Bible put in chronological order: should it be?

An interesting controversy over a new Bible which arranges Scripture chronologically: out next month, it is marketed as the "only study Bible that presents the text of the New King James Version in chronological order". Gospels, Psalms and the Epistles of Apostle Paul are chopped up and re-woven with other texts to fit the historical timeline.The accounts of Jesus' life as detailed in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are combined into one narrative based on the order of events found in Mark.Letters written by Apostle Paul to members of the Early Church are worked into the chronology of Acts. The Christian blogosphere is alight with argument...

Comments

[andrew holden]

This might be interesting from the point of view of the literalist but the Bible is not neutral history. It has been 'ordered' (Luke's word) the way it has for a reason - "these things are written that you may believe" (John).

Besides I'm not sure if it's even possible to re-order the text chronologically. Do they mean with reference to when the events happened or when the accounts were written? Either way I can't see the scholars actually agreeing.

[Coel]

Andrew Holden writes: "It has been 'ordered' (Luke's word) the way it has for a reason - "these things are written that you may believe" (John)."

That's quite an admission for someone who regards the Bible as reliable historical evidence.

[mr-zero]

It's like fitting wheels to a banana. It can be done but what's the point?

[andrew holden]

"That's quite an admission for someone who regards the Bible as reliable historical evidence. "

Is it? Some people see what they want to see, don't they! The Bible is no more a history text book than it is a scientific text book. It needs to be taken seriously for what it is - a religious book, first and foremost. It's own claim is that it is "God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...." (2 Tim 3:16) - it is not designed for specific use in history or science classes!

I've said clearly elsewhere that the Bible is no different than most other ancient documents when it comes to being a source for historical data. That it indeed has a bias is no surprise to anyone who takes it seriously, but that doesn't mean it is any more useless for doing history than works by Heroditus or Pliny.

[John]

It makes for an interesting idea. If the books of the NT were in the order of the date of composition then how much would we learn of the life of Jesus by reading just the first dozen or so books the earliest of which were written by St.Paul? Surprisingly to many Christians the answer is virtually nothing.

It would graphically demonstrate how extraordinarily little Paul knew of the man Jesus or seemingly even wanted to know even though by Christian tradition both men lived contemporaneously and in the same neck of the woods.

A basic tenet of Christianity is that God lived as a man but, as far as we can tell, St Paul had no interest in the "God man" - only in his own idea of the "Risen Lord".

If St Paul could live without the Gospels, why can't we?

[bill]

Let's do that for the OT, NT, apocriphal, and pseudepigraphical works combined. Now, we just have to move some of it back 13 billion years, remove the 90 to 99% myth, and you may be on to something...
The again why not leave it all as it is, and treat it all as the myth it is.

[bill]

"that doesn't mean it (the bible) is any more useless for doing history than works by Heroditus or Pliny."

The bible (OT and NT) is much, much less historical than just about any work that ever recorded world events, as it never was meant to be just a record of events as they happened. It always was theological based, cloaked in myth, allegory and fictional epic, with a few facts buried in there somewhere. Such a bold statement as yours is typical of the Christian and Jewish method of creating then reaffirming pseudo-history. [Other religions do this too, in their own way.]

[Coel]

Andrew Holden writes: "I've said clearly elsewhere that the Bible is no different than most other ancient documents when it comes to being a source for historical data."

That is fair; but when other historical texts mention events such as people being raised from the dead, or actions by pagan gods, the account is simply not believed.

[andrew holden]

"It would graphically demonstrate how extraordinarily little Paul knew of the man Jesus... "

An alternative, and more likely scenario, is that Paul and the early church relied upon surviving witnesses and circulating eyewitness accounts to tell the original story of Jesus. Paul mentions pivotal and foundational historical events in the life of Jesus, ie his birth and death, and refers to teaching which is 'not I but the Lord'.

Now clearly neither account can move beyond the status of hypothesis - but as I keep saying that is the nature of history, it is ALL hypothesis, probability and opinion - you have one agenda and I have my own. That's the nature of historical study - there is no such thing as the disinterested historian.

[andrew holden]

"St Paul had no interest in the "God man"..."

Au contraire:

Christ, "being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..." (2 Phil 2:6)

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

"All the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him bodily" (Colossians 2:9)

Probably the best scholarly work on NT Christology is by James Dunn (Christology in the Making), an expert on St Paul and the 1st Century Hellenic and Jewish background to the New Testament:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christology-Making-Testament-Doctrine-Incarnation/dp/0802842577/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220342499&sr=8-2

[Geoffrey Smith]

With respect, Mr Holden, 2 Tim. 3:16 does not refer to the Bible as such, but to the Hebrew scriptures. St Paul was writing to the Bishop of Ephesus at a time when the New Testament did not exist, so his words can not have meant to be interpreted in the manner that you suggest. In all other respects, you are correct, and Mr Coel needs to understand that the Bible is only partly an historical work, but also a form of poetry, allegory and prophecy. If we acknowledge that even the biographical content of the NT, relating to the life of Our Lord, is necessarily short and incomplete (John 21:25), I see no advantage being gained in placing the books in chronological order.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If St Paul could live without the Gospels, why can't we?"
- John, 1 SEP 2008, 15:46:12

St Paul did not need the Gospels, John, because he had the Catholic Church to teach him and others the Gospel of Christ, by word of mouth rather than by anything written. He told Timothy that the Hebrew scriptures were useful as a means of instruction, but, again, only by word of mouth. Like those early Christians, we too need the Church to teach us the meaning of the Gospels.

[davep]

"St Paul did not need the Gospels, John, because he had the Catholic Church"

Explain, please?

[andrew holden]

"...when other historical texts mention events such as people being raised from the dead, or actions by pagan gods, the account is simply not believed."

That too is fair - but it is only a place to start. Are there reasons why these accounts may be telling the truth? If God exists and if Jesus is God incarnate then the miracles are at least possible. Obviously you have to be a believer to allow that point - but then that's our different agendas (presuppositions) in action.

If beliefs in Jupiter and Zeus were still credible then people might take some of the other stories as being at least possible. Is this a religious version of natural selection in operation? Are all religions heading for extinction as some would believe or do some still have survival value? I think I know your answer but you'll forgive me for having my own reasons for taking a different line.

[Norman]

The Koran should be put in chronological order. At present the chapters are in order of length. Somehow I find it hard to accept this is the work of a supreme intelligence. Why not go all the way and put the words into alphabetical order? Or just give the letter frequencies?

[andrew holden]

"With respect, Mr Holden, 2 Tim. 3:16 does not refer to the Bible as such, but to the Hebrew scriptures. St Paul was writing to the Bishop of Ephesus at a time when the New Testament did not exist, so his words can not have meant to be interpreted in the manner that you suggest."

With respect, Mr Smith, St Paul was writing about 'all scripture'. Is the New Testament regarded by you as scripture? If so then his comments apply to it. Your specious argument would nicely undermine many things writen in the New Testment. Jesus only preached to a proto-church community so his comments cannot possibly be authoritative for the Catholic Church. Hmmmmm!

[John Jackson]

This is not new I have a copy of the "So That's Why" Bible. It has been around at least for the last 8 yrs. It is helpful in Bible study to put things in context and certainly for comparison between certain authors fro example looking at 1&2 Samuel and Chronicles. It's only a problem if you are looking for one.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Holden, how could St Paul be referring to the Bible in 2 Tim. 3:16 when it simply did not exist at that time? His two epistles to Timothy were not even regarded as Holy Writ by their recipient!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Dave P, the Catholic Church predated the Bible by about 400 years. The Church began on Pentecost
in the year c.33, the Bible first saw the light of day in 419.
Hence, St Paul taught the Catholic faith unassisted by the Gospels. Indeed, he was long dead before the Gospel of John had even been written. Like all the Christians of that day (c35-65), he had only the Church to help him come to a knowledge of the faith, which was imparted to him by word of mouth, not by reading and studying a non-existent book.

