When two leading scholars approach midrash from radically different angles, their divergent methodologies reveal much about both the nature of rabbinic interpretation and the challenges of modern academic analysis. Through comparative textual analysis, Jacob Neusner's "What is Midrash?" and Judah Goldin's "Studies in Midrash and Related Literature" emerge as competing frameworks for understanding this complex form of Jewish biblical interpretation. Neusner's ambitious attempt to systematize midrash into prophecy, paraphrase, and parable falters due to problematic applications to non-rabbinic texts like the Gospel of Matthew and questionable claims about midrash developing primarily as a response to fourth-century Christianity. His broad categorizations lack sufficient textual evidence and rely on anachronistic dating of tannaitic sources. By contrast, Goldin's philologically grounded analysis illuminates midrash as "the enlistment of the past in the service of the present" through careful scholarly interpretation of divine text. While Neusner's prolific scholarship aims for comprehensive systematization, his Christian apologetic agenda ultimately undermines academic rigor. Goldin's meticulous attention to textual detail provides more valuable insights into how midrashic literature actually functioned within its authentic rabbinic context.