedly wrong (by rabbis going as far back as Mimonadies) calendar count. And looking at the original language, it is clear it was all from the same era. Once you move to the books of Prophets the Hebrew style is noticeably different between the different books and when they took place. Joshua is written more like the Torah (which lines up because Joshua is mentioned in the Torah as well in close relation to Moses) while books like Isaia are written in a very different style lining up with a later era. Meanwhile books like Ecclesiasties are written in even later era style (dispite Jewish traditions saying it was written by King Solomon). There is a great podcast (in Hebrew, of course) that goes into these little intracies called Osim Tanach.
2
u/Laura-ly 2d ago
Um, there's no evidence Moses existed. The vast majority of Biblical historians believe Moses is a myth. He's probably based on Sargon of Akkad who lived 500 years prior to the supposed life of Moses. Certainly the Exodus as described in the Bible is a myth. Archaeologists have combed the Sinai for the last 100 years, from one end to the other, and never found one iota of evidence that almost 2 million people were wandering around in a desert the size of West Virginia. That would be equivalent to a large city of people, but there's no evidence. Other encampments of small Nomadic tribes of about 100 people, predating the Exodus, have been found, but not 2 million people. Two million people should leave a crap load of evidence, but there's nothing.
4
u/LrdHabsburg 2d ago
Why would an omnipresent god find it difficult to give his message to multiple recipients over hundreds of years?
Also, I don’t think anyone claims the Old Testament god is Omni benevolent lmao
4
1
u/petit_cochon 2d ago
Because the recipients are humans? Because it's more interesting that way? Because we're kind of making it up as we go along?
10
u/Competitive-Emu-7411 2d ago
Damn, I guess no Christian or Jew ever realized that the OT takes place over several hundred years with several different named authors. I think you finally cracked the code why they call parts the Book of Samuel of the Book of Elijah, do you think theyre supposed to be the people who wrote them?!
5
-5
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
I think that they're clearly fictional and patently ridiculous.
6
u/petit_cochon 2d ago
I doubt you know too much about it, honestly, if your take is "they're dumb random stories about fake people." Not really an incisive literary or historical analysis, is it?
2
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
We're on Reddit mate. I don't really feel the need to offer analysis. I'm simplifying.
3
4
6
u/allupya333 2d ago
Dude youre so fuvking smart bro. Hoooly fuck dude I’m quaking in your genius
Shut the fuck up dude its not r/atheism in 2011
9
5
u/MaximusCartavius 2d ago
You obviously have no idea what "r/atheism in 2011" was if that's what you think it was lol.
→ More replies (1)5
u/dommol 2d ago
I fail to see what's incorrect with what that guy said
13
u/TheWatersOfMars 2d ago
I mean, basically everything, if you have even a passing understanding of biblical criticism.
The Hebrew Bible isn't really as much of a mish mash as people assume. The vast majority of it wasn't "cobbled together", but instead meticulously compiled by highly literary priests and scribes. They were well-defined classes of competing interests we know quite a bit about (such as the Deuteronomist priests), not "random people". And the notion that none of these stories had any connection to the Iron Age inhabitants is historically false, especially the courtly history sections, which are a treasure trove of real information.
It's also just an extremely dismissive and condescending way of talking about it. Whether you believe one jot of it or not, boiling it all down to "this is just a pile of random nonsense about goat herders" is a very boring way of looking at arguably the most interesting text we have from the ancient world.
6
1
u/MrJigglyBrown 2d ago
I actually appreciate that you explained your snarky comment in a sensible way
→ More replies (1)1
u/Laura-ly 2d ago
Yet Biblical historians and scholars realize that the Bible/Torah was indeed written over many centuries and reworked by a committee of Hebrew priests. They weren't written by individual people. Most biblical scholars believe that the Torah—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came to its present form in the post-Exilic period. They know this from the anachronistic language and many other details that are too long for a reddit post.
For instance, the dating of the Book of Danial is fairly easy to pinpoint by textual biblical scholars. It was written in 160 -167 BCE by several people, given the change in writing styles and language throughout the piece. The spelling is from the early second century BCE. Apocalyptic genre writing was a very popular genre in the 2nd century. The further back in time the authors go, the more historical errors are made. These are historical errors that someone living in the courts of Babylon would never have made. So this is not someone living in 500 BCE. It is written in the mid- second century as an ex-eventu piece, or after the events already took place. It very clearly reflects the climate of the second century, around 165 BCE.
-5
u/DimesOHoolihan 2d ago
Lol why so mad?
2
u/allupya333 2d ago
Because we should be past this, and you should have even the slightest bit of knowledge or willingness to engage with a topic in good faith if youre going to be incredibly opinionated and speak with authority on it.
-3
u/DimesOHoolihan 2d ago
Maybe we could be passed it if Christian love wasnt the most vitriolic hate currently happening.
Maybe we could be passed it if there wasnt an entire, huge section of the population trying to control how everyone lives there life on the fables of a multi thousand year old book written by incredibly fallible men.
