Biblical Credibility or Authenticity
When approaching the question of whether or not the Bible is believable there two very different perspectives. First, is it believable as you read it in the translation of your language? The second question relates to authenticity--did the people who are listed as the authors actually write the books ascribed to them? How accurate is the translation? How many errors have been inserted deliberately or accidentally into the manuscripts of the original language? What is the time of writing?
THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE
This perspective belongs to the average reader. Let's view this in terms of reading the Book of Genesis. In Chapter 1 we read that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. He rested from his labor on the 7th. Each day of creation concludes with the statement, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day" (TNIV), the second, the third, etc. The reader asks himself the question, "Did the writer intend for me to understand these days as literal or figurative?" The answer to this question will depend on how the reader approaches the book. She will read on the first page, or the page before, that Genesis belongs to a group of 5 books known as the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch (Greek for five books), or the Torah (Hebrew for instruction). She approaches the reading with prior information that God himself inspired Moses to write about the beginning of creation. But let's say she is critical about that, so she asks herself the question, "Did God really inspired Moses? Did God really speak and say, 'Let there be light'. If so, does God want me to understand this literally for figuratively? If it is literal, then creation is a miracles that defies the laws of physics and the discoveries of modern geological and biological science. This is a dilemma a bronze age man or woman simply did not face--there was no science.
Let's call the reader Jane. Jane lives in Indiana and she attended public high school. She has already learned about dinosaurs living millions of years ago long before human beings walked the earth. She also has seen or heard about that on TV documentaries, through the internet, or by visiting a museum. She knows about the big bang happening billions of years ago that got the universe going. She's familiar with the carbon dating of fossils. So Jane faces a dilemma. Does she disbelieve science and believe what she reads in the Bible? Or does she disbelieve the Bible because she cannot give up what she knows from science? Or, does she understand Genesis Chapter 1 figuratively, and if so, what would it mean anyway. She most likely will decide, based on the manner in which it is written, that the author wrote it to be understood literally. Does she believe it or not.
We could read many other stories in Genesis and face the same dilemma. Did God really make Adam and Eve in one day? Did Adam really name all those animals? Did a flood cover the entire earth to the tops of the mountains? Well, if you believe God wrote the Bible through men so that it's God's Word, yes, you do have to believe that. Or you will have to conclude that it is not God's Word.
When Jane goes on to read Genesis Chapter 2 she will find another story about creation that is quite different, but not until verse 4. The transition is a little choppy. The story provides more detail about how God made the man and the woman, but before she reads about that, she will read, "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth..." then God formed the man. Wait a minute. In Genesis Chapter 1 plants were created before animals. Jane will be confused and doubt the credibility of Genesis as being the Word of God, unless someone can explain that to her. This is the question of credibility faced by most people who read the Bible.
THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE, AUTHENTICITY
This perspective belongs to the biblical scholar. He or she has earned a PhD in Biblical languages--Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Ugaritic, Phoenician, etc. Let's call him Bill. He probably has several degrees from different universities that have specialized departments in this field of study. Bill has studied ancient history and archaeology pertinent to his field. Bill has written several treatises, a score of articles in scholarly journals and even a number of books. You get the idea.
Bill approaches the Bible with a very different perspective. First of all, his study is either going to be in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament. It may be even more specialize to focus on the Torah, or one of the prophets. He is not even going to ask himself whether or not it is inspired by God because that is a theological question rooted in Jewish and Christian tradition--that belongs to church theologians and church historians. He approaches the Torah, for example, as a document written by a man or a woman or a group of people. After all, even if you believe it was inspired by God, it was still written through the minds and by the hands of human beings. He is going to look at the text in the original language. He is going to ask questions like, "Who wrote this? When was it written? Why was it written? How does it relate to what was happening in that part of the world? Are there variant readings in different texts (errors)? How was this translated into the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint in 200 BCE)? That last question is important because that will reflect on the Hebrew manuscripts they used back then and how they interpreted them. What is the style of Hebrew used and how does that compare with Hebrew of the time in which it claims to be written?
If Bill is worth his salt as a scholar he will approach the study with as little bias as possible. I say with as little as possible because no one is completely without bias. Bill's passion, however, is to know the truth academically. On top of all the questions I listed there are many more. Bill has to know what every scholar before him has written on his subject. To do that, it is not enough to read that English translations of those works. Since 18th and 19th century treatises were written in German, he had to learn German. Because earlier works were written in Latin, he had to learn Latin.
So let's focus on Bill's study of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. First, he will notice that within the text the author does not identify himself. It was ascribed to Moses by someone else. Why? When? He will notice that Genesis 1 is written in a later style of Hebrew from between 700 to 500 BCE. So it could not have been written by Moses. Bill will find a transition in Genesis 2:4a that appears to be inserted by an editor so that what comes before and what follows might appear to be the same account by the same author. But they are not. Genesis 2:4b and following is an older style of Hebrew. Also, the name of God changes in 4b from Elohim (God) to Yahweh Elohim (LORD God). Why? How are these names for God used later in the text or elsewhere in the Torah and why? Of course, there are many more questions that have to be answered.
Bill comes to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 are different stories about creation from two different sources in two different ages.
Bill wasn't the first to discover this because this has been an understanding for more than 150 years, but he will work through this on his own, in doing so he may agree or disagree with other scholars. He might even discover something about the text that other scholars have missed. Of course, that's exactly how you and I may differ from Bill, we can read his work and the works of other scholars and agree or disagree with our limited knowledge. If we disagree we are not going to win an argument with him. We can only refer to other scholars who differ with him.
