What Is Midrash?

To Gaul, to Greece, and Into Noah’s Ark: Essays in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart. Edited by Laura E. Quick, Ekaterina E. Kozlova, Sonja Noll, and Philip Y. Yoo. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019

The paper begins with general comments on Jewish and Christian interpretation in late antiquity in order to situate the subject under consideration in the wider context of rabbinic and patristic exegesis. Then I look at selected Jewish and Christian commentaries written between 200 and 500 CE: the Talmudim, Genesis Rabbah, and the exegetical works of Origen, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo. My intention is to demonstrate that biblical interpretation in late antiquity profoundly shaped the imagination of ancient authors for whom Scripture was the main source of knowledge about the universe. Put briefly, this paper makes three claims. First, it argues that a good grasp of the general principles of rabbinic and patristic exegesis complemented by a study of the reception history of specific biblical passages leads to a better understanding of the historical process of differentiation between Judaism and Christianity. Secondly, and specifically, the paper demonstrates that while Jewish rabbis used Gen. 15:5 to emphasize Abraham’s belief in the One God and his rejection of astrology, their Christian counterparts decided to develop a different reading of this verse despite the fact that most of them also perceived astrology as a real threat to their communities. Thirdly, the paper makes an attempt to explain the differences between the Jewish and Christian interpretation of Gen. 15:5 by analysing the respective theological presuppositions of the interpreters, the canonical context of their exegesis, and their contrasting understanding of the role played by Abraham in tradition.

Prooftexts, 1987

Exploring the inter-dependence between history and faith within Judaism and how the two concepts are necessary for better understanding of the Scripture.

2003

2000

From the earliest stages of Wissenschaft des Judentums, scholars of Judaism typically read statements about God in the classical sources of Judaism with a mediaeval philosophical lens. By doing so, they sought to demonstrate the essential unity and continuity between rabbinic Judaism, later mediaeval Jewish philosophy and modern Judaism. In the late 1980s, the Maimonidean hold on rabbinic scholarship began to crack when the ‘revisionist school’ sought to drive a wedge between rabbinic Judaism, on the one hand, and Maimonidean Judaism, on the other hand, by highlighting the deep continuities and links between rabbinic Judaism and mediaeval Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah). The revisionist scholars regarded rabbinic Judaism as a pre-cursor to mediaeval Kabbalah rather than mediaeval Jewish philosophy. This article provides the history of scholarship on these two methods of reading rabbinic texts and then proposes that scholars adopt a third method. That is, building on the work of recent scholarship, we should confront theological rabbinic texts on their own terms, without the guiding hand of either mediaeval Jewish framework.

Commentaries on the Book of Ruth

This thesis analyzes the portrayal of the matriarch Sarah in the fifth-century Palestinian rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah. In the book of Genesis Sarah plays an ancillary role and at times is even portrayed as petty and lacking faith in God. Likewise, the Jewish authors of the second Temple period do not grant the matriarch a central role in their versions of the biblical narrative. Genesis Rabbah, however, breaks with this trend. Not only are a relatively large number of drashot dedicated to the matriarch, but she is repeatedly depicted as a model of personal and religious excellence. In order to account for this dramatic development, I will point to textual and thematic parallels from the world of Christian thought and worship. In the New Testament Sarah is presented as both the spiritual mother of Christianity and a prefiguration of Jesus’ mother Mary. These two themes are continued in the writings of Origen of Alexandria, an influential early Christian author. Additionally, the Virgin Mary gradually gains greater and greater importance in Christian Palestine, culminating with the establishment of a cult of worship dedicated to her. Based on a close analysis of the midrashic material it can be shown that the rabbis of Genesis Rabbah were well aware of these developments. Moreover, it will be demonstrated that they used their portrayal of Sarah to combat the Christian appropriation of the matriarch on the one hand, and to establish her as a Jewish alternative to the Virgin Mary on the other. -- An article based on parts of this thesis has been published as "The Virgin Mother Sarah: The Characterization of the Matriarch in Genesis Rabbah," Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021): 1-41.

'In the past the Book of Ruth does not seem to have received a great deal of attention. Scholars usually pass it by as of small value. It is not worth while to squeeze the juice from so small a fruit. The beauty is all on the surface. The outer skin is so transparent that all the seeds can be detected without opening.' Thus wrote W. E. Staples in 1937, in the opening to his paper concerning the biblical Book of Ruth. Of course, he was not in agreement with the scholars he mentions, and the purpose of his work was to show that despite the smallness of the fruit, its juice was well worth squeezing out, and that, below the surface, there lay much worthy of investigation. The Book of Ruth tells a simple story of loss and redemption, set in the time of Israel’s Judges. It mainly focuses on three principal characters: Ruth, Naomi and Boaz. Ruth, a Moabite widow, forsakes her people and land to accompany her mother-in-law, Naomi (an Israelite who lost her husband and two sons when they all went to Moab in the midst of a famine), as she returns to Bethlehem. Boaz, a benevolent landowner from Bethlehem, shows kindness to Ruth and redeems the family’s inheritance. The book closes with the marriage of Ruth and Boaz and the birth of their son, Obed, who would become the grandfather of Israel’s most famous king, David. This secures the small fruit firmly in the canonical orchard of Jewish and Christian scripture, establishing its importance in the messianic heritage of both traditions. The rabbinic and patristic exegetes of Late Antiquity would also have disagreed with Staples’ scholars. The Rabbis wrote a verse-by-verse commentary for the Book of Ruth, the length of which far exceeds the biblical text itself. None of the Church Fathers composed a verse-by-verse commentary, but many from the earliest patristic period onwards have afforded it considerable attention. The Rabbis and Church Fathers wrote much concerning all three principal characters, but they gave special attention to the character of Ruth herself. She attracts this attention because of her piety, faithfulness and selfless concern for her mother-in-law. She is also attractive because she raises the whole issue of proselytism, as the proselyte to Judaism nonpareil. For the Church Fathers she prefigures and represents the Gentile church. However, Ruth is especially attractive because she is an ancestor of the Messiah in both traditions. This is the intrigue of The Book of Ruth – that such a small, seemingly insignificant character in such a small, seemingly insignificant story could have such influence and position in rabbinic and patristic writing. This study seeks to explore whether there was an exegetical dialogue between the rabbinic and patristic commentators on the Book of Ruth in the period of late Antiquity. The rabbinic commentary on Ruth is collected into one anonymous (not necessarily homogeneous) volume: the Ruth Rabbah (written in Hebrew). The patristic commentators, on the other hand, are mostly individually identifiable, but are linguistically and geographically disparate (spanning Greek, Latin and Syriac languages and culture). The linguistic differences between the rabbinic and patristic exegetes create some difficulties: it is uncertain to what extent they were familiar with one another’s languages and whether they had access to either or both the oral and written sources in one another’s traditions. Yet, both groups occupy the same general period in history (approximately the third to sixth century) and it would appear that the development of their writing was contemporaneous. The issues which made the character of Ruth so attractive to the Rabbis and Church Fathers form the themes that will be explored in this study. Firstly, there is the issue of Ruth’s gender – the book presents a biblical heroine in the midst of a realm that is almost exclusively male-dominated. The commentators themselves, on both sides, were exclusively male, so how did they deal with a woman taking the central role? Secondly, there is the issue of Ruth’s ethnicity (her otherness) – she was a Moabitess, and the Moabites were strictly forbidden from entering into the assembly of Israel (see Deuteronomy 23:3). Finally, there is the issue of Ruth’s role as a messianic matriarch and the Messiah’s identity, with regard to the lineage of David. The patristic commentators clearly identified the Messiah in Christological terms, but did this claim influence rabbinic interpretation?

This article deals with the exegetical approach of the early Jewish school. It discusses the meaning and definition of midrash as a distinctive approach in Jewish interpretation. The relationship between midrash and exegesis is also examined. It is shown how the process of interpretation is affected by the use of midrash principles. It is also pointed out that the ancient interpretative method of midrash had social relevancy. The midrashic interpreters maintained the interest of the community and fulfilled the needs of their generation. The conclusion is drawn that early Jewish exegetes did not explain the text for its inherent meaning, but rather for its use in personal purposes. They tended to read some agendas and issues into the text from the exegetes themselves and their surrounding backgrounds. They aimed to meet the requirement of the social and political expectations of their reader community. Interpretation was used as a tool for this purpose. This exegetical trend is finally illustrated with some examples of interpretation of the Book of Ruth