Is the BibleHub's Protestant Bible timeline correct?

[ethereality]

Is the Protestant Bible chronology of the “Bible Hub” correct? When should we include the deuterocanonical books?

One concern, for example: They approximate Obadiah at 853 BC, whereas the USCCB dates it after 587, although the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with the ninth century dating:

Many among them (Keil, Orelli, Vigouroux, Trochon, Lesetre, etc.) assign its composition to about the reign of Joram (ninth century B.C.). Their main ground for this position is derived from Abdias’s reference (11-14) to a capture of Jerusalem which they identify with the sacking of the Holy City by the Philistines and the Arabians under Joram (II Paralip., xxi, 16, 17).

The Catholic Encyclopedia continues to contradict the USCCB:

The only other seizure of Jerusalem to which Abdias (11-14) could be understood to refer would be that which occurred during the lifetime of the prophet Jeremias and was effected by Nabuchodonosor (588-587 B.C.). But such reference to this latter capture of the Jewish capital is ruled out, we are told, by the fact that Jeremias’s description of this event (Jer., xlix, 7-22) is so worded as to betray its dependence on Abdias (11-14) as on an earlier writing.

 

[jcrichton]

Is the Protestant Bible chronology of the “Bible Hub” correct? When should we include the deuterocanonical books?

One concern, for example: They approximate Obadiah at 853 BC, whereas the USCCB dates it after 587, although the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with the ninth century dating:

The Catholic Encyclopedia continues to contradict the USCCB:

Hi!

…I’m not much of a book/history buff… but it seems that the USCCB ignored the passages that places Obadiah in the timeline of Elijah:

These are during 853 – 841 BC when Jerusalem was invaded by Philistines and Arabs during the reign of Jehoram of Judah (recorded in 2 Kings 8:20–22 and 2 Chronicles 21:8–20 in the Christian Old Testament) and 607 – 586 BC when Jerusalem was attacked by Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon, which led to the Babylonian exile of Israel (recorded in Psalm 137). The earlier period would place Obadiah as a contemporary of the prophet Elijah as reflected in 1 Kings, Chapter 18, Verses 1–16. In particular, 1 Kings 18:7–8 reads: As Obadiah was walking along, Elijah met him. Obadiah recognized him, bowed down to the ground, and said, “Is it really you, my lord Elijah?” “Yes,” he replied. “Go tell your master, ‘Elijah is here.’

” (NIV) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Obadiah)
…the only thing I can think of is that they were too quick in formulating the dating of the book.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

…I’m not much of a book/history buff… but it seems that the USCCB ignored the passages that places Obadiah in the timeline of Elijah

:ehh: Umm… pardon?

I’m thinking it’s more like “they decided that the evidence in favor of a later Obadiah is more compelling than the evidence for an earlier Obadiah.”

 

[Darryl_B]

I prefer not to focus on when something was written, but instead focus on what is written, what it says and when it applies to. Idumea, Herod, consumed by the advent of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Wesrock]

The NABRE notes are based on the historical critical method. I would not go so far as to say the USCCB endorses those specific dates, just that the historical critical scholarship being used is good work in itself, which is something different. They are not saying the historical critical method is the whole story.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t think it matters the fact that they are books in my Bible is what matters to me and all the dates that would be on the timeline are approximations anyway. I would also like to point out that as Protestants how in the world can they use Sola scriptura in this situation?

 

[jcrichton]

:ehh: Umm… pardon?

I’m thinking it’s more like “they decided that the evidence in favor of a later Obadiah is more compelling than the evidence for an earlier Obadiah.”

Hi, Gorgias!

…so ignoring a passage that places Obadiah in the lifetime of Elijah is inconsequential? Are you aware that these events are hundreds of years appart?

If Elijah’s lifetime is the 9th century BC, how could Obadiah (6th century BC) exchange words with Elijah, 3 centuries removed?

There has to be a clearer definition than “it seems” or “there’s this other possibility.”

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I prefer not to focus on when something was written, but instead focus on what is written, what it says and when it applies to. Idumea, Herod, consumed by the advent of the Kingdom of God.

Hi, Darryl!

…I agree with you that the dating is only secondary, at best.

…still, the USCCB represents the Catholic Church (as does the Catholic Encyclopedia) and the information they present should be updated and as correct as possible. Since there is a significant incongruence with the dating of Obadiah, the least they should have done is to have clarified the issue by presenting both perspectives and demonstrate why the later date is the correct one (if that is in deed the case).

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ahs]

Is the Protestant Bible chronology of the “Bible Hub” correct? When should we include the deuterocanonical books?

One concern, for example: They approximate Obadiah at 853 BC, whereas the USCCB dates it after 587, although the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with the ninth century dating:

The Catholic Encyclopedia continues to contradict the USCCB:

The dates are probably close enough to correct. Most (all) historical sources will give ranges of possible dates of the various works. “Some historians place [such-n-such] at around [this timeframe] while others give a more conservative dating of [whatever] based on [some facts]…”.

The Deuterocanon would fall between the last OT book on the Bible Hub site and the NT. Seems they think that God took a 430 year nap before Christ was born.

