Leadership Magazine hosts a blog called Out of Ur. In a recent post John Dunham of the International Bible Society bemoaned the presence of subject headings and inorganic chapter and verse divisions in Scripture.
Nothing new. Most of us have been shown how the presence of these divisions can distort our reading. For instance, in the NIV, Ephesians 5:21 says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." And that line sits isolated at the end of a section about becoming imitators of God. It would be better grouped with comes next; five paragraphs about submitting.
The NIV instead splits that up into three sections, including a chapter break.
So Dunham's point was true, if not over-played. In the comments, people asked him what he was going to do about it, since he worked for a big time Bible publisher.
Dunham's response? "Glad you asked, we just happen to be publishing a Bible sans chapter/verse breaks, subject headings or any of those other nasty editorial additions." (paraphrase) He tried to use this format to make a pitch.
I suddenly felt like the kid from the Christmas story who had received his decoder ring only to discover the message: "Drink More Ovaltine."
I'll probably still get one. It should be interesting to read without those distractions. However, I was disappointed when I found out the out order of the books and letters.
They abandoned the traditional order, because that to is an editorial addition which distracts. Or so says Dunahm. That was not the part that bothers me.
This would have seemed like a perfect to introduce the Tanakh order of the First Testament to American Christians. Tanakh is the traditional order for Jews. This order was established Before the Christian Era and would have been the order early Christians would have experienced it. My professor at Great Lakes Christian College. Dr. Paul Kissling used to insist that the whole thing made more sense when read this way. I have found this to be true.
Instead they come up with their own arbitrary order based on a mixture of chronology and genre and theme. I don't see how their order is any less confusing than the one found in most Bibles.
Also, I believe the order they chose unravels some of the purpose. They try to strip away the editorial additions and then install their own addition by creating their own order.
You might say that it is subtraction by addition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Not many Christians realize there is a canonical theology - a way of viewing belief based on the order of the Bible. I agree that the Hebrew order is best as it reflects various aspects of how the Bible came to be, including genre, chronology and even when the actual book was written/finished. And, as you say, it is more than disingenuous to create an uproar and then conveniently have the solution already prepared as you reap in the profit.
I actually don't really get this. For the Bible to make any sense if read from start to finish, Genesis pretty much has to come first, and Revelation needs to come last. The gospels have to come before Acts and Romans, and Acts has to come before the Pauline letters. Most of the Old Testament storyline is told chronologically, which only makes sense. All I can see that could get switched around without hurting my brain is changing the order of the prophets or the letters in the NT, since they're not necessarily tied to each other in a timeline. But what does that add to my reading?
It depends. Let's start with the OT. You know that 1-2 Chronicles covers the same period as 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings. It simply gives a different perspective, a more optimistic one usually. The traditional Jewish order (Tanakh) begins by telling the full story: Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deu, Josh, Jud, Sam, Kings. Next would come all of your Prophets. Ruth, Daniel, Lamentations, and Ezra-Nehemiah fall with all of the other remaining books in the writings section. Chronicles is the last book of that section.
In that order, the chronology is maintained, themes are clear. And you have to try understand things like: Why are Ruth and Daniel in the Writings section? Why is Chronicles last? How would that order alter Paul's and the church's understanding of it, since that is what they had. And if there would be a God-intended order, it owuld be very hard to argue against this one.
As for the NT, I don't mind their order. They begin with Luke-Acts, which could titled first and second Luke anyway, since it is a continuation of thought to the same audience by the same author. That gets your chronology concern all but taken care of. This is followed by Paul's letters in what they think is historical order. Next comes Matthew, Hebrews and James, grouped together for their Jewishness I think. Then comes Mark 1-2 Peter and Jude. I'm not sure why. Finally John's writings, his gospel, epistels and revelation.
Whe I said arbitrary, I did not mean that they pulled them out of a hat. Rather, their understanding of history and theology became the standard by which they rearranged things.
And my beef is that in doing so they add something to all their readers will be taking from the text, just as Study Bibles do. It's not a huge deal, but it is the opposite of what they stated their intentions to be.
Post a Comment