While it's hard to know exactly why Isaiah sets the order for all the books, some interesting observations have been made about the importance of Isaiah to the rest of the Bible.
What Bible commentators sayVarious Bible commentators have called Isaiah a miniature Bible. The one-paragraph introduction to the book of Isaiah in the Reference Edition of the New King James Version, published by Thomas Nelson, begins by saying "Isaiah is like a miniature Bible." Their conclussion is right, even if shallow when compared to how precisely Isaiah mimicks the Bible at large.
The authorship debateThe authorship of Isaiah debate also points to the idea that Isaiah is somehow like a miniature Bible. To summarize the debate, one side says the prophet Isaiah wrote the whole book while the other side says there's a dramatic tone change from Isaiah 40 to the end of the book and therefore the book of Isaiah must be the work of at least two different authors with vastly different outlooks.
Aside from the question of how many people wrote the book of Isaiah, the observation that there's a radical tone change starting at Isaiah 40 reinforces the idea that Isaiah is a miniature Bible. In the scheme of the whole Bible there's a radical tone change at the New Testament. It makes sense, if Isaiah is a miniature version of the Bible, that a tone change would occur at chapter 40 to mark the tone change at book 40.
The Dead Sea Scrolls discoveryAnother witness of Isaiah's relationship to the rest of the Bible comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery in the middle of the 20th century. Of the 200 biblical manuscripts that came out of the caves at Qumran, only the Isaiah scroll was completely intact.
With the discovery of the Qumran Isaiah, scholars have been able to compare it's differences with the next oldest copies of the Hebrew scriptures, which are more than a thousand years newer. While this sort of textual comparison is important it doesn't explain why Isaiah was preserved intact instead of, say, Jeremiah.
The reason appears to be that Isaiah is a witness to the canon and it's arrangement in ways that no other book is. Only Isaiah unlocks the book order and witnesses to the complete and accurate list of books that should be included in the Bible. By preserving Isaiah God provided a modern witness to the whole Bible.
Isaiah's canonical statusJudaism holds to the Hebrew Bible or what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Christianity embraces the Old Testament on equal footing with the New Testament, at least doctrinally even if many Christians miss a lot of what the Old Testament says. As a book accepted by both Judaism and Christianity, Isaiah is uniquely positioned to show the 66 books that belong in the Bible and their arrangement. For Christians this means realizing there's a biblical basis for a new book order. For adherents to Judaism this means a change to the order of the Hebrew Bible, but more importantly it means realizing that God put the 66 book pattern in their part of the Bible.
TopYes and no.
The first clue that Isaiah might somehow be matching content from the larger Bible came as a result of knowing that Isaiah has 66 chapters and the Bible 66 books. Secondly, at least some content in each of those 66 chapters matches some content in each of those 66 books, such that a rough pass over Isaiah does yield a new book order based on matching content. This seems to have been necessary for the study to ever begin.
That first pass through Isaiah used a couple verses or maybe a paragraph from each chapter to match some story or perhaps two stories in each book. During that season of the project a couple concerns kept surfacing. First, a lot of the text of Isaiah was not used. Second, some chapters of Isaiah seemed to match stories in the related book out of order. In other words, a paragraph early in a chapter of Isaiah might match a story at the end of a book, and a later paragraph in the same chapter of Isaiah might match a story early in the same book. If Isaiah was putting the books in order then why would he match stories out of order? The inconsistency was a clue that lead to a new round of discovery and a shift in the project.
It became clear that every bit of Isaiah matches content in the Bible, in order, but at times the matches occur across chapter breaks. In other words, the chapter breaks are not exactly perfect in Isaiah. So this longer second pass through Isaiah is more concerned with matching all the content of Isaiah and understands that at times matches occur across chapter breaks. This approach is more satisfying in the end since all of Isaiah is used in the solution and the matches are always in order, but for awhile it was difficult to let go of the idea that the chapter breaks were reliable since that was the original vehicle for discovery.
So yes and no. Without 66 chapters and matching content in each of those chapters the study would not have materialized, but in the end it's clear that not all chapter breaks are precise.
TopReordering the books does not make the Bible chronological. A chronological Bible moves around any snippit of text in an attempt to make the Bible adhere to a historical timeline of events. The Isaiah study simply rearranges books.
The difference between the two is fundamental. The principle behind using Isaiah (a book of the Bible) to arrange all the books of the Bible, is the idea that books are whole. The content and structure of the books is not up for debate, only how to position the books relative to each other. In the world of chronological Bibles someone has a timeline as thier basis for organizing the text and they take liberty to cut potentionally small bits of text from their normal context and paste them in a different place in an attempt to make the Bible fit their chronology. Books are not considered whole, or okay, in such an approach to the Bible, rather, books are the barrier that stands in the way of formatting the Bible as a chronology. This is as far in the opposite direction from the Isaiah study as someone can get.
