# The New Testament: Remix (chronological order) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 2, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474 "2012-09-02T20:08:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/1 "2012-09-02T20:08:30Z")
Marcus Borg from The Huffington Post blogs about The New Testament put as closely in order as possible from mainstream biblical scholar agreement. It apparently changes the perspective of how Christianity came about and was shaped by the first Christian communities by putting a lot of Paul’s letters before the written Gospels; Mark’s being the first, where Matthew and Luke clearly based theirs on, and added to, then John appearing even later, speaking more metaphorically. From the [article:](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1418088) > [@Huffington Post -Marcus Borg](#): > > Biblical inerrancy is almost always combined with the literal and absolute interpretation of the Bible. If it says something happened, it happened. If the Bible says something is wrong, it is wrong. > > \ > > These Christians are unlikely to embrace a chronological New Testament. It would not only change the way the see the Bible and the New Testament, but also make them suspect and probably unwelcome in the Christian communities to which they belong. > > There are also many Christians, as well as many who have left the church, for whom the inerrancy of the Bible and its literal and absolute interpretation are unpersuasive, incredible, impossible to believe. For these Christians, as well as others interested in the origins of Christianity, a chronological New Testament, I trust, can be interesting, helpful and illuminating. It probably has a similar effect of putting Pulp Fiction in chronological order. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/2 "2012-09-02T21:45:04Z")
I should mention that the bottom of the article includes a slide-presentation of the chronological books; a brief description of what the book contains and why it is placed where it is, which is a glimpse into the more interesting aspects of the re-ordering, rather than the article itself. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/3 "2012-09-02T21:58:35Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > It probably has a similar effect of putting Pulp Fiction in chronological order. Actually, there are probably quite a few movies where, if you put the scenes in the order they were _filmed_ as opposed to the order in which the events depicted take place, it would result in a different (and much more confusing) movie. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/4 "2012-09-02T22:29:29Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Marcus Borg from The Huffington Post blogs about The New Testament put as closely in order as possible from mainstream biblical scholar agreement. > > It apparently changes the perspective of how Christianity came about and was shaped by the first Christian communities by putting a lot of Paul’s letters before the written Gospels; Mark’s being the first, where Matthew and Luke clearly based theirs on, and added to, then John appearing even later, speaking more metaphorically. > > From the [article:](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1418088) > > It probably has a similar effect of putting Pulp Fiction in chronological order. Or Slaughterhouse Five. ETA – Nah, that was poor example… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/5 "2012-09-03T00:05:57Z")
I don’t buy that the literalists would care. Sure, maybe KJV-only practitioners, since their position is based more on not liking change. But I grew up as a literalist, and I knew the order of the books forever. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/6 "2012-09-03T02:09:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t buy that the literalists would care. Sure, maybe KJV-only practitioners, since their position is based more on not liking change. But I grew up as a literalist, and I knew the order of the books forever. Which is a point the article mentions. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/7 "2012-09-03T02:15:20Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > Or Slaughterhouse Five. > > ETA – Nah, that was poor example… So it goes. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/8 "2012-09-03T02:34:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t buy that the literalists would care. Sure, maybe KJV-only practitioners, since their position is based more on not liking change. But I grew up as a literalist, and I knew the order of the books forever. Some literalists would be offended by the ordering because it implies non-apostolic authors for Matthew, Luke, John & Revelations, etc. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-testament-remix-chronological-order/633474/9 "2012-09-03T21:30:20Z")
Luke (like Mark) is non-apostolic, whichever way you slice it.