Introduction:
The midrash rabba and the halakhic midrashism are critical elements found within the study of the midrash. At their most basic level, the midrash rabba and the halakhic midrashism can be identified as genres of religions study. These two types of midrash are approaches through which the Scriptures and the holy texts can be examined. There are specific traits embedded within the halakhic midrashism and the midrash rabba which make them easy to identify for the religious scholar. This paper shall illustrate the major differenced which emerge in the study of the halakhic midrashism and the midrash rabba.
The Halakhic Midrashim:
The halakhic midrashim are a specific genre of midrash texts. They correspond to the midrash of principle interpretations of the Scripture. The origin of halakhic midrashim is from the Tanakh. There are several principle forms of halakhic midrashim, and are consolidated on the texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, the most important of the halakhic midrashim are those which are found concerning the Book of Exodus. The strategy used in assessing all halakhic midrashim is that of exegetical strategy, or a critical and explanatory method through which to approach the original holy texts.
The principle function of the halakhic midrashim is to identify and promote a concept of law based upon the content of the Scripture. In reading a text through the methods and strategies consolidated within halakhic midrashim, it is assumed that the reader is seeking to identify the concepts of law and social order that are contained within the original text. This is the principle reason as to why the teachings of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are so important within the halakhic midrashim: These three books of the bible tend to contain a significant number of legal and social commentaries which can be examined through exegetical practices and their meaning interpreted. A secondary function of the halakhic midrashim was to document the exegesis of the Jews. The emphasis on the exodus suggests embedded cultural, social, and legal norms for the Jewish people. The study of the exodus and the early travels of the Jews thus is believed in halakhic midrashim to characterize a series of norms which convey acceptable behaviors.
As a genre of midrash, all halakhic midrashim tend to have emerged around 400 CE. Theologists identify the emergence of the halakhic midrashim as a strategy through which the rabbis were able to ensure communication of Jewish law to Jews. This was an important concept within Judaism, after the Jews were removed from their homeland, for there was no appropriate centralized system of laws. The creation of the halakhic midrashim served as both a literal translation of meaning from the Scriptures, and also helped encompass a set of “hermeneutic” laws or rules. It has been argued that all investigation of the Torah helps serve this purpose to some extent, for the study of the holy texts and the Scripture should automatically convey a sense of behavioral law to the reader. In this sense, there are traditional halakhic midrashim and there are, potentially, a general form of halakhic midrashim which emerges from the study of texts other than Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. This perspective on halakhic midrashim has created a classification between Soferim halakhic midrashim and Tannaim halakhic midrashim, and a more moderns of the halakhic midrashim. The latter forms of halakhic midrashim are, however, subject to significant debate and it is extremely unlikely that there is any realistic closure or conclusions which will enter Jewish halakhic midrashim cannon through the modern interpretation of events.
The Midrash Rabba:
The midrash rabba (also spelled as the midrash raba and midrash rabbah) is a record of the social and the historical events which occurred in the lives of the Jewish people. Kugel (no date) writes that “in exile, and all the more so afterward, the divine word was increasingly a text, and became the more hallowed the more the parchment yellowed and turned brown and cracked” (Kugel, no date, 135). This created an emphasis on the authority of the texts as self-explanatory, rather than rationalized in any way, shape, or form. Some of the texts and their subsequent midrash became sacred for no other reason than the length of their existence. This, some theologians have stressed, has created problems with the interpretation of what is a sacred text and what texts are exist for the purpose of self-affirmation. Kugel suggests that there is a general emphasis on “a sense of consequentiality” among most midrash cannon (Ibid, 139). The emphasis on what occurs from the course of one’s initial actions cannot be overemphasized, he writes, and also suggests that there is a highly “linear” interpretation of how and why the midrash texts are explored (Ibid.). These facts suggest that there are norms which are conveyed to the reader through the holy texts. These norms, particularly social and cultural norms, are embedded in the midrash rabba.
