The Religion News Service is reporting that Thomas Nelson, a major player in the Christian publishing business, has announced the fall release of a chronological study Bible. It's the brainchild of Bob Sanford, head of Nelson's Bible publishing division. Sanford acknowledges that there have been other attempts to put the Bible in chronological order (like this one, this one, and this website), but he says they weren't bona fide study Bibles. Of course, "study Bible" means different things to different people. I assume he means the new version will have notes and outlines and maps that would be helpful to the reader.
Some Bible purists, no doubt, will complain that cutting and pasting parts of the Bible are tantamount to heresy. Merging the gospels into one (following Mark's chronology), as the Nelson project does, is bound to result in some things getting left out or homogenized, which could be anathema to those who believe the Bible was verbally inspired to appear just as it does, whether its internal chronology coheres or not.
Scholars, on the other hand, will almost certainly give little attention to a new chronological Bible. They are already well aware that scriptures' sequence is often jumbled -- and also aware that teasing out a correct chronology is tricky business, fraught some degree of subjectivism.
The Book of Isaiah, for example, begins in the eighth century, B.C., when its namesake Isaiah of Jerusalem preached. Large blocks of the book, however, appear to belong clearly in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods, some 200-300 years later. Some ultra-conservative scholars assume that God must have inspired Isaiah of Jerusalem to write specifically to the situation of Hebrews living in the upcoming exile, and beyond (complete with the vocabulary of later periods). Critical scholars, however, feel confident that multiple writers contributed to the book, hypothesizing a string of Isaianic disciples who added to the scroll begun by their prophetic mentor. They know that writing in a more famous person's name was common in the ancient world, and aren't bothered by it. Those scholars have disagreements among themselves, however, and are unlikely to accept Nelson's Bible as anything other than one publisher's opinion of what happened when.
How does one decide which proposed chronology is correct? There's trouble in teasing out the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah, for example, which appear to be intertwined at several places. And, how does one distribute the Psalms in a chronological Bible? Do you trust the superscriptions -- which are not original to the psalms -- to tell if a psalm was written by David, and under what historical circumstances? Ancient editors attempted to do so by adding the superscriptions, but were they verbally inspired? And what about the Proverbs? Do you try to determine the age of each proverb, or the time period in which it joined a popular collection?
The truth is, history writing in the ancient world and the modern world were quite different enterprises. Modern Western history writers insist on multiple and verifiable sources in their attempts to put things in chronological order. Ancient writers relied on oral traditions and were not bothered by preserving variant stories that may strike us as blatantly inconsistent. They also did not hesitate to incorporate elements of the supernatural into the record, something modern history writers are unlikely to do. The whole issue of a correct chronology was just not that important to the biblical writers. They were mainly concerned with preserving the various stories of God's encounter with humankind, and not so worried about chronological details.
Do we need a new chronological Bible? Probably not -- nor do we really need the mind-boggling array of specialty scriptures that Bible publishers have tweaked and targeted to every possible demographic. I suspect Thomas Nelson needs the business more than we need a new Bible.
Even so, if the new product inspires even one person to get turned on to a serious engagement with the Bible, it will be worth the effort.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Tony,
You said,
"The Book of Isaiah, for example, begins in the eighth century, B.C., when its namesake Isaiah of Jerusalem preached. Large blocks of the book, however, appear to belong clearly in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods, some 200-300 years later."
We have been studying Isaiah for several weeks at our church. One thing that stands out monumentally is that Isaiah declared that God decreed the Babylonian captivity and the return under Cyrus before it came to pass, so all the world would know that He is God. He said, for example,
"Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."
But now, 2700 years later, we are told by "scholars" that Isaiah never really wrote these things at all, but that some unknown wrote them after the fact in Isaiah's name - yeah, in God's name - to make it only appear that these things were prophesied in advance. And such men tell us that they honor the "authority" of the Scriptures!
I ask, if such an "understanding" of the Scripture be correct, how can it carry any authority other than as a guide to the vanities of ancient false prophets who took the name of God in vain?
