Why reading the gospels in chronological order is an AWFUL idea

In my post entitled Random Graham Revisited, I concluded by mentioning that I’m planning to read through the entire Bible in 2029, 2033, 2037, 2041, 2044 and 2049.

Across the decades I’ll vary the methods I’ll use to read the Bible, with one of the ways to read through a chronological Bible (but not until 2049). 

In short, if you aren’t familiar, this method rearranges the text of the scripture in - as the name suggests - chronological order.

Which, for the Old Testament historical passages, is a brilliant idea.

Which, for the Old Testament prophecy passages, is a brilliant idea.

Which, for the New Testament epistles and early church narrative passages, is a brilliant idea.

But… for the gospels is a HORRIBLE idea.

For, the gospel aren’t designed to be mashed together chronologically.

This would be dishonest to the authors intentions and the entire genre that they are writing in.

The gospel authors are not writing biographies as we think of them in the modern world. These aren’t interested in chronological events.

Biographies in the ancient world, like those written about Jesus or the parallel lives recorded by Plutarch, are far more invested in the kairos moments, not the chronological ones.

These biographies of antiquity are more concerned about how the significant events in a life shape the person, their lasting impact and the ultimate message being conveyed.

If you force them into a chronological framework, then you fundamentally lose a vital part of their composition.

You lose their purpose.

You obscure their audience.

You soften the individual decisions that the author has made.

You cloud the literary context.

You quieten the voice of the author.

All because you missed the importance of the genre.

But, manipulating the gospels into a chronological timeframe places you in an unfair position of judgement over the gospel authors.

For, you then question why some things are omitted or place in the “wrong” place.

Of course, you do so without engaging in the entire conversation that the gospel writer is having.

You don’t see the thematic collection of teachings.

You don’t see the intentional groupings of miracles.

You don’t sense the decisions about sheer length of the gospel which influenced the any omissions.

It is clear that the gospel of John was selective in the events it included, with Jesus “performing many other signs… which are not recorded” (John 20:30). Every gospel is selective.

I read something during the week which mentioned that the gospel accounts are like a portrait, not a photograph.

They are accurate, but artistic.

They are accurate, but influenced by the artist.

They are accurate, but come from different perspectives.

They are accurate, but also present a message.

Smashing four paintings of a person together would make a horrible Frankenstein of the subject being depicted.

While I’ll read a lot of the bible in chronological order, the gospels - as they are - deserve to stand on their own.