« The Sign of Our Anniversary
Main
The Happiness Test »
June 07, 2006
To Whom Should One Listen
The bibliobloggers are having fun with the question of the qualifications of the "ideal interpreter" of the Bible. Various people have taken a stab at this question. I think the question is just backwards. Rather than asking who is qualified to interpret the Bible, I think the question should be "To whom should one listen if one wants to understand the Bible?"
The problem with the way I have restated the question is that the less one knows about the subject the narrower the field of truly qualified interpreters. If one knows nothing about the Bible, one should only listen to those few voices that are among the recognized experts in the specific area of the inquiry. Most of these people will have PhDs or equivalent from a major university or a select few academically oriented seminaries and they will have a consistent pattern of publication in the most prestigious journals in their subfield. A very few individuals will have distinguished themselves by publishing at the level of and in the same places as the first group. The more one knows of the work of these scholars, the more one is able to critically read and understand the work of lesser lights.
With one interesting exception, this problem is no different from the equivalent problem of seeking authoritative sources in any other field of inquiry. That exception is that there is such a large pool of people who are seeking authoritative interpretations of the Bible and so many people willing to fulfill their desires.
Let me give one example, Shirley is a client of a professional woman who assures Shirley, that the Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible was so zealously protected over the years that we can be completely confident that every word, indeed every letter, in the text as we now have it remained unchanged during the long process of transmission. This person should not listen to whomever told her that on any question about the transmission of the Biblical text and likely not much else.
If I were interested in how to interpret a passage in Aristophanes' The Acharnians, like the Bible a "public document," I would not ask anyone I know. Or more accurately, I would take the interpretation of anyone I know as less than authoritative. I am just too ignorant to be able to judge the quality of their answer.
Am I qualified to interpret the Bible. I am not, certainly not if the ignorant are asking anything but the most trivial of questions. So why do I, from time to time, post my interpretation of various things related to the Bible on Abnormal Interests. Well, once in a while I delude myself into thinking I have something interesting to say. But, unless you, my reader, have the skills to critically evaluate what I say, you shouldn't pay too much attention to it.
Posted by DuaneSmith at June 7, 2006 12:29 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/695
Comments
Interesting perspective, Duane. Were Blogger not down (yet again!!!!) I would add you to the list of those commenting. I shall later.
Posted by: Jim at June 7, 2006 12:58 PM
For the record, there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the Pentateuch actually hasn't changed much (in all its versions) over the past two millennia.
(Not that this proves any major religious point, it just happens to be interesting.)
Posted by: mnuez at June 8, 2006 11:39 PM
It is true that some books and even verses are seem little changed over the past two millennia and the books of the Pentateuch are among the most conservative in this regard. However, based on much the same evidence, a book like Isaiah developed some interesting variants very early in its transmission and a book like Mark has acquired a few very significant variants. The real question is how much is "much" and in any case, it is more than "no."
Posted by: Duane at June 9, 2006 06:47 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.