One thing we can conclude for certain, there is a chasm as wide as the heaven is high above the earth between what you label "Bible purists" and "critical scholars". This new hashed up Bible only goes to prove that men, in their arrogance, think that they can say it better than God Himself.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Mark,
The problem with the late nineteenth and early twentieth century understandings of inerrancy is that post-enlightenmnet thinking came to the conclusion that only the rational is real. Only concrete historical facts are truth. Only logical arguments are truth.
Liberals said that some of the details in scripture could not be historically verified. Details contadicted one another. Because the facts did not cohere and because facts could not be verified, then scripture is not true.
Fundamentalists responded to their argument by playing according to liberal rules. If the Bible is to be true, then all the facts must cohere and all facts must be historically verifiable. An example is OT scholars trying to verify through science that the world was created in 4004 BC and that dinosaurs must have existed with humans. These must be the facts or the Bible is not reliable or real. (Nobody has been able to explain the dome/firmament in Genesis 1:6-8 or why the Bible assumes a "flat" earth and the inerrancy of all scripture.)
Are these the only two choices? Must we couch our understanding of the inspiration and reliability of scripture, and its resulting authority in those terms? Are those the only two choices? If even one error of fact can be proved, must we abandon our faith?
Or do we study scripture as it is, ask the tough questions, and at the same time, trust that the God of Jesus Christ, whose Spirit resides in our very minds, is the same God who inspires scripture as it is? This is post-modern thinking. It rejects the either/or that modernism placed on truth.
The question is this: must all truth equate to historically verifiable fact or sequences of events that must cohere. Post-modern thinking says no. First Century Christians said the same thing. Thus, we have four gospels, three similar, and one different in many ways.
Even among Matthew, Mark, and Luke there are obvious differences in parallel stories, like Jesus riding two donkeys in Matthew, while only one in the others, like the order of the devil's temptations in Matthew and Luke. We are not the first generation to notice these discrepancies. However, according to fundamentalist-modernist logic, we must either reconcile them, or abandon the whole thing all together. But what did the early church do?
Jesus' story is preserved with four gospels, not in one neat, tidy chronological narrative. ANd yet they trusted the truth of scripture, namely that God revealed Himself to Israel, and formost to the world in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
The question then becomes, did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever intend to provide chronologically, historically verifiable biographies of Jesus' life (under the inspirtation of the Spirit no less)? If not, then why not? What does that do to our understanding of what perfection or inerrancy must look like? SHould we allow the Bible to speak for itself or must we impose our categories of what truth and reliability must be before we read scripture?
Should we develop study Bibles where the notes reflect the truth of the Biblical narrative, the theology and worlview it purports, rather than study Bibles that are concerned with the historically verifiable facts?
I pray that your study of Isaiah does more than inform you with the facts, but that it transforms you according to God's message of deliverance and New Creation.
Peace,
Tim
I don't really see how Nelson will make a lot of profit on a chronological Bible, even if it is a "study Bible." There is a reason that there are only a handful of chronological Bibles on the market (like the ones you referenced) and that's because they just aren't that popular. They are not practical for doing much Bible study for either scholarly study or devotional study because they have to take so much out of context and make it "fit" together that passages too easily become muddled and lose their meaning.
Besides that, I worked in a Christian bookstore for a number of years and was very familiar with the Bibles that were available a few years ago. Once in a blue moon would someone request a chronological Bible. Parallel Bibles seemed to have been more popular than chronological Bibles...a parallel study Bible would seem more helpful to me than a chronological study Bible.
*shrug* Who knows?
BTW, where does Job fit in that chronology? And do we put Ecclesiastes in the time of Solomon or in the inter-biblical period when it was likely written? Or what about the book of Revelation...mid 1st century or early 2nd century? Where does it go in the chronology? Chronological Bibles just bring up more questions than they answer.
It's unfortunate that people don't hear the cry of others for a simple way to understand scripture and put it historical context. I was one of those souls who thought the bible was unapproachable, boring and through help of people, more open than most commentators here, I am a believer in Jesus not afraid of looking at Holy Scripture through many lenses, not just a narrow, pious approach like many of you suggest is the ONLY way. Too bad for you - I'm sure you would have stayed on horses as well when Ford brought us his automobile.
"New" isn't always "better" just because it's "new" otherwise we'd have seen more Edsels on the roads (in keeping with anonymous' example).
