The Asterisk

There *came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus *said to her, “Give Me a drink.”  John 4:7  NASB

*came – Read the introduction.  Yes, that’s right.  Your English Bible has an introduction.  In the NASB, the introduction has a section about translated Greek tenses.  You will find this note:

“In regard to the use of historical present . . . Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence.  However, the Board felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents into English past tenses.  Therefore verbs marked with an asterisk (*) represent historical presents in the Greek . . .”[1]

Perhaps you’re thinking, “So what?  Why do I care about how these Greek verbs are translated?  I get the picture.  Some authors want us to pretend they’re happening now.”  If that was your reaction, you missed a vital point.  Yes, the occurrence of the event is in the past, but that’s not how it should be read.  The Bible isn’t just a history of things that happened thousands of years ago. It’s not even a book that pretends these past events have present application. And it’s not a collection of past events to give us spiritual encouragement and insight.

“Sacred history may be described as an attempt to overcome the dividing line of past and present, as an attempt to see the past in the present tense.”[2]

Heschel’s point is crucially important.  The purpose of the biblical stories, so clearly exemplified in the note about Greek translation, is for the reader to become part of what is happening.  When Moses says, “These commandments are for you and all your generations,” he is inviting us to act as if we were there at Sinai.  If we read the Tanakh in Hebrew, this “historical present” can hardly be avoided since in every reading we have to add in the vowels.  We have a choice.  We can read the Bible from a scholar’s point of view, an academic text requiring accurate translation, context, history and etymology.  Or we can engage the text as a living thing, folding us into its events, capturing us in its purpose, listening to the heart of God and His people.  Perhaps we are required to do both.  But we certainly cannot ignore the “past as present” if we want the Bible to accomplish its goal.

With this in mind, we can understand Heschel’s remark, “As a report about revelation the Bible itself is a midrash.”  But that begs the question, “What is midrash?”  Do you remember Michael Fox’s explanation?  Maybe not.  Here it is again:

We should distinguish between midrash (or darash) as a hermeneutic, or interpretive methodology, and midrash as the interpretation itself.  In the latter sense, a ‘midrash’ can be a unit of interpretation—one interpretation of a verse—or one of the compilations of midrashic interpretations.  These compilations were composed mainly from the third to the eleventh centuries C.E., but the material is older.

As a hermeneutic, midrash focuses on each verse or its components, not on an entire book.  It seeks, first, to harmonize the verse with the entirely of the Bible, in the belief that the Bible speaks with a single voice, which is ultimately God’s.  As such, it must in all ways accord with the beliefs of the expositors, which is to say, the theology and law of rabbinic Judaism.  Second, midrash seeks to draw out the fullness of meaning potential in the verse.  It makes use of a variety of homiletical techniques, including historical comparisons, personal anecdotes, wordplays, different readings of Hebrew words, and, above all, reapplication of associated biblical verses.  Midrashic compilations also incorporate interpretations that are fairly straightforward, usually without drawing a distinction among the different types.

The midrashic hermeneutic attempts to bring forth the limitless range of meanings of the biblical text.  It thus embraces a multiplicity of interpretations.  (In contrast, a different approach to interpretation, peshat exegesis, arose and flourished in the Middle Ages.  Commonly but mistakenly called ‘literalist,’ the peshat approach attends to the plain sense of the passage and tries to understand the verse within the rules of grammar and to locate its meaning in its literary and historical context.  It aims at the author’s specific intention and will exclude other readings as inaccurate, even when these produce a reading in harmony with the assumptions of the faith.  Modern critical exegesis follows the basic principles of peshat exegesis, while sometimes recognizing that biblical texts may be univocal.)[3]

 Do you think you could read the entire Bible as midrash?  Can you imagine what it would be like to be Moses, be Joshua, be David, be Luke?  Can you feel them?  Do you hear God’s voice speaking to Elijah as it speaks to you?  Yes, we can do the academics.  We can learn the vocabulary.  But until we engage in the intimacy of the text, until it comes from us, we will just be bystanders to the events.

Topical Index:  asterisk, verb tense, midrash, John 4:7

[1] The New American Standard Bible, 1963, “Notes on the Translation of Greek Tenses.”

[2] Abraham Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism (Free Press Paperbacks, 1959), p. 116.

[3] Michael V. Fox, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes (Jewish Publication Society, 2004), p. xxiii., for the full discussion see https://skipmoen.com/2019/11/what-is-it-3/