In the sense that the Bible is just one big book written by God it might be interesting to resort the text as a chronological Bible provided you had an accurate chronology derived from Scripture alone, but whatever light that might shed or value it might bring it cannot be the normal organization of Scripture. The Bible is simply too far from this type of chronological form for God to have ever been aiming for that form when he inspired his authors. He's smart enough to get what he wants and he could have inspired his authors/editors/canonizers to make a chronological Bible if that's what he was after. He didn't, though. Presumably he got what he wanted, and it's not a chronological Bible.
This does beg the question of why change the book order now? Hasn't God caused it to be what he wanted? The answer appears to be that there's still room for change in this space. There's a rich history of people trying different books orders in an attempt to improve the Bible. In more recent times letters and books have been written requesting or arguing for a change in the book order. Such historical and ongoing interest is evidence that the book order debate is not settled. Enter the Isaiah study.
The Isaiah study has the potential to settle the debate because it brings a different strategy to the task of arranging the books. The power of the Isaiah study is the way one book fully witnesses to the placement of each and every book in the Bible. To my knowledge no such system has been uncovered before or applied to the task of arranging the books. At a minimum the Isaiah study raises the bar in terms of what's expected from anyone bringing a new book order. At the upper end of what's possible the Isaiah study could end the book order debate altogether.
TopThe addition of numbers to the books reinforces a sense of order. If there's no order to the books then there is no reason to number them sequentially, but with the books in order it makes perfect sense to number them. It gives the canon a sense of completeness and definition.
From a practical standpoint numbering the books of the Bible completes the numbering system that began with chapters and verses. Genesis 1:1 can be rendered 1.1:1. The numeric address is a nice shorthand for jotting notes, citations in academic papers and writing code.
Books are also easier to remember by their number since the human brain naturally works well with numbers. If you have ever memorized a shopping list by first counting how many items are in the list then you understand the inherent value of numbering the books to the task of remembering each of them. 66 may seem like a long list until you realize you probably have that many friends.
TopJacob is the correct name for the book and the several individuals in the New Testament commonly known as James. This fact is substantiated by simply consulting an original language concordance or interlinear or published text of the Greek or Aramaic New Testament. Both the Aramaic and Greek show the name Jacob, or more precisely, Yakob, exclusively.
Though switching James back to Jacob is the technically correct answer, one may wonder if this change is worthwhile given that Bible readers for the last few centuries are familiar with the name James. Many modern translations aimed at the masses did not make this fix, presumably to avoid confusing their readers or damaging anyone's trust of prior translations. The problem with just ignoring the correct answer because of tradition turns out not to be so much a problem of translation as a problem of broken algebra.
The Bible has many terms that work together to tell a story. Like algebra, if some of those terms are missing, or appear missing because they have been changed, the formula breaks and the story suddenly is not whole. Worse yet, the Bible is less coherent and more difficult to understand.
Defining "Jacob" as an algebraic term begins with the partriarch Jacob in Genesis. After having 12 sons God changes his name to Israel. In time those sons become the 12 tribes of Israel. This is the basic story and thus anywhere Jacob shows up in the algebra it should relate, in some way, to this basic narrative. So appearances of someone named Jacob in the New Testament should be seen through this lense. No where is this more obvious then at the beginning of the book of Jacob.
55 Jacob 1:1
1Jacob, a servant of god and of Master Jesus, an anointed. To the 12 tribes which are scattered among the Gentiles. Greetings.
The Jacob writting this letter is clearly not the Jacob of Genesis. This letter is written nearly 2000 years after the Jacob of Genesis. However, it is addressed to the 12 tribes, something that fits the algebra. The inferrence the reader naturally makes is that this Jacob is somehow like the Jacob of Genesis. They're both named Jacob and they both deal with the 12 sons/tribes.
The algebra goes further. The Jacob who writes can be shown via other Scripture to be the brother of Jesus. So Jesus' relationship to the 12 tribes is akin to Jacob's as a father because as brothers Jesus and Jacob are peers. Jacob is also a key leader in the early church. One might say, a father in the early church. So NT Jacob is to the church like OT Jacob is to the sons/tribes. There's a connection between the tribes and the church. The algebra continues, but the final answer is not as important as understanding that when the terms are changed solving the formula is somewhere between really hard and impossible.
To fix the algebra one of two paths are possible. Either finish changing occurrences of Jacob to James. This would mean the Jacob of Genesis and the Old Testament would now be James. It would mean outrage from some, understandably, but at least the Bible's algebra would be whole concerning this term. The alternative is to hit the UNDO button on the last few centuries and change James back to Jacob. This fixes the algebra and has less impact on the whole of the Bible since there are far fewer references to James then Jacob. This also pulls the English closer to the original languages, which really is important. If more care had been taken in previous centuries to translate as accurately as possible this fix would not be necessary.
Top