Kruse Kronicle

Clarity of New Chronological Bible at Question

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Christian Post: Clarity of New Chronological Bible at Question

A new Bible that arranges Scripture according to when the events occurred – as opposed to when it was written – has stirred debate in the Christian blogosphere on whether the chronological ordering leads to clarity or confusion.

Bible publishing giant Thomas Nelson is set to debut the Chronological Study Bible next month, marketing the book as the "only study Bible that presents the text of the New King James Version in chronological order."

In the edition, well-known books in the Bible like the Gospels, Psalms, and the Epistles of Apostle Paul are chopped up and re-woven with other texts to fit the historical timeline. …

…But some Christians see a dead end to this journey.

"It bothers me when bad historical criticism trumps narrative structure," writes one blogger by the name of Drew. "It's primarily a set of theological texts that have historical significance, not a set of historical texts that have theological significance."

Re-working the text "removes the significance of the authorship through that process of transmission," he added.

Some Christian bloggers are skeptical over the accuracy of the new format. Others criticize Thomas Nelson for re-hashing the Gospel message with financial motives. …

I don't think the chronological Bible is a big deal as long as you know what you are reading. I once read the entire Bible using a chronological Bible and found it edifying. I tend to put things into chronological flow in my mind. I was aware that some of the arrangement was rather arbitrary and that some works describing some events were much later than the materials with which they were interspersed. Still, the general sense of historical flow was useful in seeing an unfolding story.

I don't think anyone is promoting this biblical arrangement as a replacement for the traditional Bible, but as a supplemental lens used with the appropriate caveats, I think it is just fine.

Comments

4 responses to “Clarity of New Chronological Bible at Question”

  1. David Brush Avatar
    David Brush

    There have been ‘Harmony of the Gospel’ texts for years that do this with the Gospel books for years. In fact I have one, it hasn’t confused me yet!

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I’ve seen that one too. I think if we were to follow the critics claim to the extreme we would have to argue that no one should be reading the Bible except in Hebrew or Greek.

    Reply
  3. ZZMike Avatar
    ZZMike

    My question is, do we know enough to make a chronological arrangement? I think we’re on pretty safe ground saying, f’r’instance, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, began his public ministry at Cana, and was crucifed in Jerusalem. But arranging the other details might be a little trickier – even Paul’s life.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia has a pretty good article
    Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ
    Probably the most useful place to have a good chronology is in Chronicles, Kings, and the other history books. It helps keep track of where Saul, David, Absalom, Solomon &c fit in the story.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Exactly. I think the place I remember finding the Chronological Bible interesting was with the some of the OT chronology using Kings and Chronicles as a story line. I think a chronology in the gospels is pointless but putting the epistles within the flow of Acts was interesting (and, yes, I’m aware that some these were likely written after Paul died.) It is the general thread of history I remember enjoying.
    Thanks for the link.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading