The chapter discusses the issue of the evaluation of the validity of international legitimacy. This issue is important because it concerns how true international legitimacy can be distinguished from false international legitimacy, especially in the midst of change. This chapter concentrates on this matter, with its philosophical resonance, by looking into when international legitimacy, established or changing (change of/in an international system and its legitimacy), can really be considered valid or legitimate. Specifically, the following questions are addressed: First, does it make sense to examine the issue of the evaluation of international legitimacy (established or changing)? Second, if indeed it makes sense, what are the criteria that can be used to evaluate the validity of a claim or belief of international legitimacy? Third, what are the relevance and the modalities of application of this normative approach to international legitimacy (established or changing) across various periods and cultures?

If the scientific epistemology parallels Hebraic epistemology in any significant way, then the conceptual paradigms of truth and the mechanics of justification could – or, perhaps, should – follow suit. The Hebraic model of "truth" that emerges differs at key points from some, but not all, of our folk notions of truth today. Specifically, the true/false binary that funds current and popular models of justification appears to be too rigid a model for the Hebraic style. I examine a Hebraic notion of truth and justification in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Although I will put both truth and the logic of justification in conversation with contemporary ideas, I do so only to show both the kinship we share with biblical notions, and the critique offered from the biblical texts.