GETTING ACQUAINTED WITH THE BIBLE

What The Bible Is

Religions the world over possess sacred writings for their followers to look up to for a guide
to live by. But unlike book religions, Christianity values its book, the Bible, not simply as a written
guide for conduct but more so as the standard or norm of truth in life. The Bible is, to the Christians,
a special revelation of God. As one author said, while it contains stories, it is more than a book of
stories: while it contains some of the world’s greatest literature, it is more than an anthology of great
literature; while it is based on actual historical events and contains reliable historical material, it is
more than a historical record. It is a record of God’s action in history.

Christianity affirms, as Judaism does, that God is a living God—ever active in history,
revealing Himself and His will to the world. The Bible took form through history as God manifested
himself in the events—of freeing His people from the bondage and sending men and women to make
known His word and His will. Thus, the early believers sang,

“The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed. He makes known His
ways to Moses, His acts to the people of Israel” [Psalms 103:6-7].

To the Christians, God’s supreme act of revelation in history is in sending Jesus Christ to
“reconcile the world to himself”. It is this unfolding self-revelation of God received and understood
in actual historic events and perceived by prophetic minds of faith that the Bible records.

Implicit in the acts of God is the working out of His will. Laws were formulated as
expressions of such will and as a guide for life. Psalms 119, the longest of the psalms, depicts deep
concern for obeying the commandments of God. It is with similar regard that Christians also look
upon the Bible as their guide for it contains laws expressing the will of God. Moreover, in the stories
and the narratives are teachings and lessons from the experiences of a people called out to be God’s
people—a people chosen not for any privilege but for the task of carrying out God’s saving purpose.
Christians today know they are no different people and that they share the same calling and
experiences. Hence, through the Bible, they get to see how the people of faith had coped and how
God moved among them.

Furthermore, Christians look into the Bible not only for a guide, but much still for the truth
about real, meaningful existence. Questions about life and God, the source of life are basic queries
that a people of faith could ask. And in reading the Bible, Christians have the trust that God speaks
through it, God himself is the one speaking to them through the Bible. In the early times, God is
believed to have spoken directly to people. And when He was believed to have spoken through some
chosen persons, still it was in His name that the message was proclaimed. And so, prophets would
say, “This is the Word of God . . .” or “Thus says the Lord . . . “In the Words of some theologians, the
Bible carries no other words but God’s Words—That is, God’s communication of His will through
Israel and then supremely in Christ.

For Christians today, the Bible remains the Word of God when in reading it, they find God
speaking to them as well, when there is for them a sense of being involved in the experiences of the
Bible people, and the events of their history; and even then, when it behooves them to make a
response, a decision, or an action. Indeed, the Bible comes alive today when its readers are able to
say as one early Christian writer did.

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than the two edged sword, piercing top the
division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the
heart” [Hebrews 4:12].

Towards A Preliminary Understanding of the Bible

To arrive at a preliminary understanding of the Bible from a particular perspective it will be

necessary to read and have an initial discussion first of the UCCP statement of faith.

The fourth article of the UCCP Statement of Faith states:

We Believe

In the Holy Bible as a faithful witness of God’s self-revelation in the history of His
people, God’s inspired instrument to illumine, guide, correct, and edify His people
for their faith and witness.

Initially, it may need to be pointed out here that the preliminary description made of the Bible
in the UCCP Statement of Faith is that of its being a “witness” to God’s self-revelation in the History
of His people. The Bible therefore ought not to be treated as if it is the revelation but rather as a
witness to that revelation made by God in and through the events of the history of His people Israel.
As a witness, though it is considered as a “faithful witness” in the sense of its being able to preserve
the records of God’s historic act of revelation as perceive from and by an ancient culture for eventual
transmittal to our time and culture. It is faithful in the sense of its truths and multifaceted lessons on
faith and life being able to stand the test of time and history. It is faithful in the sense of its being
able to transmit to us and introduce to us the nature and character of God being revealed in its pages
to such an extent that it was able to retain through the centuries the uniqueness of the faith being
practiced by those who believe in this kind of God, a God whose most decisive and perfect revelation
came in and through the person of Jesus Christ.

As a faithful witness, it comes to us already in written form in various literary types, although
this witness may have started or have been originally composed in oral form. This implies that our
witness to God’s revelation has already passed through a historical process of composition and
possible re-composition of the original oral traditions which forms as its basis. With this realization,
there will arise the need to understand as much as possible the process or processes that were
responsible for transmitting to us this Biblical witness in its final written form. This witness therefore
would need to be approached for study with utmost care and seriousness.

Approaches in the Study of the Bible

Such study of the biblical witness may be then carried out through at least three
interconnected approaches- the textual-literary approach, the historical-sociological and the
theological-confessional approach [see, Like A Mustard Seed, pp.32-24].

The textual-literary approach considers the basic literary type or form of the text [e.g.,
whether a text is a prose material, such as a historical narrative, sermon, laws, etc. or a poetic material
such as the hymns of psalms, the prophetic oracles, or fable [Judge 9:8-15], prophetic legend [i.e., the
Elijah-Elisha stories], myth [i.e., the creation stories in Genesis], and apocalyptic material [i.e., Daniel
and Revelation] as the starting point for understanding and interpretation. Having a basic
understanding of the basic literary forms present in the Bible can definitely provide a very important
key in the understanding of the original cultural and historical background of the material and in
eventually arriving at the message of the text.
 The historical-sociological approach makes use of the text as a basic source for the
reconstruction and evaluation of the history and society of Israel in Biblical times, usually though,
with the help too of other extra-biblical sources of data and information, such as other ancient writings
contemporary to the times of the biblical materials and some archeological discoveries that have
direct relevance to the Biblical context.

