Restoring The Original Bible

Home Page  |  Restoring the Original
Bible  |  Order

Chapter 1: Restoring the Original
Bible

The world has never had a complete Bible of the Old and New Testaments in
the original manuscript order of the biblical books. This is a fact! It is
almost that such a non-manuscript arrangement of the books of the Bible could
exist, but all modern translations of the Holy Scriptures do not
follow the early manuscripts. Publishers in their quest to print
numerous versions of the Bible have been led to avoid the manuscript
positioning of the biblical books in favor of an ecclesiastical order which
has no justification from the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the
Bible.

Let us look at the situation with the New Testament first. The last century
saw the advent of what we call the modern scholarly criticism of the biblical
texts and manuscripts. These pioneer scholars were very good at their task.
Indeed, when they printed their final results of surveying the early New
Testament manuscripts, they all without exception placed their
arrangement of the books in the same order.

The order that they accepted was that of the manuscripts from which they
had done their work. They felt compelled in their scholarly editions to
arrange the books as they found them positioned in the manuscripts because the
overwhelming evidence from those early documents demanded it. As an example,
note Scrivener’s words after surveying over 4000 New Testament
manuscripts:

“Whether copies contain the whole or a part of the
sacred ‘volume, the general order of the books is the following: Gospels,
Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse [the Book
of Revelation].”

Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament, 1
—words in brackets are
mine

Note that the seven Catholic 2 Epistles (which are the epistles of
James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John and Jude) were shown by Scrivener as
being before the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul in the
manuscripts. This is a very significant feature of the manuscripts which has
not been followed by modern translators.

“This is the position [the Catholic
Epistles before those of Paul] assigned them in the
critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort.”

Hastings, Dictionary of the
Bible, 3
—words in
brackets are mine

The reason for the placement of these seven epistles before the
fourteen of Paul is because the early manuscripts which most textual critics
uphold as the best in existence (notably the Vaticanus, the
Alexandrinus and the Ephraem) position them in that order. There
can be no doubt that this is where those seven epistles belong. But in our
modern versions, the translators have abandoned this order of the manuscripts
and adopted the arbitrary arrangement of Jerome who in the early
5th century (when he translated his Latin Vulgate) put the letters
of the apostle Paul into a first position ahead of the seven “General
Epistles” (James to Jude) which were considered to be “Jewish.”

Jerome also placed the Book of Hebrews from its 10th place position in the
manuscripts within the fourteen epistles of Paul and put it at the back (into
the least position) because of its “Jewish” characteristics and because some
western theologians questioned whether it was written by Paul.

This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome’s eyes and to
some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the
Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who
were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome’s new and radical placement of
Paul’s epistles before the seven “Catholic Epistles” in his Latin
Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom
the first epistle of Paul’s collection of books was sent) into a first rank
position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top
rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of
the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the
slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament. Indeed, notice what Dr. Bullinger had to say
about this arrangement of Jerome.

“Our English Bibles follow the order as given in
the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgment
of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382–429). All theories based on this order rest on
human authority, and are thus without any true foundation.”

Companion Bible, Appendix 95,
p.139

The textual scholars of the last century knew that this arrangement by
Jerome was simply the one preferred by him and it was willfully devised to
exalt the so-called “Gentile” epistles of the New Testament into a primal
position over those which had “Jewish” characteristics. Many of the early
textual critics admitted that the arrangement of Jerome is provincial,
sectarian and clearly adopted for political reasons. Jerome’s order of the New
Testament books cannot represent the original arrangement, and the evidence
from the manuscripts demonstrates this abundantly. The truth is, Jerome (along
wit ustine who followed him) in adopting his novel arrangement wanted to exalt
“Rome” and its theology over the site of “Jerusalem” and over the authority of
the eastern churches who were not keen on Rome’s leadership in Christendom.
Note what M’Clintock and Strong had to say about this matter in their twelve
volume Cyclopedia.

“The Western Church ... as represented by Jerome
and Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the
Pauline epistles. The tendency of the Western Church to recognize Rome as
the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure
from the custom of the East. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican and
Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to the Catholic Epistles, and as this
is also recognized by the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem and
Athanasius, it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern
churches.”