That is how credibility and authenticity differ and how the average reader differs from a scholar. Of course, if you believe in the Bible as credible and coming from God, it will be authentic to you.
THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE
This perspective belongs to the average reader. Let's view this in terms of reading the Book of Genesis. In Chapter 1 we read that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. He rested from his labor on the 7th. Each day of creation concludes with the statement, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day" (TNIV), the second, the third, etc. The reader asks himself the question, "Did the writer intend for me to understand these days as literal or figurative?" The answer to this question will depend on how the reader approaches the book. She will read on the first page, or the page before, that Genesis belongs to a group of 5 books known as the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch (Greek for five books), or the Torah (Hebrew for instruction). She approaches the reading with prior information that God himself inspired Moses to write about the beginning of creation. But let's say she is critical about that, so she asks herself the question, "Did God really inspired Moses? Did God really speak and say, 'Let there be light'. If so, does God want me to understand this literally for figuratively? If it is literal, then creation is a miracles that defies the laws of physics and the discoveries of modern geological and biological science. This is a dilemma a bronze age man or woman simply did not face--there was no science.
Let's call the reader Jane. Jane lives in Indiana and she attended public high school. She has already learned about dinosaurs living millions of years ago long before human beings walked the earth. She also has seen or heard about that on TV documentaries, through the internet, or by visiting a museum. She knows about the big bang happening billions of years ago that got the universe going. She's familiar with the carbon dating of fossils. So Jane faces a dilemma. Does she disbelieve science and believe what she reads in the Bible? Or does she disbelieve the Bible because she cannot give up what she knows from science? Or, does she understand Genesis Chapter 1 figuratively, and if so, what would it mean anyway. She most likely will decide, based on the manner in which it is written, that the author wrote it to be understood literally. Does she believe it or not.
We could read many other stories in Genesis and face the same dilemma. Did God really make Adam and Eve in one day? Did Adam really name all those animals? Did a flood cover the entire earth to the tops of the mountains? Well, if you believe God wrote the Bible through men so that it's God's Word, yes, you do have to believe that. Or you will have to conclude that it is not God's Word.
When Jane goes on to read Genesis Chapter 2 she will find another story about creation that is quite different, but not until verse 4. The transition is a little choppy. The story provides more detail about how God made the man and the woman, but before she reads about that, she will read, "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth..." then God formed the man. Wait a minute. In Genesis Chapter 1 plants were created before animals. Jane will be confused and doubt the credibility of Genesis as being the Word of God, unless someone can explain that to her. This is the question of credibility faced by most people who read the Bible.
THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE, AUTHENTICITY
This perspective belongs to the biblical scholar. He or she has earned a PhD in Biblical languages--Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Ugaritic, Phoenician, etc. Let's call him Bill. He probably has several degrees from different universities that have specialized departments in this field of study. Bill has studied ancient history and archaeology pertinent to his field. Bill has written several treatises, a score of articles in scholarly journals and even a number of books. You get the idea.
Bill approaches the Bible with a very different perspective. First of all, his study is either going to be in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament. It may be even more specialize to focus on the Torah, or one of the prophets. He is not even going to ask himself whether or not it is inspired by God because that is a theological question rooted in Jewish and Christian tradition--that belongs to church theologians and church historians. He approaches the Torah, for example, as a document written by a man or a woman or a group of people. After all, even if you believe it was inspired by God, it was still written through the minds and by the hands of human beings. He is going to look at the text in the original language. He is going to ask questions like, "Who wrote this? When was it written? Why was it written? How does it relate to what was happening in that part of the world? Are there variant readings in different texts (errors)? How was this translated into the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint in 200 BCE)? That last question is important because that will reflect on the Hebrew manuscripts they used back then and how they interpreted them. What is the style of Hebrew used and how does that compare with Hebrew of the time in which it claims to be written?
If Bill is worth his salt as a scholar he will approach the study with as little bias as possible. I say with as little as possible because no one is completely without bias. Bill's passion, however, is to know the truth academically. On top of all the questions I listed there are many more. Bill has to know what every scholar before him has written on his subject. To do that, it is not enough to read that English translations of those works. Since 18th and 19th century treatises were written in German, he had to learn German. Because earlier works were written in Latin, he had to learn Latin.
So let's focus on Bill's study of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. First, he will notice that within the text the author does not identify himself. It was ascribed to Moses by someone else. Why? When? He will notice that Genesis 1 is written in a later style of Hebrew from between 700 to 500 BCE. So it could not have been written by Moses. Bill will find a transition in Genesis 2:4a that appears to be inserted by an editor so that what comes before and what follows might appear to be the same account by the same author. But they are not. Genesis 2:4b and following is an older style of Hebrew. Also, the name of God changes in 4b from Elohim (God) to Yahweh Elohim (LORD God). Why? How are these names for God used later in the text or elsewhere in the Torah and why? Of course, there are many more questions that have to be answered.
Bill comes to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 are different stories about creation from two different sources in two different ages.
Bill wasn't the first to discover this because this has been an understanding for more than 150 years, but he will work through this on his own, in doing so he may agree or disagree with other scholars. He might even discover something about the text that other scholars have missed. Of course, that's exactly how you and I may differ from Bill, we can read his work and the works of other scholars and agree or disagree with our limited knowledge. If we disagree we are not going to win an argument with him. We can only refer to other scholars who differ with him.
That is how credibility and authenticity differ and how the average reader differs from a scholar. Of course, if you believe in the Bible as credible and coming from God, it will be authentic to you.
