Legal Exegesis in Origen and the Sifra: A Comparative Analysis

According to Origen, a vast chasm separated the spiritual, Christian exegesis of scripture which he himself practiced from the literal interpretations of his Jewish contemporaries. In recent years, scholars have begun to reconsider this portrayal, pointing instead to a meaningful degree of overlap between the biblical exegeses of Origen and the rabbis. The recognition of such shared biblical interpretation, however, has been limited for the most part to parallels on issues of narrative and theology. Overlooked in such investigations has been the exegesis of biblical law —a domain where, it was suggested, Origen and the rabbis were simply too different to exhibit any shared hermeneutical methods, let alone any common exegetical content. In this article, I argue that, in contrast to the prevailing scholarly outlook, there are in fact substantial points of overlap between Origen’s interpretations of biblical law and those of his rabbinic Jewish contemporaries. Toward this end, I present a comparison of Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus with the Sifra, a compilation of rabbinic interpretations of Leviticus which was composed around the same time as Origen’s floruit. In so doing, I seek to demonstrate that Origen’s interpretation of biblical law looked, in a number of cases, far more like the rabbis’ midrash halakah than existing scholarship—or Origen himself—would lead us to expect.