Midrash in the Bible

Extracted text from Midrash_in_the_Bible.pdf:

Midrash in the Bible Introduction What is Midrash? Biblical scholars have long debated what the term midrash should refer to. Some have wanted to restrict it to only that group of texts known as the Midrashim (the im is simply the plural in Hebrew). These texts, a compilation of rabbinical traditions from various times after the first century C.E., have helped define the parameters of what most people are willing to call midrash. But the ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic (the Targums) and Greek (the Septuagint) also had midrashic elements in them at times, as did the later books of the Bible when using traditions contained in the earlier ones (e.g. Chronicles and Danielcf. Kugel:1997:35), as well as various non-biblical books of the period. Whenever these or other texts re-used the older traditions to make a new point, they were making midrash, at least according to the broadest definition being used here. In particular, the New Testament has been seen by many scholars as essentially a midrash on the Hebrew Bible. Common NT ideas of Jesus as the (Passover) lamb, or scapegoat, or as Moses or David or Elijah are all midrashic in a fundamental sense. They all take older traditions and re-apply them to current situations. At Qumran there was a certain type of interpretation called a pesher, (probably meaning interpretation) which is in some ways related to midrash, but which was different as well in important ways. The Pesharim tend to be rather full commentaries on the biblical text with a view to proving a specific eschatological (end of history) interpretation of the tradition. Midrashim tend to use catch-words and phrases from the biblical text to make various kinds of connections to current situations. Furthermore, there is not one direct line of exegetical reasoning which is followed in midrashic interpretation. Rather, the multiplicity of interpretations on a given text is one of the hallmarks of midrash: several synonymous, complementary, or contradictory remarks may appear in connection with a single verse, word, or letter. (Porton:1997).

This paper will concern itself mainly with inner-biblical midrash, whether within the Hebrew Bible itself or in the New Testaments re-interpretation of it. With innerbiblical midrashic exegesis the context is usually the present situation of the writer, and the original text is reinterpreted for that situation in accordance with a given understanding of the tradition as a whole. Thus John the Baptist can prepare the way for Jesus, calling to mind Gods promise to prepare the way for Israels return from exile. The common feature is that God is acting anew in John and Jesus in just the same way he did in the new exodus promised in Isaiah. This is by no means to indicate that midrash found within the Bible is somehow of a special character different than other midrash of the period. Not only does it share much in terms of both approach and method to the literature of the period which was directly related to the Bible, but also had much in common with the wider literature of the age: the exegetical techniques assigned to the rabbis were those commonly used by the Hellenistic rhetoricians. Thus, the most we can say is that our texts leave the impression that the exegetical techniques of at least some of the early rabbis were similar to the exegetical practices of their non-Jewish neighbors. (Porton:1997). The same can be said of midrash in the Bible. To return to our original question as to what constitutes misdrash, it can be seen from at least three different perspectives. First, it is an attitude toward scripture: This attitude assumes that all of the tradition is potentially open for application to all times and all situations, presumably because God is seen to be at work in similar ways throughout history. As James Kugel has put it: Scripture constitutes one great Book of Instruction, and as such is a fundamentally relevant text. (p. 19). Or in the words of Michael Fishbane: Midrash determines the sense of each component through extending the context of the component to the entirety of Scripture (the original setting is often immaterial). (1998:12-13) and further: Ongoing interpretations do not therefore add to Gods original voice, but rather give it historical and human expressions. (p. 11). Thus midrashic exegesis, whether in scripture or outside of it, seeks to extend the meaning of the core of the tradition to as many contexts as possible. What distinguishes inner-biblical from later midrash is the consciousness of a fixed body of written tradition which was authoritative and normative, and about which all further midrash would concern itself.