Like the texts that comprise the halakhic midrashim cannon, the midrash rabba are dated to specific periods within Jewish history. Unlike the halakhic midrashim, however, there is an increasing emphasis on the patterns which emerge from explanations, interpretations, and expositions of the passages. The halakhic midrashim stresses an emphasis on the actuality of law, while the midrash rabba promote an awareness of the context in which meaning arises. This should not, however, suggest that the meaning contained within the midrash rabba is any less concise than that found within the halakhic midrashim for the scholar of Judaism. Long emphasis on the content of the texts stresses that there are patterns found in midrash rabba which demand specific behaviors from the individuals. Moreover, while the halakhic midrashim can be read sequentially and the content acquired from each successive passage, the midrash rabba can be integrated into each other on a continuous train of thought. Frequently, interpretations of the midrash rabba are achieved when the sum of the text is explored as opposed to the individual passages. For example, using a midrash rabba reading of the Book of Genesis, Neusner stresses that “it is not possible to view the whole as an artificial construct; it seems to me clear that it is a cogent and pointed statement, beginning middle, and end, even though bits and pieces of available material may have served the author [in creating the whole” (Neusner, no date, 4). Assessing the path of the midrash rabba is, in short, attempting to place the text within greater context. This is true on both levels of social and textual context.
The Differences Between the Texts:
Boyarin writes in “Towards a New Theory of Midrash” that the debate over the interpretations of holy text is complicated because there is no inherent validity present within the text which transcends the cultural interpretations of the reader. He writes that “reality is always represented through the texts that refer to other texts, through language that is a construction of the historical, ideological, and social systems of a people” (Boyarin, no date, 14). The strategies embedded within interpreting the halakhic midrashism and the mishram rabbi thus are not only reflections of the social and legal codes which are embedded within the Scriptures, but are also means through which the early interpretations of the text stressed specific outcomes based upon the codes which the early authors thought were socially appropriate. For example, in “A Meditation on Parshat Lech Lecha,” a midrash rabba text, author Yakov Newman characterizes the rules set forth by the early interpretation as curbing the highly accepting behavior of the readers. The passage of the initial Scripture reads "Lech lecha el haarets asher areka” which is translated according to the midrash rabba as “Go, for you, to the land which I will show you,” (Newman, 2003, Online source). Newman continues in noting that:
These words of the Lord don't specify a distinct locale, but the phrase, "for you" implies an existential journey that is determinate: "Go to yourself, for yourself." Doing such, however, will involve a radical changing of physical context. In order to get there. It is all the matrix of reality, but being caught only in one part of it is what we sense as physical determinism; the win-lose jungle.
Get into a different ecosytem. Break the fixation that makes it impossible to change the script. Those who love me most, most demand that I play my learned role. So they can play theirs. In this script, winners and losers, lose.
Newman’s theme in interpreting these passages is that there is a general acceptance in the Scripture to the will of God, and that God needs to continuously break this pattern to encourage social change within His people. If this does not occur, there is a general tendency to accept the wide range of conditions which occur in one’s life, despite any likely negative impact that the individual or their community would experience. There is thus a desire to shake up the existing system within the midrash rabba, identifying human behavior as willing to engage in what is easy and commonplace because they believe that this process is expected of them. In this, it is clear that there is an emphasis on how, why, and to what extent the midrash rabba were used to contextualize the status of the text as opposed to isolating it and dictating policy and law, as occurs within the study of the halakhic midrashim.
Conclusion:
The traits embedded within the halakhic midrashim and the midrash rabba stress different purposes for these two interpretations of holy text and Scripture. Both are strategies through which the holy texts and Scripture can be applied to the lives of the average individual. However, while the midrash rabba is less restrictive in terms of dictating law than the halakhic midrashim, both interpretations are grounded heavily within perceptual expectations. These expectations and designed to evoke order from the Jewish population.
The differences between the halakhic midrashim and the midrash rabba are clear. The historical setting of both texts creates an atmosphere of authority for these two modes of interpretation. Stressing the age and the authenticity of the texts is designed to promote the authority of the texts, but the halakhic midrashim and the midrash rabba methods use the texts differently. The major differences in the texts are in terms of their interpretation and their application. The halakhic midrashim is a system of laws, which spill into social order and social norms at some points in the process. In contrast, the midrash rabba stresses the social order within a broad context. These interpretations can be combined to help create a general overview of how and why the behavior of the Jews has been dictated through Scripture and holy texts.
Works Cited:
Boyarin, D. (No date) Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Inianapolis, IN.: Indiana University Press.
Kugel, James. “Two Introductions to Midrash.”
