Genesis Rabbah

in Text and Context

Edited by
Sarit Kattan Gribetz
David M. Grossberg
Martha Himmelfarb
Peter Schäfer

Mohr Siebeck
E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission
Sarit Kattan Gribetz, born 1984; PhD from Princeton University; currently Assistant Pro-
fessor of Theology, Fordham University, New York.
David M. Grossberg, born 1965; PhD from Princeton University; currently Visiting Scholar,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Martha Himmelfarb, born 1952; PhD from the University of Pennsylvania; currently
William H. Danforth Professor of Religion, Princeton University, Princeton.
Peter Schäfer, born 1943; PhD from the University of Freiburg; Perelman Professor of
Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion Emeritus, Princeton University; Director, Jewish
Museum Berlin.

ISBN 978-3-16-154702-7
ISSN 0721-8753 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;

detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to repro-
ductions, translations, microilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Stempel Garamond typeface,
printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner
in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Sarit Kattan Gribetz and David M. Grossberg

Introduction: Genesis Rabbah, a Great Beginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Michael Sokoloff
The Major Manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sarit Kattan Gribetz

Between Narrative and Polemic: The Sabbath in Genesis Rabbah
and the Babylonian Talmud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Peter Schäfer
Genesis Rabbah’s Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chaim Milikowsky
Into the Workshop of the Homilist: A Comparison of
Genesis Rabbah 33:1 and Leviticus Rabbah 27:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Martha Himmelfarb
Abraham and the Messianism of Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Carol Bakhos
The Family of Abraham in Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Maren Niehoff
Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . 129

Laura Lieber
Stage Mothers: Performing the Matriarchs in Genesis Rabbah and Yannai 155

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

VIII Table of Contents

Joshua Levinson
Composition and Transmission of the Exegetical Narrative
in Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

David M. Grossberg
On Plane Trees and the Palatine Hill: Rabbi Yishmael and the Samaritan
in Genesis Rabbah and the later Palestinian Rabbinic Tradition . . . . . . . . . 195

Martin Lockshin
Peshat in Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Marc Hirshman
The Final Chapters of Genesis Rabbah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis
as a key to Genesis Rabbah1
Maren Niehoff

Genesis Rabbah and Origen’s Commentary on Genesis are natural candidates

for comparison. Each offers the irst explicit and systematic commentary on
the book of Genesis in its respective Jewish or Christian community. Both texts
were either wholly or partly composed in the cultural milieu of late antique Pal-
estine. Caesarea is known to have been the site of Origen’s academic and public
activities after 234 C. E., when he wrote books 9–13 of his Genesis Commentary
and continued to work on the book of Genesis.2 Caesarea also housed an im-
portant library, where Pamphilus carefully preserved Origen’s books, both those
authored by him and those collected by him since his early days in Alexandria.3
Genesis Rabbah may also have emerged in this city, at least in some of its stages
until its inal redaction in the early ifth century C. E.4 The numerous Greek
loanwords in Genesis Rabbah, to which Marc Hirshman has pointed, suit the
cosmopolitan atmosphere of Caesarea, where, according to y. Sotah 7:1, even the
“Shema” was recited in Greek.5 Zeev Weiss has moreover shown that the rabbis

1 I wish to thank the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (Grant No. 186/11) for its gen-

erous support of the research on which this paper is based as well as Yonathan Moss, Yakir Paz
and the editors of this volume for their careful comments on an earlier draft.
2 Eus., EH 6, 23:4–24:2; Test. BII.1 in Karin Metzler, Origenes: Die Kommentierung des

Buches Genesis (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 37.

3 On the library in Caesarea, see Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and

the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2006), 22–27, 56–85; Andrew J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of
Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003), esp. 1–12.
4 The dating of the inal redaction to the early ifth century is today generally accepted (see

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch [7th ed.; München:
Beck, 1982], 260; Ofra Meir, The Darshanic Story in Genesis Rabba [Hebrew] [Tel Aviv: Hakib-
butz Hameuchad, 1987], 70–72) and relies to no small degree on an analysis of the relationship
between Genesis Rabbah and the Jerusalem Talmud, mentioned as “Talmud” next to the Mish-
nah in Gen. Rab. 16:4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 147). Chanoch Albeck, “Mabo le Bereshit Rabba”
[Hebrew], in Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (Jerusalem: Wahrmann
Books, 1965) 3:66–84, established that Genesis Rabbah relied on an early form of the Talmud.
5 Marc Hirshman, “The Greek Words in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah” [Hebrew], in Tiferet

Leyisrael: Jubilee Volume in Honour of Israel Francus (ed. Joel Roth, Menahem Schmelzer, and
Yaacov Francus; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010), 21–33; see also idem, “Relec-
tions on the Aggada of Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millenia
(ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Holum; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 469–475.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

130 Maren Niehoff

of Caesarea, such as Rabbi Abbahu, were familiar with the entertainment cul-
ture of their city and assumed their community’s active involvement in it.6 Some
references in Genesis Rabbah relect literary contacts with the wider Hellenistic
culture characteristic of Caesarea. This midrash contains an explicit reference to
Aquila’s translation of the Torah into Greek, one of the well-known versions
used by Origen in his Hexapla, which played a signiicant role in his commen-
tary on Genesis and was present in his library.7 Genesis Rabbah also mentions
the Cynic Oenomaus of Gadara, one of two Greek philosophers known by
name in rabbinic literature.8 Yosef Geiger has suggested in his recent monograph
on Greek intellectuals in the Land of Israel that fragments of Oenomaus’ work
probably survived because his treatises were included in Origen’s library.9 These
basic facts suggest that Genesis Rabbah and Origen shared a cultural milieu re-
lating to signiicant components of the same intellectual world.
A close reading of Genesis Rabbah in light of Origen’s Commentary on Gen-
esis promises important new insights. Initially, such a comparison sheds light on
the question of whether the rabbis and the Church Father knew of each other’s
interpretations and, if so, how they reacted to each other. While Nicholas de
Lange in his seminal book Origen and the Jews has conclusively shown that
Origen was familiar with Jews and their exegetical traditions in the Land of
Israel, we still lack a detailed study of Origen’s work on Genesis in light of its
rabbinic parallel.10 Moreover, de Lange chose to investigate contacts between
Origen and the Jews mainly from the Church Father’s point of view, asking to
what extent his sources were rabbinic or his exegetical methods similar to those
of the rabbis. The inverse question, namely whether the rabbis took notice of
Origen’s interpretations, has not been treated in this context.11

6 Zeev Weiss, “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima, 443–
453.
7 Gen. Rab. 46:3; for references to Aquila in Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, see CII 1,

D9, 12, 22, 24, 86, E99, 116, 155 (ed. Metzler); on the signiicance and inluence of Origen’s
Hexapla, see Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford:
Clarendon Presss, 1993), 4–28; Alison Salveson, “A Convergence of Ways? The Judaizing of
Christian Scripture by Origen and Jerome,” in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians
in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed;
Tübingen: Siebeck Mohr, 2003), 242–248.
8 Gen. Rab. 65:19 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 734).
9 Yosef Geiger, The Tents of Yafet [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2012), 248–251.
10 Nicholas R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1975). See esp. 103–122, where he points to parallels between Origen’s and the rabbis’ techniques
of solving textual problems by symbolical interpretations. De Lange moreover suggests rabbinic
sources for Origen’s etymologies of biblical names. See also Hans Bietenhard, Caesarea, Orig-
ines und die Juden (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974), 19–38.
11
See also Bietenhard, Caesarea, Origines und die Juden, 42–47, who devotes a brief chapter
to the topic of Jewish polemic against Christians, but focuses on the Jew mentioned by Celsus,
while discussing hardly any rabbinic passages.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 131

It is vital for a proper understanding of rabbinic literature to understand if

and how it engaged in wider contemporary discourses. Since the sensational
discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, research on rabbinic literature has developed
in two directions: some scholars assume the rabbis’ inward orientation, which
can be traced from the Bible, through the Scrolls, to the Midrash, while others
interpret rabbinic sources in their contemporary context and stress the rabbis’
participation in wider cultural discourses.12 A close comparison of the rabbinic
and the patristic commentaries on the book of Genesis is likely to make a signif-
icant contribution to this debate.
Origen is an excellent point of reference for the study of Genesis Rabbah
because he is an important agent of Greek culture in the Land of Israel who
also comments on the same canonical text as the rabbis, a text neglected by
non-Christian Greeks. Origen was thus closer to the rabbis than other Greek
intellectuals, because he shared the biblical heritage, but also more problematic
because he claimed that heritage for the Christian Church.13 For both reasons it
is likely that the rabbis would have noticed his vast exegetical output in Caesarea.
Moreover, Origen was of Alexandrian origin, luent in Greek language, litera-
ture and philosophy, and thus offered the rabbis a natural bridge to the wider
intellectual world.
I shall investigate the relationship between Origen’s Commentary on Genesis
and Genesis Rabbah from three different perspectives; the irst two relate to
possible historical connections between them, while the third addresses their
phenomenological similarities. I make the following arguments:

12 This scholarship has been fruitful and illuminating for the study of ancient Judaism and

rabbinic literature. Among the most important such studies are Menahem Kister, “Let us make
man” [Hebrew], in Issues in the Study of the Talmud (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities 2001), 57–64; James Kugel, “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran” [Hebrew], in
The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (2 vols.; ed. Menahem Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi,
2009), 2.397–399; Amram Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2004); Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, ed., Jewish Culture and Society under
the Christian Roman Empire (Leuven: Peeters, 2003); Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia be-
tween Persia and Roman Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Shaye J. D. Cohen.
The Signiicance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2010). For pioneering work, see David Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hel-
lenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949): 239–264; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950; 2nd ed. 1962).
13 The newly discovered fragments of Origen’s Homilies on Psalms conirm Origen’s theo-

logy of Christian supersession, as shown by Alfons Fürst, “Juden, Judentum and Antijudaismus
in den neu entdeckten Psalmenhomilien des Origines,” Admantius 20 (2014): 275–287. On the
newly discovered fragments, see Lorenzo Perrone, “Rediscovering Origen Today: First Im-
pressions of the New Collection of Homilies on the Psalms in the Codex manacensis Graecus
314,” in Rediscovering Origen (Studia Patristica; ed. Markus Vinzent; Leuven: Peeters, 2013),
103–122. For previous research on Origen’s appropriation of the Hebrew Bible for Christian
purposes, see esp. Henri Crouzel, Origen (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989),
69–73.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

132 Maren Niehoff

1) Origen knew exegetical traditions preserved in Genesis Rabbah, testifying

not only to inter-religious contacts and polemics, but also to the very emergence
of Genesis Rabbah. Origen’s commentary, which can be dated to the mid-third
century C. E., provides invaluable insights for a systematic investigation into the
development of Genesis Rabbah and enables us to identify earlier layers. It is
thus possible to approach a historical analysis of this midrash, a task that has not
been systematically attempted since Meir Lerner’s pioneering yet preliminary
treatment in 1882.14
2) Genesis Rabbah developed in dialogue with Origen’s interpretations, some-
times offering an alternative point of view, while at other times sharing his
Christian insights. Because he was a prominent igure in the Land of Israel,
Origen provides important background information for Genesis Rabbah, allow-
ing us to appreciate the particular local discourses that the rabbis encountered.
When treating the larger questions of the rabbis’ attitude towards Hellenism
and Christianity, it is crucial to differentiate between different periods, texts and
areas. Different answers must be given with regard to different texts, each of
which must be appreciated in its own cultural and theological context. A detailed
comparison of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis and Genesis Rabbah offers a
welcome opportunity to study a particular case of contacts in a well-deined
historical and cultural context.
3) Origen’s commentary illuminates the Hellenistic background of rabbinic
exegesis in Genesis Rabbah. Origen writes in Greek and often uses traditional
Greek terms and concepts of interpretation, which he learnt in his youth in Alex-
andria.15 If we read Genesis Rabbah in light of Origen, we notice that both often
relate to the same textual problem and offer a similar solution. While Origen
provides the technical Greek terms, Genesis Rabbah usually relies on the same
hermeneutic assumptions without making them explicit. Reading the midrash
in light of Origen’s discussions, we can restore the technical terms and theoret-
ical notions that lie behind rabbinic exegesis. These notions often originated in
Alexandria and subsequently informed many Hellenistic discourses, including
Philo’s work on the books of Genesis and Exodus as well as Plutarch’s work
on Homer.16 Origen thus allows us to appreciate the ways in which the rabbis

14 Meir Lerner, Anlage und Quellen des Bereschit Rabba (Berlin: Juliua Benzian, 1882), who

reconstructed a tannaitic layer of an exegetical midrash that closely followed the biblical text and
provided nothing but basic explanations, and was subsequently expanded by aggadic material
from the amoraic period.
15 On the Alexandrian background of Origen’s exegetical methods, see Bernhard Neuschäfer,

Origines als Philologe (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987); Francesca Schironi, “The Am-
biguity of the Signs: Critical σημεῖα from Zenodotus to Origen,” in Homer and the Bible in the
Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (ed. Maren R. Niehoff; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 87–112; Frances Young,
Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997), 82–89.
16 On the Alexandrian background of Philo’s and Plutarch’s exegetical methods, see Maren

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 133

who contributed to Genesis Rabbah engaged in wider Hellenistic interpretive

discourses.
My arguments rely on Karin Metzler’s recent work on the fragments of Ori-
gen’s Commentary on Genesis (2010). She has published fragments of Origen’s
work that were not part of earlier editions and thus enlarged the evidence of
his commentary beyond Genesis 1–5. Metzler has convincingly argued that the
fragments from the scholia relect Origen’s systematic commentary activity on
the whole book of Genesis, including the inal chapters. She further suggests
that Origen arrived in Caesarea and decided to complete his exegetical work on
Genesis beyond his originally conceived plan of a commentary on the creation
account.17 Metzler’s critical edition of Origen’s fragments permits us to take a
fresh look at Genesis Rabbah in the Hellenistic context of the Land of Israel and
appreciate it from a far more comprehensive and precise perspective than has
hitherto been possible.

Origen’s Familiarity with Traditions

Preserved in Genesis Rabbah

Origen’s move to Caesarea had dramatic implications for his relationship with
contemporary Jews. The fragments from his early Alexandrian period relect no
familiarity with contemporary Jewish voices and rely for “Hebraic” material
mostly on Philo and the Greek translations of the Torah.18 The fragments of his
later work in the Land of Israel, on the other hand, frequently refer to “Jewish”
and “Hebrew” interpretations.19 While some of these traditions derive from
Philo, most of them cannot be traced to him, but are instead preserved in Gen-
esis Rabbah. Origen regularly approves of Philonic interpretations, while often
rejecting rabbinic views.20 He has evidently emerged from Alexandria with an
appreciation of Philo as an interpreter congenial to his own hermeneutic project,
but nonetheless wrestles with his new colleagues in the Land of Israel. It even
seems that some of his interpretations were prompted by rabbinic positions that
he found utterly unacceptable.

R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2011); idem, “Philo and Plutarch on Homer,” in Homer and the Bible,
127–153.
17 Metzler, Origenes, 9.
18 Regarding Philo’s works in Origen’s library, see Grafton and Williams, The Library of

Eusebius, 164–177; David T. Runia, “Caesarea Maritima and the Survival of Hellenistic-Jewish
Literature,” in Caesarea Maritima, 476–495.
19 On Origen’s use of the terms “Hebrew” and “Judaios,” see de Lange, Origen and the

Jews, 29–31.
20 For examples of Origen adopting Philonic interpretations, see E73, 106 (ed. Metzler); see

also de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 16, 117–119, 124–130.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

134 Maren Niehoff

A good example of Origen’s rejection of rabbinic views can be found in frag-

ment E96 of his Commentary on Genesis. Here Origen discusses the problem of
Jacob’s reaction to Joseph’s dream about his family bowing down to him. Even
though Rachel was already dead by that time (Gen 35:18), Jacob asks, “Shall I
and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground
before you?!” (Gen 37:10). Origen resolves the contradiction between the two
verses in the following way:
It is clear that Joseph’s mother, Rachel, had already died before Joseph had his dream,
namely when she gave birth to Benjamin. Therefore some Jews say that these things will
be fulilled at the resurrection and the mother will bow down to her son. But we, who
keep away from Jewish legend (ἡμεῖς δὲ Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀφιστάμενοι μυθολογίας), examine whether
it could have been prophesied that Mary and Joseph will bow down to Christ.21

Origen refers here to a Jewish legend or “mythology,” according to which Rachel

will be resurrected and thus able to fulill her designated role in Joseph’s dream.22
When Jacob responded to Joseph, he assumed that his deceased wife would come
alive again, thus resolving the contradiction that the previous verse, about Ra-
chel’s death, poses. Precisely this interpretation can be found in Genesis Rabbah:
Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: Jacob thought that the resurrec-
tion of the dead would take place in his days. It would have been reasonable (niḥa) to say,
“I and your brothers (will bow down to you),” but why (shema) “I and your mother?!”
Rachel died and you say, “I and your mother?!” Our father did not know that these things
referred to Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, who raised him like a mother.23