CBTEL, vol. I, p.
800 4

This tendency of Jerome (and his followers) to downgrade the letters of the
so-called “Jewish” apostles into a lesser position of authority in the New
Testament canon and to advance Paul’s epistles into a position of headship and
prestige was done in order to exalt Rome and its western theology. This
non-manuscript arrangement of the New Testament books, on the other hand, was
not followed by most of the ancient Christian scholars and theologians
who lived before and after the time of Jerome, and this was especially true
with the theologians who flourished in the eastern part of the Roman
Empire.

Early Christian Beliefs

Almost all the Greek-speaking ecclesiastical authorities from the areas of
Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer to the books of the New
Testament and they do so in the proper manuscript arrangement. Note in all
cases that they position the seven “Catholic Epistles” (from James to Jude)
before those of the apostle Paul.

Athanasius said the order was “the four Gospels;
the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Catholic Epistles; the fourteen epistles
of St. Paul; and the Revelation of John.” 5

Leontius of Byzantium mentioned the order as “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles; the
seven Catholic Epistles; the Epistles of Paul; and the
Apocalypse.” 6

Philastris was even bold in his statement that the seven Catholic
Epistles must be positioned before Paul’s because in Galatians 1:17 Paul
said that the Jewish apostles were “before
me.” 7

The normal manuscript order was also advocated by the clerics at the
eastern Church Synod of Laodicea in 365 C.E. 8 and it was further maintained by Cyril, Bishop
of Jerusalem. 9

John of Damascus (born 675 C.E.)—author of the standard textbook on
Dogmatic Theology for the Greek Church—referred to the manuscript order of
the books as the proper one. Without qualification he stated that the seven
Catholic Epistles must be placed right after the Book of Acts. 10

Further names could be cited in support of this prevalent view among
eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and also the Syrian
Peshitta Version of the New Testament. 11 These were followed by Stoichiometry
from Cotelerius (806 C.E.) and Gecumenius (950 C.E.) the Bishop of
Thessaly who wrote a short copy of verse on the New Testament in the proper
manuscript order. 12

This proper manuscript order (with the seven Catholic “Jewish” Epistles
positioned before those of Paul) was even acknowledged by Jerome himself, yet
in a personal letter to his friend Paulinus, Jerome followed an order peculiar
to Epiphanius who even placed Paul’s letters right after the four
Gospels. 13 This oddity of order is also found in the
Sinaiticus manuscript and plainly is unlike the order of the original
manuscripts as the textual scholars Westcott & Hort make clear. (See
APPENDIX ONE to this chapter, below).

It is really easy to see that the final “western rearrangement” of Jerome
which he displayed in his Latin Vulgate translation (and that which we find in
our Bibles today) was an attempt to exalt the political position of the
western church over the rest of Christendom. It was especially designed to put
Rome ahead of all the churches in Christendom.

A reflection of this type of redesigning is found in the writings of the
Latin theologian Rufinus, born about 330 C.E., a churchman of the “western
school.” 14 The Third Council of Carthage also advocated
the western arrangement. 15 Innocent of Rome did the same 16 and so did Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492
C.E.). 17 These ecclesiastical leaders wanted Rome (not
Jerusalem or any of the eastern cities) to be in top authority among the
Christian churches.

There were even two easterners who followed the western order. One was
Gregory of Nazianzus. This might be expected with Gregory because he
championed a universal orthodoxy for both the eastern and western sections of
the church against the doctrines of eastern Arianism. Associated with him was
Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. 18

The main reason the westerners placed Paul’s epistles to a position
before those of James, Peter, John, and Jude was to promote Paul (the
Gentile apostle) as being preeminent over the Jewish apostles, which in turn
helped to elevate the western ecclesiastical authorities of the fourth and
fifth centuries into a supreme political position within Christendom.. There
was, however, a major problem with this non-manuscript exaltation of Paul. It
put Peter (whom most people felt was the first Bishop of Rome) into an
inferior position. This may have been an embarrassment at first, but it was
soon avoided by pointing out that the two epistles of Peter were intended by
Peter to go only to Jews, not to Gentiles as the Romans. So even the first
“Pope” got put into a last position.