Neusner, J. (No date.) Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis a New American Translation. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Newman, Yakov. (2003) “Teshuva III: Working Through the World.” Acquired 15 February 2005 at by Yakov Newman http://www.danishgrove.com/newman/writings/2002-11-04-teshuva3.html
Friday, August 22, 2008
Defining Midrash
Defining the Midrash:
Challenges and Controversy
Introduction:
In the study of Judaism, an emphasis on interpretation is found within the term midrash. The exploration of what it means to apply a midrash is a complicated process, in large part due to the use of the term as itself a definition of the interpretation of the Scripture. In attempting to explore and comprehend Scripture, the midrash of a specific interpretation suggests a particular form of ownership, in which the ideas conveyed correspond to a field of thought exclusive to that singular interpretation.
This paper shall seek to explore the midrash, and identify the major difficulties facing those who wish to adequately define this term. This paper shall conclude through identifying the midrash as a form of interpretation and a method through which the reader can approach holy text, thus suggesting that the midrash is a strategy through which the reader can encourage their comprehension of the text.
Controversy and Challenges Over Midrash:
The emergence of controversy over defining the term midrash occurs in the application of the word. Simply put, there are multiple meanings through which the term midrash can be applied, and all of them are accurate (Stern, 1998; 14). Readings on the midrash suggest three common uses of the term in Judaism:
- A midrash is a foundational ideology, in which it is the strategy applied to approaching a concept, passage, or theme within holy text; or
- A midrash is a collected text of teachings which correspond to a single school of thought on a particular element of Judaism; or
- A midrash is an exclusive translation or interpretation common to a selected passage from a holy text.
What is common within these three uses of the term midrash is that there is a heavy emphasis on interpretation and ownership. Kugel (no date) stresses that this occurs from the innermost nature of what the midrash is, where the midrash is a strategy through which agreement can occur over themes, or motifs, within holy passages. The wider motifs found within holy text can, Kugel suggests, generally are assessed through agreement among its audience. Specific motifs, however, are more difficult to assess. Kugel finds motifs can be deconstructed into midrash through careful reading and through identification of the themes found within each, particularly the “exegetical motif” found therein (Kogel, no date, 8). He defines this as the “underlying idea about how to explain a biblical text that becomes the basis, or part of the basis, or a narrative explanation” (Ibid.). He also stresses that most motifs within the analysis of Scripture are traditional interpretations of such, where “it is an ancient interpreter’s hypothesis about what a particular detail in the Bible may be trying to imply” (Ibid.).
Yet while Kugel suggests that the midrash is steeped in traditionalism, the use of the midrash as a mode of interpretation suggests that this term communicates an additional emphasis on ongoing assessment of Scripture and holy texts. Boyarin (no date) finds that those who are engaged in the debate over the midrash labor “under a curious confusion between the process of reading the midrash and the process of producing midrash” (Boyarin, no date, 452). This suggests that there is a gap which exists between the ability to acquire this information and the ability to convey this information to additional readers.
Controversy over the midrash tends to become centralized in this gap, which can be referred to as the communications process (Fraadue, no date, 61). The midrash as text can be seen as Scripture. For argument’s sake, let’s explore this as one would a translation from French into English. The original thought continues to persist in the French version of the text, yet the English translation is embedded with what the translator believed the original author wished to say. And, despite how close the translator works to accurately convey this intent in their translation, it is highly likely that this process will create the same gap between text and interpretation which Boyarin has noted. Boyarin offers as an alternative a “hermeneutic account” of what it means to be midrash, in which “the texts of the Prophets and the Writings were understood as a key to the decoding of difficult verses in the Torah, such that when the two texts are read together the narrative problems of the particular verses are removed” (Ibid, 453). Again, this citation reflects that the gap which appears to persist between the original text and the interpretation of the text occurs through problems over how, why, and to what extent the original meaning of the piece was lost.
