Peshat Problems
There is no Scripture except according to its literal sense. Sefer Ha-Mitsvot (Maimonides)
Literal sense – In his article, “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition,” Nahum Sarna examines the idea that the biblical writers wrote exclusively for their contemporary audiences. He cites Maimonides’ statement to the effect that the Peshat layer of the text is the standard for all biblical exegesis and interpretation and “the text of Scripture may not depart from its straightforward meaning.”[1] Accordingly, this paradigm commitment leads to the view that “the true and sole task of the biblical scholar is to discover what the contemporary audience understood when the writer wrote what he did, and that such meaning, when recovered, is the one true meaning of the text.”[2] Sarna’s quip applies: “ . . . there can hardly be a branch of human learning more strewn with the debris of discarded theories than biblical scholarship.”[3]
These comments might appear as nothing more than academic debate, but I assure you they are far more consequential. We have exerted great effort to recover the meaning of the text within its original context. Such a task is critically important. Without this perspective, biblical language is flexible enough to be coopted by any religious mold. The Christian treatment of the Mosaic code is a prime example. But context is not the only perspective of an author of divine material. Sarna writes: “ . . . the very transmission and sustained impact on vast segments of the human race for over two and a half millennia, would be difficult to explain unless the text was very early understood to be proleptic in nature.”[4] How could the writings of men from ancient cultures have endured and nourished generation after generation unless the writings had something to say to each subsequent age? It seems rather obvious.
That the biblical text has been enlisted by each generation, Christian or Jewish, as more than an historical record does notdiminish the need for examining the original context. If anything, it makes that need even greater, for we wish to know why the material has this enduring character. If it’s not simply historical record, if it does in fact speak to those who have come later, how does it differ from other ancient religious material? Why does it matter so much to us? What makes it contemporary? The Peshat isn’t the end of the story, but as the beginning it cannot be ignored. There is little point in jumping right to the modern application if we don’t know where the thought began. Consequently, we have an enormous spiritual opportunity. Unlike the original audience, we see a trajectory. We can follow the development. We can add to the understanding. “For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Matthew 13:17 NASB).
Topical Index: Peshat, proleptic, Nahum Sarna, Sefer Ha-Mitsvot
[1] Nahum Sarna, “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition,” Studies in Biblical Interpretation (JPS, 2000), p. 75.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4][4] Ibid., p. 76.