Genesis Rabbah clearly discusses the same textual problem as Origen, namely
the report of Jacob assuming that Rachel will be able to bow down before Joseph
even though she has already been described as dead beforehand. The solution
known to Origen as a “Jewish legend” is attributed here to Jacob and criticized
by amoraic teachers. Rabbi Levi presents this view as mistaken and suggests that
Jacob “did not know” that Joseph’s dream actually referred to Bilhah. On this
view, the term “mother” is meant metaphorically, no longer applying to Joseph’s
biological mother, but to her maid, and therefore arouses no dissonance with the
previous verse about Rachel’s death.
The picture that emerges from this comparison of Genesis Rabbah and Origen
is highly complex. Towards the middle of the third century C. E., Origen knows
of a Jewish interpretation that appears for the irst time in Jewish literature in
Genesis Rabbah, a midrash redacted in the early ifth century C. E.24 In Genesis
21 E96, ed. Metzler 270, my translation.
22 For details on Origen’s notion of Jewish mythology, see Marc Hirshman, “Origen’s view
of ‘Jewish fables’ in Genesis,” in The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity (ed. E. Grypeou and Helen Spurling; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 245–254.
23
Gen. Rab. 84:11 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1014), my translation.
24 The Book of Jubilees, for example, strongly abbreviates the biblical story of Joseph’s

childhood, altogether omitting his dreams (Jub. 39:1–4); while Philo mentions the dreams, but

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 135

Rabbah it is marked by amoraic teachers of the second and third generations as

Jacob’s mistaken view, which needs to be replaced by their own metaphorical
solution. Origen thus testiies to an earlier rabbinic tradition, which was later
dismissed by amoraic teachers. We must assume that third century rabbis in the
Land of Israel had indeed entertained the interpretation known to Origen – oth-
erwise he would not have made a special point of rejecting it.
Some further interaction between Origen and the rabbis is likely. Origen’s
criticism of the rabbinic interpretation as a mere myth is likely to have come to
the attention of his rabbinic discussion partners, to whom his own solution of
a hidden prophecy about Christ must have been equally unacceptable. We can
imagine Origen making provocative remarks to his rabbinic colleagues, adducing
the traditional Hellenistic argument that if a canonical text, which is supposed
to be free of textual laws, nevertheless contains dificulties, these must point
to a higher spiritual meaning, in this case to Christ.25 The rabbis could likewise
not leave the textual problem unsolved, but were apparently reluctant to return
to their original interpretation, which had in the meantime been mocked by
the famous Church Father in Caesarea. Amoraic teachers thus offered a new
metaphorical solution and attributed the older, literal one to the biblical Jacob.
Origen and the rabbis emerge as lively discussion partners, highly aware of
the other’s interpretation. While Origen explicitly deined his view in contrast
to Jewish exegesis, the rabbis do not mention an alternative interpretation, but
seem to have taken into account the Church Father’s criticism of an earlier rab-
binic explanation. Each side developed its positions with a view to the other,
carefully marking boundaries, avoiding an overlap of approaches and responding
to criticism from the other side. Origen’s interpretation is as dificult to imagine
without the initial impetus of the rabbis as it is dificult to understand why the
rabbis developed a new solution to the problem of Jacob’s words if we do not
take into account Origen’s dismissal of their original solution.
Another example of Origen’s explicit rejection of an interpretation preserved
in Genesis Rabbah can be found in fragment E16 of his Commentary on Genesis.
Origen deals here with God’s blessing of Noah, according to which “the fear of
you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast on the earth and every bird

does not identify a textual problem in Jacob’s response (Philo, Jos. 8–9, Somn. 2:6–7, 2:110–113,
2:135–140) and Josephus simply retells the story, identifying no exegetical problem in the ref-
erence to the mother (Ant. 2.11–16).
25 Philo is the irst exegete who systematically argued for the intended, spiritual meaning of

textual laws in the Bible. See Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 133–151; Adam
Kamesar, “Philo and the Literary Quality of the Bible: A Theoretical Aspect of the Problem,”
JJS 46 (1995): 55–68. Similar hermeneutic assumptions subsequently inform the work of Por-
phyry, Origen and Rabbi Akiva. Regarding Origen, see esp. R. Heine, “Reading the Bible with
Origen,” in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity (ed. P. M. Blowers; Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 131–148.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

136 Maren Niehoff

in the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the ish of the sea”
(Gen 9:2). Origen vehemently rejects the literal sense of this verse:
Anyone will violate [the verse] (βιάσεται) who says according to the literal sense (κατὰ τὸ
ρἡτὸν) that every living creature is illed with fear when seeing man, even the wild animals
in the desert. It is perhaps better to think (μήποτε δὲ βέλτιον νοεῖν) that the [evil] powers,
which are the “wild beasts of the earth,” fare differently from other kinds, for the fear and
trembling of the righteous is upon these. The evil powers fear the righteous.26

Origen regards the literal sense of Gen 9:2 as highly unacceptable, even as a
“violation” of its meaning. He stresses that the wild animals, especially those of
the desert, do not fear man and this fact renders the promise of the biblical verse
improbable. In another fragment he mentions Acts 28:8, where Paul is said to
have been bitten by a viper (D11). This “historical” evidence from the Christian
tradition will have further supported Origen’s position that Gen 9:2 is impossi-
ble in its literal sense. Origen thus offers a metaphorical solution. The notion of
“wild animals” is translated into evil powers, which we may imagine either as
external demonic forces or as man’s internal adversaries. Distinguishing between
all of Noah’s descendants and the righteous, Origen insists that only the latter
arouse fear in the evil powers.
The literal interpretation rejected by Origen is preserved in Genesis Rabbah,
where it appears for the irst time in extant Jewish literature.27 The rabbis natu-
rally assume the literal sense of the verse, stressing that the animals feared man
also after the deluge (Gen. Rab. 34:12). The tannaitic teacher Rabbi Shimon ben
Eleazar (tanei) adds: “an infant one day old, alive, need not be guarded from
mice or serpents to prevent them picking out his eyes; a lion sees him and lees, a
serpent sees him and lees.”28 This tannaitic interpretation corresponds precisely
to the view criticized by Origen, who especially complained about the notion
that desert animals fear man. He seems to have reacted to the tradition preserved
in Genesis Rabbah in the name of Rabbi Shimon. Once more, Origen emerges
as a valuable testimony to the existence of earlier rabbinic traditions, which have
ultimately been incorporated in Genesis Rabbah.
One further example may sufice to show Origen’s familiarity with rabbinic
traditions preserved in Genesis Rabbah. This time Origen adopts a rather more
positive attitude towards a rabbinic solution to the problem of Canaan’s curse:
Having said “the sons of Noah, who went forth from the ark, were Shem, Ham and
Japheth,” why does scripture add (ἡ γραφή προσέθηκεν): “Ham was Canaan’s father” (Gen
9:18)?29 If it had been necessary to enumerate Noah’s sons, all of them and not just one

26 E16, ed. Metzler 212.

27 A look at the Book of Jubilees and Philo, for example, is once more instructive: neither of
them treats Gen 9:2, suggesting that the question concerning the wild animals emerged only
subsequently.
28 Gen. Rab. 34:12 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 323–324).
29 Origen adds αὐτὸς to LXX Gen 9:18.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 137

should have been mentioned. Canaan himself is impious, as the story makes clear. Wishing
to show the similarity between the father and the son, the [Holy] Spirit distinguishes him
from his brothers’ piety by adding “Ham was Canaan’s father”…
The Hebrew who says these things adduces the following tradition, adding a proof from
tradition (ἒφερε δὲ ὁ Ἑβραῖος ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ παράδοσιν τοιαύτην ἐπενεγκὼν ἀπόδειξιν τῇ
παραδόσει): Canaan was the irst who saw his grandfather’s shame and announced it to his
father, mocking so to speak the old man. Ham, however, who should not have approached
either his father or his brothers disrespectfully, but should instead have rebuked the one
who saw him irst and denounced him, became himself convinced and went in, saw [the
shame] and brought report of it to his brothers. These things look like a myth (ταῦτα δὲ
δοκεῖ μῦθος εἶναι), if the proof [in its favor] were not so strong.30

Origen relies in this passage on a Jewish tradition, described as “Hebrew,”

to solve the problem of Canaan’s curse. While Philo had already asked why
Canaan rather than Ham is cursed, he offered a straightforward allegorical
solution, which is not at all similar to the literal interpretation mentioned here.31
Genesis Rabbah, by contrast, preserves exactly the tradition to which Origen
refers.
Initially, we notice an anonymous interpretation of the expression “Ham
was Canaan’s father,” which is briely glossed with “he was the source of his
disgrace.”32 This laconic remark is best understood in light of Origen’s more
detailed comments, because it relies on the same questions and theoretical as-
sumptions. As we saw above, Origen points out that the phrase “Ham was Ca-
naan’s father” looks superluous, because their biological relationship is known
and requires no particular mention here. Origen’s question of why “scripture
adds” an apparently superluous phrase relects a central concern of Alexandri-
an Homer scholarship, which tried to identify inauthentic lines added by later
editors.33 The rabbinic interpretation in Genesis Rabbah relies on the same her-
meneutic assumptions without, however, explicitly formulating them. The crux
is assumed to be self-evident, requiring no special mention. Strikingly, the same
solution is offered. Both Origen and Genesis Rabbah interpret the apparently
superluous reference to the father and the son as an allusion to their common
immorality, which distinguishes them from their other family members. The
rabbis and Origen thus share a common hermeneutic language, which had origi-
nally developed in scholarly circles in Alexandria and spread from there to other
Hellenistic discourses.

