Putting Bible books in order

Is there a Bible out there that attempts to group the books in the order they were written? There would be some guesswork involved, of course, but surely such decisions could be worked out. It seems to me that it could help our understanding to see the books, especially those of the New Testament, presented in chronological order by their time of writing.

This occurred to me when discussing the frequency of the Lord’s Supper with someone in a Yahoo! group. This person was referring to the Corinthian church and mentioned “the prior teaching they had as to the when of the Supper,” referring to Acts 20. I pointed out that it’s hard to know what prior teaching they had, but we know for certain they didn’t have the book of Acts, for it hadn’t been written at that time. 1 Corinthians 16 seems to indicate that the teaching about having a collection on Sunday was new, so it’s hard to know what they had been taught and hadn’t been taught. (And yes, I’m convinced that 1 Corinthians 16 is talking about a special collection, but that’s another topic)

As I’ve pointed out before, many get confused when discussing the gospels because they don’t place them in their proper timeframe. It used to be a standard Church of Christ lesson to claim that they title page that says “New Testament” shouldn’t be placed before Matthew, but should be found in Acts 2. People have actually taught that the gospels don’t belong in the New Testament! If we realize that these books weren’t written at the time that the action took place, we come to realize that the gospels were written for the church. They are Christian books.

I remember F. Lagard’s Smith’s Narrated Bible presented the Bible in chronological order, but that was according to the order in which things took place, not the order of writing. Has anyone seen a Bible laid out in the order the books were written? Could be a helpful study tool.

26 thoughts on “Putting Bible books in order

  1. Jr

    I don’t know of a Bible printed like this but it would be interesting. The biggest question for me would be which one goes first: Mark, James, or Galatians? James could be first (say, AD45) or near the time of Galatians, which I believe was written only a few months prior to the episode in Acts 15 in AD48 (or perhaps mid to late 47). But then there is the Gospel of Mark, which could also be as early as mid-to-late 40s, and certainly early 50s.

    Why have I never done this before? This is fun. I’ll give it a shot.

    James, Galatians, Mark, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Romans, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Phil, Eph, Col, Philem, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Titus, 1 Tim, Jude, 2 Tim, Hebrews, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation

  2. Robert Floyd

    Given the nature of the distribution of the documents, I wonder if pure chronological order is as useful as frequency of distribution. I’m not sure if its’s possible to track the distribution of each book/letter around the First Century world, but it would be interesting to know which letters/books had the widest circulation and, hence, the most influence.

  3. Tim Archer Post author

    Jr,

    Yes, like I said, there would be some debate as to the exact order. Still, it’s interesting to think about.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  4. Tim Archer Post author

    Robert,

    That’s another interesting point. It would be tough to track that for the first century, but I would guess the writings of the early Christian fathers could help us track post-N.T. times.

    Tim

  5. Tim Archer Post author

    From what I can tell, Viola’s book is similar to Smith’s Narrated Bible, that is, it follows the chronology of the events rather than the chronology of the writing.

    Tim

  6. guy

    hmm–maybe you’re right. i bought it and read it at least 3 years ago, but i thought it was order of writing. At least parts of it work out that way, i know he deals with their being at least one missing Corinthians letter if not two. Oh well, i tried. =o)

    –guy

  7. K. Rex Butts

    While such a Bible might be helpful, how much would such attempt would be subject to the editor(s) theological bias since there is no real ecumenical consensus on when the actual books were written? It’s difficult enough for translations to be produced that are ecumenical rather than being a product of a particular theological bias.

    I don’t want this to sound like I’m holding out for the most liberal agendas among the broad spectrum of Christianity because I’m not. But at the same time, it is frustrating to pick up “Study Bibles” only to find that all of the editorial notes and commentary typically reflect one particular theological viewpoint as if there are no other options.

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

  8. C. Archer

    If the books of the bible, were not written during the time of Jesus, and if there are hundreds of other books about Jesus that were written before and after these 27 books, why do modern Christians accept that the books collected by Constantine 300 years after Jesus death as the “word of God”???? Do modern Christians believe that God intervened in the Council of Nicea, 300 years after Jesus death, but do not believe that God would guide us or direct us now if we revisited which books should be included in the bible? Everyone agrees that the Book of Thomas is the earliest scripture written, yet it doesn’t show up in our current bible… why is that????