In spite of these sectarian reasons for placing Paul’s letters before
the seven Catholic (“Jewish”) Epistles, the proper order of the New
Testament books was well known and maintained by the majority of early Greek
manuscripts. And this is exactly how the New Testament books should be
positioned today. To promote this truth is one of the main reasons this book
is being written. The world needs to return to the original Bible arrangement
and abandon the sectarian one devised by Jerome and perpetuated by his western
successors.

Indeed, I am not the only one stating this. The two great Cambridge
professors of the last century Westcott & Hort, who were the principal
actors in the production of the famous Revised Version of the Bible of 1881,
maintained that the manuscript order should be retained by us moderns. Their
appeal for the original order is recorded in their book Introduction to the
New Testament in the Original Greek 19 and is given in APPENDIX ONE to
this chapter. This version was the pioneer work for all of our modern versions
today. What these two eminent professors had to say about the arrangement of
the New Testament books ought to have a profound effect on how scholars
arrange the books of their new translations today, but sadly, not the
slightest attention has been given to their suggestions by modern translators
of the New Testament (except one whom I will soon mention).

As a matter of fact, about twenty years later, Professor Thayer (who headed
the American Standard Version committee in the United States) decided to
retain the traditional order of the New Testament books that Jerome had
devised in that 1901 version. He did this in spite of the fact that his own
son-in-law (who was the eminent textual critic in Germany, Professor Caspar
Rene Gregory) advised him to return to the original manuscript order of the
New Testament books. Professor Gregory had long stated that the order of the
main manuscripts should be maintained in all modern versions (see APPENDIX TWO
of this chapter which has Professor Gregory’s appeal).

But why, one might ask, were the appeals made by the various textual
scholars in the past not heeded? The answer is simple and at the same time
devastating to the cause of true scholarship. The plain truth is that the
publishers at the various presses who were investing their money into gaining
a profit on the new English Versions being produced thought that the general
public would be averse to any different order of the biblical books. The
marketers felt that the true and original manuscript order (which the scholars
were well aware of) would probably appear “newfangled” and “way out” to the
general public who were expected to buy the new Bibles.

The matter came down essentially to that of economics. The publishers not
only wanted to get their money back from their publishing venture (which was
reasonable enough), but they also wanted to make a profit (which is also
reasonable). These matters were certainly important, but they should not be
used at the expense of the truth. So what happened? The marketers prevailed
and won the day hands down (and they continue to do the same thing today in
the publishing world). As a result, the world is still saddled with the
erroneous and sectarian order of the New Testament books that was devised by
Jerome for his Latin Vulgate.

As far as I am aware, there has only been one modern version of the New
Testament that has returned to the original manuscript order of the New
Testament books. That is the translation of Ivan Panin (brought out first in
1914, revised in 1935 and reprinted several times by the Book Society of
Canada). 20 But there has not been a single other version
in English (to my knowledge) that has returned to the original order of the
manuscripts. This is a sad state of affairs. It appears to me that the least
that the theologians and publishers could do today with their new translations
is to tell the general public in their pro s or introductions what the
manuscript order of the New Testament books actually is. But strange as it may
seem, not a single version, even in its preliminary comments, has an
explanation why they (the translators) have abandoned the correct order of the
manuscripts. As far as the scholarly world is concerned, their dead silence
on this matter is universally consistent and outwardly conspicuous.

This state of affairs is really unconscionable. It is not proper for the
actual manuscript order of the New Testament books to be jettisoned aside by
the theologians and publishers of the modern versions being promoted today.
The general public are not dunces. They ought to be told the truth.

The principal bugaboo among theologians and publishers (every time the
original manuscript order is mentioned as the one to follow) is what they
consider the problem of selling the new version to the general public. The
difficulty in marketing such a “newfangled” order of the New Testament books
among the people is the prime factor with publishers (who not only want to get
their money back with any publishing venture, they want to make a profit
to boot). The simple fact is, publishers feel the original order would
appear too “strange” to the general public who buy their Bibles. Yes, this is
true, such a Bible would appear “strange.” But the reason for the
“strangeness” is because of the apathy of scholars (both in past times and at
the present) who have not insisted that publishers return to the original
manuscript order in all modern versions of the Bible.

