ME: What evidence are you talking about? Do you know the educational process in First Century Mediterranean Galilee? Do you understand the distinctions Judeans and Galileans made between each other, and their in-group out-group worldview? What would a first-century Judean say to a Galilean that had not studied at their yeshiva and with their teachers?

EVERYONE should be allowed to study the ancient texts… EVERYONE. However the above statement by Matt is a good example of why humility and education are sorely needed. Declarative statements are made(especially within the community of faith)with finality and surety. I have come across some academic material that suggests that Jesus did undergo some sort of educational process. Not an education in the way we would think of one, or one that Judeans would respect, but possibly some learning in his youth. Same for the 12.

I wonder if academics within the community of faith that insist the Bible must be interpreted within the community of faith are as elitist when it comes to other religions texts. I wonder if they take a stance of humility before an Islamic scholar and declare that they must learn from him because they are ill equipped to understand anything about his faith because they are not in his community of faith? I doubt it.

That being said, I think it would be unwise to cloister ourselves off into “our communities” and not listen to each other. I have always maintained an eccletic stance in my teaching and in my interpretation.

I think Jim has an excellent point about the basic tools one needs to interpret (language, cultural setting, comparative data, etc.). These tools may be gained through the process of formal education, or they may be gained through hard individual work. How they are gained is immaterial, IMHO.

Anyhow… interesting comments. I must return to some other work!

As an avowed non-member of any “community of faith” (a term I think has a lot of value-judgment) who happens to have a degree or two, I really resent any implication that I am disqualified to interpret the Bible. Sure, I have no place telling a Christian or Jewish congregation what to get out of reading it in terms of moral lessons or spiritual edification. I would certainly be a ‘dilettante’ at that. But this does not mean I have no place telling an academic community–and anyone else with a taste for such things– about my views on the origins or literary qualities of the now-biblical documents.

Many amatuers have made some very good observations about the Bible and on the methods of studying it. I have had several in my classes. This does not mean I would buy a book they have written on it (yet???), but interested non-professionals can be good readers regardless of their philosophical / spriritual background. And yes, sometimes they justifiable call “Rubbish!” on a scholar.

Tyler points out that everyone has their shortcomings based on their own perspectives: so be it. But in the “community of thinking” and range of topics I discuss as a professional Hebrew Bible scholar, I don’t think my atheism puts me at more ofa disadvantage than someone with a very conservative Christian theological education. The real issue is command on the basic tools: language, cultural settings, comparative data, etc. etc.

At the heart of the tension all is the question is what sort of special status the biblical materials should be granted in terms of how to interpret them. Is the methodology the same as the study of any other ancient text? Here I think secular and faith-based scholars reach a fork in the road they so often travel along together. Of course the road probably joins up again a little later, but the divide is still there. Many people have found different ways of working with a foot on both sides of the “secular” and “faith-based” interpretational divide. I sometimes wonder how they do it, but I am generally pleased that they do: I have learned a lot from them.

Who has the right to interpret Hindu, Buddhist, or ancient Ugaritic religious texts? Only those belonging to those “communities of faith”? The Bible is in the public domain. HOw it came to be, how it was interpreted, and its impact of society over the centuries is a topic open to anyone to examine and critique. Of course some of the resulting work will be unconvincing, experts can be wrong and beginniners will sometimes get lucky. But by and large it is an intellectual activity that must not be censored.

What’s more there’s also nothing to stop someone with a credible theological qualification taking a loony position either!

Secondly, there is a danger of elitism. If you have the time and the finances to pursue a degree you are in, otherwise it’s tough luck.

Finally, whilst I regret the fact that every loony preacher, when challenged about their credentials, has probably made the point I’m about to make, I still think it has some validity, so here it is. In Jesus’s day there was an established system of proper training in scripture that was considered the only way to gain the requiste knowledge. But the evidence suggests that not only did Jesus not undergo this training, but that the 12 people he trained up to start the faith didn’t have it either.

Proper theological training is very important, and for theology as a whole to move on it does need a body of properly trained personnel. And sadly loony preachers do detract, to an extent, from all the good work that is done elsewhere. But there’s no reason to go to West’s extreme, particularly given that “proper training” doesn’t quite guarantee what he would have us believe.

Matt