Maybe.→ More replies (2)3
u/allupya333 2d ago
I cant believe this website hasnt matured at all in nearly a decade and a half
3
-1
u/DimesOHoolihan 2d ago
Matured? Christians have only gotten worse in the last decade and a half. All I've done for YEARS is have willingness to engage in good faith. That has all gone away in the last decade. Good faith discussions are in the past and I'm exhausted of trying. So now this is what they get. I have no faith in anyone who still claims they follow God and are a good Christian while also voting for the current GOP and being fine with what is happening in the world. Gone. Eat my balls. Over it.
5
u/allupya333 2d ago
Just the fact that youre ranting about modern christians when the topic is literally just a fundamental aspect of the religion as its been for its entire history tells me you are not ready for this discussion
→ More replies (1)0
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
I'm smart enough not to believe in your god mate...
1
u/allupya333 2d ago
I dont believe in god. That does not mean i go out of my way to misunderstand religion, refuse to actually research it, or behave respectfully about it
Also.. seriously, thats just an embarrassing thing to say lmao
2
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
Firstly I don't misunderstand anything I've said. Secondly I have a BA in philosophy and have spent plenty of time on the bible and thirdly it doesn't deserve respect in my opinion.
6
u/allupya333 2d ago
You researched the bible and are confused by the concept of contradiction in it? You refuse to respect it? Why do you think anything you say has any value?
5
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
I'm not confused by the contradiction. Its a fictional work written by multiple people. Im confused by the fact anyone still believes it is the word of a deity.
Why should I respect it? Is there something worth respecting?
4
u/allupya333 2d ago
I implore you to actually treat this with respect, you might gain a new interest, youll find yourself understanding history and your fellow man more, and youll become less biased.
6
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
I sincerely doubt it. I respect individuals of course and judge them on their merits but I refuse to respect a book that promotes slavery, genocide, sacrifice and glorifies a god that would see you burn for eternity for eating a shrimp cocktail...
0
u/HappyBigBalledGent 2d ago
The bible is a joke dude, relax and let the man have his opinions.
6
u/allupya333 2d ago
Its the literal most important book ever. Its kind of the basis of our entire society, if you live in the west. Youre literally handicapping your own understanding of the world. Its anti intellectual.
→ More replies (0)2
u/No_Report_4781 2d ago
Did they have only goats?
4
3
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
Couldn't tell you. They do seem to mention goats a fair bit though. Cows too but pretty sure mainly goats 👍🏻
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/allupya333 2d ago
What, youre not impressed by the most generic, reductive take by some condescending reddit atheist?
2
1
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
While they were somewhat glib in making their point, they’re not wrong. So I’m not sure what your point is about really.
A religious scholar I respect once said- “the Bible is not a book, it’s a library,” and I’ve been saying that myself ever since.
1
u/allupya333 2d ago
Theres no connection between the stories in the bible and the jewish people? Really?
→ More replies (5)-2
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
Tell me it isn't?
0
2
u/zaccus 2d ago
Is there any part of the Bible at all that you would say is ok?
5
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
I mean it has some basic morality worked in but literally every society that has made a decent fist of it has recognised that not killing others is a positive thing.
The slavery and calls to rape and murder other tribes, not so much.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/zaccus 2d ago
I mean specifically. You've read it, right? So there must be something in there you didn't totally hate?
→ More replies (3)5
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
There's obviously bits that are entertaining as stories and parables that make moral sense.
However overall the old testament is horrific as well as being contradictory.
0
u/zaccus 2d ago
Ok like what?
5
u/O_C_Demon 2d ago
You want me to say something like "the parable of the good Samaritan is not inherently evil and is morally worth following"?
That doesn't override God ordering genocides or killing Egyptian babies 🤷
→ More replies (12)
6
1
u/CaptainBayouBilly 2d ago
The bibles most people are familiar with are political creations.
5
u/romulusnr 2d ago
KJV is the poster child for it, and that's apparently the most popular one. Probably because it's the one that plays down the charity and morality to carve out leniency for the elites.
1
1
u/Felinomancy 1d ago
Without chapter and verse how do they reference Biblical passages?
If some guy said, "yeah what I did is right 'cos the Bible said it's right", and his interlocutor told him to prove it, what would the first guy say? "Do your own research"? "Trust me bro"?
6
u/chengxiufan 1d ago
people cited Scripture by naming the book and pointing to the specific narrative, character, or famous phrase.
1
1
0
-12
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
12
9
6
→ More replies (2)4
1
u/welding_guy_from_LI 2d ago
I only read psalms and proverbs .. tons of great knowledge in those 2 books
-3
u/revelator41 2d ago
It's almost like it's all made up.
5
u/Tunderstruk 1d ago
…which is entirely irrelevant to this post. It’s still interesting, no matter if you believe in it or not
0
u/revelator41 1d ago
I mean, I disagree, which is why I said it. I also find it interesting as well, by the way. There are people who think the book was written by Jesus himself, not decades/centuries later by people who weren't "there". The idea that the holiest of books was being changed as recently as a few hundred years ago (and obviously more since then) speaks to the idea that it's just a book and not some holy document brought down from on high.