There is, however, another reason why theologians and publishers do not
want to reveal to the general public the original manuscript order of the New
Testament books. That is because the placement of the seven Catholic
(“Jewish”) Epistles before those of Paul (and to replace the Book of
Hebrews into 10th position, rather than in its present 14th spot) would tend
to advance the “Jewish” epistles before the “Gentile” ones of the
apostle Paul. Some modern ecclesiastical leaders do not think this is
desirable. If this were done, the general public would unmistakably observe
that such an arrangement would make any common sense person focus his
attention toward “Jerusalem” and not to “Rome.” This literary detail found in
the New Testament manuscripts would not be to the advantage of the present
Catholic and Protestant hierarchical traditions (which dominated western
theological opinions for the past sixteen centuries), because those traditions
of western theologians tend to support Rome as the historic center of
Christian authority.

It is often thought that since most readers of the New Testament are now
Gentiles, many people believe today (and western theologians have thought this
since the time of Jerome) that it is better to place books intended for the
“Gentiles” before any books that seem to be “Jewish.” Paul, however, as
I will later show in this book, said that the Jews ought to come first on all
occasions and that they had (and have) prime authority in teaching the Gospel
of Christ (Romans 3:1–2).

At the present, publishers and scholars alike have been able to avoid
discussing these important points by simply being apathetic to the original
manuscript arrangement of the New Testament books. The time has come to
abandon this indifference. There can be no doubt whatever that the actual
manuscript order of the New Testament books should be restored in all
modern versions. All the early textual critics in their Greek versions of
the New Testament, along with Professors Westcott & Hort and Gregory,
stated that the seven Catholic (“Jewish”) Epistles should be placed in their
original position before those of Paul and that the Book of Hebrews
should be returned to its 10th position in Paul’s collection, rather than
being at the back of Paul’s letters as it is now.

It is time that New Testament scholars and also the publishers of Bibles
return to the proper order and inform the general public about the original
arrangement of the New Testament books. The rewards for restoring the
manuscript order can afford us of modern times a much better understanding of
the messages of the New Testament. And when both the Old and New Testaments
are returned to their original designs (and combined together) a new
appreciation of the Bible will result.

The Old Testament

The books of the Old Testament also need to be repositioned to accord with
the manuscripts maintained by Jewish authorities. Our Christian Old Testament
follows an order of books which had its origin in Egypt in the 2nd
and 3rd centuries C.E. This order was devised when the codex form
for producing books became popular (this is the type of book with which we are
familiar today). Before the codex form of making a book was used, it was
customary to use scrolls for the production of literary documents. But
somewhere in the second or third centuries, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament was put into a codex form called the Septuagint (abbreviated as
LXX—a Greek version translated a few generations before the time of
Christ).

The Jewish authorities at this time, however, would not place the Holy
Scriptures in the codex form. The Jews demanded the scroll form well into the
5th century. But the Gentiles in Egypt put the LXX into the codex
form. When they did, they abandoned the normal Jewish order (which had been
maintained in the early Temple) and they rearranged the books into a
subjectivized order. They put the historical books of the Old Testament
together in one section, the poetic books in another, and the prophetic books
in yet another. Josephus, the Jewish historian at the end of the
1st century, did the same thing (I will comment on his statements
later). Josephus did this primarily because he had a Gentile audience that he
was trying to inform and they did not appreciate or understand the order of
the Old Testament books maintained by the Temple authorities in Jerusalem.

When the codex form of book came into general use among Christians, those
in Egypt in the Greek-speaking world found the subjectivized arrangement of
the LXX of the Old Testament to be academically desirable. The use of the
codex form gave an appearance of standardization to the text of the Old
Testament for Gentile Christian readers. It showed a permanent arrangement of
books whereas separate scrolls cannot. This arrangement gave Jerome a reason
for maintaining it when he devised his Latin Vulgate version. And we moderns
have inherited (again from Jerome) the same Egyptian order which the codex
form of the LXX presented to Christians in the second and third centuries
after Christ.

