Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Midrash and exegesis
It is a genuinely hermeneutical practice in the sense that its purpose is to elucidate and understand the scriptural text as such.43 As a matter of fact Craig A Evans rightly pointed out the exegetical range of midrash. The functions of midrash range from pure explication and elucidation of the biblical text involved (exegesis), to blatant “reading-in” of extraneous ideas.44 Philip Alexander confirmed this range of exegesis in the study of midrash. The task of midrashic commentators may be seen as two-fold, as both exegetical and eisegetical: it involves both drawing out the meaning implicit in Scripture, and reading meaning into Scripture.45 There is some evidence to suggest that the early Jewish commentators were not unaware of this distinction, but in general they give the impression that they are merely drawing out what is objectively present in Scripture. In practice it is difficult to separate exegesis and eisegesis, since both processes are often going on simultaneously in the same act of interpretation. The darshanim are adept at exploiting real problems in the text as a way of reading their own ideas into Scripture. In any given instance it will probably be impossible to say whether the interpretation was suggested simply by meditation on Scripture, or devised deliberately as a way of attaching certain ideas to Scripture.
Geza Vermes elaborated these two exegetical trends in different terms.47 He distinguishes two types of midrash: “pure exegesis”, which takes the biblical text as its starting point and “applied exegesis”, which starts from contemporary needs and seeks to apply the text to these.48 “Pure” exegesis is organically bound to the Bible. Its spirit and method, and in more than one case the very tradition it transmits, are of biblical origin or may be traced back to a period preceding the final compilation of the Pentateuch. So scripture as it were engendered midrash, and midrash in its turn ensured that scripture remained an active and living force in Israel.49 The first and foremost of all exegetical imperatives was harmonization and reconciliation. A religion, which recognized the totality of its Scripture as word of God and rule of life could not accept that some legal and historical biblical passages disagree, and even flatly contradict one another.
Exegesis was required to adapt and complete scripture so that it might on the one hand apply to the present time, and on the other, satisfy the requirements of polemics. The resulting form of interpretation, which is not primarily concerned with the immediate meaning of the text but with the discovery of principles providing a non-scriptural problem with a scriptural solution, may be called “applied” exegesis. Vermes further clarified the features of applied exegesis that the point of departure for exegesis was no longer the Torah itself, but contemporary customs and beliefs which the interpreter attempted to connect with scripture and wanted to justify.51 The result was an evolving closely reasoned corpus of systematic exegesis, which eventually determined the whole orientation of individual and social life. This new form of Bible interpretation seems to have accompanied the rise of the religious parties, and in particular of the Pharisaic movement. As has been noted in the early centuries of the post-exilic age in Chapter Two, it was the priestly and Levitical scribes who, as the professional and authoritative teachers of the people, were responsible for the transmission and exposition of scripture. Pharisaic groups were obliged to defend the accepted norm with arguments solidly backed by scripture. Out of this necessity Geza Vermes concludes that a technique of exegesis52 soon arose which conformed to well-defined rules, the middot. Scholars have made a widespread discussion about the features of middot.
First, Gerald Bray introduced the formation of the middot and declared that the main aim behind Midrash was the desire to produce new religious laws (halakot) and broaden the application of those already in existence. To this end, there grew up a number of principles of interpretation, known as middot (“canons”).53 These went through their own process of evolution, from the seven rules of Hillel (which were almost certainly not originally derived from him) to the thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha (fl. c. AD 110-130) and finally to the thirty-two rules of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili (fl. c. AD 130-160). The Seven basic rules of Hillel are enough to give us the flavour of rabbinical exegesis in general. 54 Julio Trebolle Barrera introduced and classified the schools of middot as follows.
Oral Torah and Written Torah
We now discuss the origins of aggadah and its relation to dual Torah, the most authoritative sources of exegetical tradition in Jewish community. Rabbis believed that revelation consists of a “dual Torah.”61 One part is the Written Torah, or “written law,” (Miqra) more generally called simply Torah.62 The “written Torah” refers to the Hebrew Scriptures of ancient Israel: meaning the Torah, Genesis through Deuteronomy; the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets; and the Writings, Proverbs, Psalms, Job, Chronicles, the Five Scrolls, and so on.
