HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The historical New Testament : being the…
Loading...

The historical New Testament : being the literature of the New Testament arranged in the order of its literary growth and according to the dates of the documents (edition 1901)

by James Moffatt

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations
1111,720,278 (3)None
Can the whole be less than the sum of its parts?

Both the virtues and the defects of James Moffatt's translation of the Bible are well-known: It is clear, forceful, and fluid. But it is also rather radical in its approach, sometimes handling the text in a way that some consider cavalier -- too influenced by Moffatt's notions of history.

This edition takes that sort of handling one step farther. The basic idea is that Moffatt takes the text of the New Testament and arranges it in the order it was written instead of the standard order. He also adds much background material.

There are two problems here. One is that Moffatt's understanding of history is not universally accepted and keeps being modified. The other is that this approach ignores the Church's understanding of scripture. To be sure, there were other orders of the Biblical books (the "Western" order of the Gospels places Mark, not John, last; there was much disagreement over whether Hebrews belonged after Thessalonians or after Philemon, etc). But the Church never mixed up the Gospels and the Epistles; Moffatt puts everything in his own order.

It's a bold book. It can be very informative if you have other, less radical New Testaments -- and good references to check the history yourself. I wouldn't want to have this as my only New Testament, though. ( )
  waltzmn | Feb 18, 2014 |
Can the whole be less than the sum of its parts?

Both the virtues and the defects of James Moffatt's translation of the Bible are well-known: It is clear, forceful, and fluid. But it is also rather radical in its approach, sometimes handling the text in a way that some consider cavalier -- too influenced by Moffatt's notions of history.

This edition takes that sort of handling one step farther. The basic idea is that Moffatt takes the text of the New Testament and arranges it in the order it was written instead of the standard order. He also adds much background material.

There are two problems here. One is that Moffatt's understanding of history is not universally accepted and keeps being modified. The other is that this approach ignores the Church's understanding of scripture. To be sure, there were other orders of the Biblical books (the "Western" order of the Gospels places Mark, not John, last; there was much disagreement over whether Hebrews belonged after Thessalonians or after Philemon, etc). But the Church never mixed up the Gospels and the Epistles; Moffatt puts everything in his own order.

It's a bold book. It can be very informative if you have other, less radical New Testaments -- and good references to check the history yourself. I wouldn't want to have this as my only New Testament, though. ( )
  waltzmn | Feb 18, 2014 |

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (3)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4
4.5
5

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 204,386,845 books! | Top bar: Always visible