“Praise The Word”: A Comparative View on Jewish and Buddhist Exegetical Practices

This paper explores Pāli and Jewish exegetical traditions and compares their specific methods of extracting and extending the meanings and import of religious texts. The study sheds light on how religious communities understand and engage language as a dynamic space for imagination and innovation. The paper examines key exegetical methods found in the Aṭṭhakathā, the Theravāda commentaries on the Pāli canon, alongside interpretative techniques employed in Midrash literature, a corpus of Jewish rabbinical texts commenting on the Hebrew Bible. By adopting a comparative framework, this study enriches the field of Buddhist textual analysis while also contributing to a broader understanding of the role of commentary in religious traditions.

The Aṭṭhakathā are the commentaries on the Pāli canon, transmitted and shaped orally for several centuries before being committed to writing in 5th-century Sri Lanka. This corpus represents one of the largest and most significant literary works in the Theravāda tradition, serving not only as an explanatory text of the canon but also as a cultural and intellectual treasure. The Aṭṭhakathā—which preserves some of the most cherished narratives of the tradition—has played a central role in shaping Theravāda thought and imagination. Within this vast corpus, we encounter various exegetical practices, including lexical and grammatical explanations, scholastic interpretations, narratives, and philosophical elaborations.

The Midrash literature comprises Jewish rabbinical commentaries developed over centuries, reaching its final form toward the end of the first millennium. Written primarily in Hebrew, these texts elaborate on the Hebrew Bible, using diverse interpretative methods. Some forms of midrash are legalistic, while others are concerned with narrative and wisdom. This literature employs a sophisticated and creative approach to textual interpretation, demonstrating a dynamic engagement with language and meaning.

Traditionally, the role of commentary is understood as an effort to eliminate ambiguity and provide a single, authoritative interpretation of a text. However, the commentarial traditions discussed in this paper suggest that religious exegesis often works in the opposite direction, embracing and even cultivating multiple layers of meaning.

The distinct differences in religion, culture, language, and history between these two textual traditions provide an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the commentarial task, its approach to language, and the ways religious texts develop. To pursue this inquiry, this paper focuses on a specific exegetical technique: the exposition of single words.

A fundamental practice in the Aṭṭhakathā—perhaps common to all commentarial traditions—is padavaṇṇanā. Often translated as “word exposition,” this practice aims to explain the meaning of individual words within a given textual context. Similar to the philological endeavor, this practice is often perceived as striving to uncover the “true” meaning of words, eliminate or at least narrow uncertainties, and provide the reader with a definitive understanding of the text.

However, in the Aṭṭhakathā, we frequently find instances where padavaṇṇanā, rather than narrowing interpretive possibilities, expands them—stretching the meaning of a text to its fullest extent. Even the word vaṇṇanā in the compound padavaṇṇanā can also mean “praise,” thereby shifting the phrase’s meaning to “praising the word.” For the Aṭṭhakathā, the meaning of ‘exposition’ and of ‘honoring’ can coexist in the compound while enriching one another and the overall meaning. In a sense, the commentarial practice of broadening textual interpretation can be seen as an act of reverence for words—revealing their richness and demonstrating their ability to sustain multiple meanings.

The Aṭṭhakathā’s approach to expanding meaning is grounded in a creative yet consistent engagement that includes attunement to sound and the affect it produces, breaking up words, creative etymologies, and other linguistic and sensual components. However, scholars have often dismissed this practice as the result of insufficient grammatical knowledge or a flawed understanding of language development. Such critiques tend to overlook the Aṭṭhakathā’s profound grasp of the Pāli language and the significant role of creativity in commentarial interpretation.

This imaginative, even playful, approach to language in the Aṭṭhakathā finds a striking parallel in the Jewish exegetical tradition of Midrash. Spanning centuries and engaging with a variety of foundational texts, Midrash exhibits a remarkably similar practice, drawing extensive meanings from individual words to construct a multilayered interpretation of scripture. The presence of this creative linguistic approach in two distinct religious traditions raises important questions about how religious communities understand and use language in exegetical discourse.

By exploring both Jewish and Pāli exegetical traditions and comparing their specific methods of extracting meaning, this study deepens our understanding of traditional and religious approaches to texts. Ultimately, it highlights how religious communities engage with language not only as a means of clarification but as a space for intellectual exploration, interpretation, and reverence.