  9. Tim Archer Post author

    Kevin,

    I’ve written a bit about the canon, but Adam Gonnerman did a much better job than I. I’d recommend his article: http://www.igneousquill.com/1/post/2009/12/the-canon-of-scripture.html

    Briefly, I’d say that I question the historicity of the information you’ve been given. Here are a few points:
    (1) While not being written during Jesus’ time, the books were written during the lifetimes of Jesus’ apostles.
    (2) There is no credibility to the idea that Constantine collected the books. The writings of Origen, Irenaeus and others, as well as the Muratorian canon, show that the canon was basically set by the 3rd century, well before Constatine, well before the Council of Nicaea.
    (3) There are few credible scholars who think that the Gospel of Thomas is older than the other gospels. It shows a dependency on the others that means that it was almost certainly written after they. Why is it rejected? Multiple reasons: early Christians didn’t believe it was actually written by Thomas, it didn’t seem to have been written near the time of Jesus, etc. While some parts of the canon were in doubt, the acceptance of four and only four gospels dates to the mid-second century.

    Hope that helps!

    Tim

  10. K. Rex Butts

    C. Archer,

    “Everyone agrees that the Book of Thomas is the earliest scripture written, yet it doesn’t show up in our current bible… why is that????”

    Actually that is very far from the case. Some believe it was written during the first century and some believe it was written during the second century. Regardless of when the Gospel of Thomas was written, the more important questions seems to be why were the four canonical Gospels preserved by Christians from the date of their writings to 367 AD when we have Athanasius telling of their inclusion in a fixed canon? Why did Christians seek to preserve these Gospels from their origin? What was it about the Gospel of Thomas that allowed it to be forgotten until it’s discovery in 1945? Could it just be that God was providentially at work preserving what it now considered the four canonical Gospels because they speak the truth?

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

  11. laymond

    Cousin Archer, both Christian men who thought it their duty to correct your historicity
    instead of answering your question. Both claim to be indwelled with the spirit of truth, who is the holy Ghost within them, yet they went to man made history to condemn your account of history. Neither of these indwelled Christians pointed you to their indwelled guide. I suspect I know the reason, but maybe they should tell you why.

  12. Tim Archer Post author

    Laymond,

    I keep thinking that you can’t make more bizarre comments than you have in the past, but you prove me wrong every time.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  13. heavenbound

    Well its pretty simple Gospels, Acts, letters written by the apostles, Hebrews, Revelation and finally letters by the apostle Paul. Right division plain and simple

  14. Tim Archer Post author

    H.B. I’m talking about the order they were written in. That’s definitely not it. Some of Paul’s letters were written before Acts, probably before some of the gospels, definitely before Revelation.

  15. laymond

    ” bizarre comments ” Tim , tell me again why you are indwelled by the “spirit of truth” Holy Ghost. yet you depend so heavily on the words of man. I believe Jesus told those who received this gift from God through Jesus, they would be taught all things.

    Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    You are not going to tell me , now that you have a different indwelled spirit than that of the apostles, are you?

  16. Tim Archer Post author

    Laymond,

    So you expect me to turn to the Holy Spirit for today’s weather forecast? We were discussing history; why wouldn’t we refer to historical documents?

    For the record, no I don’t believe that the activities of the Holy Spirit described in John 14-16 were meant to apply to all Christians forever. Jesus was speaking with the apostles about things that directly pertained to them. (Note comments about being put out of the synagogue, about seeing Jesus after his death, etc.)

    Yes, I do believe that the Spirit of God/the Spirit of Christ/Christ/the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in us, as described in Romans 8:9-11. If not, then we do not belong to Christ.

    Same Spirit, but not same activity.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  17. laymond

    “So you expect me to turn to the Holy Spirit for today’s weather forecast?”

    Not exactly the same thing, as to what books we should believe and trust in for salvation, seems that might be something you would go to him for. just my opinion. maybe not. seems if he were concerned about your salvation, this would be a great way to show it.

  18. laymond

    Tim , I totally agree with your assessment of the vs you quoted. I don’t recall that you have always thought that way, seems we get closer on the bible every time we discuss it, calmly.

  19. nick gill

    Sorry – I don’t trust in any books for salvation.

    I used to – and I still trust the Bible as the most trustworthy and accurate tool for spiritual formation into the likeness of Christ – but I trust the living Christ to save me, not the books I read on my phone.

  20. heavenbound

    You really expect me to believe the books of the bible are accurately dated? When I read Revelation and no mention of the temple being destroyed in 70 A.D. and the Scofield bible tabs its writing in 95 a.d. is that believable? John doesn’t reveal its destruction, but puts the antichrist in the temple in his writings? Come on lets try to connect the dots!

  21. Tim Archer Post author

    H.B.,

    I’ve quit trying to predict what you’ll believe.

    Yeah, 95 is a very probable date for the writing of Revelation, based on internal and external evidence.

    Dots all connected, thank you very much.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.