Though Jerome adopted the Egyptian order of the Old Testament books as
found in the LXX, this does not mean he was unaware of the Hebrew design of
the books which even Christ referred to in Luke 24:44–45 as being “the
Scriptures.” When questioned by some of his readers why he put mong the
prophets section of his Latin Vulgate, Jerome said:

“I give warning that Daniel in Hebrew is not found
among the prophets, but among the writers of the Hagiographa [the
third division of the Hebrew Bible]; for all
Scripture is by them [the Jewish authorities] divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the
Hagiographa.”

Jerome, Preface to
Daniel,
— words in brackets are mine 21

The Hagiographa are “Holy Writings,” sometimes called the Psalms for the
book that introduced this third division.

This shows that Jerome was well aware of what the Jewish order of the Old
Testament was (and the one I am advocating in this book). It would seem to me
that even we Christians ought to return to the Hebrew order of the books as
maintained by the Temple authorities when the Holy Sanctuary existed in
Jerusalem, since this is the order that Christ advocated as “the Scriptures”
(Luke 24:44–45). The Hebrew manuscript order is as follows:

I.      THE LAW (TORAH)

1)   Genesis
2)   Exodus
3)
Leviticus
4)   Numbers
5)
Deuteronomy

II.     THE PROPHETS

6)   Joshua and Judges

[reckoned as two separate books by the Jews after the 2nd
century]
7)   The Book of Kingdoms (Samuel and
Kings)
[reckoned as two separate books by
the Jews after the 2nd century]
8)
Isaiah
9)   Jeremiah
10)  Ezekiel
11)  The
Twelve (Hosea to Malachi)
[always
reckoned as one book by the Jews]

III.    THE HOLY WRITINGS (or THE PSALMS because
it was the
first book in the
collection in this “Royal Division”)

12)  The Psalms
13)  The Proverbs
14)
Job
15)  Song of
Songs
16)  Ruth
17)  Lamentations
18)  Ecclesiastes
19)  Esther
20)  Daniel
21)  Ezra-Nehemiah
[reckoned as one book by the Jews]
22)  The Book of Chronicles
[reckoned as one book by the Jews]

These 22 books of the Old Testament (and their arrangement as indicated
above) should be the standard canon followed by every version of the Bible
today. They represent the exact number presently in our King James Version
but, as one can observe, they are arranged and enumerated differently. Again,
it was Jerome who gave us our present enumeration of 39 books for the Old
Testament rather than the original 22 enumeration (which agreed with the
number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet).

Note Jerome’s own comment which shows he was well aware of the original 22
numbering (and he even approved of it in 391 C.E. by identifying himself with
the Jews in this matter before he finished his Latin Vulgate). Though he
finally abandoned the 22 enumeration in his Latin Vulgate which he prepared
for his Gentile Christian readers, he formerly approved of it. Jerome in 391
C.E. said:

“As, then, there are twenty-two elementary
characters by means of which WE write in Hebrew all WE
say, and the compass of the human voice is contained within their
limits, so WE reckon twenty-two books, by which,
as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in
tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.”

Jerome, Preface to Samuel and
Kings 22

The world today needs to jettison Jerome’s later opinions which were
intended to exalt Rome as the center and head of Christendom. We should return
to this original 22 numbering of the Old Testament books (which was the number
of books mentioned by the priest/historian Josephus as the enumeration that
existed in the time of Christ). This was the arrangement advocated by Christ
himself as representing “the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44–45).

When these original manuscript features of the Old and New Testaments I
have discussed are restored to our modern Bibles, an amazing relationship
between all the books of the Holy Scriptures can be understood. Restoring the
manuscript order to both testaments would make the messages of the Bible much
easier to understand. Indeed, a great deal of important information about the
Bible would come forth that people have not realized before.

Jerome with his Latin Vulgate did considerable damage to the early and
pristine teachings of Christianity when he redesigned the books of both the
Old and New Testaments in order to advance Gentile authority over any Jewish
authority. His rearrangement also had the advantage (from Jerome’s viewpoint)
of exalting Rome and its ecclesiastical authorities over areas within the
Christian community. But we need to restore the original Bible to the
world—the Bible that left the hands of the prophets and apostles. The world
needs, at this end of the 20th century, to finally abandon the
political and sectarian arrangement of the biblical books devised and promoted
in the early 5th century by Jerome and his successors. Restoring
the original Bible to its proper divisions and arrangement of its books is my
prime purpose for writing this present book.