30 E 20, ed. Metzler 214–6

31 Philo, Sobr. 31–7; QGen. 2.65, 71.
32 Gen. Rab. 36:2 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 336).
33 For details on the notion of the superluous in Homeric scholarship, see Francesca Schi-

roni, “Theory into Practice: Aristotelian Principles in Aristarchan Philology,” Classical Phi-
lology 104 (2009): 279–316; René Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts
of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2009), 32–23, 303.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

138 Maren Niehoff

Moreover, Genesis Rabbah contains the Jewish tradition, which Origen cites
as a solution to the problem, namely “Canaan was the irst who saw his grandfa-
ther’s shame and announced it to his father, mocking so to speak the old man.” In
Genesis Rabbah this tradition is preserved in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah, who
says: “Canaan saw [the shame] and told them, therefore the curse is attached to
him who did wrong.”34 Rabbi Nehemiah’s solution appears in Genesis Rabbah as
part of a broader tannaitic discussion. Rabbi Yehudah offers a different solution,
suggesting that Canaan was indeed innocent, but received the curse because God
had blessed Ham, who could therefore not be cursed by Noah (Gen 9:1). Origen
conirms the existence of Rabbi Nehemiah’s view, which he accepts somewhat
reluctantly, thus providing invaluable insight into the early stages of the rabbinic
midrash.
Origen furthermore shows that the tannaitic discussion was part of a broader
Hellenistic discourse. When Origen says “someone may wonder (θαυμάζοι) why
Ham, who was himself impious, did not receive the same curse as his son” (E20),
he relies on a term frequently used in the Alexandrian scholia to express the
interpreter’s sense that the canonical text contradicts common sense and cannot
be accepted at face value.35 Genesis Rabbah introduces the tannaitic discussion
with the same hermeneutic attitude and uses similar terminology: “Ham sinned
and Canaan is cursed – strange (etmeha)!”36 The Hebrew term etmeha not only
reads like a translation of θαυμάζοι, but also shows how deeply rooted the rabbis
were in broader Hellenistic discourses.
Reading Genesis Rabbah in light of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, we be-
gin to understand that the rabbis in the Land of Israel resembled Greek scholars,
whether Christian or pagan, who expressed their critical acumen and pointed
to cruxes in the canonical text. Using standard expressions of text-criticism not
extant in Second Temple sources, the rabbis have become recognizable scholars
in Hellenistic garb. The fragments of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis testify
to an important stage in the process of adopting scholastic methods of biblical
exegesis, which was well under way in the mid-third century, i. e. long before the
inal redaction of Genesis Rabbah in the early ifth century C. E.37

34 Gen. Rab. 36:7 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 341).

35 On the notion of the “wondrous” or paradoxical in the Homeric scholia, see Schironi,
“Theory into Practice,” 284–288.
36 Gen. Rab. 36:7 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 340).
37 See also Yakir Paz, “Re-Scripturizing Traditions: Designating Dependence in Rabbinic

Halakhic Midrash and Homeric Scholarship,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient
Interpreters (ed. Maren R. Niehoff; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 269–298, who has demonstrated traces
of Hellenistic scholarship in the earlier Halakhic Midrashim; see also his doctoral dissertation,
“The Scholarly Turn: Rabbinic Biblical Exegesis in Light of the Homeric Commentaries” (sub-
mitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University, 2014).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 139

Genesis Rabbah Emerged in Dialogue with Origen

The rabbis quoted in Genesis Rabbah never refer as explicitly to Origen as

Origen does to rabbinic traditions. There is no mention of Origen’s name and
no explicit reference to Christian interpretations in general. Does this lack of
reference indicate the rabbis’ ignorance of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis and
challenge our preliminary impressions in the irst section of this article? In other
words, did the rabbis pursue their work in isolation and without taking notice of
the Church Father? Or rather should we interpret the rabbis’ silence in historical
terms, namely as an expression of their having become a religious minority in an
empire turned Christian before the inal redaction of Genesis Rabbah? On this
view, political caution could have determined the rabbis’ attitude. While perhaps
knowing Origen’s work, they preferred to keep silent about it because they could
not openly discuss or criticize it.
While such interpretations are possible, I would like to argue for the rabbis’
more direct engagement with Origen’s views. This approach is based on a de-
tailed comparison between the rabbinic and the patristic commentaries on Gen-
esis. Origen’s explicit references to rabbinic exegesis, which we have observed in
the previous section, make some sort of reciprocity likely, especially if we assume
oral contacts. If Origen heard the rabbinic interpretations in a conversation, he
probably also expressed his own opinions on the matter and thus stimulated the
rabbis to respond. Moreover, the interpretations shared by Origen and Genesis
Rabbah show a remarkable degree of congeniality, which is often unique among
the ancient sources. In other words, if Genesis Rabbah offers an interpretation
not preserved in previous Jewish literature, but highly similar to that of Origen,
who is likely to have introduced it to the Christian tradition, I suggest that the
rabbis were familiar with the particular views of this Church Father in Caesarea.
I shall take into account the possibility that the rabbis adopted Origen’s views
or responded to them polemically or used them selectively, transforming and
adapting them to their own needs.
Some images in Genesis Rabbah look too Christian to have independently
developed in rabbinic circles. The most conspicuous example of this kind is the
image of Isaac carrying the wood for his sacriice “as someone who carries his
cross (ke-ze she-to‘en tsluvo bi-khtefo).”38 It is needless to stress that this image
is introduced here for the irst time in Jewish literature, having no parallel in
the extant sources from the Second Temple period or earlier rabbinic literature.
Moreover, this anonymous and highly laconic explanation of Gen 22:6 is illumi-
nated by Origen, who says of Isaac: “he carried his cross like Jesus, as this was the
typological [anticipation] of him.”39 In the context of Origen’s Commentary on

38 Gen. Rab. 56:3 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 598).

39 Ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐβάσταζεν αὐτοῦ τὸν σταυρόν τύπος γὰρ ἦν τοῦτο ἐκείνου (E54, ed. Metzler, 240).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

140 Maren Niehoff

Genesis, the motif of Isaac carrying his cross is natural, because he is construct-
ed as a pre-iguration of Jesus. Origen signiicantly uses the same words as the
Gospel of John in the description of the cruciixion (βαστἀζων ἑαυτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν),
thus creating a rich inter-textual image of Isaac (John 19:17).
Rabbinic interpreters would hardly have come up independently with the
image of Isaac carrying his cross.40 It is rather striking that the short explanation
in Genesis Rabbah almost reads like a translation of the key-sentence in the
Gospel of John, cited in Origen’s Commentary on Genesis. The modern He-
brew translator of the gospel offers a formulation very close to that in Genesis
Rabbah, namely u-kheshe-hu’ nose’ et tselavo.41 Genesis Rabbah thus repeats
precisely Origen’s exegetical move, connecting the image of Isaac carrying the
wood for the Akedah with the image of the cruciixion, as formulated in the
Gospel of John. In antiquity this move was unique to Origen, who developed
further an idea, briely adumbrated by Melito of Sardis. The latter compared
Jesus’ suffering to the sufferings of ive biblical heroes as well as the prophets.
In this context, he mentioned Isaac “who is likewise tied up.” 42 Origen took the
idea of a similarity between Isaac’s and Jesus’ sufferings, transferred the focus
from the binding to the wood, and associated the image of Jesus carrying his
cross with that of Isaac carrying the wood for the Akedah. Origen emerges as
the irst exegete in the extant Christian tradition who anchored the idea of Isaac
as Jesus’ pre-iguration in Gen 22:5. Given the similarity of the interpretations
in Genesis Rabbah and Origen’s commentary, it is highly likely that the rabbis
who contributed to Genesis Rabbah were familiar with his interpretation and
adopted it in their own reading of the biblical story.
The impression of a direct connection between Genesis Rabbah and Ori-
gen’s Commentary on Genesis is further corroborated by two additional shared
interpretations of the Akedah. Origen and Genesis Rabbah both assume that
Abraham was conident in Isaac’s safe return from the ordeal and interpret the
biblical expression “[Abraham and Isaac] went both of them together” (Gen

40 See also Martha Himmelfarb, “The Ordeals of Abraham: Circumcision and the Aqedah in

Origen, the Mekhilta and Genesis Rabbah,” Henoch 30 (2008): 297, who suggests that Genesis
Rabbah was familiar with Christian typologies of Isaac as a type of Christ.
41 The New Testament in Hebrew (Jerusalem: The Bible Society in Israel, 1991), 212.
42 Melito of Sardis, On Pascha (trans. A. Stewart-Sykes; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Press, 2001), par. 59. Interpretations of the Akedah in post-biblical literature differ widely. See
E. Noort and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed., The Sacriice of Isaac: The Akedah (Genesis 22) and its
Interpretations (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Some scholars argue that the motif of the suffering servant
developed in Jewish circles, whence it was applied already in the New Testament to Jesus (see
e. g. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [Leiden: Brill, 1961], 193–227; Jon Leven-
son, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993],
200–219); while others argue that the motif is late and of Christian origin (see esp. P. R. Davies
and Bruce D. Chilton, “The Aqeda: A Revised Tradition-History,” CBQ 40 [1978]: 514–446).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 141