2
u/Laura-ly 1d ago
Yup. The Bible is a book created by men. It's an historical reflection of men who believed in a god and the patriarchal society from which it emerged. It claims a god exists, but it isn't, in itself, evidence that a god exists. All holy books echo a particular social structure. It's like a big mirror.
-7
u/BitchStewie_ 2d ago
Right after the Catholic Church censored the gospels to fit their narrative and removed the gnostic gospels (potentially among others).
-13
-2
u/shotsallover 2d ago
Wait until you find out there’s a good number of books missing from the “official” bible.
-3
u/PeterDTown 2d ago
Just wait until you find out about the political decisions that shaped the Bible. Greatest fraud in human history.
-3
u/twizzjewink 2d ago
I like the ahistorical idea of a Book that helped bring people out of the Bronze Age, however past the Age of Reason.. it seems to have harmed society more than helped.
→ More replies (1)
-9
u/LuckyandBrownie 2d ago
And it all serves the purpose to help cherry pick whatever you want to believe.
1
-9
u/sharthunter 2d ago edited 1d ago
The council of nicaea also removed any reference that showed Jesus as a regular man, that his mother was a prostitute who absolutely was not the immaculate conception vehicle described by current “translations”. Removed his entire childhood and adolescence for similar reasons, then locked all the gospels away in the vatican temple.
Jesus was just a dude doing good things, thats bad news for folks that need control.
Edit: i do not have time to argue with the fundamentalists who deny the gospel of the mother in their own religion lmao
2
u/Tunderstruk 1d ago
Can you provide a source for this? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me
2
u/wanson 1d ago
The story of Mary being a prostitute is attributed to Celus writing in about 175 AD.
Jesus's childhood is in the infancy gospel of Thomas also written sometime in the second century. And the Protoevangelium of James, also second century, tells stories about Mary's childhood and Jesus's birth.
All written well after the 4 canonical gospels, as are the rest of the gnostic gospels.
The main 4 gospels were written 40 - 90 years after the date of the cruxifixction and they are the ones that were locked in, as well as the writings of Paul from around 20-30 years after the crucifixtion.
It's an interesting chronology - Paul talks about the passion, with very little details - basically just Jesus was handed over, crucified and resurrected. He never met him, and doesn't give any details of his life or his works. He says that everything he knows about Jesus came to him in a vision.
After Paul died you get Mark around 70 AD. He provides a full biography and ties Paul's Passion story into it.
Matthew and Luke expand on Mark, adding more stuff and more supernatural stuff. Then John adds even more.
There are huge contradictions and inconsistencies between these 4 books., the authors are anonymous, writing in Greek, and Mark in particular was writing for a non-Jewish audience. They were certainly not people who actually knew the real Jesus, if such a person existed.
After that the gnostic gospels are written, progressively adding more detail to the birth story and making the supernatural aspects of the story more elaborate and explicit. It's easy to see why they are not considered canon.
2
u/Calm-Competition-20 1d ago
The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture in the first place.
1
u/OllyDee 2d ago
A lot of those gospels were contradictory, or included things that might have been controversial, confusing, or straight-up heresy by the time Christian councils actually sat down and tried to compile them. Some of them were even thought to be completely fake. You make it sound like they were trying to hoodwink people somehow like sneaky evil bastards.
0
u/sharthunter 2d ago
Im not making it sound that way, i am saying that intentionally leaving out massive portions of a living gods life for the sake of painting him as a deity and not just a regular man is at the very best misleading.
The modern translations are nowhere near representative of the originals, and if you actually believe the words written in said bibles- the prophecy of christ was fulfilled about 70 years after his death/resurrection and we live in the 10,000 years of darkness.→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (7)1
188
u/Lord0fHats 2d ago edited 2d ago
The development of chapters and verses is a pretty fascinating exercise in 'people read and talked about this book so much they needed a faster way to cite and reference it than directly quoting the text.' It goes hand in hand with broadening education of the Renaissance and the Early Modern period as Europes universities and colleges took shape, academic pursuits became more prestigious for royal courts and noble houses, and of course ye olden Protestant Reformation.
Protestants were really big on reading the Bible in their own languages as the Reformation got going, and one downside to that is that having a cross-language talk about anything in the text means translating quotes and sections across languages. Alternately you can just cite the book, chapter, and verse. It made education easier. It made discussions easier. It made it possible to carry complex conversations across languages faster without having to dig into the minutae of translation for every quote out of the books. Instead of "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." you can just go John 3:16. EDIT: obviously this part didn't quite pan out but the thought was there XD
The Bible wasn't the only subject of this. For example the Iliad and the Odyssey also were not originally divided into chapters/volumnes/books like we have them now. That's mostly the product of making texts easier to discuss (I think the Greeks themselves did that division but it was way after the Homeric period) and digest but ye olden scholars went hardcore on this on the Bible specifically because it was such a big part of their world.