Defining the Midrash:
Problems with realizing an effective definition of the term midrash are thus lost in the many uses of the term, as well as the perceptions which its users embed into the term midrash. At its most basic level, it can very easily be argued that the interpretation of the term midrash is complicated merely through the highly subjective nature of everything which this term encompasses. The midrash as text emerges from a school of thought, and thus is the representation of an ancient, historical, or modern interpretation of holy passages. The midrash as ideology stresses the perceptions embedded within following this school of though: This in turn suggests a general conformity of perception when reading passages which agree with one’s personal acceptance of a midrash, but will automatically create conflict when approaching a midrash from a different perspective. These elements, when embedded within the study of what is means to be a midrash, stress the roles of midrash as highly subjective and inherently vulnerable to debate and controversy.
If the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought that are used to interpret these passages, the term would be extremely easy to define. In this sense, midrash would merely imply the ownership of the passage. To return to the earlier example of translating a passage from French into English, a midrash would place a marker or stamp upon the ownership of the holy text, suggesting that the interpretation can be traced back to those who created it. Similarly, if the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought surrounding the Scriptures and the holy texts, this would also imply ownership of a sort.
Yet neither of these uses are adequate, for the application of the term midrash is not only extremely subjective and vulnerable to interpretation, but also engages the perceptions of the readers. There are references to the development of a personal midrash, or outlook, through which the individual can themselves approach the holy texts within their personal lives. In this sense, the term is not merely about ownership of ideas or the modes through which the original interpretations are communicated to the reader, but apply to the personal modes through which the reader acquires the knowledge from the text.
In this sense, there are multiple interpretations of midrash. There are the first three interpretations, as previously clarified, but there is also the new mode of comprehending the text through one’s own perceptions. There is thus one final midrash, which is exclusive to the individual, and suggests that there is a mode through which knowledge is communicated directly to the person. Kugel refers to this as “pulling all this together in a cohesive scenario” (Kugel, no date, 149). There is midrash as the origin of the verse, there is midrash as the interpretation of the verse, there is midrash as the school of thought from which the individual can perceive the verse, and finally there is the midrash through which the individual does finally perceive the verse. Kogel illustrates this situation through exploring the seemingly transparent interpretation of Psalm 81. The application of these multiple midrash creates an environment in which the entire general intent of the piece can be mutilated beyond belief, or adapted for the general benefit and welfare of the reader.
Thus, what is most challenging about defining the midrash is that it does not function in isolation. The multitude of interpretations characterizes not only the individual’s perceptions of the holy text, but also suggest that there is no inherently correct definition of the text itself. This view is in keeping with Judaism, in which it is identified that God requests the reader to bring their own views to their readings of the texts (Stern, 1998, 40). The holy texts and the Scripture are therefore vulnerable to subjective interpretation from internal and external levels.
With all of these factors involved, it is without question that the term midrash is so difficult to clarify. The term not only has a wide range of uses, but is engaged as a clarifying term within text which was never intended to be defined, merely studied. The use of the term midrash thus can be explored in the form of a process or the practice of approaching the holy texts of Judaism, but it can never be fully defined.
Conclusion:
The sum of uses of the term midrash creates a difficult scenario for the student of Judaism and the holy scriptures. It can be concluded that the use of the term midrash is itself subject to interpretation. The numerous levels through which this term is applied characterizes the texts, and creates a clear understanding of how, why, and to what extent they are subject to the vulnerabilities inherent in perception.
Unfortunately, these conditions do not help resolve the issues embedded within the discussion of what a midrash is, nor how these many modes of interpretation fully impact the study of holy texts. Finally -- and this point is of extreme importance for those who engage in the study of midrash – these wide ranges of the use of the term midrash mean that there is no permanent ownership of any given passage from the holy text. There is no legitimacy of ownership within these texts, nor is there anything more conclusive than a general sense of meaning invested therein. Highly subjective, open to all manner of debate and perception, the holy scriptures might be approached and studied through the use of midrash but it can be concluded that nothing is resolved from this process.
These are the conditions that make it all but impossible to conclusively define what a midrash is, or how it is applied, or to what extent it ultimately affects the study of holy texts and Scripture. The number of variables that are invested within this single, seemingly simple term complicate the study of holy texts. However, as the ultimate use of all holy texts is to define and describe the relationship of the individual with God, it is perhaps for the best that this situation is so highly complex and convoluted. In this sense, the individual is forced to communicate with the holy texts through the application of their own midrash, as opposed to having the answers provided to them from definitive outside sources.
Works Cited:
Boyarin, Daniel. “Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash.” Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1990.