Tim,
You said,
"I pray that your study of Isaiah does more than inform you with the facts, but that it transforms you according to God's message of deliverance and New Creation."
Not addressing your "post-modern" approach to the Scriptures for the moment (which, by the way, I reject across the board) please address my original question.
1. The Babylonian captivity and return happens.
2. Someone comes along after the fact and writes an addition to the book of Isaiah and holds it up before the world as absolute proof that the God of Israel determined to bring these events to pass and inspired Isaiah to write it down so when it came to pass the whole world could read about it and know that He is Lord.
3. But, in reality, neither Isaiah, nor anyone else, actually foretold these events and therefore the man who wrote so called "second Isaiah" is really just making stuff up.
So please tell me how such an scenario holds any spiritual authority or truth for you? How would such a fabricated lie in God's name transform me spiritually?
I mean, really, if Paige Patterson or Richard Land did such a thing, you would not hold their writings up as sources of truth or authority. You would just say, very frankly, that they were a couple of charlatans - wouldn't you? So why give any more credance or respect to "Deutero-Isaiah" simply because he (I speak as a fool) lived centuries ago?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Mark,
By re-reading your post, it looks as if you and I both agree that a chronological Bible is not a good thing, but for different reasons.
Furthermore, I hope that my response that you quoted in your reply was not taken as condescending. It was not intended to be.
And, with regards to post-modern biblical interpretation, I am not a fan either. What I was alluding to was that the logic of the fundamentalist-modernist contraversey that states something must be a historical fact to be true is simply misguided, for both liberals and fundamentalists. I want to be careful here, because I take the resurrection of Jesus to be factual, although we do not have unbiased sources nor skeptical sources confirming this. I believe an overwhelming number of events "happened" just as scripture describes them. However, scripture is an authoritative interpretation of these events. The authors did theology as they recorded the events. If a Pharisee was to write a bio of Jesus, how might it read? If an indifferent observer (if such a thing exists) wrote a bio of Jesus, what might it look like? However, the gospels are the quite successful attempt to write a pre-resurrection account of Jesus from a post-resurrection perspective that preserves particular theological portraits of Jesus. We have 4 canonical, but there are many other attempts to do this. You can read them. You can purchase them for yourself. However the church did not feel these portraits were divinely inspired nor accurate portraits of Jesus. However, the presence of chronological discrepancies and discrepancies of detail, obvious to the early church, did not cause a crisis of faith. Issues of authorship did not cause a crisis of faith.
Now to Isaiah, I have no problem with those who wish to affirm the unity of Isaiah (one author) or the diversity (two or three authors, possibly with editors). For me, this is not an issue of the reliability or trustworthiness of scripture. John Oswalt's commentary is an excellent resource arguing for the unity of the book and single authorship. I have no problem with those who hold to this view.
However, as we agree, Isaiah 40-55 and possibly 56-66 is exilic and post-exilic material. Could God have teleported Isaiah 200 years into the future so that he could record these oracles? Certainly! Did he? That is the question. If He did not, but used another author, then what should we say? The author was trying to pretend that Isaiah had predicted something really wrote 40-55 as a fabrication meant to deceive? We do not know whether one or multiple authors contributed to this. Liberals say this makes Isaiah unreliable. Predictive prophecy is fabricated for deception. Fundamentalists say that Isaiah, who was called after Uzziah's death, centuries before the historical context, must have wrote it, or its not reliable. However, since all scripture is reliable, Isaiah must have wrote it, regardless of what the literary and historical contexts of Isaiah 40-55 says.
To directly answer your question, I do not think authorship of Isaiah 40-55, whether Isaiah or Second Isaiah, makes much difference. I am interested in what the text says as we have it. I am interested in encountering God, by the Spirit in the text, as I read it through the hermeneutical lens of Jesus Christ, not the lens of the Fundamentalist-modernist conraversy. I do not agree that Isaianic Authorship is a test of one's commitment to the reliability of the Bible.
If another author wrote Isaiah 40-55, do you think that the only reason was to deceive? Could there not have existed a prophetic tradition that linked 40-55 to Isaiah of the 8th century BC?
Furthermore, it is worth saying that Daniel B. Wallace has a pretty solid article regarding the issue of an inductive approach to inerrancy that is worth reading. He teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary. If the Bible is inerrant, then why are we afraid to ask the tough, historical-critical questions, and allow data to inform our reading of scripture.
I would be interested to hear some of your responses to my questions. I hope that if you cannot agree on my approach to scripture, then you can at least see that I am passionate about it. I do agree with you, that such a chronological Bible is not a good thing. The Bible is exactly what God intended it to be, except we seem to disagree on the details of why.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You said,
"However, as we agree, Isaiah 40-55 and possibly 56-66 is exilic and post-exilic material."
No, we don't agree about that. I consider all of Isaiah to have been written by Isaiah before the exile. The portions that speak of the exile and after are prophetic.
This is not something I have read into the text. This is what the text says. It is not an incidental part of the text, it one of Isaiah's fundamental contentions.
He says that God laid it on him to prophecy the exile and the return so after it takes place all will recognize that the events were foretold by God's power, thus proving His ability to form the future. Not only so, he calls on future generations to read his prophecy and know it was fulfilled, thus proving that he intended for us to understand his prophecy exactly the way it is presented.
But you said,
"Could God have teleported Isaiah 200 years into the future so that he could record these oracles? Certainly! Did he? That is the question."
It is a question only to those who question the truthfulness of the book of Isaiah. The text of Isaiah states that God, in fact, gave Isaiah visions of these events ahead of the fact. That is the message. To miss it is to miss the message and make hash of the whole thing. But you said,
"If He did not, but used another author, then what should we say? The author was trying to pretend that Isaiah had predicted something really wrote 40-55 as a fabrication meant to deceive?"
If a man wrote a book purporting to be a prophecy that was not actually a prophecy, but only a historical recounting of the facts made to appear as prophecy, then, yes, the only conclusion we can draw is that he meant to deceive.
You said,
"Fundamentalists say that Isaiah, who was called after Uzziah's death, centuries before the historical context, must have wrote it, or its not reliable."
Yes, I am a fundamentalist, unapologetically, and that is exactly what I say. But you said,
"However, since all scripture is reliable, Isaiah must have wrote it, regardless of what the literary and historical contexts of Isaiah 40-55 says."
For this statement to have any bearing, one would first have to prove that the historical and literary contexts of Isaiah indicate that the prophecies were contrived and that the book, or portions of it, were written after the fact. Your statement is akin to asking, "have you quit beating your wife?" when there is no evidence that I ever beat my wife in the first place. You said,
"To directly answer your question, I do not think authorship of Isaiah 40-55, whether Isaiah or Second Isaiah, makes much difference. I am interested in what the text says as we have it. I am interested in encountering God, by the Spirit in the text, as I read it through the hermeneutical lens of Jesus Christ, not the lens of the Fundamentalist-modernist conraversy."
Excuse me, but that is not an answer to my question. That is simply a restatement of what you have already said - that you think the text can impart some spiritual truth whether it is historically accurate or not.
My question is how such a scenario holds any spiritual authority or truth for you? How would such a fabricated lie in God's name transform you spiritually or give you some understanding of Jesus Christ?
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Mark,
A couple of quick thoughts and then a suggestion:
First, what is the definition of prophecy? Is prophecy always predictive of the future? Is it always foretelling? The answer is no. Prophecy, to use the Hebrew concept correctly, is forth-telling, preaching, and proclaiming the Word of God. It may contain elements of foretelling, forecasting, etc. It may be, like Jonah's message to Ninevah, which offers no condition of repentence in the message itself, conditional based upon the response of the people. For you, all prophecy is predictive and therefore must be fulfilled. That is a fallacy because the premise that all prophecy must be predictive is false. Therefore, for me, the notion that a contemporary, preaching in Isaiah's tradition, proclaimed these oracles in the sixth century rather than the eighth, causes no problem for me. What causes the problem is the liberal notion that says that Isaiah has multiple authors, therefore Isaiah is not reliable and the fundamentalist response that says Isaiah of the eighth century must have written Isaiah 40-55 or it is deceptive or false. Both notions, liberal and fundamentalist, are logically flawed. Though the logic of both positions is valid, the arguments are false because they proceed under premises that are false.
Second, I do not try to divorce the text from history. See my previous response. However, the historical events are recorded under the Spirit's guidance in such a way that "does theology."
Finally, with regards to pseudononymity, or the practice of an author writing under the name of a more well known figure, was a common practice. It would be wrong of me to ignore the possibility that many of these were attempts to decieve. Jr.'s response alludes to this. However, some of these attempts were not meant for deception. A good portion of our biblical texts are anonymous. Ecclesiastes could have written under the pen name of Solomon just as Michael and Jeff Shaara can write novels about the civil war, put words in the mouths of the characters that might have been said, and not be accused of attempting to deceive.
Finally, again I would appreciate some answers to the issues I raised. However, let me suggest that we continue this discussion by email, which is located on my profile.
However, I think that we both agree, that this chronological Bible may not be the best idea.
Thank you, Dr. Cartledge, for your post and your forum for the opportunity to dialogue.
Grace and peace to both you and Mark,
Tim
Tim, I would also add that your explanation of "prophecy" is borne out in the New Testament with Paul's use of the term (and of all people, you would think he would understand the implications of the Hebrew understanding of the word). The rest, as they say, is academic...or not, I guess, as the case may be. Either way, good blog and interesting responses.
Tim,
You said,
"First, what is the definition of prophecy? Is prophecy always predictive of the future? Is it always foretelling? The answer is no. Prophecy, to use the Hebrew concept correctly, is forth-telling, preaching, and proclaiming the Word of God. It may contain elements of foretelling, forecasting, etc."
Whether or not I accept your definition of prophecy (which I do not) is not germane to the this discussion. The fact remains, the book of Isaiah purports to tell the future.
Isaiah represents the matter thusly: that God used him - in fact, that God spoke through him in the first person - to foretell the Babylonian captivity and the return under Cyrus as a proof to Israel, yeah, to the whole world for generations ahead, of His power to forge the future and the inability of their idols to do anything.
Again I say, if we conclude that some man actually recorded these events after they took place, representing his writing as predictive prophecy when, in fact, it was history, then we make the book into a total mockery.
So I ask one more time, please explain to me how such a fabrication in the name of God holds some spiritual authority for you or gives you any insight into the person and work of Jesus Christ?
You said,
"What causes the problem is the liberal notion that says that Isaiah has multiple authors, therefore Isaiah is not reliable and the fundamentalist response that says Isaiah of the eighth century must have written Isaiah 40-55 or it is deceptive or false. Both notions, liberal and fundamentalist, are logically flawed. Though the logic of both positions is valid, the arguments are false because they proceed under premises that are false."
Even if we grant your assumption that eclectic compositions by a pseudonymous author do not necessarily invalidate the authority of the writing, in the specific case under consideration so called "Second Isaiah" would be invalidated because he would be guilty of fabricating predictive prophecy after the fact in the name of God.
I fail to see anywhere in your answers that you have explained how such a fabrication holds some spiritual nourishment for your soul.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Your last sentence says it all. Whether it is a gender-neutral bible, a chronological bible, or a klingon translation of the bible, as long as one person starts using that bible, it has been worth the effort.
I am the Senior Vice President and Publisher for Thomas Nelson Bible Group. I have posted a Blog article to help you better understand this product. You can find it here: http://waynehastings.blogs.com/offtheshelf/2008/08/chronological-study-bible-debate-response.html
Mark,
I don't know if you are still reading this thread.
Regarding the unity of Isaiah, whether it is one author or multiple authors, I do not agree with you that multiple authorship of Isaiah is a fabrication because the notion that all of Isaiah is predictive prophecy is the connection between chapters 39 and 40.
Could an anonymous author's work in the time of the Exile have naturally fit Isaiah's message, and that is why these are edited as one book?
You assume, because of the unity of today's text (or the 1611 KJV text) that 40-66 are predictive prophecy (which I agree that some is). But this is a presupposition you bring to the text, rather than lift out of the text. I think that point of all of Isaiah 40-66 is God's sovereignty in bringing the return to pass, and using other nations to do so. But I fail to see Isaiah as predictive prophecy 200-300 years before adding anything to that discussion.
I do agree that if the intent to deceive is present, then potentially pseudononymous authorship should be rejected as inspired. However, I do not agree with your conclusions that shape your question for me.
Sorry that I took so long to respond. I pray God's best for your ministry.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Post a Comment