MAKING SENSE OF THE BIBLE (PART I)

Anyone who reads the Bible sometimes has trouble figuring out what some passage or other is saying, and needs it explained. Most of us read the Bible in translation and, being  aware that the words of our native tongue may not correspond exactly to the words they translate, we would benefit if someone explained to us the key words of the original language more fully. Sometimes we wonder whether a Biblical book or passage relates historical truth or whether the issue of historical truth is even relevant. People who study the Bible in order to answer these and similar questions are called exegetes and the discipline they pursue is called exegesis.

Like many other intellectual pursuits, exegesis underwent a profound change in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when it adopted a scientific methodology (often called the “historical-critical method”). Whereas exegetes previously made certain assumptions based on faith, e.g., that there is a God and that all Scripture is inspired by God, the new scientific exegesis based itself on what could be proven by reason and observable facts.

Scientific exegetes try to discover the literal meaning of Scripture. Most exegetes today define the “literal sense” of Scripture to be the sense which the human author intended and which the written words conveyed when he wrote them. 

“Literal” here does not mean what some Fundamentalist Christians mean when they say they accept the literal truth of the Bible. For these Fundamentalists the literal meaning of a Bible passage is the meaning it has when it is read as an account of historical fact, as one might find in a newspaper account of an event or a policeman’s description of an accident scene. When this kind of Fundamentalist reads, “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman” (Genesis 2:22), he understands this in the same way he would understand a newspaper account of a surgical procedure that actually happened. He believes that at some point in history God actually removed a rib from the first male human being and created the first woman from it.

For scientific exegetes the literal meaning of a Bible text may include fictional as well as factual elements. Historical description is only one of many literary genres found in the Bible. The Bible also contains myths, poems, sermons, fables, codes of law, genealogies, folk tales, parables, proverbs, jokes, hymns, speeches, summaries, theological statements, quotations, anecdotes, prophecy, apocalypses, practical and philosophical wisdom, letters, hagiography, moralizing,  commentaries on other parts of the Bible, and so on.

Every writer writes with a readership in mind. He or she makes every reasonable effort, most of the time, to write so that readers will understand what the writer is trying to convey. The writer will, therefore, write in a language his or her readers understand. We can expect that those who write for the purpose of catechizing and evangelizing will try to be as simple and clear as they can and avoid as much as possible ambiguity and obscurity in the way they express themselves.

The most important tool an exegete has is knowledge of the language in which the Bible passage has been written. The second most important tool is knowledge of the culture common to the Biblical author and his intended readers. (Those of us who are not expert exegetes can do useful, limited exegesis working with good translations, commentaries, lexicons and other reference works.) Since the author of the passage expected nothing more of his readers than that they would understand his language within the cultural context common to him and his readers, the exegete will understand the literal meaning of the text to the degree that he is familiar with the language and the cultural context of the Biblical author.

With that in mind, I would like to offer an example of exegesis to illustrate the above mentioned principles. The passage in question is one of those that was discussed in the dialogue on Matthew 16:18-19 in the March-April 2001 issue of The Journal: “And I tell you, you are Peter [petros], and on this [taute] rock [petra] I will build my church” (Mt 16:18a, transliterated Greek words in square brackets). The exegesis is mine and disagrees with some other exegeses mentioned in the dialogue.

I hold that both petros and petra refer to Peter. In brief outline my reasons are:

(1) The demonstrative adjective “this” indicates that the noun it modifies is a person, thing or idea that is present or near in place, time or thought, or that has just been mentioned. Consider, for example, the following speech given by a cooking teacher to her class. “It is not hard to prepare food that is delicious but easy to make, as you can see. Yesterday I prepared a dish of braised chicken thighs. Today you see before you a cheesecake, and this triumph will be the centrepiece at supper tonight.” In this speech there are a number of objects mentioned before “this triumph”. To which of them does “this triumph” refer? Clearly it refers to the cheesecake because the cheesecake is mentioned immediately prior to “this triumph.”

There is a strong tendency in English usage for the demonstrative adjective “this” to refer back to the first eligible noun or noun substitute that is closest to it in the sentence or sequence of sentence in which it occurs. In the quoted speech, if one switches “a dish of braised chicken thighs” with “a cheesecake,” a reader will interpret “this triumph” to refer to the dish of braised chicken thighs rather than the cheesecake.