The theological-confessional approach makes use of the text as a source of basic creeds and
confession of faith of ancient Israel their testimonies about God and interpretations of their faith in
Him.

In a way, all of the three approaches will have to be considered and combined in a fruitful
synthesis if we are to arrive at any meaningful understanding of the Bible. To understand the Bible as
purely literature, no matter how edifying, will relegate it to the position of any other literary
composition or books written and published by literary geniuses. The Bible also, is in no way to be
understood as a book of history per se, otherwise it will be reduced into a simple reference or textbook
in biblical history. The Bible is most of all a recordings of the confessions of the faith and the
responses of a people in the history of the relationship with a God whom they have concretely
experienced in their history as one actively intervening and initiating a covenant relationship with
them. But such faith responses can only be clearly understood and its implications fully appreciated
with the help of the resources coming from both the historical and literary examination of the text.

Factors That Cause Problems in The Study Of The Biblical Texts

[Adopted from Hayes and Halladay, Biblical Exegeses]

1. “Third-party” Perspective

None of the Biblical texts was originally to the modern reader and interpreter.
None of as was involved in the original communication process as either senders or
receivers. Paul’s letters, for example was written to the Romans, Galatians, the Corinthians,
and others. In the modern interpreter, in the case of Paul, is therefore reading somebody
else’s mail. The books of Luke and Acts, were accounts written for someone named Theophilus. As
interpreters of the Biblical writings, we are in a sense third-party intruders and suffer from third-party
perspective.

2. Language Barriers

None of the Biblical writings was originally composed in a modern language. The
Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek. Even
the modern Israel who speaks Hebrew or the modern Greek recognizes that the language of the Bible
is not the same as modern Hebrew and Greek. Thus, biblical interpreter encounter language barrier.

3. Cultural Gap

The modern readers of the Bible and the original readers of the texts are separated
by an enormous gap. The culture presupposed by the Bible is that of the ancient Mediterranean
world in general and Palestine in particular. One has only to note a few characteristics of biblical
cultures to sense its differences from much modern culture. Everything rotate around God. Divine
beings, being good and bad, were assumed to be participants in the ongoing course of life and history.
The patriarchal and authoritarian. The dominant economic system was agricultural and village based.
Medical science was primitive. Life was rather simple and oriented to the cycles of nature and
climate.
 4. Historical Gap

The historical gap that separates the present from the world of the Bible ranges
from almost twenty centuries to over three millenia. The Biblical traditions came into being during a
period extending over twelve centuries. These factors suggest the reasons why the interpreter must
bridge the historical gap. First of all, the Bible is within a context chronologically far removed from
the present. Secondly, since the materials originated over such a long period of time, it becomes
necessary to understand the different historical context within which the various books and traditions
of the Bible came into being.

In addition to these two considerations, there are two factors internal to the Bible itself which
demand the historical attention of the interpreter. First, much of the Bible takes the form of historical
narrative. To call the Bible a history book is a misleading simplification but it does point to the fact
that much of the material is concerned with historical matters. The phenomenon cannot be ignored if
one is to understand the Bible. Secondly, much of its thought and theology takes seriously the course
of historical events and is expressed in categories dependent upon historical perspectives.

5. Product of Collective Effort and Historical Growth

The gradual growth of traditions and collective contributions to the document are
clearly evident in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. In fact, it is impossible to speak of
particular authors of documents in the Old Testament since we do not know who wrote a single book.
Instead, most of the work appear to have developed over various lengths of time and many persons
probably contributed to their formation. If we take Amos as a typical example of a prophetic book,
we can see the diversity of material in the book which makes it impossible to speak of Amos as the
author. In the book, we find four types of materials,

1. A superscription provides some historical data about the prophet [1:1].

2. Much of the book consist of oracles or speeches attributed to the prophet [1:2-6:14;
8:4-14; 9:5-15]
3. Some materials are biographical, like the superscription, and speaks of the prophet in
the third person [7:10-17].
4. Other material reports visions by the prophet and appears to be autobiographical with
the prophet referring to himself in the third person [7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4]

This diversity in the book suggest that it was clearly an edited work produced
by someone other than the prophet himself. Practically all the prophetic books manifest this type of
diversity.

6. Multiple and Differing Texts of the Same Document

As with most documents from antiquity, the oldest manuscripts of the Old and
New Testaments are copies made long after the original documents were written. The oldest
complete manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages [the copy was made in 1008
C.E.]. The oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament dates from the fourth century C.E.
About 5,000 different manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament are known. Of these, no two is
identical.

The manuscript copies of the Hebrew Bible or parts thereof are less numerous. In recent
years, however, older fragments and almost complete manuscripts of some books of the Old
Testament have been discovered in caves and other places in the Dead Sea region of Palestine which
are called Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of them show considerable differences from the standard Hebrew
texts.
 Since the Bible was translated into other language such as Syriac, Latin, and Coptic quite
early, these early versions also enter the picture in any attempt to determine the text of a passage or a
book. This is particularly the case with the Old Testament which was translated into Greek and
Aramaic during the last centuries B.C.E. and the early centuries C.E. In addition, the first five books
of the Old Testament [the Pentateuch] also exist in early Hebrew form known as Samaritan which
differs frequently from the standard Hebrew texts. All of these mean, of course, that textual studies
in one form or another are indispensable in Biblical interpretation.

