Origen, in his fourth book On First Principles, expounds in reasonably explicit terms his theory concerning biblical exegesis. Paramount to any proper understanding of Scripture, according to Origen, is the realization of its divinely inspired character (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.passim). The unity of the Bible is, for Origen, as well as for the authors and the redactor of Bereshit Rabba, correlative to its divine nature. The one God speaks with one voice; apparent contradictions within the text reflect problems of human understanding or hints toward an allegorical substratum to the text rather than any real inconsistency in the divine word (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.7; ibid. IV.II.9). For the Christian Origen, however, this unity extends to, and thus the proper understanding of the Old Testament is subject to, the New Testament and its revelation of the Christian context of the Bible as a whole (ibid. IV.I.6).1 

Having established the divinity, and the consequent unity, of Scripture, and having admitted and approved of the literal inconsistencies found therein, Origen proceeds to exhibit his exegetical practices even in expounding his exegetical theory. Appealing to a verse in Scripture as a proof (in this case, Prov. 22:20-21), Origen asserts his understanding of the threefold meaning of Scripture (Origen, On First Principles IV.II.4), namely that of the letter, that of the soul and that of the spirit.2 

Origen is here quite indistinct in his delineation of the soulful meaning relative to the literal and the spiritual except to affirm that it is intermediately edifying. If one accepts M. Wiles’ gloss of these layers of meaning as literal, moral and spiritual3 , Origen’s employment of these three levels of meaning in exegetical practice may be more apparent. Nevertheless, both in his practice as well as in his subsequent theory, Origen seems to undermine any independent rendering of the soulful meaning as distinct from the spiritual (cf. Origen, On First Principles IV.II.8; ibid. IV.III.4). One might wonder if Origen considered this difficulty in remarking on "the appropriate conjunction" of male and female, which also represent spirit and soul respectively in his exegesis of the creation of man (Origen, Homilies on Genesis 1.14-15).

In any case, the spiritual meaning of the text is of foremost importance for Origen; he does not neglect to detail his method for its determination (Origen, On First Principles IV.III.5), from which, granted, his actual practice at times diverges. First, one ought to attend those passages of Scripture which exhibit the aforementioned inconsistencies and impossibilities, thus indicating some underlying meaning. In practice, however, Origen does not limit himself in delving for the spiritual meaning of a text to those passages which seem to him to be literally unlikely. Rather, even those passages "not only possible but true"( ibid.) are subject to such investigation. "For with regard to divine Scripture as a whole we are of the opinion that all of it has a spiritual sense" (ibid.; cf. Homilies on Genesis 1.14). Next, one may examine the possible meanings of the offending passage by comparing it to concordant passages found elsewhere in Scripture, thereby paying heed to the exceptional unity of Scripture under which the entire text is context for each part thereof (cf. Homilies on Genesis 1.1). Again, Origen freely extends his theory in practice, regularly allowing himself to assert readings which have no such biblical foundation (cf. Homilies on Genesis 1.2). Finally, having determined an acceptable spiritual meaning for the passage in question and reapplying it to its original position within Scripture, one may set about allegorizing even those previously unproblematic passages to suit this newly attendant spiritual context.

The term midrash, which comprehends in its definition the exegetical work of Bereshit Rabba, is derived from derash. Derash denotes a "searching out," a "questioning" or an "inquiring into" the text at hand. It is separate, if not wholly distinct, from peshat, a relatively literal reading of a text in a way more or less consistent with common sense. Derash is a more free form mode of exegesis, allowing its practitioner considerable room for maneuver in his inquiries into the meaning of Scripture. It also denotes an ongoing, rather than a definitive, act of exegesis. Its claims of authority are limited and relative to those of comparable uses of derash. Its purpose is to consider Scripture as a course toward defining it, rather than to define it outright and definitively.

