A new Bible that arranges Scripture according to when the events occurred β as opposed to when it was written β has stirred debate in the Christian blogosphere on whether the chronological ordering leads to clarity or confusion.
-
Chronological Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers)
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.
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.
Psalm 51 is lifted out from the longest book in the Bible and placed after the story of King David and Bathsheba.
Letters written by Apostle Paul to members of the Early Church are worked into the chronology of Acts.
"We understand more deeply what scholars and historians know of the earliest peoples," says a presenter in a video commercial for the new study Bible.
He compared the experience of reading the chronological NKJV Bible to a "Master's history class" or a "trip to the Holy Land guided by scholars."
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. "Itβs primarily a set of theological texts that have historical significance, not a set of historical texts that have theological significance.β
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.
Many biblical scholars find the project interesting but hold reservations.
"I do think you do lose something when you start demolishing any book of the Bible," said Richard Hess, professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado, according to The Tennessean. "You lose the literary and theological context."
The slew of objections has kept Wayne Hastings, senior vice president and group publisher of the Bible Division for Thomas Nelson Publishers, busy with damage control. He has been visiting blogs and news sites and posting a link to his blog response on the issue.
"Looking through the eyes of someone who has had trouble understanding the Bible, this could be a refreshing alternative," wrote Hastings on his blog posting.
He also pointed to a disclaimer scholars placed in the introduction of the Chronological Study Bible which reads: "The goal of the Chronological Study Bible is not to replace the time-honored canonical arrangement, but instead to honor time as the setting in which the biblical record appeared. Readers who study this Bible will return to their traditional (in canonical order) Bibles better equipped to read them."
The Chronological Study Bible releases as early as Sept. 18 and retails for around $30.
RSS
I think it's an important tool. Most Christians hardly understand the Bible, it's importance and history to understanding the nature and teachings of Christ better. Instead, they focus on a few verses fail to understand the complete teachings it truly offers.
The article loses credibility in the first sentence by saying "as opposed to when it was written". The books of a standard Bible are not organized by "when they were written". They are generally organized by category: Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, Gospels, Apostolic Letters, etc.
I've been using a chronological Bible in my daily reading for several years now. By putting prophets, psalms, letters, and other sections into their context, it provides an insightful view of the Bible. I highly recommend picking one up. I use and recommend this NIV edition:
http://tinyurl.com/5saeto (Amazon.com link)
I am not sure what the big deal is. I have had and used a chronological Bible for years. Some of you need to find a hobby.
I think this is a silly ploy to sell a book to people who are too lazy to read the introduction to the books of the Bible in their study bibles.
It would be nice to have a bible that had the dates the scripture took place in in the corner of the page or something. But maybe there's one already out there? I've only used the KJV.
And kevin82 I think you should rethink that. When you study the scriptures in one area that is covered in another and you read both at once, the context does not have to change. Sure if you take psalm 51 and throw it into samuel you change the context, but if you match up the gospels the increased insight is fantastic. In fact, I have always been taught to read the gospels and to link up the same stories between the gospels to reveal more form one to get a clearer picture.
I'm confused too. There have been chronological bibles for years now. We use one at our house for nightly reading with my wife and I, and we use a standard bible for deeper study and church. I agree that you don't want to use it solely as there are benefits to how the bible is written now, but this point in my opinion seals the deal for me. Have you ever been to a church service or bible study and gone through the entire book? Very rarely does this happen. However, have you ever gone to a church service or bible study and has the pastor or leader jump from book to book and place to place to show its conformity and to get different views from different spots in the bible to show there point? This happens all the time. So if pastors and teachers use multiple verses from multiple locations at one service, why not read that way?
There not getting rid of the traditional, its simply supplemental or new way to look at it.
There are different study reasons you would use either. Anyone remember this same issue when the parallel came out?
God's Word is God's Word no matter what order it is read. I first felt uncomfortable about reading the Bible in the order in which events occurred, but only because I was used to reading it another way. People are most likely to resist anything that makes them uncomfortable, i.e. CHANGE. If you don't like reading historical events chronologically, don't. Why make it an issue?
"Readers who study this Bible will return to their traditional (in canonical order) Bibles better equipped to read them."
Interesting. I am a seminary student, and I will probably buy this edition as an adjunct to-not a substitute for- my "traditional" translations.
Personally, I think it is a great idea. If the bible is used properly it can be very istrumental in understanding the historical background surrounding a certain passage. For example, many of the prophets were around at the end of 2 chronicles. Knowing this information helps you understand why they were going into exile. At face it looks like the kings are doing bad and God isn't saying anything, and then you see them go into exile. But what you don't see is that a few of the prophtes were prophesying repentence and destruction during that time.
Again, if the bible is used properly then it can be helpful. The problem is most folk will take the time to be objective in their studies. I recently purchased the reese chronolical bible it is helpful.
Why must we tamper with the Bible.? Why can't we just leave it as it is.? If thse men who were moved on by the Holy Spirit, Just read the Bible, and leave it alone.
cb, but aren't they based on the date that the books were written as opposed to the date of the events they were speaking to?
This is the stupidest idea for a Bible I've ever heard. The order of events presented by the different authors and the variations in accounts is part of the intent by the authors. For example, you can't take I/II Chronicles and "fit" it into the Pentateuch narrative. This would de-contexualize the Chronicles accounts, which need to be read as a whole, just as the Pentateuch needs to be read as a whole.
Chronological Bible's aren't a new concept, although this may be the first KJV one. I purchased an NLT Chronological bible years ago, and just purchased an NIV Chronological Bible yesterday. I've found them a tremendously helful resource that adds to my reading of a "regular" bible, but doesn't replace it