22:6) to mean that they were spiritually united and of equal standing.43 These
shared interpretations are signiicant because they set new accents in their re-
spective Jewish and Christian traditions. In the Book of Jubilees, for example,
Abraham’s depiction at the Akedah remains conspicuously close to the biblical
text, avoiding references to his foreknowledge of the happy end as well as signs
that Isaac was his active partner in the deed.44 The most signiicant expansion is
the motif of the angels, which also appears in a fragment from Qumran on the
Akedah, where it was further developed into a dualistic scenario in heaven.45 In
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Akedah plays no special theological
role yet and Isaac generally remains a marginal character.46
In light of the above evidence we can conclude that the rabbis contributing
to Genesis Rabbah were most probably familiar with Origen’s interpretation of
Isaac at the Akedah, which was available and known in third-century Caesarea.
It is especially remarkable that the motif of Isaac carrying his cross was preserved
in Genesis Rabbah, redacted at a time when the belief in Jesus’ cruciixion had
already become part of the oficial state religion. Given the widespread iconogra-
phy of Jesus’ cross in the Land of Israel in the later fourth and early ifth century,
it is highly unlikely that the rabbis would have used the cross as an innocent
reference to ancient Roman practices of public executions. It is instead far more
reasonable to assume that the rabbis were comfortable adapting this Christian
motif, using well-known iconography to highlight Isaac’s suffering.
At the same time, however, the rabbinic version of Isaac’s story retains clear
boundaries, marking the discourse in Genesis Rabbah as Jewish and distinct from
that of Origen and his Christian followers. This boundary is deined by omitting
the element of christological typology. While the rabbis agree with Origen that
Isaac carried his cross, they disagree about his role in the larger drama of Chris-
tian theology, according to which he was a prototype of Christ. Remarkably,
this latter element is simply dropped rather than attacked or explicitly dismissed.
The gentle tone of the rabbinic interpretation indicates that Genesis Rabbah
appealed to an internal Jewish and perhaps speciically rabbinic audience. There
was clearly no need to convince the readers that the idea of Isaac’s preiguring
Christ was wrong.
The discussion of the blessing of Jacob provides another example that indicates
that Genesis Rabbah may well have been familiar with Origen’s interpretations
and probably reacted to them. In his seminal work Verus Israel Marcel Simon
43 E53, Gen. Rab. 56:2 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 597); E55, Gen. Rab. 55:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck,
584).
44 Jub. 2:13–4, 6:1–3, 17:1–3, 18:3–11.
45 4 Q225 in DJD 13.149.
46 See esp. the laconic reference to the Akedah in Dial. 120:2, and the random reference to the

“family of David, Jacob and Isaac” in the context of Jesus’ cruciixion in Dial. 100:3, and other,
surprisingly general references to Isaac (mostly in the expression “the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob”) in Dial. 11, 35:5, 46:3, 50:2.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

142 Maren Niehoff

uncovered many polemical contacts between Jews and Christians concerning

the issue of Israel’s election, but he focused on evidence from the Babylonian
Talmud, which is too late to be relevant for our study of Genesis Rabbah.47 It is
now time to investigate the possibility of contacts between Genesis Rabbah and
Origen, which have thus far not yet been given their due attention.
Genesis Rabbah makes considerable efforts to explain the blessing of Jacob.
In light of previous Jewish interpretations from the Second Temple period, two
interrelated tendencies are remarkable: Jacob’s lie to Isaac about his identity
becomes a major issue, and his embodiment of Jewish values is stressed as never
before. During the Second Temple period these issues had aroused little interest.
While Philo briely explains that Jacob’s lie was a necessary “white lie,” the Book
of Jubilees is happy to stress that Isaac blessed him unknowingly, but with divine
support.48 Josephus unapologetically criticizes Jacob’s fraud (Ant. 1:269–273).
Such simple answers to the complex biblical story about human trickery and
divine providence are no longer available in Genesis Rabbah. The rabbis con-
tributing to this midrash are deeply aware of the ramiications of this story for
their own time and wish to clarify that Isaac consciously blessed Jacob as a Jew
and father of the Jewish nation.49
Rabbi Levi, for example, insists that Jacob neither lied to his father nor re-
ceived the blessing by pretending to be Esau. Yet the biblical narrator presents
Jacob as saying to his father: “I am Esau your irst-born. I have done as you told
me; now sit up and eat of my game, that you may bless me” (Gen 27:19). To solve
the problem of this verse Rabbi Levi uses a hermeneutic technique that had been
introduced by Aristotle and used by Philo, namely a change of punctuation.50
The personal pronoun “I” and the two following nouns are no longer read as
belonging to one continuous sentence, but rather as parts of different clauses.
Such a new division of the sentence is facilitated by the Hebrew language, which
does not require the verb “to be” and simply lists the different referents: ’anokhi
‘esav bekhorekha. Rabbi Levi suggests that Jacob said the following to Isaac:
“I – am to receive the Ten Commandments – but Esau is your irst-born.”51 On
this reading, Jacob did not rely on trickery in order to receive his father’s blessing
but presented a fair choice to Isaac. Not surprisingly, the latter chose the son
committed to the Ten Commandments.
This exegetical approach to the problem of Jacob’s blessing is continued by
Rabbi Yohanan, who attributes to Isaac a clear awareness of Jacob’s religious

47 See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel (trans. H. McKeating; Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1986), 186–192.
48 Philo, QG 4:206; Jub. 26:7–34.
49 For discussions of the contemporary ramiications of Jacob’s lie, see esp. Gen. Rab. 67:2–3

(ed. Theodor-Albeck, 755–757).

50 Aristotle, Poet. 1461a23; Philo, Plant. 113.
51 Gen. Rab. 65:18 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 730).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 143

identity and his advantages over Esau: “I know that Esau does not mention the
name of the Holy One blessed be He, this one mentions Him – therefore this
is not Esau, but Jacob.”52 Moreover, Rabbi Yohanan gives a completely new
interpretation to Esau’s trembling when he bitterly realizes that “[his] brother
came with guile and has taken away [his] blessing” (Gen 27:33–5). According to
Rabbi Yohanan, Isaac trembled not because he understood Jacob’s trickery, but
because Esau entered “with Gehenna on his side.”53 Jacob is furthermore said
to have come not with guile, but “with the wisdom of his Torah learning (be-
ḥokhmat torato).”54 Rabbi Yohanan thus insists with consistent pathos that Isaac
intentionally gave Jacob the blessing and Jacob rightfully received it thanks to
his commitment to God and to Torah learning, both of which are rabbinic ideals.
“The voice of Jacob,” which is already recognized by the biblical Isaac, plays
a special role in this context. An anonymous interpreter suggests that Jacob
achieves control by his voice, while Esau rules by virtue of his hands and physical
force.55 Rabbi Abba bar Kahana expands this approach with a fascinating refer-
ence to contemporary prayer in the Jewish synagogues, which is appreciated by
the Cynic philosopher Oenomaus:
No philosophers in the world are like Balaam ben Beor and Oenomaus of Gadara.56 When
all the nations assembled at Oenomaus of Gadara’s, they said to him: say that we can attack
this nation. He answered: go and see their synagogues and houses of learning. If you ind
boys raising their voice in prayer, you cannot prevail, but if not, you can attack them, be-
cause thus promised their father: “the voice is Jacob’s voice” (Gen 27:22), as long as Jacob
makes his voice heard in the synagogues, Esau has no power.57

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana introduces the perspective of a sympathetic pagan,

familiar with the Bible, in order to strengthen the identiication of Jacob’s voice
with the contemporary voices of Jewish prayer. It is implied that this equation
is so self-evident that a friendly outsider would recognize it. The reader is thus
encouraged not only to perceive Jacob’s blessing as well-deserved and inten-
tionally given to Jacob as a Jew, but also as an event with powerful implications
for contemporary times, when it protects against attacks from outside. The
apologetic tone of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana’s interpretation becomes clear when
it is compared to that of Philo, who identiies Jacob’s voice with “piety of will,”
a notion that does not relect any awareness that either this interpretation or Ja-
cob’s general status is contested by outsiders (QG 4:210). Philo clearly wrote at
a time when the Bible was the sole possession of the Jews, while Genesis Rabbah

52 Gen. Rab. 65:19 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 732).

53 Gen. Rab. 67:2 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 753).
54 Gen. Rab. 67:35 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 758).
55 Gen. Rab. 65:39 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 733).
56
The manuscripts vary between “Gadara” and “Garada,” on which see Geiger, The Tents
of Yafet, 248.
57 Gen. Rab. 65:20 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 734.)

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

144 Maren Niehoff

emerged in an atmosphere when the biblical text was shared with others and its
meaning contested.
Origen provides a key to understand the special exegetical efforts made in
Genesis Rabbah to explain Jacob’s blessing. It is initially striking that Origen is
familiar with the interpretation preserved in Genesis Rabbah under the name of
Rabbi Yohanan. He refers to a “Hebraios,” who “transmits something like this
(τοιοῦτόν): as Isaac knew that the pious word ‘God granted me this’ (Gen 27:20)
could not have been spoken by Esau, he said: ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice.’”58
Origen’s report indicates that rabbinic scholars had already interpreted Jacob’s
blessing before he set out to interpret this passage in the book of Genesis. His
rather vague reference to “something like this” suggests that he had direct oral
contacts with his colleagues and recollects a discussion rather than quoting from
a written midrashic text.
Origen agrees with his rabbinic colleague(s) that Jacob’s voice was recognized
by his father. It is moreover commonly assumed that Isaac intentionally gave
Jacob his blessing and that Jacob was religiously far superior to his brother, who
did not worship God. At the same time, however, Origen strongly disagrees with
his rabbinic colleagues regarding Jacob’s identity. In his view, Jacob symbolizes
the church, superseding Judaism, the religion of law. Jacob is identiied with “the
heavenly Jerusalem, which is free and our mother” (E71). In view of rabbinic
interpretations it is particularly remarkable that Origen claims for Jacob iden-
tiiable Christian virtues. He is said to have “understood better than the elder”
and his fragrance is associated with the “aroma of Christ” mentioned by Paul.59
Reading Genesis Rabbah in light of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis we
get the impression of lively exegetical contacts. Origen undoubtedly knew a
rabbinic interpretation of the “voice of Jacob,” which was subsequently pre-
served in Genesis Rabbah. So too the rabbis’ reference to Oenomaus as a proof
for Jacob’s identiication with the synagogue is best understood as a reaction to
Origen’s claim about his Christian identity. It is very likely indeed that rabbinic
scholars heard about his interpretation of Jacob as the Church and reacted to it
by asserting that Jacob’s Jewish identity is beyond doubt and widely recognized.
The rabbinic emphasis on the contemporary synagogue emerges as a direct mir-
ror image of Origen’s stress on the contemporary Church. This impression of
mirror images, which emerged in polemical dialogue with one another, is further
strengthened by the interpretation of a hapax legomenon in Gen 24:63, where
Isaac is presented as “going out la-suaḥ.” Both Genesis Rabbah and Origen
interpret the word as a reference to prayer, Origen insisting that the Christian

58 E73 (ed. Metzler, 252).

59 E71, 74 (ed. Metzler, 250, 252).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 145

form of “prayer in the heart” is meant, with no audible voice, while the rabbis
assume their liturgical practices, namely prayer with a voice.60
In light of these direct exegetical contacts between the rabbis and Origen
regarding Isaac’s wood and Jacob’s blessing, many other parallels between the
two commentaries appear to be signiicant. Both insist, for example, that there
was no sex in Noah’s ark; both interpret God’s creation of man in the divine
image as a sign that man is endowed with heavenly as well as earthly elements.61
Both regard Enoch as wicked and imagine Isaac as being weaned from his evil
inclination.62 These parallels between Genesis Rabbah and Origen are especially
signiicant in light of the fact that the midrash sets new accents of interpretation
within the Jewish tradition of exegesis. There is no need to mention the exten-
sive literature on Enoch from the Second Temple period, which praises him as
a visionary and cherishes the inverse image of him from that shared by Origen
and Genesis Rabbah.63 Moreover, the Book of Jubilees, which covers the same
biblical stories in Genesis, stresses remarkably different aspects. Man’s creation
in God’s image is not even mentioned, let alone interpreted as a sign of his en-
dowment with divine qualities; Noah’s sexual abstinence is not anticipated, but
his sacriice is highlighted instead; Isaac’s weaning from his mother’s breast is
only briely discussed in the context of fulilling the promise of the holy seed.
Genesis Rabbah thus emerges as innovative within the Jewish tradition, offering
creative interpretations, which often correspond directly to those in Origen’s
Commentary on Genesis. In some cases direct dialogue between the rabbis and
the Church Father in Caesarea is most likely, while in other cases their corre-
spondence may relect the participation of both Origen and the rabbis in general
Hellenistic discourses.

Origen Illuminates the Hellenistic Background

of Rabbinic Exegesis in Genesis Rabbah

In the previous two sections I have already pointed to several cases where Origen
illuminates the Hellenistic background of rabbinic exegesis in Genesis Rabbah.
We have seen that he directly addresses problems of apparently superluous
expressions, identiies paradoxes, and investigates contradictions between bibli-
cal verses. The Greek terms that Origen uses in these contexts indicate that his

60 E 60 (ed. Metzler, 243), Gen. Rab. 60:14 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 654–655). On the emergence

of silent prayer, see Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, “‘More Interior than the Lips and the Tongue’:
John of Apamea and Silent Prayer in Antiquity,” JECS 20 (2012): 303–331.
61
E 207, Gen. Rab. 31:18 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 286), D11, Gen. Rab. 8:3–4 (ed. Theodor-Al-
beck, 58–60).
62 E 2, Gen. Rab. 25:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 238), E 52, Gen. Rab. (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 565).
63 See also Peter Schäfer’s article in the present volume.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

146 Maren Niehoff

scholarly inquiries are informed by Hellenistic practices, which had developed

in circles of Homeric scholars in Alexandria and spread from there to a variety
of other places and ields. Our detailed comparison of Genesis Rabbah and Ori-
gen has moreover shown that the rabbis were motivated by the same scholarly
queries without explicitly formulating them.
Relative to works of the Second Temple period, Genesis Rabbah is character-
ized by a new commitment to scholarship. The basis of its exegesis, which also
includes creative stories, is a careful study of the biblical text. New attention is
paid to the historical signiicance of biblical words. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, for
example, explains that aval relects a southern dialect and corresponds to beram
(Gen. Rab. 91:8). Many expressions in the book of Genesis are scrutinized on
the basis of the assumption that the different books of the Bible form one cor-
pus, each of its parts illuminating the others. The meaning of a particular biblical
phrase can thus be established by examining the text as a whole, especially by
looking at identical or similar expressions in other contexts. Rabbi Yitzhak, for
example, studies the expression “a morsel of bread” in Gen 18:5 by comparing
it to parallel passages throughout scripture:
In the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings we ind that bread strengthens the heart. In
the Torah: “And I will fetch a morsel of bread and sustain your heart” (Gen 18:5); in the
Prophets: “Sustain your heart with a morsel of bread” (Judg 19:5); in the Writings: “And
bread which sustains the heart” (Ps 104:15).64

Similarly, Rabbi Hoshaya illuminates the ambiguous term amon in Prov 8:30
by reference to omen in Num 11:12, Esth 2:7 and Nah 3:8 (Gen. Rab. 1:1).
Rabbi Shemuel bar Nahman argues that Potiphar’s wife addresses Joseph in a
particularly vulgar style: in comparison to Ruth’s more subtle words to Boaz,
she directly suggests intercourse “like an animal” (Gen. Rab. 87:5). The rabbis
contributing to Genesis Rabbah are moreover concerned to establish a consistent
meaning of particular words throughout scripture. Rabbi Yohanan, for example,
suggests that “everywhere (be-khol maqom) where it is written ‘poor,’ ‘lowly’ or
‘needy,’ scripture speaks about Israel” (Gen. Rab. 71:1).
Such scholarly techniques of inquiring into the canonical text as a closed
literary corpus are also used by Origen, who regularly investigates the meaning
of words or particular expressions “throughout the whole of scripture (ἐν ὅλῃ
γραφῇ)” or “in many places of the scriptures (πολαχοῦ δὲ τῶν γραφῶν).”65 Origen’s
exegetical procedure clearly resembles that of the rabbis contributing to Genesis
Rabbah. Both share a distinctly scholarly approach to the canonical scriptures.
Origen’s formulations in Greek moreover relect the Hellenistic background
of this approach. Aristarchus, the foremost scholar of Alexandria living in the