Another part is the oral or memorized Torah. It was transmitted from master to disciple, from God to Moses, Moses to Aaron, Aaron to Joshua, and so on down, until it was ultimately recorded in the documents produced by the rabbinic sages of the first six centuries CE. Jacob Neusner said that these compilations claim to preserve the originally oral tradition.63 Rabbinic tradition holds that the Oral Torah contained a revelation of all possible interpretations of the written Torah to Moses.64
What Moses received on Mount Sinai was not simply a written text that needed to be understood in a straight-forward manner, but rather the Torah, the complete and forever authoritative revelation of God’s will for his people Israel and for the world. This revelation was given in both oral and written form, the oral form containing both methods of interpreting the Torah and teachings not found in written Torah65. It was the responsibility of the rabbis to study the entire revelation continually in order to comprehend it ever more fully. Since all of God’s will was contained there, it was necessary that each generation deepen its understanding of the wisdom the revelation contained, applying it to its own age.
Howard Schwartz believed that the ancient rabbis drew on the oral tradition they had received. They cultivated it, giving birth, in the process, to a rich and vital legendary tradition. Yet it must never be forgotten that the original impulse out of which these legends were created was exegetical. Great importance was put on resolving contradictions and filling gaps in the narrative.67
God said to Moses: “Write these things, for it is by means of these things that I have made a covenant with Israel”68. When God was about to give the Torah, He recited it to Moses in proper order, Scriptures, Mishnah, Aggadah, and Talmud, for God spoke all these words (Exod 20:1), even the answers to questions which advanced disciples in the future are destined to ask their teachers did God reveal to Moses! (Tanuma, Ki Tissa 58b)69 The theology of that part of the Torah becomes accessible when we know how to understand that language for what it is: the this-worldly record of the meeting of the Eternal in time with Israel. This specific type of language indicates some philosophies and beliefs of the rabbis. It will be discussed and examined later.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Intent and importance of the study
1.2 Aims and purposes
1.3 Philosophical supposition and objectivity
1.4 Interpretation as a product of the exegetes’ culture
1.5 Research methodology
1.6 Chapter Outline
Chapter 2: Early Jewish Commentary
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The forming of Hebrew Text
2.3 The “Early” Stage of Jewish exegesis
2.4 Jewish documents and groups in the Second Temple Period
2.5 Dead Sea Scrolls and the history of Judaism
2.6 Sectarian Developmen
2.7 Developmental period of Early Jewish and Rabbinic exegesis
2.8 Foundational Documents of Rabbinic Literature
2.9 The Historical and Socio-cultural Background for the Formation of Jewish Commentary
Chapter 3: Midrash
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The meaning and definition of Midrash
3.3 Midrash and exegesis
3.4 Midrash and Aggadah
3.5 Assumptions behind the method
3.6 The purpose of midrashic exegesis
3.7 Conclusion
Chapter 4: The book of Ruth in Jewish commentaries
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Commentary development in the Jewish community
4.3 Techniques of Rabbinic Exegesis
4.4 Some general patterns arising from the study of Jewish exegesis on the Book of Ruth
4.5 Conclusion
Chapter 5: The Patristic Literature
5.1 Introduction
5.3 What is patristic exegesis?
5.4 The historical, theological, traditional and socio-cultural background for the formation of Christian / Patristic Literature
5.5 Developmental period of Christian and patristic exegesis
Chapter 6: Typology in Patristic Exegesis
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Definition and meaning
6.3 Different Types of “Types”
6.4 Development of typology
6.5 Exegetical presuppositions of typology
6.6 Typology, allegorism and others techniques
6.7 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Patristic Ruth
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The corpus of patristic literature
7.3 Patristic Literature related to the Book of Ruth
7.4 Some general patterns arising from the study of patristic exegesis on the Book of Ruth
7.5 Conclusion
Chapter 8: The Combined Results of the Comparison
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The same origin, but different views on authority
8.3 The nature of Judaism and Christianity
8.4 The Combined Results of the comparison between early Jewish and Christian interpretation
8.5 conclusion
Bibliography
