>> 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.

> 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...

While the chapter and verse were only introduced much later, the Judaic explanation of the scriptures, especially the Pentateuch, has been referencing parts of it by naming every passage (of 3-5 chapters) by the first meaningful word. This was done in writing as early as the Babylonian exile, as can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Even now in traditionally written Tora scrolls, there are no chapters and verses, but one searches for the name of that Parasha to find the relevant portion

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 different in this context is because the reference system has been formalized as being the best selling book in history means sometimes font sizes are gonna change.

You might have well just said:

  In practice, it is far more common to see [anything] quoted as a small snippet meant to re-enforce some other point.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation

The center cannot hold

The better angels of our nature

I think what you're saying is right on. But I do know the occasion where someone will take a verse by itself and consider it a single logical unit where they get all meaning, understanding, etc. from that one verse and nothing else. It's just a learning point is all. I've always been taught to take the scripture as a whole and not just take one verse for understanding.

I know a lot of them, most notable one being: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Or: Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I'm thinking, for example, of the RCL, which often breaks passages mid chapter and occasionally omits individual verses. What sort of Christian community do you mostly know?

If you said "The St. Crispin's day speech" I'd immediately know what you mean. I'm definitely a Shakespeare fan, but would have no idea which act, scene, &c. that speech occupies. I'd wager that's much less true of the scriptures in many circles.

To some extent probably, but I wonder if that's as true as you assume.

I'd guess that many people in vaguely Christianized communities would be familiar, to some degree at least, with passages like "Daniel in the Lion's Den", "The Sermon on the Mount", "The Plagues of Egypt", "The Good Samaritan", and so on, without being able to tell you the chapter and verse (or even book) in which they're found.

Perhaps! I've encountered lots of fellow Christians who construct arguments by taking individual verses from everywhere in the scriptures and arranging them into an argument assuming that all the terms are equivalent and that the context doesn't matter. It particularly perplexes me when someone will cite, say verse x and then immediately after it cite verse x-2, reordering them in a way that destroys the sense of the passage, but supports some argument.

Perhaps there's an uncanny valley between people who are familiar with the broad strokes and people who argue contextually.

This practice is usually called "proof-texting" [1] and perhaps surprisingly it's not confined to one particular kind of Christian. For example, the very conservative evangelicals I grew up with were extremely anti proof-texting and decontextualized reading, to the point that they rarely read from the Bible (in church or otherwise) unless they're reading a whole chapter. On the other hand, the conservative evangelical Dwight Moody is often accused of promoting exactly this hermeneutical approach. In my experience, a certain class of the "reformed" are often guilty of it.

To be clear, I certainly think the people I grew up with were guilty of their own particular hermeneutical weaknesses, this is just about proof-texting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext

[2] Can't find a ready source for this, could be the result of some infighting.

> I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions

It's common to quote short passages (1-3 verses) in society, either to prove a point (often missing context) or in a "thought for the day" manner. Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible.

  Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible.

People quote literature they haven't read all over the place[1]. Implying its unique to the Bible means you probably haven't done your research either.

[1]: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/68007/50-famous-misquota...

The difference being that for the Christian (a presumption when you see someone quote scripture) the Bible supposedly defines their worldview, as opposed to various pieces of literature.

Usually the Bible is taught via stories, especially the Gospel stories, rather than individual verses and the verses are quoted to make points.

While there are, e.g., yearly Bible plans to read everything, not many people these days have the patience to read all the numbers in Numbers and there's an incredibly limited theological value in knowing how many there were of the tribe of Napthali or what have you unless you're trying to pass a Bible quiz.

I mean, why would a modern day Christian want to memorize all the rules on kosher food when Paul explained at length why they're irrelevant to us now? Or the rules on making a potion out of the dust of the Temple floor of a temple that's no longer standing? Or the rules about wearing clothing with multiple materials?

Yes, there are yet some principles that might be extracted of some of these--take for example, not muzzling the ox while it's treading the grain as an exhortation to take care of your animals and anyone who serves you. Or the prohibition on harvesting the last bits of crop at the edges of your fields, which were then reserved for the poor, to always reserve something for the poor among you.

But these things tend to be explained elsewhere and it ends up as trivia that doesn't matter much unless someone is insistent that a Real Christian [TM] must know whether the witch of Endor is from Samuel, Sirach or Star Wars... which in turn depends on whether she's named Charal or not.

Yes, really -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_of_Endor https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Charal

also true of Shakespeare, e.g. unironically quoting Polonius. I feel like the implied point of parent was that things which are referenced often probably tend to accrue/emphasize increasingly granular hooks for doing so. Whether the tail ends up wagging the dog is an interesting question, but it's also worth sussing out whether it developed more as pragmatic device than ideological imposition