A Numerical Summary

The original arrangement of the Old and New Testament books shows a
marvelous design that enhances the basic teaching of Christ and the apostles.
It reveals a symmetrical balance between the divisions and parts of the Bible
that is truly inspiring and instructive. We will look at the significance of
this matter later in this book, but as a preliminary synopsis, note that the
original Scriptures had exactly 49 books: 22 books in the Old Testament and 27
books in the New Testament.

This number 49 is, of course, 7 times 7, and seven represents the symbolic
number of completion or finalization. One could spend many pages giving
biblical references concerning the significance of the number seven. But as a
simple illustration of its symbolic meaning, look at some basic features of
the Hebrew calendar that Christ and the apostles observed. Note how the
Hebrews recognized this.

They noticed that the seventh day of the week completed
the week.

They also saw that the seven weeks of grain harvest (the 49 days
from Passover to Pentecost) completed the firstfruits harvest. And
there is more.

The first seven months of the Hebrew calendar contained the times
for the seven annual festivals commanded by Moses. In a sense it
could be said that the festival year of Moses was completed in
seven months, and those seven months contained and completed
the holyday schedule for the Israelites.

And let us not forget that every seventh year was reckoned a
Sabbatical Year and it commemorated the completion of six years of
agricultural activity for the Hebrews in Palestine.

After seven of those Sabbatical Years were completed (a
period of 49 years), the Year of Jubilee was reached which was supposed to
be a time of a thorough and finalized agricultural and
financial rejuvenation for all Israelites in Palestine. This period of 49
years (7 times 7) was the Jubilee period when a religious and civil cycle
was completed. This was when all social and economic activities were
supposed to return to the same condition as they had been at the beginning
of the previous 49 years.

Why are these sevens and multiples of sevens important? They
show that it was no accident that the total number of Old and New Testament
books came to 49 in number (7 times 7) in the enumeration maintained by the
early Jewish and early Christian authorities. But there is more to it than
that. There are also (as Christ taught) three divisions to the Old
Testament:

(1) The Law,
(2) The Prophets, and
(3) The
Writings’ (the Psalms) Division.

To these can be added the four divisions of the New Testament:

(4) The Historical Books [Gospels and Acts],
(5) The
seven General [or Catholic] Epistles,
(6) The fourteen
[2 times 7] epistles of Paul, and then
(7) the final Book of
Revelation.

When one adds the three divisions of the Old Testament with the four of the
New Testament, we arrive at seven divisions for the complete Bible.
This seven-fold division was no accident.

Throughout the remainder of this book, I will show many more numerical
relationships within and among the various books of the Bible involving the
number seven. The Scripture is truly a marvelously arranged book and it
reveals a symbolic message from those numerical patterns that will help
enhance anyone’s comprehension of the biblical revelation itself. But for the
general public to appreciate this fact, the first thing to be done is for
publishers of Bibles, for biblical scholars, and for modern preachers of the
Gospel to abandon the sectarian arrangement of the biblical books which had
its origin with Jerome in the early 5th century after Christ. The
world needs to return to the manuscript order as maintained by the early Jews
and early Christians. In other words, the modern world needs to start over
with its biblical translations and versions, and this time scholars
need to get the divisions and arrangement of the books straight. They need to
be put back into their proper manuscript order.

True enough, this would be a major undertaking because every version
combining the Old and New Testaments being published in the world today is in
error and need adjustment. It would also be an enormous task to reeducate
people to accept the original manuscript divisions and arrangement of the
biblical books. The biggest problem of all is to change people’s minds from
the apathy that is presently expressed over the issue, and get them excited
about a return to the original Bible. If such a Bible were produced, it would
be the first time in history that a complete published Bible (in the original
manuscript arrangements and order) would be given to the world.

It must be admitted that there could be resistance to any change from the
erroneous arrangement saddled on the world by Jerome and his Latin Vulgate. It
might rekindle the doctrinal arguments of the 4th and
5th centuries regarding the place where proper authority rests
within Christendom. If one accepts the retention of our present catalog of the
books of the New Testament, then some might imagine that the Roman church has
some credentials for being in the top position. But if one returns to the
original manuscript order and restores the seven Catholic Epistles to their
rightful position in the New Testament canon (and placing the Book of Hebrews
after 2 Thessalonians where the principal manuscripts have it), this would
tend to exalt the “Jewish apostles” and the city of Jerusalem over the Gentile
section of the Christian Church and the city of Rome. It is true that the
original manuscript order downplays the historic role of headship that Rome
has assumed in the world.

A return to the manuscript order of the Old and New Testament books is
clearly the proper thing to do. Even the apostle Paul said that the message of
Christian salvation should go to “the Jew
first” (Romans 2:10; 3:1–2). And in Paul’s personal evaluation of
his rank as the apostle to the Gentiles, he admitted that the actual pillars
in the Church were James, Peter, and John at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9); that
they were apostles “before me” (Galatians
1:17). Indeed, Paul as the Gentile apostle considered himself the “least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9), and
a person “who am less than the least of all
saints” (Ephesians 3:8). There can be no question that if the
apostle Paul himself would have a say in the positioning of his own fourteen
epistles, he would not insist they be placed before the pillar apostles of the
Christian Church.

The actual fact is, there is no need to lessen any church’s jurisdiction
when the world returns to the manuscript order of the Old and New Testament
books. Such authority is based on a host of other considerations, not the
positioning of the canonical books alone. Indeed, once the world returns to
the original order, the apostle Peter (who is the first recorded Bishop of
Rome in the historical annals) would then assume his rightful rank ahead of
the apostle Paul (who considered himself as the “least
of the apostles”). In reality, the New Testament itself is “a
Jewish book” in every way and the Jews are given preeminence even by the
apostle Paul throughout his epistles. Though it is true that much of the
writings of the New Testament were intended to go to Gentile peoples, the
authors still were Jewish Christians (and even Luke, though a Gentile, wrote
under the auspices of the apostle Paul who was Jewish).

Our present arrangement exalts “Rome” and the Gentiles as being in
authority over Christian affairs, rather than “Jerusalem” and the early Jewish
apostles whom Christ Jesus selected to teach the basic doctrines of
Christianity to the world. This is not right. The proper manuscript
arrangement, however, tends to exalt the proper authority as being “Jerusalem”
and the Jewish apostles of Christ, not Rome, Athens, London, Moscow, Berlin,
New York, or any other city or any other person on earth.

As mentioned, the order of the biblical books is not the only reason for
showing authority in Christian affairs, but it plays a part in directing
people to the proper principles for solving the whole issue of Christian
authority. Our modern world (on the verge of the 21st century) is
entitled to have the versions of their Bibles (in their own languages) in the
same manner in which the early Christians had theirs. The general public are
not dunces. They are quite capable of understanding and evaluating the true
manuscript arrangement of the biblical books. And with this restoration (which
is long overdue), I think that a new appreciation for the Holy Bible will be
the result.

APPENDIX ONE

Here are the comments of Professors Westcott & Hort in 1881 C.E.

“We have followed recent editors [in
their official Greek text of the New Testament meant for scholars] in abandoning the Hieronymic order [the arrangement of
Jerome], familiar in modern Europe through the influence of the Latin
Vulgate, in favour of the order most highly recommended by various
Greek authority of the fourth century, the earliest time when we have
distinct evidence of the completed Canon as it now stands. It differs
from the Hieronymic [Jerome’s] order in
two respects. First, the Acts are immediately followed by the Catholic
Epistles. The connexion between these two portions, commended by its
intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek
manuscripts of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual
history. This connexion is not sacrificed in the arrangement found in the
Sinai manuscript and elsewhere, by which the Pauline Epistles are placed
next to the Gospels. The Sinaitic order has the undoubted advantage of
keeping together those books of the New Testament which were most decisively
invested with a scriptural character in the earlier ages. But there is a
manifest incongruity in placing the Acts in the midst of the Epistles; and
moreover, since the choice lies between what are after all only rival
traditions, strong reasons would be needed to justify us in forsaking the
highest ancient Greek authority, in accordance with which the Pauline
Epistles stand after the Catholic Epistles. Secondly, the Epistle to the
Hebrews stands before the Pastoral Epistles [of Paul]. It is certainly not
satisfactory to ourselves personally to separate what we believe to be
genuine writings of St Paul from the bulk of his works by an epistle in
which we cannot recognize his authorship. But no violence has, we trust,
been here done to truth in deferring throughout to the most eminent
precedent, since the Epistle to the Hebrews is on all hands acknowledged as
in some sense Pauline, and St Paul’s epistles addressed to single
persons [the four Pastoral Epistles: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus,
Philemon] may very well be placed by themselves. We
have therefore been content to indicate the existence of three groups in the
table prefixed to the whole Pauline collection [the nine epistles
to the Seven Churches of Paul, the Book of Hebrews, and the Pastoral
Epistles].”

