3 ms·

The books are arranged in roughly chronological order and constantly allude to and quote prior passages. I don’t think this approach makes a lot of sense. Most

The books are arranged in roughly chronological order and constantly allude to and quote prior passages. I don’t think this approach makes a lot of sense. Most of the Old Testament consists of Jewish history, beginning with creation. There are a few that could probably stand on their own: Job, Jonah, the Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and maybe Psalms. (You would miss a lot in Psalms doing this.) The New Testament is full of allusions to the old and cannot be understood correctly without reading it first. It probably doesn’t matter the order you read the first four books, or even if you read all four - Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar in tome and they describe the same events, but you wouldn’t want to skip John. Acts is simply what happens after the four gospels, and the remainder of the Bible consists of epistles from the apostles which refer to events in Acts and in the gospels, and it wraps up with Revelations. I don’t really see how you could read it in any substantially different order and get as much out of it.

umanwizard 7y ago
The order of the New Testament is pretty different from the chronological order, and obscures information about the authorship pretty badly. A few examples: John, the fourth book of the New Testament, was one of the last written. Luke and Acts are probably part of the same document, written by the same author, but are separated in the traditional ordering. And so on... Edit (Correction): as the person replying to me correctly points out, Luke and Acts were not part of the same document, though they were probably written by the same person.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  John was one of the last written, but it covers the same period of time as the other gospels. That’s what I meant by chronological. The text itself, not authorship. I don’t think an ordering in authorship time is any more sensible, particularly given the probable presence of forgeries and the undateableness of most of them. Luke and Acts were probably not part of the same document, but were written separately. The beginning of Acts supports this when the author speaks of his previous book and re-addresses his audience. I suppose you could argue it’s all an interpolation, but the books were separate before the canon was established. Either way, I wouldn’t consider it arbitrary to have all the gospel narratives together and then have subsequent events afterward. Perhaps you could argue that Luke and John should be swapped, so as to proceed from Luke to Acts, but then Luke is much more like Matthew and Mark theologically and stylistically. You could set John first, but it’s the most difficult of the four. It’s hard to see how your example is a good one of arbitrary ordering. Four books covering the same material are all in one place; the three synoptic gospels are in the same place - how else would you do it?
  - triangleman 7y ago
    Actually the four Gospels fit nicely into the order of the four beasts of Revelation: the lion (Matthew), the calf (Mark), the man (Luke), and the eagle (John).

umanwizard 7y ago

The order of the New Testament is pretty different from the chronological order, and obscures information about the authorship pretty badly. A few examples: John, the fourth book of the New Testament, was one of the last written. Luke and Acts are probably part of the same document, written by the same author, but are separated in the traditional ordering. And so on... Edit (Correction): as the person replying to me correctly points out, Luke and Acts were not part of the same document, though they were probably written by the same person.

Amezarak 7y ago
John was one of the last written, but it covers the same period of time as the other gospels. That’s what I meant by chronological. The text itself, not authorship. I don’t think an ordering in authorship time is any more sensible, particularly given the probable presence of forgeries and the undateableness of most of them. Luke and Acts were probably not part of the same document, but were written separately. The beginning of Acts supports this when the author speaks of his previous book and re-addresses his audience. I suppose you could argue it’s all an interpolation, but the books were separate before the canon was established. Either way, I wouldn’t consider it arbitrary to have all the gospel narratives together and then have subsequent events afterward. Perhaps you could argue that Luke and John should be swapped, so as to proceed from Luke to Acts, but then Luke is much more like Matthew and Mark theologically and stylistically. You could set John first, but it’s the most difficult of the four. It’s hard to see how your example is a good one of arbitrary ordering. Four books covering the same material are all in one place; the three synoptic gospels are in the same place - how else would you do it?
- triangleman 7y ago
  Actually the four Gospels fit nicely into the order of the four beasts of Revelation: the lion (Matthew), the calf (Mark), the man (Luke), and the eagle (John).