chronologische indeling van het nieuwe testament

Upload: jac-brouwer

Post on 02-Apr-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/27/2019 Chronologische Indeling Van Het Nieuwe Testament

    1/3

    chronologische indeling van het Nieuwe Testament

    Niet aan elk geschrift in het Nieuwe Testament kan met evenveel zekerheid een datering

    gegeven worden. De indeling van [Marcus] Borg die zoveel mogelijk de consensus volgt

    is dus niet de enig mogelijke.

    1 Tessalonicenzen (ca. 50)Galaten (50-55)

    1 Korintirs (ca. 54)

    Filemon (ca. 55)

    Fillipenzen (ca. 55)

    2 Korintirs (ca. 55-58)

    Romeinen (ca. 58)

    Marcus (ca. 70)

    Jakobus (70-90)

    Kolossenzen (80-90)

    Mattes (80-95)

    HebreenJohannes (ca. 90)

    Efezirs (ca. 90)

    Openbaring (90-100)

    Judas (ca. 100)

    1-3 Johannes (ca. 100)

    Lucas-Handelingen (100-120)

    2 Tessalonicenzen (ca. 100)

    1 Petrus (90-100)

    1-2 Timotes, Titus (100-120)

    2 Petrus (120-150)

    Cor Hoogerwerf

    A chronological New Testament is different from and yet the same as the New Testament

    familiar to Christians. It contains the same 27 documents, but sequences them in the

    chronological order in which they were written.

    The familiar New Testament begins with the Gospels and concludes with Revelation for

    obvious reasons. Jesus is the central figure of Christianity and so the New Testament beginswith Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Revelation is about "the last things" and the second

    coming of Jesus, so it makes sense that it comes at the end. Revelation and the Gospels

    function as bookends for the New Testament. Everything else comes between: Acts, 13 letters

    attributed to Paul, and eight attributed to other early Christian figures.

    A chronological New Testament sequences the documents very differently. Its order is based

    on contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship. Though there is uncertainty about dating

    some of the documents, there is a scholarly consensus about the basic framework.

    It begins with seven letters attributed to Paul, all from the 50s. The first Gospel is Mark (not

    Matthew), written around 70. Revelation is not last, but almost in the middle, written in the

  • 7/27/2019 Chronologische Indeling Van Het Nieuwe Testament

    2/3

    90s. Twelve documents follow Revelation, with II Peter the last, written as late as near the

    middle of the second century.

    A chronological New Testament is not only about sequence, but also about chronological

    context -- the context-in-time, the historical context in which each document was written.

    Words have their meaning within their temporal contexts, in the New Testament and the Bibleas a whole.

    Seeing and reading the New Testament in chronological sequence matters for historical

    reasons. It illuminates Christian origins. Much becomes apparent:

    Beginning with seven of Paul's letters illustrates that there were vibrant Christian

    communities spread throughout the Roman Empire before there were written Gospels.

    His letters provide a "window" into the life of very early Christian communities.

    Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the

    source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel -- the good news -- of and

    about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christiancommunities several decades after Jesus' historical life and tell us how those

    communities saw his significance in their historical context.

    Reading the Gospels in chronological order beginning with Mark demonstrates that

    early Christian understandings of Jesus and his significance developed. As Matthew

    and Luke used Mark as a source, they not only added to Mark but often modified

    Mark.

    Seeing John separated from the other Gospels and relatively late in the New Testament

    makes it clear how different his Gospel is. In consistently metaphorical and symbolic

    language, it is primarily "witness" or "testimony" to what Jesus had become in the life

    and thought of John's community.

    Realizing that many of the documents are from the late first and early second centuries

    allows us to glimpse developments in early Christianity in its third and fourth

    generations. In general, they reflect a trajectory that moves from the radicalism of

    Jesus and Paul to increasing accommodation with the cultural conventions of the time.

    Awareness of the above matters not just for historical reasons but also for Christian reasons.

    American Christianity today is deeply divided. At the heart of the division, especially among

    Protestants, is two very different ways of seeing the Bible and the New Testament. About half

    of American Protestants belong to churches that teach that the Bible is the inerrant "Word of

    God" and "inspired by God."

    The key word is "inerrant." Christians from antiquity onward have affirmed that the Bible is

    "the Word of God" and "inspired" without thinking of it is inerrant. Biblical inerrancy is an

    innovation of the last few centuries, becoming widespread in American Protestantism

    beginning only a hundred years ago. It is affirmed mostly in "independent" Protestant

    churches, those not part of "mainline" Protestant denominations. Catholics have never

    proclaimed the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, even as many have not been taught much

    about the Bible.

    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 iswrong.

  • 7/27/2019 Chronologische Indeling Van Het Nieuwe Testament

    3/3

    For Christians who see the Bible this way, whatever Paul wrote to his communities in the first

    century is absolutely true for all time. For them, whatever the Gospels report that Jesus said

    and did really was said and done by him. So also the stories of the beginning and end of his

    life are literally and factually true: he was conceived in a virgin without a human father, his

    tomb really was empty even though it was guarded by Roman soldiers, and his followers saw

    him raised in physical bodily form.

    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.