2

Secondly, midrash is an exegetical approach: As Kugel states, this approach sees the Bible is a fundamentally cryptic document. (p. 18). Thus one cannot assume that there is anything like a clear meaning of a text in an original context. This goes beyond the simple attitude of wide applicability for texts, and opens up the possibility of uncovering a hidden or true meaning of a text for a later time. Finally, midrash involves creative literary-rhetorical devices, often involving textual details such a phrases, words, or even letters. There were various methodologies used, such as exploiting textual difficulties, or simply playing off of the inherent ambiguities present in texts with no vowels. Often ancient interpreters tried to find more sense(s) in of a text than the text apparently meant there to be. Kugel (pp. 362-63) notes that there was a tradition of the rock which traveled with the Israelites in the wilderness, referred to in 1 Cor. 10.14. this was built on the fact that a rock out of which water flowed was mentioned in two different places in the itinerary of Israels wanderings. Again Kugel: every detail is important Jacob is said to dwell in tents is interpreted to imply at least two tents[e.g. by focusing on the plural], one for school and one for home. (p. 21). As Fishbane notes: Letters in one place may therefore be related to letters in another; and words or phrases from a given part of Scripture are revealed through midrashic methods to refer to the same thing as words and phrases found elsewhere. The emergent enchainment (arizah) of possibilities thus dramatizes what is always the presupposition of midrashic exegesis: that all Scripture is one inter-connected whole. (p.13). The NT adds an important interpretive element: nearly everything in the tradition is seen to point to Jesus. Thus key phrases, words, or even letters, freed from their historical and textual contexts, could be used to fashion the exegesis needed for a different time, often along the lines of polemical, even political, rhetoric. There is still a tradition of that sort of rhetoric in modern times, as the following example will illustrate. Political polemic and debate Some time ago, there was a debate between two political candidates for the U.S. presidency. One of the fundamental differences between the two men was their 3

position on domestic fiscal policy. The younger candidate emphasized this at a key point during the debate, stating that he and his supporters were baffled by his opponents position on the economy, and that furthermore, another politician from the elder candidates own party had referred to it as voodoo economics. The elder candidate patiently waited his turn, and then said with a smile, My opponent may be baffled at my economic plan. His supporters may be baffled. But I am not baffled. And my supporters are not baffled. At this, his supporters wildly cheered, while the younger candidates supporters glumly stared in silence. The reversal of the meaning of the term baffled to make the opponents statement say what the elder candidate wanted it to say in place of its plain meaning on the lips of the younger candidate is precisely one of the key elements of midrashic methodology. The major difference in the case of biblical midrash is that there is not usually an attempt to deny a given interpretation of a biblical tradition (though this does happen at times). Rather it works to make a text say something completely different (often making the original meaning logically impossible in the process), while not explicitly denying the original text or its interpretation at all. There is a logic of faith or belief at work, in which if one accepts the underlying truth of the midrashic re-interpretation (whether that a politicians economic plan makes sense or that Jesus was born of a virgin), then the quoted statement can be seen (out of its original context) as completely true. Once we recognize the (usual) word-play aspect of midrash, to most modern people it is still a strange logic of association which midrashic exegesis employs. To many a modern reader it feels like simple misquotation, a taking of words and meanings out of context. But one must account for the logic of faith. As in the example above, if one already believes that something is true (e.g. that the economic program is sound, or that Jesus is divine), then finding seeming proof of that in an obscure rhetorical corner can simply be a confirmation of the faith that already holds the argument to be true. And many modern people do still in fact think along associational lines. The experience of thousands of church-goers every Sunday morning should remind us that midrash is very much alive and well. When we disagree with the point being made, we call it misquoting, or using the text out of context. But when we agree, we 4

are hard pressed to criticize. Even if we must admit the application was far-fetched, we like the rhetorical point, and often will defend it as such. In the ancient world it was virtually the only kind of argumentation available. While the Greeks had already introduced philosophy, rhetoric was far more popular. And for disputation, the only question was what sort of rhetoric would be applied. Paul Ricoeur (1981), in describing a post-modern approach to literature, also shows how in certain circles at least some aspects of midrash are being recognized as simply what happens to (particularly written) communication once it loses its original context: An essential characteristic of a literary work, and of a work of art in general, is that it transcends its own psycho-sociological conditions of production, and thereby opens itself to an unlimited series of readings, themselves situated in different socio-cultural conditions. In short, the text must be able, from the sociological as well as the psychological point of view, to decontextualize itself in such a way that it can be recontextualized in a new situation as accomplished, precisely, by the act of reading. (p. 139). Ricoeur states (in his own way, using the term distanciation) that texts lose their original contexts of interpretation as conditions and thus mental maps change: when it is no longer possible to identify the thing spoken about as part of the common situation of the interlocutors. (p. 140).

Examples Incipient midrashic activity There are many examples of reinterpretation or association which do not yet reach the level of midrash for the purposes of our definition, either because the reinterpretation is simply an extension of something in the original text (the David example below), or because it lacks the catch-word (or phrase) methodology so characteristic of what distinguishes later rabbinic midrash. Still one can see some of the same assumptions about the all-pervasive relevance of scripture and its reapplicability to new situations.

5

David in Kings and Chronicles Many commentators have noted the obvious way in which the Chronicler rewrites what was presumably its source material in Kings. While not yet midrash, this kind of re-direction of an original text has some incipient characteristics of what will later become full-blown reinterpretation: The principal and most characteristic block of Chr sets forth the achievement of David, chiefly the regulation of the Temple cult Both Davids rise to power in displacing Saul and the melancholy saga of succession to Davids throne are omitted. In exchange, the emergence of David is introduced The history of Davids successors differs in important points from the Deuteronomist record in Kgs Allusions in which vice seems to be rewarded are expunged, and edifying episodes are either heightened or inserted from elsewhere, or even, as a kind of theological reasoning, created. (North:1968). James Kugel records several examples of thematic reinterpretation found in the NT which do not reach the level of what we consider midrash, but often only due to the fact that they do not involve the rhetorical catch-word devices so characteristic of later rabbinic midrash. What is interesting about them is their dependence on common Jewish interpretation of the same era. Inherited sin or inherited mortality? The NT doctrine of original (inherited) sin (e.g. Rom 5.12, et. al.) was at one time a Jewish interpretation (found in 4 Ezra) which was later abandoned. A parallel notion of inherited mortality (as punishment for the original sin of Adam and Eve) was kept within Judaism (pp. 71-72). Genesis 3 supports inherited mortality, but original sin takes a bit more reading between the lines of the Hebrew Bible. The snake is Satan The specific association of the snake of Genesis 3 with Satan (in Rev. 12.9, 20.2) was part of a widespread Jewish understanding in the NT period (cf. the Apocalypse of Moses) (pp. 73-74). In the Hebrew Bible the snake represents temptation, or evil, but is never explicitly identified as Satan. 6

Eve is to blame The idea that Eve was to blame for the fall is found not only in 1 Tim 2.13-14, but also in various Jewish sources of the period (p. 76). This can be extrapolated from the first chapters of Genesis, but is by no means explicit in the Hebrew text. Both the man and the woman are blamed and punished, seemingly equally. Heaven and the Garden of Eden Images of heaven as Paradise, at times with a tree of (everlasting) life are found in Luke and Revelation in the NT, but also in many extra-biblical Jewish sources, as either an earthly or a heavenly preservation of the Garden of Eden (pp. 81-82).

Midrash in the Bible Kugel also includes two clear and well-known examples of inner-biblical midrash in which the NT re-interprets the Hebrew Bible: Word and Light The story of creation in Genesis already had produced a rich tradition of reinterpretation by the NT era. Hellenized Jews understood Wisdom to have been created first. Kugel quotes Philo: Now that invisible light, perceptible only by mind, was created as an image of the Gods Word [Logos], who made its creation known. It was a light higher than the stars, the source of the starlight that can be seen. (p. 58). One only needs to compare the first verses of John to see both the method and the further re-interpretation: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (RSV)

7

Wisdom, first associated in hellenistic Judaism with (creative) light and the (creative) Word (Logos-a philosophical notion as we can see in the quote from Philo), is further associated with Jesus in John by means of these same motifs. John further develops the light and darkness themes along moral rather than philosophical lines. The result is words which are the same, and meanings which are completely different. Bread from heaven in John In another well-known re-interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the NT, Jesus in John 6 states: it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. Moses did not give the people manna but rather God. (p. 362). In Jesus time his questioners were implicitly attempting to place him a step lower than Moses, who was commonly considered to be the one who had fed the Israelites not simply bread, as Jesus had just done, but bread from heaven, or manna, in the desert. The expectation of another miracle of manna was also a Messianic one, so this was also an implicit denial of Jesus role as Messiah (he only gave earthly bread, not bread from heaven as the second Moses would do). Johns Jesus replies with an explicit double re-interpretation: First of all Jesus makes sure that the common Messianic idea of the agent as Moses is replaced by God. In so doing, he merely restores the original context of Exodus 16.4. But Jesus does not stop there. If God gives bread from heaven, it must be true (spiritual) bread, not just physical sustenance. Now if manna as bread from heaven trumps earthly bread, surely spiritual bread from heaven (a reference to Jesus own life and work) trumps both. Jobs reversal of creation Job speaks these famous words in Job 3.3-4: Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night which said, A man-child is conceived. Let that day be darkness! May God above not seek it, nor light shine upon it. 8

In an obvious reversal of the words of Genesis 1:3 Let there be light, the author of Job is using all of the features of midrash, though at rather straightforward and limited way. In speaking of the day and night of his birth, Job wishes God may blot them out of the calendar, may uncreate them (4a is, lit., That daylet there be darkness! reversing the Let there be light! of Gn 1:3) (MacKenzie:1968). The virgin in Isaiah 7.14 and the NT One of the most controversial cases of midrash is found in Matthew 1.23: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanu-el (which means, God with us). This is presumably a quote from Isaiah 7.14: Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el. While the term in Hebrew can mean virgin, in the context of the Isaiah passage young woman fits much better. It seems that Matthew uses the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint) to achieve the meaning he needs, that of virgin. The Greek term is far more unambiguously a reference to a virgin, and so suits Matthews purposes. It is important to note here that though the author of Matthew doubtless knew the Hebrew text, he did not consider himself to be misquoting or misusing the tradition. By the logic of faith and midrashic exegesis, he puts forward what he believes to be true, that is, that Jesus was born of a virgin and that the sacred tradition cryptically (this time in the form of the Greek translation) attested to that fact. What to some modern readers might seem like manipulation of the text was to ancient rhetoricians and audiences alike merely effective argumentation. Marks naked young man At the scene of Jesus betrayal, the author of Marks gospel records the following (Mark 14.51-52):

9

And

a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and

they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. This text has been used by some scholars as a kind of signature by John Mark, the traditional author of the gospel, to relate a personal account which might reasonably be imagined only to be known or remembered by the one involved. But there is another, more midrashic, possibility. In Amos 2.16 we find the following text: and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, The term translated mighty by the RSV above is always understood as a young man, usually in the sense of virile and physically capable young man, a potential hero. In the context of Amos, the young men running away naked are throwing down their armor in the great eschatological battle. Certainly the catch-words naked and young man/hero point to the possibility of a midrash in Mark. Marks text would in such a case have made the theological point that the day predicted by Amos had indeed come, and if proof were needed, here were young men running away naked from the eschatological conflict. This kind of example may seem far-fetched to a modern reader, but to those so familiar with the biblical text as were religious audiences in the NT era, it seems just as improbable that they would not have made such connections. Pauls seed Paul makes a particularly rhetorical kind of midrash in Galatians 3.16 with a twist on the word seed (KJV): Now

to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,

as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. What Paul is plainly saying here is that because seed is grammatically singular (in Greek and Hebrew, as in English), it must refer to just one man, not the many it was 10

plainly interpreted to refer to by everyone up to that point. As a collective singular, it was understood as a semantic plural to mean descendants, and certainly did mean just that. Paul exploits a grammatical nuance and uses it to support something he and those who agree with him already believethat Jesus is the Messiah, the recipient of the promises made to Abraham. Yet Paul himself knows that he is engaging in rhetorical word-play. A few verses later, he says the following (Gal 3.29, KJV): And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. Here it is clear Paul knows that seed can be (and almost always is in cases where it refers to biological descendants) a collective singular, that is, semantically plural. So Paul, as with all good midrashists, can have it both ways. Jesus Moses and the burning bush In Luke 20.37 (cf. Mrk 12:27; Mat 22.32) we find Jesus speaking these words to some Sadducees who had tried to trip him up regarding the resurrection of the dead: But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him. In order to explain what Jesus meant here in detail, we must define what the of means in the phrase Lord the God of Abraham In the original context of the Hebrew Bible, it plainly meant the God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped while they were alive. But Jesus seizes on an idea which his enemies would have to agree to, namely that God is the God of the living and not of the dead. Thus the patriarchs must be (or will be) alive (i.e. resurrected), and by extension, the of in the phrase Lord the God o f Abraham must mean the God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worship even now (or will worship).