The exegetical theory behind the Bereshit Rabba is one which essentially relies on discussion and debate to draw out the possible meanings of Scripture. Origen, also, makes explicit that each passage of Scripture may contain multiple meanings in his theoretical division of literal, soulful and spiritual exegesis. He further recognizes that there may be manifold meanings of a given passage of Scripture even within each of these levels.4  In Bereshit Rabba, however, a multiplicity of readings is a definitive characteristic of the exegetical method involved. The differences, moreover, are not subject to classification according to Origenian levels of meaning, allowing the various meanings posited to be understood in concert. While the numerous readings of the rabbis on each matter are often complimentary, they are at least as often in more or less direct conflict. That they are, in addition, finally inconclusive renders Bereshit Rabba a living debate.

Origen’s appeal to Scriptural passages to illuminate quite separate and contextually distinct passages parallels a primary method of rabbinic exegesis as found in Bereshit Rabba. However, Origen’s use of this technique heavily favors the employment of the New Testament to illuminate the old in keeping with his view that "the divine quality and spiritual character of the law of Moses came to light only with the coming of Jesus" (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.6). The rabbis necessarily work within the confines of the Hebrew Bible in this respect; less distinctly literal citations from Proverbs, Psalms and Isaiah are especially favored. Ben Sira also warrants attention in the midrash, although it is unclear whether as a privileged text or simply as a sage. While this is sufficient to exhibit a sense of the unity of Scripture comparable to that espoused by Origen, the rabbis of Bereshit Rabba occasionally suggest in their understanding not only a unity, but a certain simultaneity of Scripture (cf. Bereshit Rabba XIX.5, in which R. Simlai seems at one point to have Eve quoting Ecclesiastes to Adam).

Finally, in contrast to Origen, who naturally emphasizes in the course of his exegesis (both in theory and in practice) a new revelation regarding the Scripture, backed by the authority of Christ and the apostles, the authority claimed by the rabbis is that of tradition. Popular wisdom and mundane anecdotes enjoy a substantial position as a tool in rabbinic exegesis, even if a decidedly lesser position than Scripture itself.

Having laid out in such a cursory way the respective theories of exegesis of Origen and of Bereshit Rabba, the application of these theories in practice bears consideration. These practices shall be considered relative to both the theory that each represents as well as each toward the other in their application to passages of Scripture.

As is fitting, both Bereshit Rabba and Origen’s Homilies on Genesis open with exegetical treatments of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning...". The two readings are especially remarkable both in the manner in which are parallel and in that in which they diverge. The rabbis of Bereshit Rabba exhibit marked unity in noting the peculiar grammatical construction of the opening phrase of Genesis, which seems to invite a causal rather than a temporal reading (Bereshit Rabba I.1). Origen, too, seems to recognize and to attempt to provide for this peculiarity (Homilies on Genesis 1.1). Origen, in doing so, seems to display his considerable familiarity with the alternative translations and interpretations of the text, including the original Hebrew, rather than simply to be reacting to the text according to his personal rejection of the notion of creation in time, a notion which seems to be universally rejected by the rabbis as well. The agent which these exegetes posit in their respective accounts profoundly effects the course of their subsequent exegesis of Genesis.

The rabbis, again in marked unison and with a characteristic appeal to a verse from Proverbs (8:22) as a proof, settle on Torah as that which prefigures creation along with God. The precise manner in which they conclude this is instructive insofar as it illuminates the rabbinic exegetical practice; by reading the problematic word, bereshit, in light of a concordant usage found elsewhere in Scripture, they proceed to apply the context of this intersecting verse5  to the original verse. In this case, the Proverbs’ designation of wisdom as "the beginning of his way" is equated, in good Hellenistic fashion, with Torah.

Origen follows a similar line of exegesis, appealing, however, to the New Testament Epistles (1 Tim. 4:10; Col. 1:15) and to the Gospel of John (1:1-3) to identify that which exists with God prior to creation as Christ. This introduction of the Christian savior into his Homily along with its attendant eschatological implications drives Origen’s subsequent exegesis. Despite the parallels in their exegetical procedures and the coincidences of their analogies regarding Torah, on the one hand, and the Word, or Christ, on the other,6  it is this theological conflict, as much as any substantial differences in exegetical theory or practice which distinguishes Origen’s reading from that of the Bereshit Rabba rabbis.

Notes

Bibliography