This strong tendency is also found in Greek usage for the demonstrative pronoun and adjective “houtos” (masc. sing.), translated “this” in English. When we place “And I tell you, you are Peter [petros], and on this [taute] rock [petra] I will build my church” in its context of Mt 16:15-19, we see that “Peter” is the nominal nearest to “this rock.” Given the strong tendency for  demonstrative adjectives to refer back to the nearest eligible nominal, the placement of “Peter”  just before “this rock” is strong evidence that “this rock” does indeed refer to Peter.

This identification of Peter as the rock is no more invalidated by “petros” and “petra” having different dictionary definitions, than the identification of “cheesecake” and “triumph” in the example previously given is invalidated by “cheesecake” and “triumph” having different dictionary definitions. Just as “triumph” is a metaphor for the cheesecake, so “petra” may serve as a metaphor for Peter.

Could Matthew have intended “this rock” to refer to something mentioned before verse 18, such as the revelation of the Father? Yes, it is possible, but I think unlikely, based on the principle that writers usually try to communicate in a way that minimizes confusion among their readers. If Matthew had wanted “this rock” to refer to something mentioned prior to verse 18, he would have made his meaning clearer by reversing the order of 18a and writing, “On this rock I will build my church, and you are Peter.” Were this done the nominal to which “this rock” refers back would be nearer to “this rock,” and “Peter,” coming after “this rock,” would be less likely to be viewed as the referent of “this rock.” 

Anyone who holds that “this rock” does not refer to Peter must explain why Matthew for no apparent reason chooses a way of expressing himself that arouses in his readers a strong tendency to identify “this rock” with something other than what he intends. I have yet to see such an explanation.

(2) If Matthew did not want readers to think of Peter as bedrock [petra], but rather as a loose stone, would he not have used “lithos” instead of “petros” in verse 18a? “Lithos” is a Greek word meaning loose stone. (In 1 Peter 2:5 “lithos” is used to describe Christians as living stones making up a spiritual house.) Matthew is familiar with “lithos” (see Matthew 3:9). Of course, this eliminates the petros/petra pun, but if Matthew’s purposes are to identify the rock upon which he will build his church as the revelation of the Father, and assert that Peter is not the rock but a loose stone, these purposes would be better served by calling Peter “lithos” and dispensing with the pun.

(3) Because “petra” is feminine in gender, it is ineligible as a nickname for Peter, a male. One cannot, therefore, infer from Matthew’s using petros as a nickname for Peter rather than petra, that petra cannot refer to Peter.

(4) The semiticisms in Matthew 16:17-19 ("Simon Bar Jona,” “flesh and blood,” “gates of Hades,” “bind...loose") suggest that Matthew has made use of an Aramaic source for this particular passage. If Matthew’s translation of the Aramaic was word for word, then the Aramaic source would have been of the form “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.” In both instances the same form of the Aramaic word “kepha” would have been used and both would have to refer to the same person, i.e., Peter. By way of aside, let me make it clear that I am not claiming that the Aramaic source is the historical Jesus or that it contains the actual words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus.

As you can see, reasons (1)-(3) are based on Greek language considerations exclusively. Only (4) makes an inference about an Aramaic source. By itself (4) would not suffice to make a case for my interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But when (4) is added to (1)-(3), it increases the probability that my interpretation is correct.

I have based my exegesis exclusively on linguistic considerations rather than on considerations of Matthean theology because I feel that these linguistic considerations are sufficient to establish my case.

That being said, I do not believe that Matthew’s recounting of Peter’s many failures as a disciple are intended to present Peter as unworthy of being the rock upon which Jesus builds his church. I believe that Matthew portrays Jesus as preparing Peter for leadership by criticizing and disciplining him in accordance with the admonition of Proverbs 3:11-12: “My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.”

I have not made reference to pre-modern exegeses of Matthew 16:18 because exegetes earlier than the modern era did not clearly distinguish the literal sense of Biblical texts (see above for the definition of literal sense) from the more-than-literal senses that the texts can have, and did not use the historical-critical scientific method. Consequently their interpretations of Matthew 16:18 are not relevant to the historical-critical exegesis of this text.

In my next Theological Soapbox I will consider how the emphasis of the historical-critical method of exegesis on the literal meaning of the Biblical text can limit our access to the riches of the Bible.