11

That this is clearly not the meaning of the phrase in the original texts where it is found bothers Jesus not at all. He believes that the patriarchs are or will be resurrected, and the text he uses can be forced to say that, even against its will, so to speak. That this method was well accepted at the time is attested to by the response of the scribes: Teacher, you have spoken well. The poor you will always have with you In Mark 14.7 (cf. Mat 26.11, Jhn 12.8) Jesus answers those who wish to criticize the woman who used some expensive ointment to pour on his head to honor him instead of selling the ointment and giving the money to the poor: you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. This text, especially in the Matthean and Johannine forms which lack the phrase and whenever you will, you can do good to them; has been sometimes used to defend the idea that one should in fact not be generous to the poor, since they will waste it and end up poor again anyway. Obviously, by looking at the Markan version, as well as the context, that was never Jesus point. But the Jesus of the gospels is indeed changing the tradition he is citing. The reference is to Deuteronomy 15.11: For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, you shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land. The equivalent of Jesus you always have the poor with you... is found in For the poor will never cease out of the land but the resulting expected actions based on this premise are quite different. Jesus does not overturn Deuteronomys command to be generous, but he does allow it to be temporarily suspended in light of his own importance and the fact that he will not always be available. The point in the NT is that Jesus is so important that even a command as important as the one to be generous to the poor can be temporarily put on hold. And it is accomplished by turning the always with you/never cease terminology from the reason one should always remember to be generous (Deuteronomy) into the reason

12

this important command can be shelved for the short time Jesus is on earth (you will not always have me). Only the Father knows In Mark 13.32 we find the statement that ". . . only the Father" knows the eschatological day or hour, that is, the day of judgment. But this idea is not invented by Marks Jesus. This phrase depends on a midrash of Zech. 14.5, which says, according to the Hebrew text, "and that day shall be one, which is known to the Lord," which means simply that there will come a day, a day which the Lord knows. It does not say that only the Lord knows when it will be, but in the context of the Hebrew Bible, it is certainly a possible inference. Yet NT era Jews might well have expected that the Messiah would know this as well. Jesus wants to make it clear not only that he does not know when that day will come, but that he should not be expected to know it either. The midrash he makes involves a syntactic alternate reading, unusual but not impossible in the Hebrew text. Jesus reads the "one" in the Hebrew text as belonging with the second clause, and in so doing it becomes "and that day shall be, which only is known to the Lord." Thus it takes on a meaning consistent with the Marcan context (Doeve:p.152)

Conclusion There are many other examples of inner-biblical midrash, some of them quite complex, which have been presented by this author and by others elsewhere (Bascom:1985, forthcoming; Fishbane:1998; et. al.). Once a reader becomes attuned to the style and familiar with the sources, midrash can be found throughout the Bible, both the Hebrew Bible and the NT. It was a way of thinking about the tradition which had come before, a way of honoring it and of making it live again. Ancient authors honored their predecessors in ways which many would find strange, even dishonest, today. Thus Moses may not have written the whole of the Jewish Law, or David all the Psalms, or Solomon, all the Proverbs, yet they are at times presented as if they did just that, apparently to honor them. Modern readers may at first be taken aback by the seeming freedom that midrash exercises in it reuse of it material. It is certainly not of the same type as modern citation of sources. Yet 13

people of the biblical eras knew well the sources as well as appreciated the rhetorical reinterpretations made of them, presumably especially when they agreed with the points being made. The task for the modern reader is to understand the ancient processes, and while perhaps not being able to emulate them in every way in the modern context, to at least allow them their place and to appreciate them for what they were trying to achieve.

14

Bibliography Bascom, Robert. Preparing the WayMidrash in the Bible forthcoming (in Spanish) in Parabolas, ed. by E. Snchez. Bascom, Robert. Text and Context: The Use of the Old Testament in Marks Gospel (unpublished paper). Bascom, Robert. The Targums: Ancient Readers Helps? in The Bible Translator, Vol. 36 No. 3 July 1985, pp. 301-316. Doeve, J.W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, (Assen: Van Goreum 1954). North, Robert, S.J. The Chronicler:1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah in Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968); The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Logos electronic version). R. A. F. MacKenzie, S.J. Job in Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968); The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Logos electronic version). Michael Fishbane. The Exegetical Imagination Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1998 Fraade, Steven D. 1991. From tradition to commentary: Torah and its interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. Albany: State University of New York Press. James Kugel, The Bible As It Was. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1997 Porton, Gary G. Midrash, in Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992. (Logos electronic version). Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (ed. & trans. By John B. Thompson) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

15