 

[Todd977]

Obadiah was a common name. For instance, there was Obadiah, son of Izarahaih (1 Chronicles 7:3), Obadiah, son of Azel (1 Chronicles 8:38), Obadiah, son of Shemaiah (1 Chronicles 9:16), and Obadiah, son of Jehiel (Ezra 8:9). It is likely that Obadiah, the prophet, was not the same Obadiah, who was King Ahab’s master of palace and contemporary of Elijah.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi, Darryl!

…I agree with you that the dating is only secondary, at best.

…still, the USCCB represents the Catholic Church (as does the Catholic Encyclopedia) and the information they present should be updated and as correct as possible. Since there is a significant incongruence with the dating of Obadiah, the least they should have done is to have clarified the issue by presenting both perspectives and demonstrate why the later date is the correct one (if that is in deed the case).

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

Yes. My friend, I do agree with you on that.

 

[Gorgias]

…so ignoring a passage that places Obadiah in the lifetime of Elijah is inconsequential?

Yes.

Are you aware that these events are hundreds of years appart?

Yes.

If Elijah’s lifetime is the 9th century BC, how could Obadiah (6th century BC) exchange words with Elijah, 3 centuries removed?

There has to be a clearer definition than “it seems” or “there’s this other possibility.”

See Todd’s post. The fact that there was an Obadiah in the 9th century BC does not prove that he was the Obadiah the prophet. (When we consider the meaning of the name ‘Obadiah’, we might be especially cautious about assuming that a name isn’t really just an appellation.)

Therefore, it’s not a question of “ignoring” data – it’s more charitable to characterize it as “a decision which weighed a variety of data prior to settling on one interpretation over another.” After all, there’s no reason to presume nefarious intent in the absence of info that leads us to that conclusion; rather, we might conclude that the scholars were making a scholarly decision based on scholarly criteria. It doesn’t mean that we must accept their decision – but we certainly should refrain from castigating them unfairly…

 

[jcrichton]

Yes.

Yes.

See Todd’s post. The fact that there was an Obadiah in the 9th century BC does not prove that he was the Obadiah the prophet. (When we consider the meaning of the name ‘Obadiah’, we might be especially cautious about assuming that a name isn’t really just an appellation.)
Therefore, it’s not a question of “ignoring” data – it’s more charitable to characterize it as “a decision which weighed a variety of data prior to settling on one interpretation over another.” After all, there’s no reason to presume nefarious intent in the absence of info that leads us to that conclusion; rather, we might conclude that the scholars were making a scholarly decision based on scholarly criteria. It doesn’t mean that we must accept their decision – but we certainly should refrain from castigating them unfairly…

Hi, Gorgias!

…yet, this point is never even alluded to in the USCCB’s rendering; it is as I have mentioned earlier… if there is pertinent information, why not present it? When we think, we are in a private world where only the individual and God are privy to those thoughts; when we speak or put something to text we must be as clear as possible so as not to cause confusion–when an authoritative source states something… well, if it is the Catholic Church, it will be scrutinized and nailed to the Cross even when the material is fully correct!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

…yet, this point is never even alluded to in the USCCB’s rendering; it is as I have mentioned earlier… if there is pertinent information, why not present it?

Because it’s a footnote, not an essay. In a scholarly article, or an encyclopedia entry, we’d expect to read about all relevant arguments, and perhaps a discussion of the author’s opinions of each. In a footnote, though, that isn’t possible. Even in a brief introduction (of the sort that the NAB provides), there isn’t room for that sort of extended discussion. Now… in a study Bible, yes. But that’s not what we’re talking about, here…

 

[jcrichton]

Because it’s a footnote, not an essay. In a scholarly article, or an encyclopedia entry, we’d expect to read about all relevant arguments, and perhaps a discussion of the author’s opinions of each. In a footnote, though, that isn’t possible. Even in a brief introduction (of the sort that the NAB provides), there isn’t room for that sort of extended discussion. Now… in a study Bible, yes. But that’s not what we’re talking about, here…

Hi, Gorgias!

I understand your position… but consider that there are footnotes and then there are “pertinent” footnotes… we do not need to know if it was a rainy day/season when the author said something, but if there already exists a commentary/claim that contradicts what we are putting forth… as Johnny-come-latelies it is our responsibility to “shine the light” (sorry, old lyrics crept in) rather than open ourselves to confusion.

The Church is forever being maligned; she is still suffering the backlash from anti-Catholic propaganda and dark-willed myths which are perpetuated by hollowood and its minions… why allow for further anti-Catholic sentiment by either remaining silent or presenting abridged renderings which could, by adding a couple of clear and concise sentences, be fully compiled and crystal clear?

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

The first indicator of trouble is the claim “Complete Biblical Timeline” when they do not possess a complete bible.

Biblehub, being agenda-driven, rejects the deuterocanonical books. Therefore, by default, they subscribe to the man-made doctrine of the 400+ year “Inter-testamental period” as describing God’s inexplicable silence from Malachi to the Gospels. This, despite the fact that our Lord teaches:

Matthew 11:13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John;
Luke 16:16
“The law and the prophets were until John

No mention of silence - rather, of on-going prophecy. Indeed, the Wisdom of Solomon was written as close to the Incarnation as 50 BC, and Chapter 2:10-20 is the most clear and precise prophecy of Christ that I am aware of.

