Why would you do that? (Part 5: Putting the books in a better order)

The Bible was written as individual books, letters, collections of oracles, etc. When we encounter all of this in one book, however, the order of the presentation shapes and directs our reading of them. The Bible Design Group realized that the arrangement of the books can either help or hinder understanding. So rather than simply pass on the common current order, we decided to be intentional in the order we presented. We weren’t trying to put the whole Bible into chronological order. There’s a lot more to understanding the Bible than chronology. Other elements like literary type, historical circumstance, and theological tradition are also important.

In the First Testament we thought it best to follow the general shape of the ancient Hebrew versions (which predates the order followed in most Bibles today). What we call the Covenant History in The Books of The Bible forms a natural, continuous historical narrative (Genesis through Samuel-Kings). The Prophets follow next, putting them close to the books describing their historical situation. Rather than group them by size (major and minor), it seemed to make more sense to present them in their historical order. The third group, the Writings, are most logically and helpfully grouped by literary type.

In the New Testament we have proposed a fresh expression of the longstanding concept of the fourfold gospel. But rather than blur the gospels all together at the front, we have placed each gospel at the head of a group of related writings. This preserves the ancient priority of the stories of Jesus yet allows each gospel’s unique perspective to stand out more clearly.

Luke’s two-volume story of Jesus and the early church is first, since it provides an overview of the New Testament period. The letters of Paul (a companion of Luke) come next. To help readers gain an appreciation for the development of Paul’s thought, we have presented them in the order we believe he’s written them. It’s true there is debate about some of this, but even if there’s a quibble here or there about dates, it seems better than having them in order of size. This group is followed by Matthew and two other books addressed to Jewish believers (Hebrews and James). Then comes Mark, which seems to tell Jesus’ story from Peter’s perspective, together with the letters of Peter, and that of Jude (which has similarities to Peter’s second letter). At the end is John, presenting a mature reflection on the life of Jesus, along with John’s letters. Revelation is appropriately last, describing how God’s new creation will ultimately be realized, and allowing each of the two major divisions in the Bible to end with an apocalypse (Daniel in the First Testament, Revelation in the New).

All in all, an arrangement we believe is respectful of tradition, yet leads to greater understanding. Or, in terms of what we’ve been saying: betta order leading to mo betta reading.

—Glenn