Reading the New Testament chronologically

[Ziploc Surprise]

Get a different perspective of Christianity, read the New Testament in chronological order (order in which it was actually written).

A chronological New Testament is different from and yet the same as the New Testament familiar to Christians. It contains the same 27 documents, but sequences them in the chronological order in which they were written.

The familiar New Testament begins with the Gospels and concludes with Revelation for obvious reasons. Jesus is the central figure of Christianity and so the New Testament begins with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Revelation is about "the last things" and the second coming of Jesus, so it makes sense that it comes at the end. Revelation and the Gospels function as bookends for the New Testament. Everything else comes between: Acts, 13 letters attributed to Paul, and eight attributed to other early Christian figures.

A chronological New Testament sequences the documents very differently. Its order is based on contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship. Though there is uncertainty about dating some of the documents, there is a scholarly consensus about the basic framework.

It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the 90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the middle of the second century.

A chronological New Testament is not only about sequence, but also about chronological context -- the context-in-time, the historical context in which each document was written. Words have their meaning within their temporal contexts, in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.

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 is 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.

Biblical inerrancy is almost always combined with the literal and absolute interpretation of the Bible. If it says something happened, it happened. If the Bible says something is wrong, it is wrong.

For Christians who see the Bible this way, whatever Paul wrote to his communities in the first century is absolutely true for all time. For them, whatever the Gospels report that Jesus said and did really was said and done by him. So also the stories of the beginning and end of his life are literally and factually true: he was conceived in a virgin without a human father, his tomb really was empty even though it was guarded by Roman soldiers, and his followers saw him raised in physical bodily form.

These Christians are unlikely to embrace a chronological New Testament. It would not only change the way the see the Bible and the New Testament, but also make them suspect and probably unwelcome in the Christian communities to which they belong.

There are also many Christians, as well as many who have left the church, for whom the inerrancy of the Bible and its literal and absolute interpretation are unpersuasive, incredible, impossible to believe. For these Christians, as well as others interested in the origins of Christianity, a chronological New Testament, I trust, can be interesting, helpful and illuminating.


Sorry about the huge copy and paste. This was sent to me as an e-mail with no link to the original source.

[Minimalist]

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.

Well, that's the story but in order to believe it you have to accept their own traditions.

As has been noted before, the earliest xtian apologist, Justin Martyr, never heard of Paul, his letters or the named gospels c 160 AD. Xtians like to scoot right by that fact but it does suggest that xtianity ( at least what came to be the orthodox version of it ) was cobbled together in the late 2d and early 3d centuries.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

It's also good to read the Narnia and Wizard of Oz series in chronological order too.

[Undeceived]

Get a different perspective of Christianity, read the New Testament in chronological order (order in which it was actually written).

These aren't "date written," they are "date of the earliest copy." Christian scholars have reasons to believe Mark, or source Q, came first. Read a chronology New Testament based on what they ascertain to be history--that Jesus died and ascended, the beginning of Acts follows, Paul's conversion, Paul's letters written at different legs of his missionary journeys, John's rebuttal of the gnostics. As to the Gospel of Luke, Luke says in Acts 1, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen" suggesting he wrote it first, prior to 70AD and the destruction of the temple.

The idea of the Gospels being written after the Epistles also neglects to address the why and how. Would you start going to a church based on one man's letters? Paul referred often to Christ's resurrection and once to his lineage: "Regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David" (Romans 1:3)--what could he have been talking about? Paul copies early creeds, including Philippians 2:6–11, Colossians 1:15–20 and 1 Corinthians 15:3–7. Is that not akin to writing a commentary before a novel? Across history, human psychology does not change. People need motivations and they need evidence. Paul's audience was less than thirty years removed from Jesus. With no story and no eyewitnesses, how would you respond? If Paul writes his letters to churches, why did the people have a church to begin with? Paul didn't build each church on his own, the people did. And they are no different from you and I--they require proof.

[Minimalist]

Would you start going to a church based on one man's letters?

Sun Myung Moon just died. Joseph Smith. Muhammad. Moses. Martin Luther. John Calvin. John Nelson Darby. William Miller. George Fox.
Ann Lee. Alexander Boddy. Charles Taze Russell. Etc., etc., etc.


All religions are founded by one con artist or another. Especially yours.

[Cyberman]

Hey, I get to pull out my Ingersoll again! (It's ok, ladies, nothing particularly controversial here):

Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"

No man with a sense of humour ever founded a religion.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

and the classic:

The churches have no confidence in each other. Why? Because they are acquainted with each other.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references

[pocaracas]

I once read the Jefferson bible. IT's the life of J.C. in, supposedly, chronological order and with all the miracles stripped off.
The result is: J.C. seemed to be just a person, perhaps a highly intelligent person, but constrained by the time and place where he was. Intelligent enough to argue with local scholars and wise enough to preach peace and love. Everything else is just embelishments.... if the man ever existed for real.

[Ziploc Surprise]

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.

Well, that's the story but in order to believe it you have to accept their own traditions.

As has been noted before, the earliest xtian apologist, Justin Martyr, never heard of Paul, his letters or the named gospels c 160 AD. Xtians like to scoot right by that fact but it does suggest that xtianity ( at least what came to be the orthodox version of it ) was cobbled together in the late 2d and early 3d centuries.

Whoever wrote what book, it should have been written in the context of the time it was written in. I thought context is one things they used to date texts. Whoever wrote the stories, the order in which they were written shows a developing theology. In fact a book series (any book series) written over a number of years shows things like the author's developing skill, descent into madness, the changing times and or attitudes, or the author's maturing process. Even with just a single author you can kind of tell which book was written first.

Is this not correct?

---

It's also good to read the Narnia and Wizard of Oz series in chronological order too.

Yes, I agree, It's hard to follow a story when it's out of order. BTW very funny comment there.

[FallentoReason]

These aren't "date written," they are "date of the earliest copy." Christian scholars have reasons to believe Mark, or source Q, came first.

Uncovering the Markan Allegory II

There's significant reason to believe that's not the case.

---

These aren't "date written," they are "date of the earliest copy."

As far as I know, the earliest Gospel fragment is that from John which dates to 125 C.E. (?).

Not sure where you got that idea from.

[Minimalist]

Whoever wrote the stories, the order in which they were written shows a developing theology.

We know this stuff was edited, though, to account for changes in church doctrine. I maintain that when they were written is far less important than when the last redactor sat down with his blue pencil and started making changes.

As late as the Codex Vaticanus, the oldest, more-or-less complete xtian bible c 350 AD we find significant differences between it and "modern" bibles. That did not happen by accident, my friend.