Haggadic Midrash and the hermeneutics of reveal-ment.

Abstract

The following paper addresses the longstanding notion that Jewish Midrash is exegesis. Hermeneutical methods that were designed to address Halakhic (legal) Midrash have traditionally been applied to texts of Haggadic (story) Midrash, with less than satisfactory results for Haggadic Midrash. By rethinking standard interpretive conclusions regarding this literary form and by advancing a reformulation to one essential aspect of the discussion, this study condudes that Haggadic Midrash is one way in which the ancient rabbis prepared its community to survive the "shock" of future change. It also appears to the author that Haggadic Midrash is better approached connotatively (described) than denotatively (defined).

**********

For over five decades, Jewish texts designated as midrash have provided scholars with a rich literary corpus in which to explore hermeneutical approaches that promise to uncover valid and valuable points of convergent identification between early Christian and Jewish scriptures.

Midrash: Earlier Studies

The middot (interpretive rules) of midrashic hermeneutics, on the one hand, and analysis of the genre of and within midrashic texts, on the other, became key focal points for historical and literary investigations, respectively. These preliminary discussions, with their competing definitions for the term midrash, served to demonstrate the complexity of both the literature and the scholarly task. As a result, their efforts advanced the discussion well beyond the point of solely considering midrash as an interpretive process (see, for example LeDeaut and Neusner 1987, "Introduction"). Beyond the question of how to define midrash, an equally practical question emerged: what purpose does midrashic literature serve? Was it an attempt to actualize reinterpreted biblical text for present relevancy (Bloch)? The field of studies designated as comparative midrash (Sanders 1961, 1976, 1977, 1984), while of late applied to the study of Intertextuality (Sanders 1995, 1999), has expanded its parameters and become more scientifically based (Callaway 1986, 1999). Biblical Theological Bulletin readers are already well-informed, for example, as to tracing "the traditioning process" "from the earliest to the latest literature in the Bible" (Sanders 1993: 16 in Stenstrup).

What distinguishes the following essay from the well-forged path Sanders and others embarked upon half a century ago is as follows. While students of comparative midrash come to understand in etic manner (that is, from the outside) a process that explains for themselves the rabbinic interpretive tradition, they do not confront the rabbinic tradition itself in that the model of comparative midrash does not intend to demonstrate the way in which the rabbis treated the text in a manner that prepares its students to repeat the process (at least, students of comparative midrash are not able to engage in rabbinic hermeneutical processes). Instead, Comparative midrash seeks to represent an evolutionary stage of the rabbinic process, integrating modern philosophical and theological considerations that extend beyond the value-concept approach characteristic of rabbinic tradition (Kadushin 1972 3). The approach I have developed below, on the one hand, will appear to be familiar to Biblical Theology Bulletin readers who have kept current with comparative midrash principles in that it engages with philosophical and theological methodologies (albeit in a somewhat different manner) while, on the other hand, will most certainly frustrate others unless it is understood that I have sought to reintroduce the rabbinic value-concept principle into the hermeneutical play, not merely as a means of explanation for tracing an early historical stage of the "traditioning process" but also in a real way to integrate key interpretive aspects of rabbinic, scientific, and theological theory. This approach advances the idea that two of these three camps have alienated themselves from the third (rabbinic) and that, until now, no effective means has been established to return the three parties to the discussion table on such important (for biblical scholars) and essential (for rabbinic and theological scholars) matters.

Critical and creative engagement of thought offers two self-justifying reasons: "no solution is ever perfect" and "in many cases solutions cannot just be put into effect--they must first be approved by others" (Ruggiero: 129). It is my most sincere hope that the reader will understand the following essay as a workshop experiment that attempts to bridge three essential interpretive models (rabbinic, theological, and philosophical/scientific) in a manner that retains the distinctive qualities of each; at the same time, by the end of the study it should be clear to the reader what some key areas of theoretical and methodological incompatibility remain when these three models are brought into alignment. And for the reader who is a specialist in the field, may this study spawn fair criticisms, helpful suggestions, and further studies that more effectively combine the three hermeneutical domains in question. If the present study can accomplish even modestly these three goals, readers of the Biblical Theology Bulletin will have a front-row seat in witnessing one aspect of the evolutionary, give-and-take, academic process at its best.

Midrash: the Term's Two-fold Literary Designation

Midrash is not a term of clear demarcation. While halakhic midrash can be expressed denotatively, the same cannot be said for haggadic midrash. While the character of these literary subcategories of midrash may be equally complex, that which determines their complexities differs significantly.

Too often, the term midrash is designated as a single, specific literary form or genre; terms used to define and describe it include figure of speech, technical methodology, interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, figurative language, and commentary. A difficulty arises when one considers the purpose of midrash. In the pursuit of the clarification of ideas contained within an inclusive yet diverse body of commonly designated literature, namely midrash, which itself is composed of a plurality of literary forms (exegetical, expositional, homiletic), a number of hermeneutical methodologies have developed. Questions posed by modern hermeneuts are applied monolithically to this complex collection of literature called midrash, as if, for example, both halakhic midrash and haggadic midrash somehow fell under the same literary and therefore hermeneutical rubric. If we listen to these questions and assume they apply evenly to both categories of midrash, we are confronted with an even greater challenge, one that both blurs any distinction between their unique purposes and marginalizes the value of one (haggadic) against the other (halakhic). "Is there a discernable meaning in any given text?" "Can the reader ever hope to recover authorial intention?" "If indeed 'the Author is dead' and intentionality irrecoverable, are we stuck in a quagmire of 'hermeneutical agnosticism' and 'literary atheism?'" "Does the reader bring the only discernable meaning to a text?" (Vanhoozer) Scholars of halakhic midrash may want to answer the first two questions in the affirmative: "Yes, text has discernable meaning"; and, "Yes, the author's intention can be recovered"; while finding the last two questions irrelevant or even irrational. On the other hand, scholars of haggadic midrash may want to question the fundamental limitation presupposed in each of the first two questions: "Actually, each text has a number (perhaps an endless number) of discernable interpretations"; and "Actually, the author's intention is for the reader to explore her or his own intentionality with each text." For an understanding of haggadic midrash, however, identification or consideration of an author is secondary to its purpose; it is the reader, indeed, who brings discernible interpretations to each text.

For the purpose of narrowing the field of sources, I have limited my study of haggadic midrash to a medieval collection of the five books of Torah and the five books of Megillah: Midrash Rabbah. These books are particularly suitable for our purposes because they represent an intermediate stage in the development of midrash literature that combines literary and technical elements of earlier haggadic midrashim while in a real sense they model a final stage in the literary evolution of haggadic text. What can be said of the form and function of texts in Midrash Rabbah obtains in some degree for earlier Haggadah, while Midrash Rabbah provides a viable template by which to determine what subsequent pericopes may be identified as haggadic midrash.

Haggadah: Unique Literary Form

To state that haggadic midrash is a unique form of literature is not novel. However, that it is known to be "without parallel" (Kadushin 1987: xiii) has not prevented scholars from addressing it with the same definitive methodologies that are appropriate for halakhic midrash. Recent postmodern linguistic considerations, fueled by semiotic studies that emerged from and in response to deconstructionist theory, help reframe the Haggadot in hermeneutical terms.

How Haggadic Midrash Differs: Value Concept and "Dynamic" Stasis 

Traditional hermeneutical methodology lacks the analytical orientation necessary to clarify the unique character of polyvocalic haggadic midrash. One major component of midrash that hermeneutics has until recently failed to address is a dichotomy unique to midrash between the fictional world inhabited by the text and the world of reader and author. LaCocque and Ricoeur attempt to address this by speaking to the "imagination and sympathy" of a Western reader of Jewish sacred literary tradition who has no vested interest in a faith community (LaCocque & Ricoeur: xiv, xvii). Their identification of continuity of New Testament appropriations serving as fulfillment role for key Hebrew Bible texts (in discussion with midrash) provides a relevant example. See, for example, their treatment of "I am that I am" in Exodus 3:14, where the authors assume continuity between the two Testaments in much the same manner that the rabbis assume connectivity between stimulus (biblical text) and value expression (Haggadah). If we understand LaCocque and Ricoeur's expression of continuity between midrash and biblical text to be connotative, then, in the language of Kadushin, they are returning to a rabbinic notion of "sequence of thought" by which biblical texts act as stimuli for resultant haggadic midrash expressions (Kadushin 1965: 118). When LaCocque and Ricoeur are read in this manner, one begins to appreciate the denotative nature of a Jewish philosophical approach which distinguishes itself from the connotative nature employed by those who framed the haggadah texts of midrash. Again, drawing on Kadushin's language, Jewish philosophy approaches what it considers to be the fundamental issues within biblical texts in terms of cognitive, defined conceptualization. Midrash, on the other hand, approaches the biblical text in terms of value concepts, stimulating "something distinct from the idea which is touched off" (Kadushin 1965: 108, 114). Elsewhere, Ricoeur emphasizes that the reading of any text involves appropriation based on interpretation, meaning that the text itself necessitates "the idea of being able to say something differently" (Ricoeur: 13). For Ricoeur, hermeneutics is always a dynamic, not a static, process. As with the rabbis regarding haggadic midrash, for Ricoeur a text may assume plurality, diversity, and otherness of interpretation. It is the responsibility of the community, not the exegete alone, to address the process of interpretation as well as its conflicts of interpretations (Ricoeur: 15).

Hermeneutics: General Approaches and Their Resultant Effects

One benefit of refraining haggadic midrash in modern hermeneutical language is to stem the tide of critical response, not against the literature itself which proves to be incorrigible to distinct identification, but rather against hostility to the community that produced this "incorrigible" literature. Brueggemann notes that "(H)istorically, theologians and biblical scholars alike have sought in the Bible theological claims that have been much too often imperialistically Christian, coercively moralistic and vigorously anti-Semitic'" (Brueggemann 1999). Understandably, the sole purpose of many hermeneutical studies has been to serve as an exegetical guide to enhance homiletic ministry (Gorman). When presuppositions are brought into biblical study, too often they find justification in the text they question. A more recent and helpful trend among biblical scholars and theologians focuses on concerns central to the hermeneutical task: the function of the text; processes of reading; the relation between author, reader, and text; writing as technology; the problem of meaning; and the hermeneutical circle, to name a few. (Jasper: 8-22). When these kinds of questions are brought to the study of the Bible, two benefits follow. First, traditional meanings take on a secondary role, at least while the questions are being explored. Second, there develops in the questioner the increased capability to consider other questions, perhaps the kind that permit an entire rethinking of the text's and one's own purposes.

Postmodern Readings: Replacing Grammatico-historical Methodology

In adapting Schleiermacher's definition of hermeneutics as "an art to understand classical texts in terms of grammar and philology" which presupposes that all hermeneutical reflection proceeds from the same methodological principles, modern European biblical scholars thus find it easy to embed biblical hermeneutics in philosophical counterparts. Association of the two literary domains is explained by Ricoeur: "Biblical hermeneutics is a regional hermeneutic in contrast to philosophical hermeneutics, which constitutes a general hermeneutic" (Pokorny: 3).

Linguistic Analysis: From Denotative to Connotative Value

Walhout, too, by proposing that the biblical text's referential function can better be clarified by moving from philosophical to linguistic analysis, has separated reference from mimesis, thus permitting the reader to detach characters, events, and situations within the story from the text's fixed world and the author's and readers' variable world. Although not Walhout's stated intention, his hermeneutic permits viewing the text as separate from its interpretation and allows for multiple interpretations of any given biblical text.

Halakhic Midrash: Similarities and Differences regarding Halakhic Midrash

Halakhic midrash finds a logical partner with philosophic and literary reasoning, haggadic midrash is not such a comfortable partner. In Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash, Yadin analyzes the hermeneutics of midrash halakhah. While largely ignoring the greater representation of early midrash, namely midrash haggadah, following J. N. Epstein, Abraham Joshua Heshel, and others, Yadin admits David Hoffman's (1888) traditional division between the two schools of rabbi Akiva, to whom Sifra (Leviticus) and Sifre Deuteronomy are ascribed, and the figure and school of rabbi Ishmael, to whom Mekhilta (Exodus) and Sifre Numbers are related. Although Yadin fails to demonstrate his own conclusion that haggadic sections of the Mekhilta of rabbi Ishmael, and therefore by extension haggadic works in general, do not fit the criteria of a halakhic text such as that of his study, namely "distinct and recognizable practices, assumptions, and terms that appear in the halakhic sections of the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael and Sifre. Numbers," he dismisses haggadic midrash from his work (Yadin: xi, xii). It may be in part due to this decision not to include the Haggadah in his study of the Mekhilta of rabbi Ishmael, as well as the discipline he exercised not to make sweeping statements about tannaitic midrashic hermeneutics that Yadin also does not satisfactorily address his book's subtitle, namely "The Origins of Midrash" (for contra, see Bacher; Moore; Goidberg; Samely). Yet Yadin's research remains essential to this study in that his model, designed to address halakhic midrash, establishes a template that can be redesigned to form a hermeneutic that applies to haggadic midrash. For example, in a small way he already does so by indicating that the "13 Middot of rabbi Ishmael," addendum to the conclusion of Sifra (Leviticus), should not be historically linked with rabbi Ishmael because only two of the thirteen middot are identified as such in the Mekhilta ("a general statement followed by a particular instance" and "two verses that contradict each other"), while Mekhilta does include several other middot not appended as a baraita to Sifra. For Yadin, a middah is "a typical mode of behavior of Scripture" rather than a logical rule of interpretation (Yadin: 121). Yadin and I can agree that one cannot generalize "rabbinic hermeneutics" as if there were a distinctive and unified underlying hermeneutical strand. Though his study limits itself to a demonstration of two such modes of interpretation within early halakhic texts of midrash, he leaves the imagination open to how the same principle would apply to early haggadic texts of midrash.

Haggadic Midrash: What It Is and What It Is Not

When comparing haggadic midrash with any text that is unquestionably identified as exegetical or interpretive commentary of the Bible, one can readily identify a number of corresponding elements. However, each aspect that at first seemed to correspond, upon further analysis, lacks some key element and therefore begs the question of what literary form other than commentary haggadic midrash might be. On the other hand, when we approach haggadic midrash from the perspective of how it differs from exegetical and interpretive commentary we see a seemingly unending list of reasons not to so designate it. What follows indicates what is similar between commentary and Haggadah, followed by what clearly distinguishes these two literary forms.

Midrash is popularly identified with biblical commentary. As such, it is associated with a specific literary genre that commonly addresses audience, authorship, provenance, Sitz im Leben, and other introductory matters before proceeding to systematically read the biblical text in question interpretively with previously established background and foreground matters set in play. Early Jewish midrash appears to treat biblical texts in a manner similar to that of commentaries in several ways. Bereshit Rabbah begins with a discussion concerning the familiar first words of our biblical text: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth ..." and ends by addressing the death of Joseph, stating his age, manner of his embalmment, and location of his coffin's final resting place: "Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years; they embalmed him and he was placed in a coffin in Egypt" (Gen 50:26). Bereshit Rabbah also provides a brief discussion of an alternate textual version for Genesis that combines chapter 49 verse 28 with chapter 50 verse 10, something the reader might expect from a technical treatment of biblical text in commentary form. Two other books of the Midrash Rabbah collection begin and end their discussions relating to the introductory and concluding verses of the biblical texts that they treat. Shir HaShirim Rabbah begins at 1:1 and ends at 8:14, according to the arrangement of the biblical text. Ruth Rabbah begins and ends according to the arrangement of the biblical text. Another feature common to commentaries is that social customs contemporary to the original context, and in the rare case to the author's and readers' situation (e.g., "It is not the custom for Jewish maidens to frequent theatres and circuses" 2:22), frequently get addressed in Ruth Rabbah. Eichah Rabbah begins with an extensive introduction comprising a series of 34 proems followed by discussion of the biblical text according to its chapter and verse arrangement. Qohelet Rabbah adheres to the biblical order of chapter and verses. Another feature that appears to mimic commentary form is inclusion of introductory material, or in our case a series of proems, as we see for Ruth Rabbah and Eichah Rabbah. As might be expected of a commentary, introductory material foreshadows content within subsequent discussion. (e.g., Eichah Rabbah: Proem 17 and the midrash to 3:14; Proem 18 and the midrash to 3:15; Proem 30 and the midrash to 4:12).

The form and content of midrash exhibit greater dissimilarity than similarity, however. Midrash does not, for example, generally interest itself with introductory matters such as authorship, audience, social setting, or provenance. Even when a midrash is introduced by a Petihta, as in the case of Ruth Rabbah, Esther Rabbah, and Eichah Rabbah, elements one has come to expect in an introduction are for the greater part absent. When one or more of these matters is addressed, using Abrams' classifications, it serves an expressive rather than rhetorical purpose (Abrams: 21-22). Further, any genuine treatment of the biblical text dealing with contextual matters does not become integrated into subsequent discussions of the same biblical text.

Shemot Rabbah begins at 1:1 but ends at 39:33a, "They brought the Tabernacle to Moses"; it leaves unaddressed the last 9.5 verses of chapter 39 and all 38 verses of chapter 40. Vayyikra Rabbah begins at 1:1 but ends at 27:2a, "When a man shall clearly articulate a vow of persons to the Lord according to your valuation ...," omitting a large majority of the final chapter's 34 verses. Bamidbar Rabbah begins at 1:1 but concludes at 35:14, "You shall designate three cities on the other side of the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge," omitting the last 20 verses of chapter 35 and all 13 verses of chapter 36. Devarim Rabbah begins at 1:1 but does not deal with the last 3.5 chapters (specifically 31:15-30, 32-34). In an extended concluding discussion about God's declaration concerning Moses' impending death, "Behold, your days approach" (31:14), Devarim Rabbah does briefly integrate material from 34:6, "And he buried him in the valley." Following an introductory proem, Esther Rabbah begins at I:1 but ends at 8:15a, "And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel." Esther Rabbah omits the last 2.5 verses of chapter 8, all but one verse of 32 verses of chapter 9 (i.e., 9:2, "The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities ... no man could withstand them; for the fear of the Jews had fallen on all the people," textually appearing antecedent to 8:15), and the two-verse paragraph of chapter 10.

Even where midrash appears to conform to form and content of commentary as a literary genre the two genres share less real identity. Each discourse of Devarim Rabbah, for example, begins with a halakhic question that directs the discussion of the biblical text toward a ritual subject relevant to the author's contemporary reality and away from any meaning that commentators would derive. Earlier midrash texts, such as Midrash Tanhuma, also reflect this structure. The latter material begins each discourse with the formula yelamdenu rabbenu ("our rabbi, teach us") while our text introduces the discussion with the word Halakhah. Further, Devarim Rabbah does not follow a biblical sequence but instead consists of a series of autonomous units, each addressing a topic that has in some manner been "triggered" by language or concepts found within Deuteronomy. The first three proems that introduce Eichah Rabbah are somehow related to a subsequent midrash writing, Pesiqta d'Rab Kahana, whether as a later addition to our text (S. Buber) or as an influence on the latter midrash (Theodor). Cohen notes that three other proems duplicate the body of the midrash (e.g., Proem 17 with the midrash to 3:14; Proem 18 with the midrash to 3:15; Proem 30 with the midrash to 4:12), a feature one does not find in a traditional commentary on Lamentations. Simon points out that Esther Rabbah borrows significantly from earlier midrash (Bereshit Rabbah, Vayyikra Rabbah) as well as from material in the Yerushalmi, in pseudo-historical literature (tenth-century Yosippon), and in apocryphal literature (Book of Esther in the Apocrypha). One cannot satisfactorily demonstrate either way whether some or all of these sources represent late interpolation of an earlier version of Esther Rabbah. Shir HaShirim Rabbah contains a majority of its interpretive material from early Judaic literature (Seder Olam, Sifre, Mekhilta, and Bavli). Further, Simon states that a full one-quarter of its exposition can be traced to the Yerushalmi, the Pesiqta, Vayyikra Rabbah, and Bereshit Rabbah. The text of the Song of Solomon provides the basis for discussions centering on primary perspectives of life, including many Kabbalistic interpretations (cf. Simon on 1:1:11 where the "king" refers to the Community of Israel).

Bereshit Rabbah, Ruth Rabbah, Esther Rabbah, and Qohelet Rabbah are exceptions to what we have stated above. Bereshit Rabbah appears to be a verse-by-verse, sometimes word-by-word commentary on Genesis. Said to bear the trademarks of earlier halakhic midrash (Mekhilta on Exodus, Sirra on Leviticus, Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy), it has been considered to play a supplementary role to these earlier texts. An inner, consistently applied, circular structure links the parashiyot: each chapter begins with a homiletic-style proem followed by identification of a verse or verses in Genesis. References to other biblical texts supply support for the intent of the discussion, the last of which brings attention back to the text that initiated the section. Ruth Rabbah addresses nearly the entire biblical text, excepting two verses (4:16 and 17), and applies exegetical methodology to several passages. Even here, however, the material serves homiletic and therefore expressive design rather than mimetic, rhetorical, or formal purpose. As well, the so-called exegetical pericopes cannot be drawn upon to establish the text as an exegetical text. The seven disconnected proems that introduce the discourse of Ruth Rabbah serve apologetic rather than hermeneutical purpose. An example involves kissing: in Ruth Rabbah (2:21) it is discussed in terms of impropriety and indecency, though the text concedes a triad of contexts where kissing is permissible (on conferment of high office, at meetings, and at partings; to which R. Tanhuma adds the kissing of relatives). Much of the discussion in Qohelet Rabbah addresses most of the text of Ecclesiastes in exegetical manner (3:12, for example, is omitted). However, it cannot technically be considered exegetical literature because, as Cohen has already demonstrated, it draws much of its material from five earlier texts within its own collection (Bereshit Rabbah, Vayyikra Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah, Shir HaShirim Rabbah, Eichah Rabbah).

Deconstruction: Opening a Window by Closing a Door

Accompanying the dawn of canon criticism, creative non-historical hermeneutical approaches had already begun to address texts set apart from their historical context and, therefore, from any perceived original meaning. In justifying a reading of Lamentations without primary reference to its original historical setting, for example, Joyce demonstrated no fewer than six interpretive categories by which a reader could viably approach the text: ahistorical, liturgical, psychological, literary, ideological, and as a stepping stone into a traditional stream. Whereas halakhic midrash, by the nature of its legal content, benefits directly from historical (re)engagements of its texts, haggadic midrash has no such demands. Whether or not the historical setting and related historical considerations are available for haggadic midrash texts, the interpreter's task is not derailed. In other words, it does not much matter if the author is dead in order to gain a clear understanding and appreciation of haggadic midrash. This claim, however, cannot be made for halakhic midrash.

Hermeneutic Lenses: Faith and Suspicion

Ever since Gadamer provided his rigorous systematic analysis of hermeneutics, dialogue has escalated between claims of "truth" on the one hand and the processes of "method" on the other--"between an absolute demand ... and the relentless, systematic application of methods and processes" (Jasper: 106). Jasper (108-11) notes a methodological distinction: Gadamer highlights the tension between the hermeneutics of faith and suspicion while Ricoeur characteristically interplays them.

While many scholars for a variety of reasons have distanced themselves from structuralist methodology, Ricoeur has maintained a loyal following, as one critic put it, because Ricoeur's hermeneutic, by reinventing literary differance, avoids "the pitfalls of structuralist reductionism, its anti-referent character, and its dis-unifying of language" (Laughery: 71).

Reading Haggadic Midrash "Jewishly"

When considering studies outlining various models for the interpretation of Scripture (see, for example, Goldingay), one soon realizes how few models that are sources in the world of religious texts address Jewish midrash specifically. Histories of modern biblical interpretation almost exclusively list Catholic or Protestant Christian hermeneutical systems (Sandys-Wunsch). It is here that post-modern literary theory as indicated above may offer the best engagement with rabbinic methodology specific to the value concept world of haggadic midrash.

According to Levinson, reading text Jewishly requires the reader to observe "the religious-ethical-spiritual sensitivity the rabbis brought to the Hebrew Bible" developed over centuries of exegesis on the original texts (Levinson: 106-08). Recognizing that is was never a stated intention from the beginning, still we can say that scholars have categorically failed to engage the rabbis in a hermeneutical discussion that would include the notion of value concepts. Using Levinson's terminology, scholarship may have sought to explain midrash texts Jewishly, but they did not engage in the process Jewishly. An example of a recent, more Jewish approach is evident in the findings of Sokol who takes a more Jewish connotative approach in noting a deliberative two-fold narrative of creation that invites a hermeneutical model of multiple interpretations (Sokol: 238-44). Though he does not appear to demonstrate any interest in advancing a rabbinic interpretive model per se, his interpretive range would appear to satisfy at least a portion of Levinson's catalogue.

Mixing Methodologies: Merging the Connotative with the Denotative

As implied above, LaCocque's ascription of Judaism's complimentary tendency toward the rational and the universal is foundational to his hermeneutical approach. However, as is the case with Carmichael and others on whose research he bases his theory, LaCocque views narrative and law as interdependent genres, thus failing to maintain a connotative-denotative distinction (LaCocque & Ricoeur: 78). Following A.J. Heschel, who links the tension between haggadah and halakhah to the constitutive nature of Judaism, LaCocque further blurs the distinction between what is symbolic and what is connotative (LaCocque & Ricoeur. 95, 96). By interconnecting the connotative with the denotative, LaCocque is forced to address perceived enigmas that underscore the difficulty of communicating ultimate reality, enigmas that he ascribes to the nature of poetic language (LaCocque & Ricoeur: 172). Happily for us, at this juncture LaCocque identifies the emergence of symbol, detached from its immediate historical context, once again returning to the rabbinic conceptualization of Haggadah, a resultant value concept viewed separately from its biblical stimulus.

Haggadic Midrash: An Antidote for "Future Shock"

In closing, we perceive a pattern. Specific texts of haggadic midrash are ordinarily given to multiple interpretations by the rabbis. In the same connotative spirit, I conclude with my own interpretation of the entire body of ancient haggadah.

This interpretation serves a two-fold purpose: to demonstrate value concepts in the reading of haggadah, and to acknowledge that haggadic midrash serves as a key element toward a reasonable explanation to the question, How have we Jews (and our Judaism[s]) been able to survive--and in unusual ways, to thrive--given that we have experienced such an "interesting" history over the past three millennia?

Alvin Toffler's opening words to his "runaway bestseller," Future Shock (Toffler: 1), could well have introduced any sample text of classic Jewish haggadic midrash. For of each it can equally be said, it is "about what happens to people when they are overwhelmed by change. It is about the ways in which we adapt--or fail to adapt--to the future." For Toffler, future shock was now upon him and his readers. His writings were a clarion call to help them survive a collision with "tomorrow." The impact of emerging super-industrial powers had already begun to unravel the very fabric of social structure. Family life, business ethics, lifestyles, and human relationships were transforming at an unprecedented pace into transient elements in an ever-changing world. As more people became overwhelmed with inevitable and irreversible changes, established social patterns were stretched to the point of losing the very essence that up to then had defined them as components of constancy, reliability, and trust. Not only were the products of community and its organizations radically affected but so too were individual and personal foundations such as friendship and love. Uncontested ordinary life was on the eve of destruction--thus, as the book's fly jacket pronounced, relegating countless typical and stereotypical cliches to the waste heap of obscurity. For Toffler, the future was a signal of the death of permanence. As the temporary and the novel overtook the staid and the commonplace, communities, organizations, groups, and individuals were hurled to the limits of their adaptability. For Toffler, it was a time in human history when the abstractions of visionaries, who spoke through popular texts such as Brave New World and Astounding Science Fiction, impacted the imaginations of internationally renowned scientists who could indeed bring many of these fantastic abstractions into the realm of daily life. And so, drawing from one domain familiar at a popular level to all his readers, Toffler addressed "The Scientific Trajectory," (Part Three: Novelty, Chapter Nine: "The Scientific Trajectory"), a domain in which, he argued, one would no longer have to imagine the unimaginable. Two related anecdotes, one concerning renowned biologist Dr. E. F. E. Hafez of Washington State University and the other about Dr. Daniele Petrucci in Bologna, advanced his point. Hafez, Toffler noted,

   has publicly suggested, on the basis of his own astonishing
   work on reproduction, that within a mere ten to fifteen years
   a woman will be able to buy a tiny frozen embryo, take it to
   her doctor, have it implanted in her uterus, carry it for nine
   months, and then give birth to it as though it had been conceived
   in her own body. The embryo would, in effect, be sold
   with a guarantee that the resultant baby would be free of genetic
   defect. The purchaser would also be told in advance the
   color of the baby's eyes and hair, its sex, its probable size at
   maturity and its probable IQ.

   Indeed [Toffler continued], it will be possible at some point
   to do away with the female uterus altogether. Babies will be
   conceived, nurtured, and raised to maturity outside the human
   body. It is clearly only a matter of years before the work begun
   by [Petrucci] ... makes it possible for women to have babies
   without the discomfort of pregnancy [Toffler: 199, 200].

For today's reader, there is no "shock;" but for Toffler, the shock to which he repeatedly referred, in anecdote upon anecdote, was impending because "we steadfastly refuse to face such facts. We avoid them by stubbornly refusing to recognize the speed of change. It makes us feel better to defer the future" (Toffler: 205) The inevitability of such a collision course, however, made his strategies for survival most compelling (Part Six: Strategies for Survival). He addressed a kaleidoscope of approaches for "Coping With Tomorrow" (Chapter 17), "Educating in the Future Tense" (Chapter 18), "Taming Technology" (Chapter 19), and strategizing what he labeled "social futurism" ("The Strategy of Social Futurism" Chapter 20).

But where do postmodern crisis, irretrievable differance, and deconstructionist honesty fit into this picture? And what of haggadic midrash? Can a distinction be drawn between the world and signs, between Creator and creature, between ontology and epistemology, between text and commentary, between reference and meaning, between author and reader? How can a reader move beyond the realm of ideas to practically address ever-changing needs within community? When faced with future shock, what is one to do? Thirty-five years ago, Alvin Toffler posed a question that shook his world. Several hundred years earlier, haggadic midrash provided a response that has ever since directed its own community to respond effectively to the same concern.

Works Cited

Abrams, Meyer H. 1953. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bloch, Renee. 1978. "Midrash." Pp. 29-50 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism I, edited by William Scott Green. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

Bossman, David M. 2005. "Paul's Halachot on Male Sexuality in a Limited Good Society." Presented in the "Jewish Midrash and Early Christian Literature" session of the Fourteenth World Congress for Jewish Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1999. "The Role of Old Testament Theology in Old Testament Interpretation." Pp. 70-88 in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements, edited by Edward Ball. JSOTSup 300. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Callaway, Mary. 1999. "Canonical Criticism." Pp. 142-55 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application, edited by Stephen R. Haynes & Steven L. McKenzie. Revised Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

1986. Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. New York, NY: The Seabury Press. (Wahrheit und Methode, 1960 original).

Goldberg, Arnold. 1999. Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung, edited by M. Schluter & P. Schafer. Gesammelte Studien 2. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Goldingay, John. 1995. Models for Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Gorman, Michael J. 2001. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Jasper, David. 2004. A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Joyce, P. M. 1999. "Sitting Loose to History: Reading the Book of Lamentations without Primary Reference to its Original Historical Setting." Pp. 246-62 in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements, edited by Edward Ball. JSOTSup 300. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Kadushin, Max. 1987. A Conceptual Commentary on Midrash Leviticus Rabbah: Value Concepts in Jewish Thought. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Kadushin, Max. 1965. The Rabbinic Mind. Second edition; original 1952. New York, NY: Blaisdell Publishing Co.

LaCocque, Andre, & Paul Ricoeur. 2003. Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies. Translated by David Pellauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Laughery, Gregory J. 2002. Living Hermeneutics in Motion: An Analysis and Evaluation of Paul Ricoeur's Contribution to Biblical Hermeneatics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

LeDeaut, Roger. 1971. "Apropos: a Definition of Midrash." Interpretation 25: 259-82.

Levinson, Alan T. 2004. The Story of Joseph: A Journey of Jewish Interpretation. Williamsburg, VA: The College of William & Mary.

Neusner, Jacob. 2004. Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1987. What is Midrash? Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Pokorny, Petr. 2003. "Philosophische Hermeneutik und biblische Exegese: Zum Wesen des hermeneutischen Prozesses." Pp. 1-4 in Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis., edited by Petr Pokorny & Jan Roskovec. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 153. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Ricoeur, Paul. 2003. "The Canon Between the Text and the Community." Pp. 7-26 in Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis, edited by Petr Pokorny & Jan Roskovec. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 153. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. 1984. The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought. Philadelphia, PA: Harper & Row.

Samely, A. 2002. Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sanders, James A. 1999. "Intertextuality and Dialogue." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29: 35-44.

1993. "Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha?" Pp. 13-19 in The Pseudepigrapba and Early Biblical Interpretation, edited by James H. Charlesworth & Craig A. Evans. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press.

1984. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia, PA: Forums Press.

1977. "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy." Pp. 21-41 in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, edited by George W. Coats & Burke O. Long. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1976. "Hermeneutics." Pp. 402-07 in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, edited by Keith Crim. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

1961. The Old Testament and the Cross. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Sandys-Wunsch, John. 2005. What Have They Done to the Bible? A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Sokol, Jan. 2003. "Der zweifache Schopfungsbericht als hermeneutischer Schlussel." Pp. 238-44 in Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis, edited by Petr Pokorny & Jan Roskovec. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 153. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Stenstrup, Kenneth G. 2003. "Scripture and Interpretive Method: Why Read Scripture as Canon?" Biblical Theology Bulletin 33/1 (Winter): 1-15.

Toffler, A. 1970. Future Shock. New York, NY: Random House.

Ulmer, Rivka. 2005. "Critical Review of Jacob Neusner's Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture." Introduction to the rabbinic Midrash," in Review of Biblical Literature (http://www. bookreviews.org).

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Walhout, Clarence. 1999. "Narrative Hermeneutics." Pp. 65-131 in The Promise of Hermeneutics, edited by Roger Lundin, Clarence Walhout, & Anthony C. Thiselton. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Yadin, Azzan. 2004. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Daniel Maoz, PhD (University of Strasbourg, France); Adjunct Professor, Jewish Studies (University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada); recently published a chapter entitled "Shekhinah as Woman" in Call Me the Seeker (ed. Michael Gilmour, Continuum, 2005, pp. 1-12), culture-dynamic analysis of Bob Dylan's lyrics in his album Infidels and the ten Sefirot of Jewish mysticism; areas of current research include hermeneutical analyses of Jewish Haggadic Midrash; also, assessment of how the Torah is re-contextualized and consequently re-told by Josephus in Judaic Antiquities 1-4; [e-mail].