64
Gen. Rab. 48:11 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 488).
65E52, 56, see also E61, where Origen simply says πολαχοῦ τηρήσεις; see also Neuschäfer,
Origines als Philologe, 276–85.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 147

mid-second century B. C. E., made pioneering contributions to the study of

the Homeric text as a piece of literature. Whether or not he ever pronounced
the famous principle, preserved by Porphyry, that “Homer is to be elucidated
from Homer,” Aristarchus paid special attention to the internal coherence of the
entire Homeric corpus.66 Arguing that both the Iliad and the Odyssey stemmed
from the same author, he inquired into his characteristic style and presentation
of dramatic igures. The comparison of similar or apparently contradictory lines
became a central concern, which he regularly applied to his study of Homeric
phrases.
Philo of Alexandria adopted this scholarly, literary approach and for the irst
time applied it systematically to the Bible. In his allegorical commentary, he care-
fully studies the books of Genesis and Exodus, inquiring into the characteristic
style of Moses as the author of the Torah. He pays special attention to parallel
expressions in different contexts and studies any given passage with references
to others.67 Reading Genesis Rabbah in light of Origen and Philo, we realize
that rabbinic scholars in the Land of Israel participated in a broad Hellenistic
discourse, which originated in Alexandria and transcended cultural boundaries.
One of the consequences of reading scripture as a closed literary corpus with
one authorial voice is an increased awareness of apparent contradictions, redun-
dancies or lacunae in the text. If it is assumed that one author wrote the text and
that this author was highly competent, such apparent laws require an explana-
tion. Rabbi Hoshaya, for example, inquires why the angel who addresses Hagar
says, “Behold, you will conceive” (Gen 16:11), given that Hagar has already been
described as pregnant (Gen 16:5). Rabbi Hoshaya argues that scripture aimed at
conveying an implicit meaning: “Scripture teaches (melammed) that an evil eye
entered her [Hagar] and she miscarried” (Gen. Rab. 45:5). A textual problem has
thus been identiied and is interpreted as a sign of an additional message implied
by the text. In other words, the very law is interpreted positively as an intended
springboard for the interpreter. The solution offered by Rabbi Hoshaya relies
on the notion of a gap in the text and reconstructs what the author had in mind
without explicitly saying so. Hagar emerges as having been pregnant twice,
corresponding to the two biblical references to her pregnancy. Similarly, Rabbi
Yohanan explains the apparent redundancy of two references to Abraham’s old
age in Gen 18:11 and 24:1 as an indication for another event that has not been
mentioned in scripture but is clearly assumed: “The Holy One blessed be He

66 On the principle and its attribution to Aristarchus, see Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexan-

dria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 1.464; James I. Porter, “Hermeneutic Lines and
Circles: Aristarchos and Crates on the Exegesis of Homer,” in Homer’s Ancient Readers (ed.
Robert Lamberton and John J. Keaney; Princeton: Magie Classical Publications, 1992), 70–80;
cf. Rudolf Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1.225–227.
67 For details, see Niehoff, Biblical Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 133–151.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

148 Maren Niehoff

rejuvenated Abraham and therefore it was necessary to write a second time

(leikhakh tsarikh likhtov pa’am sheniya) ‘Abraham was old’” (Gen. Rab. 48:16).
These phrases in Genesis Rabbah are closely paralleled in Origen’s Commen-
tary on Genesis, where he formulates a hermeneutic principle on the issue of gaps
in the text. Origen argues that “scripture often did not fully tell [something] in
the midst of the action (πολάκις οὔν ἡ γραφή ἃ ἐν τῷ πράττεσθαι οὐκ ἐξηγήσατο), but
[later] clariies it through some explanation” (E85). In the case of Gen 31:7 Ori-
gen stresses that Jacob’s agreement is “nowhere made explicit (οὐδαμοῦ φαίνεται),
but can be deduced from his words” (ibid.). The rabbis contributing to Genesis
Rabbah rely on precisely the same exegetical principle without explicitly for-
mulating it.
This hermeneutic principle shared by Genesis Rabbah and Origen is grounded
in a long tradition of Hellenistic exegesis. Aristarchus was probably the irst to
stress that a gap in the text can be illed κατὰ τὸ σιωρώμενον, namely “according to
the principle of silence.”68 Examining the puzzling appearance of Achilles’ spear,
Aristarchus says:
“But [Achilles] left there his spear on the bank of the river” (Il. 21:17).
While he [Achilles] explicitly lays aside the spear, he does not explicitly take it up, but
later appears as using it (Il. 21:67–70). The reference is to Zenodotus, who does not know
that it is necessary to admit that many things take place implicitly (κατὰ τὸ σιωρώμενον).69

Aristonicus, who transmits this fragment, places Aristarchus’ interpretation in

the context of his arguments with Zenodotus, the irst librarian of Alexandria
and pioneer of Homeric research at the Museum. The latter seems to have point-
ed to a contradiction between Il. 21:17 and 21:67–70, probably identifying the
former as spurious. Aristarchus rejects his predecessor’s text criticism, stressing
that the two verses are in perfect harmony if we recognize that something hap-
pened in between. A gap in the text is thus identiied and illed in precisely the
same way as the rabbis and Origen would later do with regard to their canon-
ical text. While the rabbis and Origen no longer consider text emendation, or
athetesis, they still share the concern of the Alexandrian scholars for a lawless
canonical text with gaps to be illed.
Attention to issues of verisimilitude is another concern shared by the rabbis,
Origen and the Alexandrian scholars. The rabbis contributing to Genesis Rabbah
assume that their scriptures relect the truth and thus give special attention to
passages that seem impossible or implausible. Such stories prompt explanations
and call for an exegetical solution. It is discussed, for example, whether it is “pos-
68 On this principle, see Nünlist, Ancient Critic at Work, 157–173; Rudolf Meinel, κατὰ τὸ

σιωρώμενον: Ein Grundsatz der Homererklärung (Ansbach: Humanistisches Gymnasium, 1915);

Adam Kamesar, “Philo, Grammatike and the Narrative Aggada,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies
in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventeenth Birthday (ed. J. C. Reeves
and J. Kampen; JSOT Suppl. 184; Shefield: Shefield University Press, 1994), 58–61.
69 Schol. Il. 21:17A; ed. H. Erbse.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 149

sible (efshar)” that Joseph actually resisted Potiphar’s wife or whether it would
not be more realistic to assume that he, as a young man, naturally succumbed to
the temptation (Gen. Rab. 87:6). In response to this query, raised by a matrona,
Rabbi Yose develops the following position:
He took out the book of Genesis before her and began to read the stories of Reuben and
Judah. He said: If scripture did not hide [the misbehavior] of these (lo’ kisah ’otam ha-
katuv), who are grown up and under the authority of their fathers, Joseph, who is young
and by himself, all the more [would not have been excused].70

Rabbi Yose is credited here with an acute awareness of the overall realism of the
Jewish scriptures. Nothing immoral is hidden and therefore we can trust a story
that describes the unusual sexual control of a particular hero. Rabbi Yose’s for-
mulation indicates that he speaks of a broader issue rather than a speciic problem
and that he expresses a irm hermeneutic principle on the problem of implausible
stories in the Bible. The issue of verisimilitude also informs the discussion about
the brothers’ remembering “the distress of his [Joseph’s] soul” (Gen 42:21).
Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan bar Shilo asks whether “it is possible
(efshar) that Joseph, only seventeen years old, would see his brothers selling him
and keep silent.”71 Rabbi Levi uses the brothers’ recollection to reconstruct how
Joseph prostrated himself before each of his brothers so that they would take
pity on him and refrain from selling him.
Origen, too, relies on notions of verisimilitude when interpreting the book of
Genesis and uses technical Greek terms, which point to their Hellenistic back-
ground. Origen investigates, for example, how to understand Adam and Eve’s
“garments of skin” (Gen 3:21), dismissing the idea of garments from animal skins
as “silly and decrepit” (D22). He is concerned to ind the “believable” (πῐθᾰνός)
and true meaning (ἀληθές) of the passage (ibid.). Concerning the biblical note that
at the age of seventy Terah fathered three sons (Gen 11:26), Origen wonders how
this would be possible. Insisting that he “could not (οὐ δύναται)” have become a
father of three consecutive sons within one year, he suggests that they were born
as triplets (E28).
The rabbinic expressions we have discussed above and Origen’s Greek phrases
read almost like translations of each other. The rabbinic expression efshar, for
example, echoes the term δύναται. Moreover, Origen’s terms are rooted in the
technical vocabulary of Greek hermeneutics. Aristotle had already opened his
famous chapter on the epics in his Poetics by asking about things that appear
to be impossible (ἀδύνατα). Aristotle stressed that unrealistic presentation must
serve a poetic purpose; otherwise it is a mistake, but he fully justiied it as long
as it renders the passage “more astounding.”72 Following Aristotle, Aristarchus

70
Gen. Rab. 87:6 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1070–1071).
71 See Gen. Rab. 91:8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1130).
72 Ἐκπληκτικώτερον (Poet. 1460b16–32).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

