Anyone familiar with the Bible will understand the desire to re-order the text chronologically. Whilst Genesis to Kings roughly follow a linear historical narrative, other books of the Bible fall outside that framework and often neighbouring books come from very different historical circumstances. This “problem” is even a feature within books, Jeremiah, perhaps, being the most pronounced example of a book that is jumbled (chronologically-speaking). So one can understand the motivation of the publishers and editors to present a way of studying the Bible in historical context.
However, as the introduction acknowledges, one almost instantly runs into problems when trying to determine how the books should be placed. One problem is that of the lack of scholarly consensus on the dating of large portions of the Bible. The editors have given voice to most major options when introducing new parts of the Bible and opt for supported options when placing books, nevertheless one feels it might have been preferable to adopt a position rather hedging. A second problem is how one positions non-historical books; should prophets be dated to composition or to the events they predict? A third problem is how to deal with issues of alleged pseudonymy. In general the editors have chosen to position books and sections according to their setting; for example, they have positioned the proverbs of Solomon with the historical events of Solomon’s life whilst reserving judgment on whether Solomon actually wrote them. This solution, though diplomatic, raises questions about the purpose of the book. If it is meant to aid historical study of the Bible then surely it is unhelpful to reserve judgment on significant historical issues. Again, one feels that it might have been preferable to adopt a position.
One unfortunate consequence of trying to place the books of the Bible in a chronological structure is that some passages are almost impossible to place. For example, some of the psalms carry no temporal markers and are, in that sense, timeless. Therefore the editors have placed a number of poetic passages, including the whole book of Job, in the period of Babylonian exile. This fairly arbitrary placement seems to undermine the very purpose of the book.
Another strange consequence of the chronological rearrangement is that all the synoptic passages are grouped together, occurring one after another. So when Kings and Isaiah describe the same events the reader encounters two passages that are almost word for word the same. It is not clear what purpose this serves. Had the two passages been laid out side-by-side for easy comparison it would probably have been more useful. As it is, one cannot really imagine reading this Bible from cover-to-cover, which might be consider a major drawback.
Lastly the Bible is not easy to navigate. Obviously the traditional ordering of the Bible is of little help in trying to find books of the Bible, but because the editors have decided not to venture specific dates for each passage it is not possible to find passages according to date either.
Despite these criticisms, this study Bible does have some attractive features. It has lots of information boxes and historical comments. It is pleasingly laid out and typeset. Nevertheless one feels that the result has not lived up to the promise of the title.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)