Readings on MIDRASHIM René A. López, PhD. Introduction. Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and the New Testament Interpretation, pp

Transcription

1 1 Readings on MIDRASHIM René A. López, PhD Introduction A number of scholars have written to identify, and thus clarify, the New Testament (NT) study of Midrash. However, it seems NT scholarship has not reached a consensus on a precise definition of what midrashim means. Hence A. G. Wright says: Unfortunately,... as the situation has developed, it has become more and more evident that there is little agreement among authors on what the genre midrash really is. 1 Though universal consensus on the meaning of Midrash as of yet is not apparent, the following summary of each article betrays more similarities than incongruence. The purpose of this article is to summarize the material read. Attention will be paid to Robert H. Gundry s definition of Midrash, and Darrel L. Bock s assessment of the background affects the discussion of blasphemy and the theme of power. Finally, various hermeneutical midrashic observations of Psalm 2 will be made. Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and the New Testament Interpretation, pp Craig E. Evans s treatment of Midrashim materials and brief summaries of each Tannaic Midrashic literature (of specific characteristics, date of origin and NT parallel passages) that becomes eye opening to understanding (1) how midrash material works and (2) NT thought. For example, the midrash in sûirata 1.10 on Exodus 15:1, which states: Then Moses sang. It explains how after the midrashim does a word study on }aœz ( then ) and the observes and comments on the verb yaœsûˆîr ( sang ), as both connoting past but future events that Moses will participate. It suggest one can read Exodus 15:1 as: Then Moses will sing. Therefore, if Moses died long ago, but he in the future will sing again the midrashim deduces: we find that we can derive the resurrection of that from the Torah. This is very similar to the exegesis done by Christ when confronting the Saducees question on marriage and the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-46, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40 (p 129). Evans also gives excellent bibliographic materials and SBL s abbreviations of such titles. At one point Evans disagrees with Jacob Neusner s conclusion that messianism, thus implying salvation, was insignificant to early Judaism (cf. pp ). Evans also notes how there are references made to Jesus in rabbinic writings, but for fear of persecution during the Middle ages, the scribes omitted or altered several explicit references to Jesus (p 143). There were also changes made in the names for fear of persecution. Hence, Evans says that determining what reference belongs to Jesus is rather ambiguous. Thus, Evans gives an excellent overview of all type of sources and a terrific overview of the midrashim material. 1 A. G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 106.

2 2 A. G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 28 (1966): , 417. Right away Wright notices how Renée Bloch defines rabbinic midrash in Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplement: as a homiletic reflection or meditation on the Bible which seeks to reinterpret or actualize a given text of the past for present circumstances 2 Further on Bloch defines a constant reference to the biblical data, dramatization and reinterpretation of the events and aspirations of the age... [and] the use of scriptural texts for the purpose of edification in the light of contemporary needs (Sir 44,1-50, 24); a work which alludes to earlier history and suppresses, embellishes and rearranges the traditional accounts and impose a new meaning on them. 3 However, Wright notices that her use of the term is not consistent (cf. p 107). Hence to define midrash has lead scholars to an impasse (cf ). Wright does a marvelous job in defining the term. The English word midrash comes out the Hebrews transliterated noun vår dim in 2 Chronicles 13:22 translated annals in the NKJV and assumes its literary veracity (cf. 2 Chr 24:27, the only two places where this term appears in the HB). What the Chronicler meant by midrash is highly disputed today (p 113). The word midrash in the Qumran documents seems to be used as interpretation of Torah or interpretation exposition (pp ). Wright indicates: By the time of the QL, then, mid rasû had clearly come to mean interpretation (p 117). However, in rabbinic literature midrash came to mean study, inquiry, but it was predominantly used to mean Scriptural interpretation. Wright says, In this sense it designated the procedure, as well as the thing produced; the single interpretive statement (pl. mid rasûot) (118). Wright defines how it came to be used under rabbinic literature: It also designated a collection of such interpretation (pl. mid rasûim). Furthermore it was used to designate a branch of Jewish oral tradition. The whole of oral tradition was called Mishnah (in the broad sense) and within Mishnah most rabbis distinguished three objects and activities of study: a) Midrash-the interpretation of the Bible, especially legislative portions of the Pentateuch. b) Halakah (Halakoth or Mishnah [in the restricted sense]) the systematic and topical assembling or halakic (legal) statement extracted from the Midrash and presented without their biblical proof texts. c) Haggdah (or Haggdoth) non-legal biblical interpretation (118-19). 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.,