7. Sacredness of the Text

Two things, one positive and one negative should be noted about the sacredness of
the Scriptures. Positively, today’s biblical interpreters have been preceded by centuries of biblical
studies and interpretations which can be drawn upon for perspectives and insights. Negatively, the
Bible as sacred scripture has been surrounded by tradition and traditional interpretations of various
sorts. The interpreter is frequently tempted to read the text in light of the tradition without any
critical judgment or without letting the text speak afresh on its own.

All these considerations seem to suggest that Biblical interpretation is a formidable if not
impossible task. This might be the case if the Bible in its manuscript and translated forms were a
newly discovered ancient document and that one has to approach its interpretation, learn all the
languages, prepare the tools, and do the necessary research. The Biblical interpreter, however, does
not have to do this. Thousands of others throughout centuries have interpreted the Bible, prepared
tools for the contemporary interpreters, and developed methods of approaching the problems and
issues involved.

Elements, Approaches and Guidelines in

Biblical Interpretations

There are three basic elements involved in biblical interpretations: 1] the biblical text, 2] the
context of interpretation, and 3] the personal context of the interpreter. Biblical text will always have
to be read and studied with respect on its own integrity as a text, giving due consideration to the
historical, sociological and literary factors involved in the emergence and shaping of the text. The
context of interpretation meanwhile speaks of the dynamic interplay of the various historical, political
and economic factors which could all determine or condition the shape of the interpretative agenda
that may be discerned in a text in light of the contemporary situation of the interpreter. The personal
context of the interpreter refers to person’s own set of perspectives and values and framework of
analysis and judgment as he approaches a text for a relevant and contextual interpretation.

To emphasize solely the text without due regard to the context where its message will be
applied and where certain concerns of the context may be addressed by the text may lead to irrelevant
and historically detached interpretations, while focusing almost too exclusively on one’s context with
only but a superficial attention being given to the text may develop the tendency to reduce the
scriptures simply to a pretext or just a tool for political and ideological apologetics and thus distort the
very nature and intention of the Biblical text. To be contextual in one’s own interpretation however,
without taking into consideration one’s own set of perspectives, values and ideological framework
will also reduce the attempt into a mere interpretative rhetoric with false assumptions of objectivity.
Hence, a more balanced approach to the study and interpretation of Scripture which combines and
synthesizes a serious regard for the text of the Scriptures with a kin sensitivity to the realities to be
addressed by the interpreter along with an honest and fair consideration of the interpreter’s own
personal context of values and perspectives can be regarded as the most preferable approach to adopt.
Some Basic Assumptions to Bring in the Process
of the Interpretation

In view of the above consideration, we then can say that a] no interpretation takes place in
vacuum. There is no contextless interpretation and no valueless forms and methods of interpretation.
Biblical interpretation in fact has to take into consideration the broader aspect of the process of
interpretation. For interpretation takes place in every form of communication, or in every situation
where an idea or concept or message needs to be transmitted and be received. Recognizing one’s
standpoint as a receiver, processor of biblical information in doing biblical interpretation is basic to
the process. As such one must be able to recognize his or her own social and cultural standpoint in
reading and interpreting the Scripture. It is this social and cultural standpoint, the value forming
educational, religious and cultural nurturing of the person, which determines to a decisive extent the
over-all personal context of the interpreter.

It is also clear that b] most resources being used for the study of the Bible now in the
Philippines have predominantly western [either European or American] authorship and perspective
and with even dominant influence on those resources that have been produced locally. It is therefore
very essential for a biblical interpreter to be deeply aware of such factors in his approach to the
Scriptures. For in one way or another, c] one’s over-all view of the Bible will be shaped and
conditioned by the kind of cultural and political environment which have the values and perspective
of the interpreter. In the case of the Filipino interpreters, even in the midst of predominantly
western framework of viewing and interpreting the text of the Scripture, one must always strive to
assert the Filipino outlook and the Filipino vision and allow such outlook and vision to inter into a
creative interplay with the basic traditions and proclamation in the Bible.

An Example from Philippine History

For example, traditional teaching of Philippine history would describe Ferdinand Magellan as
the “Discoverer of the Philippines”. This is how most Filipino high school and elementary school
students were taught using the works of such historians as Zaide. This is a little which should
actually be radically change now to “probably the first European to set foot on Philippine soil”,
considering the Philippines was never “lost” nation before Magellan came. For it is now well
established that Pre-Hispanic communities called the Barangay or the Balangay in the country, were
flourishing already even before Magellan and with their own distinctive level of civilization fuel by a
lucrative trade relationship with almost all of the neighboring countries in Asia including Arabia.

Then, there is also another historic title of achievement “the first man to circumnavigate the
globe” which may have been wrongly attributed to the lieutenant of Magellan, Sebastian del Cano.
Del Cano was the officer who took over the command right after the death of latter in Mactan island
in the hands of the native forces lead by chieftain Lapulapu. He was proclaimed “the first man to
circumnavigate the globe” before arriving back to Spain from the Philippines via the eastern route
[crossing the Indian Ocean and rounding the tip of Africa]. This was after Magellan’s party initiated
the attempt to reach the Eastern through the Western route [leaving Spain by crossing the Atlantic and
then the Pacific Ocean]. Unknown or simply ignored by historians was the fact that there was
actually a Malay slave in the company of Magellan by the name of Enrique de Malacca who acted as
the interpreter of the Spaniards to the natives of the islands [T.V. Sitoy, Jr. The Initial Encounter, pp.
38, 282, n. 17] who must have been taken from the East and brought to Spain during earlier voyages
using the traditional eastern route via the Indian Ocean. This means that by the time Magellan’s
party had reach the Philippine area, his own home region, Enrique de Malacca had already completed
his own circumnavigation of the globe, since his earlier arrival in Spain would constitute already half
of its circumnavigation. But the problem is that Enrique de Malacca was just a mere slave, and
history and historic achievements are never reckoned from the perspectives of slaves but mostly from
the sole perspective of the masters and colonizers.
 Here what easily comes out is the underlying ideological assumption behind such claims to
historical titles and achievements. An ideological assumption usually are manifested in situations of
domination of one group or class of people by a group or class of those who enjoy power and
privilege. Such situation of domination, inequality and even injustice are reinforced or simply
presupposed as a natural given in the order of society. Being unaware of this ideological assumption
can easily lead one to fall the pit of ideological captivity which naturally will spill in a hermeneutical
captivity in the interpretation of Scriptures [cf. R. McAffee Brown, Theology in A New Key, pp. 77-
851].