Introduction to the New Testament
in the Original Greek,
— underlines and words in brackets are
mine 23

APPENDIX TWO

Here is the comment of Professor Caspar R. Gregory in 1907 C.E.

“The order in which we place the books of the New
Testament is not a matter of indifference. Every Christian should be
familiar with these books, and should know precisely where to fin book.
Every New Testament should have the books in precisely the same
order, the order of the Greek Church, which in this case is of right the
guardian of this ancient literature [see Romans 3:1–2]. The proper order is, I think: First, the Four Gospels:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Second, the Book of Acts. Third, the Catholic
Epistles: James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and
Jude. Fourth, the Epistles of Paul: Romans, First and Second Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second
Thessalonians, Hebrews, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon. And
fifth, the Book of Revelation ... The Greek order is that which places the
Epistle to the Hebrews between Thessalonians and Timothy, and that is the
order to which we should hold. The Latin order [of
Jerome] places Hebrews after Philemon. But we must
keep to the old order or we shall have the New Testament turned
upside down in connection with every fancied discovery as to authorship and
date of books.”

Canon and Text of the New
Testament, pp.467–469,
— underlines and words in brackets are
mine 24

1 F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament, 4th ed., vol. 1 (London, 1894), p. 72.

2 It ought to be stated that the word “Catholic” in Scrivener’s
statement does not refer to any Christian denomination. It only signifies that
the epistles in content are reckoned by scholars as being “Universal” or
“General,” which is what the word “Catholic” means.

3 James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible Dealing, vol.
1 (New York: Scribener, 1911–12), p. 360.

4 John M'Clintock and James Strong, eds., Cyclopaedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York, Arno
Press, 1969 [original 1871–1881 ed.]).

5 Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical
Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., corr. and enl.
Edition, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, [1807]), p. 253.

6 Horne, Introduction, vol. IV, p. 253.

7 James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New
Testament, 3rd ed. (T&T Clark Ltd, 1981), p. 13.

8
“Synod of Laodicea,” Canon LX, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [hereafter
NPNF], 2nd Series, vol. XIV, p. 159.

9 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, First Catechetical
Lectures, Lecture 4, §36, “Of the Divine Scriptures,” in NPNF,
2nd Series, vol. VII.

10 Nathaniel Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel
History, vol. V (London, 1788), p. 147.

11 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 14.

12 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, pp. 89, 154–155.

13 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 437–438

14 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 483–484.

15 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p. 487.

16 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p.586)

17 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, p. 76.

18 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 292–293.

19 New York: Harper, 1882.

20 Ivan Panin, ed., The New Testament from the Greek Text
as Established by Bible Numerics, 2nd ed. (Niagra Falls,
Ontario, Canada: Bible Numerics, 1935).

21 Jerome, “Preface to Daniel,” in NPNF, 2nd
Series, vol. VI, p. 493.

22 Jerome, “Preface to Samuel and Kings,” in NPNF,
2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 489.

23 Westcott & Hort, Introduction to the New Testament
in the Original Greek, pp. 320–321.

24 Caspar Renee Gregory, Canon and Text of the New
Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), pp. 467–469.

Order our Book: Restoring the Original
Bible to read all the chapters.

© 1976-2004 Associates for Scriptural Knowledge
~
ASK is
supported by freewill contributions

temple | books | commentary | prophecy |
doctrine |
video | audio | newsletter |
resources