ANACHRONISM. This figure of speech refers to a wrong-time narrative. 'Ana', again, coupled with 'chrono', time; produces a definition of "the representation of a happening at other than it's correct time". Writers use it to bring us time-travel or flash-backs; and parenthetical statements frequently take the reader to other places and time frames.

The Bible is basically a chronological record but it includes some anachronisms, and one of the challenges facing the serious student is to sort out occurrences in their proper order. The Book of Job is an anachronism that probably took place during the Genesis period, and he may be the same Job who was the son of Issachar, Gen46:13, but that's only a conjecture because scripture doesn't confirm it anywhere.

Because of the way the four gospels (also the O.T. books of Kings and Chronicles) are interwoven and overlapping, the reader who pays close attention will note some apparent discrepancies or anomalies, which must be studied out to see how they fit. Suffice it to say that many scholars have thrown in the towel over some of these, and are unable to agree on the order of occurrence. That being said, the example I want to use is from 1st Samuel, concerning David and King Saul:

In chapter 16 Saul is troubled by an evil spirit and sends for David,son of Jesse, v.19, who came and played music that caused the evil spirit to depart. So David was known by Saul in this chapter. Chapter 17 is the renowned story of the battle between David & Goliath. It really should have been Saul's fight, considering he was a head taller than the others, and if they were actually going to abide by the giant's rules and conditions. David was still a boy; yet after he had killed Goliath and was brought before Saul, the king asked him "Whose son are you?" 1S17:58.

You mean he didn't know? Had he forgotten, or was it simply a matter of vision--hadn't he ever actually laid eyes on David? Did David play his harp from behind a screen and out of sight?

A fastidious Bible critic will use this account to demean the scripture and claim the human-author made a mistake and wasn't playing with a full deck, or had lost some of his marbles; not considering that the spiritual water (Ezek47) became deeper at this point and went over his head.

[The music part isn't really so strange; considering we all know of its ability to affect our spirit: whether from a lullaby, or a love song, or solemn anthem. Music is likewise an integral part of Scripture, and praising Him with the trumpet, harp, stringed instruments, organs, timbrel, and loud cymbals, are only a prelude to the verse "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord". Ps150:6 ]

When I asked myself the essential question: "When did Saul first recognize David?", and found no satisfactory answer, it led me to ask "How could you know someone, and yet not know them?" I believe the answer is in the New Testament where it speaks of "the hidden man of the heart", 1Pet3:4. It's the new-nature inside of us that wants to be born! (It was there inside Saul all along, the scripture is indicating.) Saul represents the Old-Man, but David represents the New-Man!

Because Saul was disobedient and didn't wait for Samuel (a figure of the Holy Ghost), he never realized his full potential and went to an early grave, taking his sons with him. This is the "waiting on the Lord", Isa40:31, that was also required of the Apostles in Acts1:4; but now that the Holy Spirit has come (and hasn't left), our wait can be a short one. Saul was enacting the part of those 'anointed of the Lord' who never wait to receive the Holy Spirit!

It's the same pattern as found in the story of Jacob & Esau. The two natures co-exist in us (the two are one) until one of them succeeds in throwing out the other. Psychiatrists know about schizophrenia, and most everyone is familiar with the Jekyl & Hyde story; but the religious mind-set has thrown a veil over the way it applies to the Bible, and how the self-same man is capable of both good and evil. "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is another slant on ambivalent schizo that shows how the flesh remained young and handsome, in contrast to the portrait that aged grotesquely in proportion to his wickedness.