150 Maren Niehoff

was deeply concerned to explain unrealistic and implausible scenes, using the
terms ἀπίθᾰνος and γελοῖος.73 Assuming that Homer’s original epics were gener-
ally true to reality, Aristarchus rejected some of Zenodotus’ readings because
they violate the principle of realistic presentation, while on other occasions he
marked some epic lines as spurious, insisting that “horses do not drink wine”
and that “it is implausible that horses speak.”74 Origen uses the same terms and
relies on the same notion of verisimilitude in his interpretation of the book of
Genesis. The rabbis contributing to Genesis Rabbah likewise investigate the
plausibility of biblical stories and ask whether certain scenes are “possible.”
Comparing their formulations to Origen’s Greek phrases, we become aware of
the Hellenistic background of the rabbis’ hermeneutic approach. Both Origen
and the rabbis adopt Hellenistic practices, while simultaneously refraining from
text emendations in the style of Aristarchus. The rabbis and the Church Father
shared the same strategies of adopting scholarly methods to their religiously
based interpretations of the Bible.
Finally, the rabbis, Origen and the Alexandrian scholars all treat contradic-
tions between verses on the assumption that their canonical text was written by
one consistent author.75 Reading the discussions of such problems in Genesis
Rabbah in light of Origen, we can once more appreciate the broader Hellenistic
nature of these inquiries. Genesis Rabbah treats, for example, the famous con-
tradiction between the end of chapter 11, where Terah’s death is reported, and
the beginning of chapter 12, where Abraham is commanded to leave his “father’s
house.”76 The rabbis directly confront the issue of the contradiction:
And what is written above this passage (mah katuv le-ma‘lah min ha-‘inyan)? “And Terah
died in Haran” (Gen 11:32) and then, “Now the Lord said to Abraham: ‘Go out ….’”
(Gen 12:1).
Rabbi Yitzhak said: From the point of view of chronology a period of sixty-ive years is
still required. But irst you learn that the wicked are dead in their lifetime.77

The redactor of Genesis Rabbah lists the two contradictory verses, explicitly
pointing to an apparent law in the text, and then introduces the solution of
the tannaitic teacher Rabbi Yitzhak. Two solutions are in fact offered. The irst
suggests that Terah’s death was reported at the wrong place, namely out of
chronological order. Given that he was seventy years old at Abraham’s birth and

73 For details on Aristarchus’ work, see Schironi, “Theory into Practice,” 284–810; Dieter

Lührs, Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias and zu ihrer Behandlung im
Corpus der exegetischen Scholien (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 1992), 167–94.
74 Schol. Il. 1:100A, 19:416–7A, 1:129A, 2:55A, 2:76A, 2:319A, 2:667A, 3:74A, 16:666A.
75 For additional examples of shared exegetical sensitivities, see Yonathan Moss, “Noblest

Obelus: Rabbinic Appropriations of Late Ancient Literary Criticism,” in Homer and the Bible,
245–268.
76 Gen 11:32, 12:1.
77 Gen. Rab. 39:7 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 396).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 151

two hundred and ive years at his death, he still had sixty ive years to live when
Abraham departed from Haran at the age of seventy ive.78 Rabbi Yitzhak thus
suggests that Terah’s death should have been reported after Abraham’s migration
to the Land of Israel. However, in this case, too, a law is admitted in the text and
an emendation seems to be called for in order to restore the correct chronological
arrangement of the verses. Rabbi Yitzhak seems to be aware of this remaining
problem and solves it with a metaphorical solution. On this view, Terah’s death
is not physical but spiritual. The mention of his demise is appropriate in chapter
11 and does not in any way contradict Gen 12:1.
The fragments of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis contain only a brief refer-
ence to Gen 12:1. Origen apparently formulated a problem, which is no longer
extent, but is still hinted at by the introductory formula of the solution λεκτέον
(E29). Strikingly, Philo in his commentary on this verse points to the contra-
diction between Gen 11:31 and Gen 12:1, asking: “what should be said? (τί οὖν
λεκτέον).”79 Similar to Philo, Origen suggests a metaphorical solution. While
Philo argues that Abraham departs from material conceptions of God, Origen
interprets his move as that of the prototypical Christian, who spiritually leaves
his pagan background and embraces the true faith.80
On other occasions Origen explicitly addresses problems of a contradiction,
using the same formula as the rabbis. Concerning the interpretation of the but-
ler’s and the baker’s dreams by Joseph, Origen is sensitive to the fact that two
different symbols are provided with the same interpretation. He asks whether
there is a contradiction between Joseph’s insistence that “three branches are three
days” and “three cups are three days.”81 Origen proceeds in exactly the same
way as the rabbis, referring to “what is said above (καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται)” and then
listing the contradictory verses (E105). The expression καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται reads
like the Vorlage of the rabbinic phrase mah katuv le-ma‘lah min ha-‘inyan.82
Moreover, Origen formulates a general hermeneutic principle, which is im-
plicitly shared by the rabbis:
You ind this also in the rest of the Writings (ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς γραφαῖς) that the same [idea] is
expressed by different and apparently contradictory examples (ἀπὸ διαφόρων καὶ δοκούντων
ἀπᾴδειν παραδειγμάτων).83

In this passage Origen expresses his view of an overall harmony of all the biblical
writings. He looks at the whole of scripture, comparing different passages to

78 Gen 11:26, 11:32, 12:4.

79 Philo, Migr. 178, for similar cases, see Philo All. 1:105, 1:91, Post. 34.
80 Philo, Migr. 178–181; Orig., E29.
81 Gen 40:12, 18.
82 Note that the inquiry into previous verses is complemented by an examination of later

verses, which may pose similar problems of contradictions, see e. g. Gen. Rab. 38:8 (ed. Theo-
dor-Albeck, 357).
83 Orig., E105 (ed. Metzler, 274).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

152 Maren Niehoff

each other and identifying a common style. He proposes that contradictions are
only apparent (δοκέω) and can always be resolved by reference to an underlying
unity. Origen uses common terms of Hellenistic scholarship in his discussion.
Aristarchus frequently discusses Homeric verses by referring to “what is writ-
ten above (ἄνω γὰρ εἴρηκεν).”84 Subsequent scholars, whose work is preserved
in the Byzantine scholia, followed Aristarchus and also discussed other verses
“above.”85 Philo similarly discusses particular biblical verses by reference to ex-
pressions “in other places (ἐν ἑτέροις)” and with an overall conception of Moses’
habits of style as well as the characteristics of “the whole scripture” (διὰ πάσης
τῆς νομοθεσίας).86 Once he even solves a problem of a contradiction exactly as
the rabbis in Genesis Rabbah had solved the problem of Terah’s death, namely
by offering a metaphorical reading of the death of the biblical hero (All. 1:105).
Given all these parallels between rabbinic and patristic scholarship, which can
be traced to Hellenistic practices, it is not at all surprising that both the rabbis
in Genesis Rabbah and Origen saw themselves as professional interpreters, who
offer comprehensive commentaries. Origen once remarks that a certain biblical
expression “accords with (συνᾴδει)” his interpretation of an earlier verse, while
Genesis Rabbah notes that a certain biblical expression “supports (mesayy‘a)” a
previous interpretation of Rabbi Abba.87 Both textual communities thus cher-
ished a clear sense of themselves as scholars with an overall approach to the
scriptures.

Summary and Conclusion

Reading Genesis Rabbah in light of the fragments of Origen’s Commentary on

Genesis has proved highly fruitful in a variety of senses. Initially, we noted that
Origen explicitly refers to Jewish interpretations, which surface for the irst time
in the extant Jewish literature in Genesis Rabbah. He clearly formulated his own
thoughts on the book of Genesis in light of the views of his rabbinic colleagues
in the Land of Israel. Origen’s references provide invaluable evidence for the
emergence of Genesis Rabbah, allowing us to identify earlier layers, known
already in the mid-third century.
Moreover, the rabbis contributing to Genesis Rabbah seem to have been aware
of certain interpretations offered by Origen. In the case of Isaac carrying “his
cross” to the Akedah, the interpretation looks too Christian to have originated
in rabbinic circles. It moreover conforms closely to Origen’s innovative interpre-

84 See e. g. Schol. Il. 5:140A, 6:400A, 8:312A, 9:209A, 10:25A, 10:571A (ed. Erbse 2:24, 2:198,

2:358, 2:209, 3:8, 3:115).

85
See e. g. Schol. Il. 2:180b, 3:166b, 8:312b (ed. Erbse 1:220, 1:389, 2:358).
86 Philo, All. 3:4, Det. 177–178.
87 Orig., E 115 (ed. Metzler, 280), Gen. Rab. 20:8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 192).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah 153

tation of the biblical scene and provides a striking example of exegetical contacts.
In other cases signiicant changes of rabbinic positions in Genesis Rabbah can be
explained as a reaction to Origen’s criticism. Origen thus provides a key to un-
derstanding the rabbis’ interactions with their immediate Christian environment.
Finally, Origen’s formulations in Greek shed signiicant new light on the
underlying hermeneutic assumptions of the rabbis contributing to Genesis Rab-
bah. On many occasions we observed striking similarities in formulations and
exegetical strategies. Origen’s expressions often read like the Vorlage of rabbinic
terms and indicate their profound similarity as well as common origins in Hel-
lenistic traditions of scholarship. Moreover, Origen illuminates rabbinic exegesis
because he regularly discusses more general principles of interpretation that
clearly lie beneath rabbinic views as well. Both Origen’s Greek terminology and
his more detailed explanations of his methods allow us to trace central rabbinic
procedures to their Hellenistic roots, especially Alexandrian scholarship. Origen
and the rabbis in Genesis Rabbah emerge as scholars in Hellenistic garb, who
adapted scholarly methods to their own more religiously oriented discourse on
the book of Genesis.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission