A Chronological New Testament And Why It Matters

If this intrigues you please read the entire original article and see the slides. Just between you and me, how many of you knew The New Testament in The Bible is not presented in anywhere near the order in which the books were written?

Here's a highlight.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html

by Marcus Borg
Canon Theologian, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral

Seeing and reading the New Testament in chronological sequence matters for historical reasons. It illuminates Christian origins. Much becomes apparent:

Beginning with seven of Paul’s letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels. His letters provide a “window” into the life of very early Christian communities.

Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.

Reading the Gospels in chronological order beginning with Mark demonstrates that early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed. As Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, they not only added to Mark but often modified Mark.

Seeing John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament makes it clear how different his Gospel is. In consistently metaphorical and symbolic language, it is primarily “witness” or “testimony” to what Jesus had become in the life and thought of John’s community.

Realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth generations. In general, they reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.

Awareness of the above matters not just for historical reasons but also for Christian reasons. American Christianity today is deeply divided. At the heart of the division, especially among Protestants, is two very different ways of seeing the Bible and the New Testament. About half of American Protestants belong to churches that teach that the Bible is the inerrant “Word of God” and “inspired by God.”

The key word is “inerrant.” Christians from antiquity onward have affirmed that the Bible is “the Word of God” and “inspired” without thinking of it as inerrant. Biblical inerrancy is an innovation of the last few centuries, becoming widespread in American Protestantism beginning only a hundred years ago. It is affirmed mostly in “independent” Protestant churches, those not part of “mainline” Protestant denominations. Catholics have never proclaimed the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, even as many have not been taught much about the Bible.

Please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html

I have seen Marcus Borg present this argument elsewhere, and it's powerful stuff. Borg was an outstanding biblical scholar (if not the best theologian) and is absolutely right. The ordering of OT/NT books is, in some cases, inexplicably arbitrary. Read chronologically, the NT simply feels a lot more powerful and cohesive. The "contradictions" that people like to point out make a lot more sense placed in that order, too. It always baffles me to hear proponents of inerrancy claim that they're just "returning to the roots" as it were, when biblical inerrancy and Christian fundamentalism in general are extremely modern concepts. Sadly, as Borg acknowledges, it is difficult to get people like that to change their tune.

This reminds me of a project I was working on for my Education for Ministry class last spring - a graphical timeline of the estimated composition dates of the books of the Old Testament, minus Psalms. I know the end result would look somewhat mind-blowing. Genesis, for example, is one of the "newest" books in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and reads a lot differently when one takes that into account. Maybe I should go and finish that...

I didn't know that the NT is presented out of chronological order but it doesn't surprise me. The Old Testament isn't in chronological order either, as Adi pointed out.

It's interesting to learn that the gospels came about after Paul's letters though. I guess the "news" about Jesus passed mostly by word of mouth before the gospels were written. Now that I think about it that kind of makes sense. I did know that the gospels were written long after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

I'll have to read the article in it's entirety at some point, but the part that you shared is revealing in itself. Interesting stuff.