“Most” (not all) of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the Deuterocanonical (and other) books. For that matter, I personally consider the Deuterocanon to be the “anticipatory” books of Christ. Each, in some way, is indicative of the Messiah. And, even though the Church places them in their respective categories, I have no real problem with non-Catholics placing them between the two testaments.

 

[Church_Militant]

The first indicator of trouble is the claim “Complete Biblical Timeline” when they do not possess a complete bible.

Biblehub, being agenda-driven, rejects the deuterocanonical books. Therefore, by default, they subscribe to the man-made doctrine of the 400+ year “Inter-testamental period” as describing God’s inexplicable silence from Malachi to the Gospels. This, despite the fact that our Lord teaches:
No mention of silence - rather, of on-going prophecy. Indeed, the Wisdom of Solomon was written as close to the Incarnation as 50 BC, and Chapter 2:10-20 is the most clear and precise prophecy of Christ that I am aware of.

“Most” (not all) of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the Deuterocanonical (and other) books. For that matter, I personally consider the Deuterocanon to be the “anticipatory” books of Christ. Each, in some way, is indicative of the Messiah. And, even though the Church places them in their respective categories, I have no real problem with non-Catholics placing them between the two testaments.

Exactly! By rejecting the Deuterocanon they then defy scripture and the very words of Christ in this case. There was no 400 years of silence. That is pretty much dispensationalist nonsense…

 

[Gorgias]

we do not need to know if it was a rainy day/season when the author said something, but if there already exists a commentary/claim that contradicts what we are putting forth… as Johnny-come-latelies it is our responsibility to “shine the light” (sorry, old lyrics crept in) rather than open ourselves to confusion.

Angel,

It’s scholarship. That means that, necessarily, there are all sorts of claims, from all sorts of sources, and many contradict each other. If they tried to address the claims of earlier scholarship, then the length of the footnotes would outstrip the size of the text by orders of magnitude!

The proper place for such a discussion isn’t in the margins of a Bible; other places are more well-suited to such a discussion. After all, does your cookbook discuss the reasons for adding baking powder, or the fact that earlier generations used baking soda with other acidic ingredients, or that 4th century BC Egyptians used something like baking soda? Of course not: it just tells you “1 tsp baking powder”, and leaves other articles and books to do the detailed explanations. Same thing here.

The Church is forever being maligned; she is still suffering the backlash from anti-Catholic propaganda and dark-willed myths which are perpetuated by hollowood and its minions… why allow for further anti-Catholic sentiment by either remaining silent or presenting abridged renderings which could, by adding a couple of clear and concise sentences, be fully compiled and crystal clear?

Because it’s not the right context for it. The Bible is the Word of God. Let other resources do in-depth commentary on theology, apologetics, historical contextualization.

 

[jcrichton]

The first indicator of trouble is the claim “Complete Biblical Timeline” when they do not possess a complete bible.

Biblehub, being agenda-driven, rejects the deuterocanonical books. Therefore, by default, they subscribe to the man-made doctrine of the 400+ year “Inter-testamental period” as describing God’s inexplicable silence from Malachi to the Gospels. This, despite the fact that our Lord teaches:
No mention of silence - rather, of on-going prophecy. Indeed, the Wisdom of Solomon was written as close to the Incarnation as 50 BC, and Chapter 2:10-20 is the most clear and precise prophecy of Christ that I am aware of.

“Most” (not all) of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the Deuterocanonical (and other) books. For that matter, I personally consider the Deuterocanon to be the “anticipatory” books of Christ. Each, in some way, is indicative of the Messiah. And, even though the Church places them in their respective categories, I have no real problem with non-Catholics placing them between the two testaments.

Hi!

…I have come across a few passages (Wisdom, etc.); is there an on-line list of these quotes?

…I concur with you with the “anticipatory” analogy since we find Christology and Resurrection not just being alluded to in these books but actually spoken of as Revelation.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Angel,

It’s scholarship. That means that, necessarily, there are all sorts of claims, from all sorts of sources, and many contradict each other. If they tried to address the claims of earlier scholarship, then the length of the footnotes would outstrip the size of the text by orders of magnitude!

The proper place for such a discussion isn’t in the margins of a Bible; other places are more well-suited to such a discussion. After all, does your cookbook discuss the reasons for adding baking powder, or the fact that earlier generations used baking soda with other acidic ingredients, or that 4th century BC Egyptians used something like baking soda? Of course not: it just tells you “1 tsp baking powder”, and leaves other articles and books to do the detailed explanations. Same thing here.

Because it’s not the right context for it. The Bible is the Word of God. Let other resources do in-depth commentary on theology, apologetics, historical contextualization.

Hi, Gorgias!

…I think we have been speaking past the issue… I was referring to the quoted page on the OP.

I am not suggesting that the pages of the Bible should be used to address contentions; neither am I suggesting that all issues must be addressed.

Still, there are pertinent matters that must be addressed, less we simply pile up confusion.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel