What kind of reader of the Bible am I? This question is at the core of my research. I am a woman; I am a rabbi; I identify with a 'progressive' Jewish movement; I view the Bible as a source of religious guidance. These identities are among the many that affect the way in which I read the Bible. This thesis has its origins in the apparent tension between contemporary feminist Bible criticism and classical rabbinic interpretations. Feminist biblical critics adopt a range of methodological positions, drawing on important developments in reading texts that have taken place over the last century, such as deconstruction and post-structuralism. Classical rabbinic sources are concerned with the questions of the (male) rabbis. For Halachic sources, the rabbis employed a set of hermeneutical principles to delineate the ways in which biblical sources could be interpreted. For Aggadah, a more extensive set of hermeneutics was employed to create midrashic texts. Some feminist scholars have read Halachah and Aggadah using various techniques; e.g., hermeneutics of suspicion, reclamation, apologetics. The project of trying to combine the hermeneutics of the classical rabbinic period with contemporary feminist readings has only been undertaken in Halachah by one scholar, Rachel Adler, writing about the Jewish wedding service. No one yet has attempted to engage in this project with Aggadah. This thesis develops a hermeneutic based in classical rabbinic hermeneutics and feminist theory to expound three short units of biblical text: Lamentations 5: 19-22, Genesis 1 :26-28, and Psalm 131. Each chapter studies these verses in detail, reviewing their interpretation in modern and classical Jewish sources, followed my own midrashim rooted in my hybrid ii hermeneutic. Finally, this thesis examines the value of this exercise and to what extent it might serve, alongside the work of other scholars in Halachah, to form a basis for a biblical-based, feminist, Jewish, progressive theology.

This thesis is a context-sensitive study of key epistemological commitments and concerns presented in Philo’s two series of exegetical writings. The major conclusion advanced in this thesis is that two theological epistemologies, distinct yet related, can be detected among these writings. The first epistemology is specific to the Allegorical Commentary. The second epistemology is specific to the ‘Exposition of the Law.’ The epistemology of the Allegorical Commentary reflects a threefold conviction: the sovereignty of God, the creaturely contingency of the human mind and its inescapable limitations. In conversation with key epistemological notions of his day, Philo develops this threefold conviction in exegetical discourses that are grounded in Pentateuchal texts portraying the God of Moses as both possessing epistemic authority and aiding the aspiring mind to gain purification and perfection in the knowledge of God. Guided by this threefold conviction, Philo enlists key metaphors of his day – initiation into divine mysteries and divine inspiration, among others –in order to capture something of the essence of Moses’ twofold way of ascending to the divine, an approach which requires at times the enhancement of human reason and at other times the eviction of human reason. The epistemology of the ‘Exposition’ reflects Philo’s understanding of the Pentateuch as a perfect whole partitioned into three distinct yet inseverable parts. Philo’s knowledge discourses in the ‘creation’ part of the ‘Exposition’ reflect two primary movements of thought. The first is heavily invested with a Platonic reading of Genesis 1.27 while the second invests Genesis 2.7 with a mixture of Platonic and Stoic notions of human transformation and well-being. Philo’s discourses in the ‘patriarchs’ segment reflect an interest in portraying the three great patriarchs as exemplars of the virtues of instruction (Abraham), nature (Isaac), and practice (Jacob) which featured prominently in Greek models of education. In the ‘Moses’ segment of the ‘Exposition,’ many of Philo’s discourses on knowledge are marked by an interest in presenting Moses as the ideal king, lawgiver, prophet and priest who surpasses Plato’s paradigm of the philosopher-king. In keeping with this view, Philo insists that the written laws of Moses represent the perfect counterpart to the unwritten law of nature. The life and laws of Moses serve as the paradigm for Philo to understand his own experiences of noetic ascent and exhort readers to cultivate similar aspirational notions and practices.