Stating the Objective and Tasks

Our main task in interpreting the biblical text is to bridge the gap between the and the present,
to discover why and how the Biblical faith can be understood and can be put into practice today in
light of Philippine contemporary and historical realities. The main objective in the study of the Bible
is indeed to arrive at a coherent, synthetical understanding of the Biblical traditions which in a way
will also bring into light, confront and critically address the existing situation and generation of the
interpreter. Bible studies always have the promise of being meaningful and challenging simply
because of its capacity to address the situation of the individual reader and even of a community.
This “leap” towards relevance and contextual meaningfulness is what provides the bible its continuing
authority in the lives of people even today. Interpretation of the Bible therefore will not be complete
without fulfilling this task of relevant application to the lives and times of people in the community of
the interpreter.

Guidelines in Biblical Interpretation

Following are some guidelines in interpreting a Biblical text:

1. Select a Biblical Text. The selection of a text must be based on a theme or topic which
serves to unify the aim, direction, and focus of interpretation.

2 .Read the text carefully. Read the text not only once, but several times. Try to compare
the different versions or translations of the Bible

3. Identify the key terms. There are important words or terms in the text which may unlock
the message of the text. Clarify the meanings of the of the key terms by using Bible dictionaries or
different versions and translation of the Bible.

4. Situate the text in the whole passage, chapter or book.

Examine carefully the emphasis or trust of the passage, chapter or book from which the text is taken
and see how the text relates to such over-all emphasis or trust.

5. Classify the text in terms of its literary form. It is a parable, a saying, a story,a mythology
or what have you? Discuss the different stages in the formation of the literary material.

Example : Matthew 5:29- “If your right eye causes you to sin, much better for you to lose a
part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell.”

Recognizing this as a hyperbole [a deliberate overstatement not meant to mislead, but to give
emphasis], we understand that this should not be taken literally. Jesus then does not command us to
mutilate our bodies, but to stop habitual sin or avoid occasion of sin, even if doing so would mean
gain or violence to our nature.

6. Learn from the text. What is the historical, geographical, cultural context of both the
writer and the original readers? the problems or issues discussed? the solutions proposed?
 Examples :

A] Geography – John 4:3 –“…He left and started back for Galilee again. He has to pass to
Samaria…”

Looking at the map of Palestine, we see the Samaria is between Judea and Galilee.Passingn
through is the short way; the long way is via Perea.

B] History – John 4:9 - “…you are a Jew. How can you ask me, a Samaritan and a woman ,
for a drink? “

The enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans dates back to the Old Testament period
when a civil war divided their country into northern and southern kingdoms. The capital of the North
was Samaria. At a later period the northern kingdom fell into the hands of Assyria. As a result, the
Israelites in the north intermarried with the non-Israelites. In the post-exilic period, a movement to
purify the Jewish race and religion excluded the Samaritans from the Jewish community because of
their mixed blood. During the time of Jesus, the Jews were still very hostile to the Samaritans.

C] Culture – Luke 10:4 –“… greet no one along the way.”

Orientals are accustomed to elaborate greetings which take much time. Jesus instructions is
not to be discourteous, but His disciples must not linger on the lesser important things since their
mission is urgent.

D] Problems/issues discussed – Example : 1 Cor. 10:23 – “All things are lawful, but not all
are advantageous.”

This passage cannot apply to things like theft, adultery, murder and the like because its
context is about food offered to idols. One of the problems of the early Christians was whether or not
they may eat idol-meat at home or in pagan parties when they are invited. Yes, answers Paul, except
when charity demands that they forego this right, that is, when those weak in faith might be
scandalized.

7. Message of the text to the original listeners/readers. There are at least two stages in the
formation of the biblical writings: the original event and the time of the writer. The message for the
original listeners may not necessarily be the same as that of the readers or audience of the writer.

Example: Matthew’s audience

Knowing Matthew’s audience to be Jewish Christians, it becomes understandable why

Matthew uses this phrase as often as sixteen times: “All this happened to fulfill what the Lord has said
through the prophets…” [Matt. 1:21-23, etc.] Matthew is interested that the Jews accept Jesus as the
awaited Messiah prophesied by the prophets.

Example: The purpose of the writer. John 20:31, “But these have been recorded to help you
believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, so that through their faith they may have life in this
name.”

It follows then that every recorded action or word of Jesus will reveal something of his
person. They are appeals to take him as Savior and Lord. They aim not to give information but to
give life.

8. Message for today. A thorough study of the present context or a careful analysis of the
issues or problems related to the theme or topic helps a lot in discovering or discussing the message
for today.
 THE NATURE AND ORIGINS OF BIBLICAL WRITINGS

Our interpretation of the Biblical writings is largely determined by the way we understand
their nature and origin. Let us therefore look first into the nature and characteristics of the Bible.

Nature and Characteristics of the Bible

Living Word of God

The Church for centuries has called the Bible the Word of God. The Bible does not call itself
that way, for it reserves this term for the message or revelation of God spoken to the prophets. In the
New Testament the Word is “the word made flesh” to dwell among us as incarnate Lord. In the Old
Testament, for instance, that Samuel asked Saul to hear the “Word of God” before he anointed him
king [I Sam. 10], and that ‘the word of God’ came to Nathan to tell David not to build the temple he
had projected [2 Sam. 7]. There is no suggestion here of the use of Scripture, for the Bible was itself
only in the process of being composed.

In the Gospel of John, we have the most forthright and vivid use of the term, “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God” [1:1]. This majestic
passage comes to a climax in the 14th verse, “And the word became flesh and dwell among us…full of
grace and truth”.

Even though the Bible does not call itself the word of God, it is a legitimate metaphor for us
to use provided it is rightly understood. Word is used to communicate. A word reveals something of
the one who utters it. The word of God means, God speaking, God declaring God’s self, God making
the people know of God’s will and way. The writer of the Epistles to the Hebrews caught its
meaning with great accuracy when he opened his letter with the word:

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets,
but in these days he has spoken to us through His Son…He reflects the brightness of God’s
glory and is the exact likeness of God’s own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful
word.”

This is to say that the same God who spoke through the prophets has spoken with greater
clarity, vividness and power through the Son. God’s word, thus, means God’s self-disclosure, God’s
self-revelation. Thus, when we say the Bible is God’s word, we are simply saying that by studying
the Bible we learn something of God’s nature and characteristics, God’s will and purpose. The Bible,
indeed, is a faithful witness to God'’ self-living because even though it was written thousands of years
back, still it has a living message for us today. It speaks to our historical experiences.

Divinely-inspired writings

Divinely-inspired means that God or the Spirit of God was at word in the community of Israel
and in the early Christian community to produce through a number of writers a series of books that
witness to God’s self-revelation through history. That divine self-revelation reached its climax in
Jesus Christ [Heb. 1:1-2]. The New Testament is the final witness to God’s self-revelation which
focused on Christ. How did inspiration work? Since we are dealing with an action of God in the
world of men and women, we can never fully understand nor explain what happened; inspiration
partakes of divine mystery. However, there are several explanation of inspiration:

Divine Dictation Theory. According to this idea, God alone is responsible for the content of
the Bible. The human authors were merely recording machines or robots, who wrote down what
God, in some unknown way, dictated to them. Or, the human authors were caught up in some
mystical trance and reproduced God’s word without any consciousness of what they were writing.

This theory has been rejected by some for two good reasons: because it implies the notion of a
god who does not respect the freedom of His creatures, and because it cannot account for the very
obvious differences of the Biblical writing—differences that can be adequately explained by the
different background, styles and purposes of the human authors. An example of this freedom of the
human author and of his own distinct purpose in writing is found in Luke’s prologue to his gospel
[Lk. 1:1-4].

Negative Assistance Theory. According to this theory, the human authors were alone
responsible for the writing of the books except when they were in danger of leading the reader into
religious error. Then God, in some way, intervened and directed the author to the truth. This theory
suggests that the Bible is little more than a religious textbook designed to provide right answers to
particular problems. According to this theory, the divine influence is not present in the setting forth
of God'’ truth, except in a negative way. This theory does not allow for the unique character of the
Bible as the Word of God.

Subsequent Approbation Theory. In this theory, quite similar to negative assistance theory,
the Bible is approved by God only after it was completed. This theory may, indeed, assure us that the
Bible contains the truth about God and God’s relationship with the world. But how could such a
word be “like fire burning in my heat” [Jer. 20:9]? Or, how could we speak of such Scripture as
“inspired by God” [2 Tim. 3:16]?

There is no single explanation about inspiration. We can, however, point to two elements
that must be guarded in any explanation that is given. The first is that God is actively present in a
unique manner in the composition of the books in the Bible. This gift of presence to the communities
of Israel and to the Early Church is demanded by those passages which do speak of inspiration in the
Bible [e.g., 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21]. The Bible is, in a real sense, the Word of God.

The second element is the freedom of the human authors in making use of their own talent
and resources, in cooperation with the Spirit of God, in composing the sacred books. This is
demanded by the many references to the human efforts spent in writing the books [e.g., Jer. 36:17-18;
Lk. 1:1-4; Gal. 6:11]. Because of this human element, we can rightly say that the Bible is the Word
of God in the word of people. It is because of the first element, the divine activity, that we can only
appreciate the fullness of the Biblical Word when we approach it in faith. It is because of the second
element, the human contribution, that we must make use of all possible sciences to understand the
meaning intended by the authors.

Affirmation of faith

The Bible is basically an affirmation of faith of a particular people with a distinct culture and
historical experiences. It is a record of a people’s encounter with God in their own concrete historical
situations. Such historical experiences are viewed and interpreted in the light of their faith. Hence,
one should approach the biblical writings, not as a book of science nor history, but primarily a book of
faith.

Protest writings

There is an overriding vision throughout the Bible of a new order of things. In the Exodus, it
is called the Promised Land [Ex. 3]; in the post-exilic period, the new heaven and a new earth [Isa.
65]; then, in the New Testament, the Kingdom of God [Mk. 1]. Because of this vision and their
burning desire to realize it, the people of God are dissatisfied with the existing order of things. The
Bible is a written record of their protests against the abuses and oppressions of the empires [Ex. 3],
the idolatry and apostasy of the monarchs [Micah 3], the hypocrisies of the religious leaders [Amos 5;
Matt. 23] and so on.

Minority report

The Bible is a minority report. It is written from the perspective of a persecuted minority who
are struggling to be faithful to their God in spite of the on slaughters of powerful empress which
somehow dominated their land and people. The event of the Exodus and the Christ event are two
central events in the Old and New Testament, respectively. But these two events are hardly to be
found in the official annals of the history of the ancient empires.

Library

The Bible is not a book in a real sense, but a library. It is a collection of books [66 in the
Protestant canon, 74 in the Roman Catholic canon] by different authors who wrote with different
purposes and for different readers in the whole span of approximately 1,500 years [approximately
1500 B.C.E.-1—C.E.]. And often, within a given book, there are in turn, different layers of tradition.
Thus, if we have a Bible, then we have library of our own.

Language of relationship

The language of the Bible is a language of relationship and not of science. In scientific
language, which seeks to convey information, the words say exactly what they signify. In the
language of relationship, they seek to convey something else. For instance, when Jesus said, “You
are the light of the world” [Matt. 5:14]. It does not mean that we are to be tied on a lamp post and
burned into ashes in order to give light as Nero did to the early Christians.

The Bible seeks to teach us certain things, but above all, it seeks to enable us to enter into a
relationship with God. We cannot fully understand what the Bible is saying to us, unless we have a
relationship with the God affirmed in the Bible. Of course, we can study it whether or not we are
believers, and we can understand it differently if we share the same faith as the Biblical authors, and if
we enter on the same quest as theirs. There are certain images or expressions in the Bible which are
not to be understood in a scientific sense as information, but which we have to interpret as though
they are addressed to us and speak to us in terms of our own experience.

Product of life experience and faith

The Bible is a written product of life experience and faith. The lived faith of a people
preceded the written word and not the other way around. It is not that first, there was a Sacred
Scripture, then people lived their faith according to that Sacred Scripture.

The biblical people lived their religion within the drama of life long before there was a
written Bible. From out of this lived faith some of their inspired writers put together their traditions
and wrote books which became their sacred Scriptures and which we call the Old Testament. In a
similar way, the Early Christians lived out their faith in Jesus within a span of about a generation.
Then some inspired writers, such as Paul and Mark, out of the faith of the early Christian
communities began to write literature which we now call the New Testament.

STAGES IN THE FORMATION OF THE BIBLE

Oral Tradition

The Bible did not miraculously fall down from heaven; it is a product of a long process of
development from the oral stage to its present form. It started as stories of a people’s encounter with
the living God, preserved in the collective memory of the community. These stories, like the 26
stories of the Exodus in the Old Testament or the story of Jesus Christ in the New Testament were
orally transmitted from one generation to another. They were remembered especially during
celebrations [cf. Deut. 26:4-10; Lk. 22:14-23] in the preaching, teaching or in the responding to the
pastoral needs of the community of faith.

Written tradition

The stories of faith now recorded in the Old Testament which were handed down from one
generation to another were finally put down into writing, firstly, in very crude forms like tablets of
stones, barks of trees, skins of animals or papyrus; and later on, in the form of scrolls. The stories
were written independently from each other. Then, these independent writings were compiled, edited
and formed into books. The New Testament writings basically underwent the same process. Stories
about Jesus Christ were not written down immediately due to the belief of the imminent end.

Canonization

The written book, which would become the sacred Scriptures later were canonized. The
word kaneh comes from the Hebrew word kaneh, meaning a reed; a reed can be used as a ruler. The
Greek word for it, Kanon, means a measuring rod. Gradually the word came to mean a norm or
standard to determine, rule or measure other things. Applied to the Bible, the term canon refers to a
norm of revealed truth, a rule of faith. Aside from “rule”, it also came to mean a “list”, so the term
canon of the Bible also refers to the list of books recognized by the Church as divinely inspired. Any
book in this list is a canonical book. Thus, canonicity refers to the list of books accepted by the
Church to be inspired and contain a rule of faith of morals.

There is a difference between a Roman Catholic Bible and those of a Protestant Bible in terms
of the content of the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Bible has seven or eight extra bodies
which they call deutero-canonical [second listing or second canon]. These deutero-canonical books
are included in the 15 books which the Protestants called apocrypha [kept secret or hidden writing].
Christians followed the Jews over the Old Testament. However, two different canons had been
established. Around about 70 C.E., the Palestinian rabbis recognized only the books written in Greek.
The Christians who read the bible in Greek adopted the canon of the Alexandrian Jews. However, St.
Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin early in the fifth century opted for the Hebrew canon.
During the Reformation in the 16 th century, the Protestants followed Jerome by printing the disputed
books at the back of their Bible from which they disappeared by the 19 th century. They called them
Apocrypha. Then, at the council of Trent [1543-1563], the Roman Catholics held that these books had
the same level of inspiration as the rest, and called them deutero-canonical.

Translation

The Old Testament was written, for the most part, in Hebrew. A few sections were written in
Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew. Some of the later books were composed in Greek. The whole
of the Old Testament was translated into Greek about two hundred years before Christ. It is known
as the Septuagino [meaning “70”, the number of Jewish scholars who, according to an ancient legend,
made the translation]. The Septuagino was used by Christian missionaries among Greek speaking
non-Christians. The whole of the New Testament was written in Greek.

As long as Greek remained the dominant language in the known world, the Bible was easily
accessible to readers. But when Latin becomes the dominant language and when the missionaries
took Christianity to other peoples who did not know Greek, it was clear that translations had to be
made.

Translation is also interpretation. Hebrew and Greek words are so rich with meanings that it is
quite difficult to capture them in the English language. For instance, the word shalom, could mean
peace, good health and wellbeing and it is up to the translator to select the best language. Personal
biases could surely come in. That’s why the best translation is one that is translated by an ecumenical
committee. If translators came from different persuasions, it’s more likely that personal biases could
be checked. There are two ways of translating the biblical writings. One is the traditional way,
wherein the original Hebrew or Greek literary form of the writing is translated as it is in the English
language. The focus here is on the preservation not only of the content but most especially the literary
form. Examples of this method of translation are the King James Version and the Revised Standard
Version. The other way of translation is called dynamic equivalence. In this method the translator
focuses more on the content of the text rather than the forms and translates it in the language of
his/her specific target reader. Here it is no longer just the original content of the Hebrew or Greek
texts that is being considered seriously, but also the language of the target audience. An example of
this kind of translation is the Good News Bible. It is meant for popular use.

Chapter and Verses Division

To make it easy to find one’s way around the Bible, in 1226 Archbishop Stephen Langton of
Canterbury divided book into numbered chapters. In 1551 during a carriage journey from Lyons to
Paris the printer Robert Estienne numbered almost every phrase of these chapters, hence, our modern
divisions into verses. The present division into chapters and verses though does not always match the
meaning of the text.

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The word canon literally means a measuring rule. It could refer to a standard against which
all others are to be measured. In this sense the canon of the Old Testament refers to the collection of
accepted books considered as “canonical” and set into a canonical arrangement and is considered a
source and basis of authoritative teachings and guidelines for daily life and for the practice of faith.
There are however, three major religious traditions with each one having its own canon of Scripture.
For the Jewish tradition there are 24 books or scrolls comprising the canon of their Scriptures, while
for the Protestants the canon of the Old Testament of 39 books, for the Catholics and the Orthodox
Christians it is 46 books [see chart below].

The Books of the Old Testament

[Adopted from B. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed., pp.4-5]

Pentateuch [Torah] CHRISTIAN BIBLE

Law
Hebrew Bible: Protestant Roman Catholic and
Orthodox
1. Bereshith [“In the 1. Genesis 1. Genesis
beg.” 2. Exodus 2. Exodus
2. Shemoth 3. Leviticus 3. Leviticus
[“Names”] 4. Numbers 4. Numbers
3. Wayiqra [“And he 5. Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy
called”]
4. Bemidbar [“In the
wilderness]
5. Debarim [“Words”]
Historical Books 6. Yehoshua 6. Joshua 6. Joshua
[Nebi’im 7. Shofetim [Judges”] 7. Judges 7. Judges
8. Shemuel 8. Ruth 8. Ruth
9. Melakim [“Kings”] 9-10 1&2 Sam. 9-10 1&2 Sam.
11-12 1&2 Kings 11-12 1&2 Kings
13-14 1&2 Chron. 13-14 1&2 Chron.
15-16 Ezra and 15-16 Ezra and
Nehemiah Nehemiah
Apocryphal 17. Tobit
Apocryphal 18. Judith
17. Esther 19. Esther

Poetry and Wisdom 10. Yeshayahu 18. Job 20. Job

[Latter] 11. Yirmeyahu 19. Psalms 21. Psalms
12. Yehezqel 20. Proverbs 22. Proverbs
13. Tere Asar 21. Ecclesiastes 23. Ecclesiastes
[Twelve] 22. Song of Solomon 24. Song of Solomon
Hoshea Apocryphal 25 Wisdom of Sol.
Yoel Apocryphal 26. Ecclesiasticus
Amos [Wisdom of Ben
Obadyahu Sirach]
Yonah
Micah
Nahum
Habaqquq
Zephanyah
Haggai
Zekaryahu
Malaki

Prophetic Writings 14. Tehillim 23. Isaiah 27. Isaiah

[Kethubim] [“Praises”] 24. Jeremiah 28. Jeremiah
15. Iyyob 25. Lamentations 29. Lamentations
16. Mishle [“Proverbs Apocryphal 30. Baruch including
of”] 26. Ezekiel “The Letter of
17. Ruth 27. Daniel Jeremiah” [R.C. only]
18. Shir Hashi-rim 28. Hosea 31. Ezekiel
[“Song of Songs”] 29. Joel 32. Daniel
19. Qoheleth 30. Amos 33. Hosea
[“Preacher”] 31. Obadiah 34. Joel
20. Ekah [“How”] 32. Jonah 35. Amos
Lamentations 33. Micah 36. Obadiah
21. Ester 34. Nahum 37. Jonah
22. Daniel 35. Habakkuk 38. Micah
23. Ezra-Nehemyah 36. Zephaniah 39. Nahum
24. Dibre Hayamim 37. Haggai 40. Habakkuk
[“Chronicles”] 38. Zechariah 41. Zephaniah
39. Malachi 42. Haggai
Apocryphal 43. Zechariah
Apocryphal 44. Malachi
45. 1 Maccabees
46. 2 Maccabees
 As can be seen from the chart, the Jewish canon is divided into three major divisions. These
are, first, the Torah [Law] which is also called the Pentateuch, made up of the first five books
traditionally ascribed to Moses [Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy]. The
second division is called Nebi’im [Prophets] which is made up of prophetic books divided into two
major divisions: the former prophets [Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings] and the latter prophets made up
of the three major scrolls [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel] and the one scroll of the twelve minor prophets.
The third division is made up of the rest of the remaining books led by Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
Qoheleth [Ecclesiastes], Esther, Daniel, Lamentations, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Ruth, and Songs
of Songs.

The Protestant canon appears as an expanded one compared to the Jewish canon primarily
because it classified separately several books which were reckoned as one in the Jewish canon, such
as “Samuel” is now classified into 1 and 2 Samuel. The same thing was done with “Kings” and
“Chronicles” as well as with Ezra-Nehemiah along with the twelve minor prophets which were all
reckoned separately now in the Protestant canon. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon,
however, comes even more expanded, with 46 books, primarily because, in addition to the separate
classification of some books as was done by the Protestants, it also added a list of lately written books
and written originally in Greek but which were regarded by them also as equally authoritative for the
conduct of faith and daily living. These are books which were regarded by Protestant canon as the
apocryphal books such as the 1-2 Maccabees, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit and
Judith. Two books in the Roman Catholic canon [Esther and Daniel] are even larger than their
counterparts in the Jewish and Protestant canons. This extra material is identified in the Protestant
apocrypha as “Additions to Esther” and “Additions to Daniel”.

THE PENTATEUCH AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

[Adopted from M. Aonan, God’s Liberating Acts, pp. 38-40]

Jewish tradition considered the first five books of the Old Testament [Pentateuch] to be the
most important part of the Scriptures. The Hebrew name for it is torah which can be translated as
“law” or “instruction.” The authorship of the Pentateuch is usually attributed to Moses. This was the
dominant view of the synagogue and the early Christian church. However, J.A. Soggin concludes that:

…Whereas the Pentateuch does not have any internal elements which prove the truth
of the tradition which attributes its redaction to Moses, there are many which prove
incompatible with such an attribution. The Pentateuch was not composed in a single draft, it
is a product of a redactional process which proves to be extremely complex. T hus anyone
who wishes nevertheless to maintain the traditional view that it was written by Moses would
equally have to postulate a long and intricate work of redaction of such a scope that in the end
it would no longer be possible to recognize in the end it would no longer be possible to
recognize clearly what did in fact go back to Moses.

If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, who then was the author? To answer this
question, we have to think first of the “community of faith” or covenant community which was
formed through God’s call of Abraham and God’s deliverance of Israel from Egyptian slavery. In
between the time Abraham was called and the time when the Exodus even happened, members of the
community of faith had accumulated a body of precious beliefs and practices were called oral
traditions, which later were reduced into writing. Several strands of traditions, according to biblical
scholars, were interwoven together to form the first five books or the Pentateuch.

It was J. Wellhausen, a German biblical scholar, who constructed a system which arranged
the sources of traditions into chronological order known as the Documentary Hypothesis [Soggin,
1976:84-87]. Essentially, the Documentary Hypothesis holds that although the substance of the
Israelite faith was Mosaic, the present written form of the literature is later in date. What follows are
the four sources of tradition.

The earliest source is the Yahwist tradition [the symbol of which is J taken from the German
word Javeh because Yahweh is the given name for God, even in the period before the revelation of
that name for God, even in the period before the revelation of that name to Moses [Ex. 3:6]. The J
source was written approximately 950 B.C. by an unknown writer who can simply be designated as
Yahwist. People and places mentioned in this source or strand are on the whole from Judah [Southern
Kingdom]. So it is believed that this tradition originated from Judah.

The second strand of tradition is the Elohist [symbol is E] because the name for God used by
the writer is Elohim. This tradition could be dated about two centuries later than J. The E tradition is
less primitive and it makes use of intermediaries between God and people through dreams and angels.
The people and places are predominantly in the Northern Kingdom. Thus the E tradition originated
from that place. It is believed, however, that when Israel fell in 722 B.C. the materials were probably
transferred to Judah and were combined with the J tradition. Thus, we have the J + E tradition.

Third source is the Deuteronomist tradition [symbol is D.] The materials of this source are
identical with the greater part of the book of Deuteronomy. This book was discovered at the beginning
of King Josiah’s reform in 621 B.C. [2 Kings 22:23]. However, this tradition contains a good deal of
earlier materials.

The last source is the Priestly tradition [symbol is P] which was written at the end of the
Babylonian exile [586-538 B.C.] by a group of Priests. The materials in this source form the final
framework of the materials collected in the J and E sources. It has very little narrative materials. The
greater part is made up of the rituals laws contained in the second part of the book of Exodus, in
Leviticus, and in the first part of the book of Numbers.

The chart [below] would help us visualize the formation of the Pentateuch. Note that the
broken lines signify oral traditions and the solid liens the transmission of the tradition in written form.
All the four traditions have parallel developments out of the ancient period, although each was subject
to a special development in the circle that preserved it. Like several streams flowing into one river,
these traditions were joined and unified in the Priestly edition—thus the Pentateuch was formed.

The Formation of the Pentateuch

Southern Traditions Northern Traditions

Priestly Torah Deuteronomic Torah

J E
c. 950 B.C.

c. 750 or earlier
Fall of Northern
Kingdom, 721 B.C.
--c. 700 B.C. --After 700 BC
Comp. Of D
JE --621BC; Deutc.R.
--Fall of Jerusalem 610Deutc. Hist.
JE + P + D

587/586 B.C. [First ed.]

Babylonian Exile 550Deutc. Hist.
586-538 B.C. [Final Ed.]
JE + P [Gen.-Num.]