The Bible is like
a record of the events that took place a long
time ago. Without it one’s faith is incomplete
because it tells people how they have come to
this stage in the world. Just as one sees things
unfolding into the present times, the bible too,
has one event linked to the other. In many places
that one looks in the New Testament it will be
observed that there is a shadow of similar things
in the Old Testament. An example of this is the
resemblance that Jesus had to Moses. Another evidence
of relation of Jesus to the Old Testament is the
Transfiguration that took place before Jesus was
crucified, which was also the fulfillment of His
plan and promise. Just like this relationship,
there are others as well, and these all add up
in order to paint a picture that becomes increasing
clear.
Taking as many angles for critiquing a particular
issue helps to unravel misconceptions. This is
true to say because one can hardly determine the
value of anything without looking at its advantages
and disadvantages. However, the manner in which
one chooses to do so, has to suit the particular
subject under criticism. For instance, one can
hardly apply contemporary knowledge and mindsets
to biblical criticism. This is because of the
fact that little or nothing would be revealed.
However, if one were to apply a historian’s
views, which mean that there would be some idea
of the different times in which books of the bible
were written, there would be far greater rewards
from such criticism (Gerhardsson, 1990, 498).
Considering the bible, it is worth asserting that
historically there is a great deal that man would
want to learn about; historians themselves are
in fact on a mission to learn more about the bible,
but they cannot do so well enough without criticizing
or critiquing what they come across. This kind
of criticism is a constructive kind that leads
one closer to the truth. However, since this form
of criticism is linked to an almighty power, it
is considered to be a ‘higher criticism’.
Through this higher criticism, one is able to
get closer to the truth; the truth here refers
to the development of the doctrine, the bible
and whatever else is related to the Christian
and Jewish faiths.
One point worth focusing on in particular is
that Christianity did not begin as a written word.
“Christianity did not begin with books,
but with oral preaching” (Gerhardsson, 1990).
It had in fact started by word of mouth; “the
word became flesh”, and this is why it is
worth understanding and then defending what one
can in the text that is written and printed all
over the world.
It is easy to find fault with biblical recordings,
but is it is difficult to prove the authenticity
of many things as they happened. This is because
of the fact that evidence is perhaps lacking in
vital areas. However, the evidence that one seeks
to provide is hardly available due to the fact
that it is difficult to provide a defense for
something that man has recorded with his own hands
dating back thousands of years in history (Metzger,
1993, 79).
Though there are particular written points in
the bible that have been recorded as they were
so long ago, the bulk of the writing was most
likely paraphrased. Emerging from this idea is
another consideration; this includes the understanding
and acknowledgement of the fact that the bible
has been translated into various languages through
time (Davidson & Leaney, 174). If one has
to study the original text today, it would be
more appropriate, as the meaning of particular
words and phrases are liable to change through
time as well as translation. This in fact is true
to say because of the fact that languages themselves
evolve with time, and particular words at one
point in time are different to the meaning they
have over a given period. Hence, critiquing the
written recordings may not really be feasible.
One has to tread carefully because a wrong translation
or an incorrect assessment could result in chaos.
This would simply not be fair to anyone, but by
then it would be too late. However, one cannot
over rule the need to criticize biblical text.
This is because of the fact that in spite of the
discrepancies that may be present in written recordings,
it must be asserted that to degree there is immense
significance. Having asserted this, it must be
firmly said that in order to hold onto this significance,
it is of immense value to criticize what one finds
(Coggins, 1990, 22).
By doing so, researchers are able to come up with
solutions and possible explanations to the criticisms.
In searching for answers to criticisms, truth
is often uncovered or at least more intricacies
are discovered. All these contribute to making
the bible the historical document it is, and this
must be said because of the fact that there are
several discoveries that link up. This is to say
that there is almost always a relation between
findings, and this is what makes discoveries authentic;
they all add up to paint a picture of biblical
teachings that fall into place neatly. It is evident
from this perspective that biblical criticism
is of immense value to proving the authenticity
of the bible. Apparently, there is immense scope
for criticism to be conducted, and against these,
there are valuable explanations provided. This
is what makes the doctrine richer in contemporary
times, as there are many new ways of thinking
developing in several corners of the world.
|