3 3 Thus Wright develops the different characteristics, structure, and literary use of rabbinic midrash. He correctly clarifies: The implication in this literary usage is that the word is based, not on the rabbinic usage of mid rasû to designate the activity of study or the activity of the biblical interpretation or a type of exegesis, but on that rabbinic usage which designates a specific corpus of literature within Jewish oral tradition. 4 Although Wright explains how rabbis embellished (p 430) and derived from a biblical text fanciful interpretations: A midrash is a work that attempts to make a text of Scripture understandable, useful, and relevant for a later generation. It is the text of Scripture which is the point of departure, and it is for the sake of the text that the midrash exists (p 137). Finally, Wright discusses pêserû by analyzing the distinction between mid rasûim and if midrash is found in Targums, Josephus writings, the Chronicler, Pseudephigraphal writings, different literary styles and genres. 5 Thus, he concludes that although they may appear to be midrash due to their similar characteristics they do not have the predominant thrust of the mid rasûim texts. Hence they do not fall under the same genre category. Furthermore, Wright does not locate a rabbinic genre in the NT since it does not meet the criteria he formulated that distinguishes other writings from midrashic writings. Renée Bloch, Midrash, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, William Scott Green, ed., (Missioula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), Renée Bloch s goal is similar to that of Wright s above. She defines by clarifying current misunderstanding of midrash. Thus, she states: The pejorative sense which is often given to the word midrash occasions, among other things, an unfortunate misunderstanding of the antecedents of this genre in biblical literature. 6 Therefore, it will be impossible to arrive at a greater level of understanding of the biblical texts since midrash aids in understanding the way they understood and interpreted certain texts. 7 Hence Bloch s main thesis may be summarized as follows:... the midrash genre, which comprises an explanation and a deepening of the Bible by the Bible, is the ideal area for this research, for it provides the key, especially for the post-exilic literature. Hence the importance of an accurate idea and sufficient knowledge of the midrash genre for the study and understanding of the sacred Books. 8 Since Bloch believes many biblical texts are filled with mid rasûim, she sees the need to do careful studies of these other texts to 4 Ibid., Ibid., Renée Bloch, Midrash, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green (Missioula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), Ibid., 50. For this reason she says: Hence also the usefulness of the study of post-biblical midrashic literature, which can be of great help in giving this idea its accurate shape and acquiring sufficient knowledge of the literary genre itself which is the most characteristic and yet the least understood of the Bible. 8 Ibid., 49.