Fraade, Steven D. “From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifrei to Deuteronomy.”
Kugel, James. “Two Introductions to Midrash.”
Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Study. Boston: Northwestern University Press. 1998.
Challenges and Controversy
Introduction:
In the study of Judaism, an emphasis on interpretation is found within the term midrash. The exploration of what it means to apply a midrash is a complicated process, in large part due to the use of the term as itself a definition of the interpretation of the Scripture. In attempting to explore and comprehend Scripture, the midrash of a specific interpretation suggests a particular form of ownership, in which the ideas conveyed correspond to a field of thought exclusive to that singular interpretation.
This paper shall seek to explore the midrash, and identify the major difficulties facing those who wish to adequately define this term. This paper shall conclude through identifying the midrash as a form of interpretation and a method through which the reader can approach holy text, thus suggesting that the midrash is a strategy through which the reader can encourage their comprehension of the text.
Controversy and Challenges Over Midrash:
The emergence of controversy over defining the term midrash occurs in the application of the word. Simply put, there are multiple meanings through which the term midrash can be applied, and all of them are accurate (Stern, 1998; 14). Readings on the midrash suggest three common uses of the term in Judaism:
- A midrash is a foundational ideology, in which it is the strategy applied to approaching a concept, passage, or theme within holy text; or
- A midrash is a collected text of teachings which correspond to a single school of thought on a particular element of Judaism; or
- A midrash is an exclusive translation or interpretation common to a selected passage from a holy text.
What is common within these three uses of the term midrash is that there is a heavy emphasis on interpretation and ownership. Kugel (no date) stresses that this occurs from the innermost nature of what the midrash is, where the midrash is a strategy through which agreement can occur over themes, or motifs, within holy passages. The wider motifs found within holy text can, Kugel suggests, generally are assessed through agreement among its audience. Specific motifs, however, are more difficult to assess. Kugel finds motifs can be deconstructed into midrash through careful reading and through identification of the themes found within each, particularly the “exegetical motif” found therein (Kogel, no date, 8). He defines this as the “underlying idea about how to explain a biblical text that becomes the basis, or part of the basis, or a narrative explanation” (Ibid.). He also stresses that most motifs within the analysis of Scripture are traditional interpretations of such, where “it is an ancient interpreter’s hypothesis about what a particular detail in the Bible may be trying to imply” (Ibid.).
Yet while Kugel suggests that the midrash is steeped in traditionalism, the use of the midrash as a mode of interpretation suggests that this term communicates an additional emphasis on ongoing assessment of Scripture and holy texts. Boyarin (no date) finds that those who are engaged in the debate over the midrash labor “under a curious confusion between the process of reading the midrash and the process of producing midrash” (Boyarin, no date, 452). This suggests that there is a gap which exists between the ability to acquire this information and the ability to convey this information to additional readers.
Controversy over the midrash tends to become centralized in this gap, which can be referred to as the communications process (Fraadue, no date, 61). The midrash as text can be seen as Scripture. For argument’s sake, let’s explore this as one would a translation from French into English. The original thought continues to persist in the French version of the text, yet the English translation is embedded with what the translator believed the original author wished to say. And, despite how close the translator works to accurately convey this intent in their translation, it is highly likely that this process will create the same gap between text and interpretation which Boyarin has noted. Boyarin offers as an alternative a “hermeneutic account” of what it means to be midrash, in which “the texts of the Prophets and the Writings were understood as a key to the decoding of difficult verses in the Torah, such that when the two texts are read together the narrative problems of the particular verses are removed” (Ibid, 453). Again, this citation reflects that the gap which appears to persist between the original text and the interpretation of the text occurs through problems over how, why, and to what extent the original meaning of the piece was lost.
Defining the Midrash:
Problems with realizing an effective definition of the term midrash are thus lost in the many uses of the term, as well as the perceptions which its users embed into the term midrash. At its most basic level, it can very easily be argued that the interpretation of the term midrash is complicated merely through the highly subjective nature of everything which this term encompasses. The midrash as text emerges from a school of thought, and thus is the representation of an ancient, historical, or modern interpretation of holy passages. The midrash as ideology stresses the perceptions embedded within following this school of though: This in turn suggests a general conformity of perception when reading passages which agree with one’s personal acceptance of a midrash, but will automatically create conflict when approaching a midrash from a different perspective. These elements, when embedded within the study of what is means to be a midrash, stress the roles of midrash as highly subjective and inherently vulnerable to debate and controversy.
If the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought that are used to interpret these passages, the term would be extremely easy to define. In this sense, midrash would merely imply the ownership of the passage. To return to the earlier example of translating a passage from French into English, a midrash would place a marker or stamp upon the ownership of the holy text, suggesting that the interpretation can be traced back to those who created it. Similarly, if the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought surrounding the Scriptures and the holy texts, this would also imply ownership of a sort.
Yet neither of these uses are adequate, for the application of the term midrash is not only extremely subjective and vulnerable to interpretation, but also engages the perceptions of the readers. There are references to the development of a personal midrash, or outlook, through which the individual can themselves approach the holy texts within their personal lives. In this sense, the term is not merely about ownership of ideas or the modes through which the original interpretations are communicated to the reader, but apply to the personal modes through which the reader acquires the knowledge from the text.
In this sense, there are multiple interpretations of midrash. There are the first three interpretations, as previously clarified, but there is also the new mode of comprehending the text through one’s own perceptions. There is thus one final midrash, which is exclusive to the individual, and suggests that there is a mode through which knowledge is communicated directly to the person. Kugel refers to this as “pulling all this together in a cohesive scenario” (Kugel, no date, 149). There is midrash as the origin of the verse, there is midrash as the interpretation of the verse, there is midrash as the school of thought from which the individual can perceive the verse, and finally there is the midrash through which the individual does finally perceive the verse. Kogel illustrates this situation through exploring the seemingly transparent interpretation of Psalm 81. The application of these multiple midrash creates an environment in which the entire general intent of the piece can be mutilated beyond belief, or adapted for the general benefit and welfare of the reader.
Thus, what is most challenging about defining the midrash is that it does not function in isolation. The multitude of interpretations characterizes not only the individual’s perceptions of the holy text, but also suggest that there is no inherently correct definition of the text itself. This view is in keeping with Judaism, in which it is identified that God requests the reader to bring their own views to their readings of the texts (Stern, 1998, 40). The holy texts and the Scripture are therefore vulnerable to subjective interpretation from internal and external levels.
With all of these factors involved, it is without question that the term midrash is so difficult to clarify. The term not only has a wide range of uses, but is engaged as a clarifying term within text which was never intended to be defined, merely studied. The use of the term midrash thus can be explored in the form of a process or the practice of approaching the holy texts of Judaism, but it can never be fully defined.
Conclusion:
The sum of uses of the term midrash creates a difficult scenario for the student of Judaism and the holy scriptures. It can be concluded that the use of the term midrash is itself subject to interpretation. The numerous levels through which this term is applied characterizes the texts, and creates a clear understanding of how, why, and to what extent they are subject to the vulnerabilities inherent in perception.
Unfortunately, these conditions do not help resolve the issues embedded within the discussion of what a midrash is, nor how these many modes of interpretation fully impact the study of holy texts. Finally -- and this point is of extreme importance for those who engage in the study of midrash – these wide ranges of the use of the term midrash mean that there is no permanent ownership of any given passage from the holy text. There is no legitimacy of ownership within these texts, nor is there anything more conclusive than a general sense of meaning invested therein. Highly subjective, open to all manner of debate and perception, the holy scriptures might be approached and studied through the use of midrash but it can be concluded that nothing is resolved from this process.
These are the conditions that make it all but impossible to conclusively define what a midrash is, or how it is applied, or to what extent it ultimately affects the study of holy texts and Scripture. The number of variables that are invested within this single, seemingly simple term complicate the study of holy texts. However, as the ultimate use of all holy texts is to define and describe the relationship of the individual with God, it is perhaps for the best that this situation is so highly complex and convoluted. In this sense, the individual is forced to communicate with the holy texts through the application of their own midrash, as opposed to having the answers provided to them from definitive outside sources.
Works Cited:
Boyarin, Daniel. “Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash.” Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1990.
Fraade, Steven D. “From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifrei to Deuteronomy.”
Kugel, James. “Two Introductions to Midrash.”
Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Study. Boston: Northwestern University Press. 1998.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)