[AKULA]

I am happy to be corrected but surely this is simply a revision of a revision of a revision of a translation. Or to put it into real terms, the next stage of the Chinese Whisper! Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.

[alan]

Surely isn't the bible 99% deadly boring and 1% brilliant philosophy of life (the figures are only approximate, of course)? (Don't answer please, that's a rhetorical question.)
I wouldn't like to miss the bit about he who is without sin should cast the first stone, for example, and I've always had a liking for a time to live and a time to die, etc., (although unfortunately the idea of turning the other cheek is largely ignored by most bible-thumpers.) Oh, and the lord being my shepherd is nice poetry too.
But - as I said - most of it is enough to send you to sleep. It's hard to imagine anyone actually reading it all - every single dreary word, I mean.
But I suppose monks and nuns and Jehova's witnesses and born-again creationists might perhaps have, instead of using the time to do something more useful. (Better than watching soaps on TV, though, I suppose.)

[andrew holden]

"Mr Holden, how could St Paul be referring to the Bible in 2 Tim. 3:16 when it simply did not exist at that time? His two epistles to Timothy were not even regarded as Holy Writ by their recipient!"

Clearly Paul wasn't referring to the Bible but writings regarded then as scripture. Nevertheless he said 'all scripture' - not 'scripture written at this point'. If his epistles are part of scripture then what he said applies regardless of whether he knew it or not.

Peter, writing just a bit later than Paul certainly regarded Paul's writing as scripture.

Anyway, real point of issue. If you are trying to suggest that Pauls writings are somehow not scripture do you also think they are better for teaching history and science than the writings he was refering to? If not then I'm really not sure what pedantic point you are trying to score.

[Geoffrey Smith]

The point I am trying to make, Mr Holden, is that, at the time of writing to Timothy, St Paul was obviously unaware of any such work as 'The Bible' being extant. Certainly, some of the scriptures which later became incorporated in the Bible had been written, but so had a great deal of other writings purporting to be Christian literature, many of them spurious. None of them was regarded as inspired, or as Holy Writ, but all of them were read and studied, at least by that privileged minority of Christians who were literate and could read Greek. The Bible, as you know it today, lay centuries in the future, so St Paul's remark 'all scripture' must have referred to the Hebrew scriptures, not to the New Testament. Hence, my complaint that your earlier post contained an error of fact. In any event, the compilation of the Bible by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (I and II) was done to supplement the normal mode of instruction in the Christian faith, not to teach
history or science or Greek or poetry to the faithful.

[andrew holden]

Your point, Mr Smith, is moot. Paul was certainly not, nor did I ever claim that he was, writing about 'the Bible' (since, as you say it had not been compiled) neverthless he was writing generally about 'all scripture' (the 'Hebrew Bible' had not been formally complied either - Jamnia 90AD).

Whether Paul counted his works as being included in scripture is impossible for us to know. He certainly thought he was writing with authority - and no less than Peter (important for Catholics at least) thought Paul's letters were part of scripture. Scripture is, after all, renowned for having extra layers of meaning unknown or unappreciated by the original author or audience - so whether Paul thought his remarks in 2 Tim applied to anything other than Hebrew scriptures is not determinative anymore than, for example, whether Paul thought that Adam was a historical individual or not is determinative for our understanding of Genesis. What matters is whether it seems corect in the church's understanding and application of what is now recognised as scripture.

If St Paul's letters are included in scripture (and I certainly believe they are) then 2 Tim 3:16 applies to New Testament scriptures, recognised or unrecognised or not at that point in time.

[Rick Beekman]

Much Dialog on this subject..Few Answers.

First; I would Be Beyond "Sceptical" if someone decides to put The Bible In Chronilogical Order.
(1) How do we Know for certain if the Group (Or Person) Advocating This did not have some Hidden Agenda to try and confuse People? The Devil Has been using every scheme in his bag of tricks since Calvary To Confuse..Cast doubt upon..and generally Mock God's Word.
(2) Jesus warns this to those who would attempt to change around or take away from or Add to his Word; Revelation 22 v 18; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book..if any man shall add unto these things..God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."