4 4 help us do better exegesis. 9 Thus, she locates many midrashic passages within the OT (e.g., Ezek 16; Isa 60 62), as well as NT passages. Roger Le Déaut, Aporpos a Definition of Midrash, Interpretation 25 (July 1971): Roger Le Déaut s premise is to provide a middle of the road perspective. That is, he seems to see areas that blindsided Wright s position by being vague of his definition of haggadah and skewing details important which are absent from his arguments before formulating a concluding premise. 10 Thus, Le Déaut believes: Careful study of midrash should lead to a more precise view of the Old Testament in the life of Judaism including its function in the New Testament, 11 which he believes Wright s article did not meet fully since he has assumed his conclusion at the outset (cf ). Nevertheless, Déaut concludes that studying Midrash through Judaism and Christian interpretation must not be the only venues, but also through classical styles in classic and post Attic literature. This is what is called Comparative Midrash. To him Midrash is highly complex and found throughout Scripture. Therefore, since Midrash is complex, it may not be described. Midrash shows a development of reasoning and thinking. Thus, rabbis did not conform to a certain style as much as they conformed to a distinct tradition in which they wrote. Hence to emphasize the literary category above other interpretive factors one may miss other important elements present in midrashic writings. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), pp Robert H. Gundry s article in thought provoking. His thesis is that Matthew s Gospel (or for that matter in many NT books) is not just a historical account but uses a number midrashic and haggadahic methods of communication. Therefore, one ought to rethink their whole approach to exegesis. From pages , Gundry develops the biases of the common three interpretive groups (conservative Protestantism, liberal Protestantism and Roman 9 This is contra Wright who believes the Scriptures are not midrashic and should not be confused with midrashic literature. 10 Roger Le Déaut, Aporpos a Definition of Midrash, Interpretation 25 (July 1971): 74, points to the heart of Wright s problem and where the debate centers: Wright continually insists on one other sine qua non condition for midrash: The new composition must exist for the sake of the biblical text (pp. 84, 120, 122, 138, 140). I seems to us that this is the heart of the problem ans that the tension between the two poles of midrash which assume a biblical text and its adaptation is clear. Thus Le Déaut asks three fundamental questions if this is the case: Is it primarily concerned with serving the text or with using the text to respond to the needs of actualization? Is the chief purpose to write a new composition in order to respond to actual circumstances (e.g., to the needs of the liturgy) or does the text remain the center of interest and the ultimate reference? 11 Ibid., 61.

5 5 Catholicism) by way of explaining their pro s and con s to their approach of interpreting Scripture. He does a marvelous job. For example, he accuses the conservative wing of Protestantism of anachronism by attributing twenty-first century way of recording history to all biblical authors. Their view of inspiration and inerrancy is much too narrow, besides of being ignorant of common Jewish conventional ways of recording history of the day. He explains how the first century historian was not scientifically driven, as today s world. Hence the early historian s way of recording history was not intended as straight forward record of history, not only because that was not the conventional way of recording history, but to make OT passages meaninful to their contemporary audience. They were not just recording history in the strict sense but recording ethical standards by which to live. Thus, although conservative Protestantism s high view of Scripture and its authority should be applauded, the methods used to arrive at the author s intent and meaning needs reworking. Gundry shows how evangelicals, like R. C. Sproul who have objected to his premise, have done the same thing in their own writing without giving notice once to their actions. He shows how Sproul super embellishes many biblical account to the point that become unscriptural but at the same time objects to midrash as being satanically induced (p 631). Thus Gundry says: Well, if midrash is devilish, is satanically antithetical to divine truth, why do we all, Sproul included, practice the technique? Not because we devalue the Bible or disregard historical truth in it.... On the contrary, we do so out of deep conviction that the Bible should speak to us today even at some cost to historical accuracy! (pp ). The liberal Protestant approaches it in totally the opposite way the conservative. Everything that was said above for the conservative becomes the reverse thought of the liberal Protestant. Usually an anti-supernatural view of Scripture permeates their view. Thus they do not hold to a high integrity of Scripture. However, they are experts when it comes to knowing and using the common conventional methods of the apostolic age to arrive at the exegesis of the text. The Roman Catholics have taken a middle of the ground approach, but have now caved in to much of the liberal redaction methods to the neglect of the biblical authority [that] starts dissolving in the ocean of ecclesiastical tradition As a result of all of this, the way all groups have approached exegesis, e.g., in Matthew or the synoptic Gospels, needs reassessment. Conservatives have been far too content in sweeping unanswerable texts with supposing discrepancies under the rug or by harmonizing the texts by common methods of different authorial intent or similarities of events that occurred more than once. Gundry thinks this method falls short from the honesty the text demands when NT writers quote passages from OT texts that are irrelevant to their original contexts. Hence he proposes having a high view of Scripture of course that NT writers are well in line by recording passages in a midrashic and haggadic sense, since this was the common way of the day of communicating and contemporizing a text for practical reasons. He understands that while NT authors did it we do not have the right to do it. Furthermore, the fact they did it does not under mind the authority of Scripture, because God could have meant for them to do just that. Therefore, the original context of a given passage could be embellished or recorded in parabolic sense (i.e., not historical) and still to convey the essence of the truth the passage intents to

6 6 teach. Gundry understands that first-century audience would have picked up this types of genre without thinking the writer tried to deceive them. Thus to identify the Sitz im Leben of the text, found by identifying the conventional way of communicating of the day, will help rectify this problem. Redaction, in Gundry s explanation, is not juxtaposed to Holy Spirit guidance. By drawing attention of how the gospels were written, Gundry believes they underwent different stages before the ultimate tradition was formed. All of these occurred under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus the finish product, not the methods of how that occurred, should be how one views inspiration and inerrancy. Each separate stage the text underwent changes was significant to their immediate audience s context and as the historical situation changed through time so did the text by redactors participation in the process. However, Gundry believes the Holy Spirit could easily have preserved the necessary elements needed for each of those stages while at the same time eliminated insignificant elements. Thus the finish product is what should be viewed as inspired and inerrant. In Gundry s view, Matthew accommodated the materials before him in the midrashic and haggadahic traditions used of the day. However, he also sees many differences to the midrashic and haggadahic traditions of the day that keep him from suggesting Matthew is entirely a midrashic and haggadahic work. He keeps in line with the synoptic tradition by acknowledging that Matthew was dependent on Mark, Luke and Q as primary sources. Darrel L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. WUNT 2?106 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998), pp , First, Darrel L. Bock shows how the term blasphemy is understood in Judaism. Bock knows that the Targums are for the most part paraphrases of biblical texts, and therefore helpful source in defining the semantic range of the term blasphemy. For example, in Onqelos the same punishment for blasphemy applied to those who blasphemed God was equally applied for rebelling against the leaders (p 73). Bock also shows in the Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) of Leviticus 24:11-23 that blasphemy involves the pronunciation of the divine name (cf. Targum Neofiti v 11, Targum Onqelos, pp ). Although not specifically clear, Bock convincingly indicates (in Targum Onqelos Num 15:30-31, especially v 30) how violation of the Sabbath became an equally offensive crime as blaspheming God. Though blaspheming is not directly mentioned, other equally related conceptual passages notes it (cf. the Mishnah m Ker 1.1-2; see also Targum Jonathan on 1 Kgs 21:10, 13, pp 77-79). In Midrashim writings, Bock points out that blaspheming was also dependent on one s mention of God s name, but one may also face the same penalty for substitution of other names used of God if one s actions toward Him is dishonoring. Hence Bock says: This midrash in Sifra maintains the rabbinical view that blasphemy requires the name, though what is not stated is what happens if one continues to dishonor God after a warning with substitute terms (p 78). Even arrogance against God is viewed as blasphemous (p 86). Thus, Bock shows example after example of how, These midrashim considered as a unit exhibit a certain broader view of blasphemy, though

7 7 many of the examples are corporate in character. Nonetheless, a figure like Goliath shows an individual blaspheming without being involved in a more narrow use of the Name (p 83). After Bock s thorough analysis of the term blasphemy having such a broad conceptual range, one can understand why Jesus statement: And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power in Mark 14:62b is considered blasphemous. However, as one reads vv 61-64, not only is it evident that Jesus was accused of blasphemy, but two words blessed and power appear in vv with a unique meaning that unless understood in its Judaic background, the concept will be missed. Bock shows from rabbinic writings m Ber 7.3 and in 1 En 77:2 how the expression the blessed One was a respectful way used in synagogues in prayers to address God (cf. b Ber 49b-50a, Mek-Pisha 16 on Exod 13:3, et al, p 216). Thus the term JKr;b was reserved for God in Judaism (p. 216). Hence one can say the Blessed One is indeed a circumlocution for God, since it is well attested in Midrashim and intertestamental literature texts. The same could be said but with greater force since power appears more clearly defined for the expression the right hand of the Power. The term power also appears in Midrashim and intertestamental literature texts as Son of Man and power linked in 1 En 62:7. Similar links to God and power appear in Sifre Num 112 [15:31], b Er 54b, b Yebam 105b, Tg Job 5:8, and Sifre Deut 319 [32:18]. Numerous other rabbis (in b Meg 31b, Mek-Beshallah 2 [26a], Mek-Amalek 4 [59], and Mek-Bahodesh 9 [71a]) see a link in the term power mentioned by Moses connection with God that also stands for God (pp ). Hence Bock correctly says: Thus to invoke the Power is to speak of the God of the nation who speaks with authority. The expression is so widely attested in the early midrashim that it has a good claim to early roots (p 218). In light of the rabbinic background various things may be noted of the blasphemous accusation hurled at Jesus in Mark 14: (1) The unique claim of Jesus to be sitting next to God with power widely used in rabbinic circles caused the leaders to accuse him of blasphemy, since God and power were commonly linked to the same Being. (2) Therefore, Mark s use of this phrase could not be an early church gloss, or just a circumlocution for fear of using God since Mark uses the name God unsparingly throughout his gospel (e.g. 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; 15:39) (3) Both terms blessed and power are clearly circumlocutions for God used in Judaism. (4) Hence since both terms were not familiar concepts of circumlocution known to the early church, it would not be appreciated or well known for such a gloss to occur. Thus, Son of God instead of Son of the Blessed would make a better argument for an early church gloss but not the opposite. (4) The High Priest and the Sanhedrin counsel were within their cultural and rules of law in accusing Jesus of blasphemy. No such redaction or early church gloss occurred in Mark 14: Thus, it becomes unprecedented to study Jewish literature background setting in order to better understand the NT. Midrash on Psalm 2: Hermeneutical Observations (1) Midrash of Psam 2 involves support from other parallel passages that at some point in the Psalm rabbis seek to support certain points. These points, whether it be

8 8 heathens that war against God s anointed (as v 1 indicates) or the mourning of those that will be overthrown (as in v4), find support by other parallel passages. (2) References are made to different rabbis who comment on the text, thus indicating all of these comments are made by rabbis. For example, in some cases in Rabbi makes references to another Rabbis teaching: R. Isaac bar Hama taught (or R. Samuel bar Nahmai). This show how they believed in giving weight and authority to what other rabbis said. (3) A set of homilies composes this Psalm in order to bring out the practical element of the text. Is as if, the Rabbis are preaching and giving practical applications that folks can relate. (4) Numerous examples are given from other Scriptures. For example, passages are quoted from Isaiah 57:20, Exodus 5:2, and Malachi 3:13 to show examples of heathens raging (cf. vv 1-2). Many passages are pulled together to validate the Rabbis argument. (5) At other instances third party Rabbis are cited as follows: R. Aha said in the name of R. Samuel (v 6). This shows how much they respected the teaching of other rabbis down through generations. (6) Many of these explanations amplify and explain. Thus, it seems much like a sermon with practical implementation involved by quoting other passages. (7) The meaning of Psalm 2 comes by quoting numerous, not just one, rabbis. (8) The phrase introduce to validate the passage at hand with another passage is the following: Elsewhere, this is what Scripture says (cf. v 2). Furthermore, when another passage contrasts something just said they also use the phrase: But elsewhere Scripture says (v 7). (9) Rhetorical questions and contemporary examples are given from their day as Midrash Psalm 2:11 indicates: When one of the prominent men of Sepphoris, a heretic it is said, lost his son by death, R. Jose went up to comfort him. When he saw the man, R. Jjose smiled. Then the man asked: Why art thou smiling? This in fact becomes a dialogue as part of the process used to explain. (10) In an ingenious way, the Rabbis interweave biblical passages elsewhere to the immediate context in Psalm 2 and make it come alive. Conclusion Without a doubt, this has probably been one of the most rewarding reading of my doctoral course. To understand how Midrashim works can renovate a person s understanding of NT background, as well as the NT itself!

9 9 Bibliography Bloch, Renée. Midrash. In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green, Missioula, MT: Scholars Press, Le Déaut, Roger. Aporpos a Definition of Midrash. Interpretation 25 (July 1971): Wright, A. G. The Literary Genre Midrash. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): ,