When Jesus says in Matt 18:20, \u201cWhere two or three have gathered in my name, there I am in their midst,\u201d in a context addressing the exercise of church discipline, he is claiming for himself what is said of the Shekinah in the Talmud: \u201cIf three are sitting as a court of judges, the Divine Presence [Shekinah] is with them\u201d (b. Berakhot 6a, which also says that when two gather to study the law, the Shekinah is among them; similarly, m. Avot 6:6).
\nIn the Pal. Tgs., the promise of rest in Exod 33 occurs in the context of conversation: \u201cthe Word of the LORD would converse with (Moses); \u2026 he would hear the voice of the Word [Dibbura]\u201d (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 33:9, 11); \u201cthe Word of the LORD spoke with Moses, speech to speech, as a man speaks to his friend\u201d (Tg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 33:11). When the Word came in the flesh, what was extraordinary in the history of Israel became ordinary, as Jesus spoke again as a man speaks to his friends. We might also remind ourselves that the divine promise, \u201cI will give you rest,\u201d was spoken to Moses outside the camp. When Jesus spoke on earth, people could literally come to him and become followers. We have seen from John\u2019s Gospel that the ascension of Jesus to heaven can be viewed as a withdrawal of the Shekinah due to the apostasy of Israel, as happened after the golden calf incident. Therefore, for Matthew\u2019s readers, responding to the invitation, \u201ccome to me \u2026 and I will give you rest,\u201d involves going outside the camp (Heb 13:13), following the earlier example of Moses.
\nOne can see therefore in this saying of Jesus the merging of both divine and human typology, as Jesus speaks not only as a man greater than Solomon, the true Son of David (in contrast with Rehoboam), but also as the God of Israel did to his people in OT times, or as the divine Word of the Targums spoke to his people. The message for those who were familiar with these Targums is that the Word has become flesh. It would appear then that in telling us that the Word became flesh, John is not just telling us how to read his gospel, but he is also giving us a key (perhaps forgotten or neglected) to interpreting the Synoptics.<\/p>\n
JESUS WALKS ON THE WATER (MATTHEW 14:22\u201333; MARK 6:45\u201352)<\/p>\n
We have already discussed this miracle as it is recorded in John 6. Here it may be observed that the accounts in the Synoptics also contain the assurance by Jesus, \u201cIt is I [\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9]; do not be afraid\u201d (Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50). The same connections shown previously between John\u2019s account and Isa 43, enhanced by the Targum of that chapter (thus suggesting this incident as a fulfillment of \u201cmy Word will be for your help\u201d), are possible also in Matthew and Mark, as are connections to passages such as Ps 107 that have been linked to the account in John 6. Brown wrote, \u201cIn John the special emphasis on eg\u014d eimi in the rest of the Gospel does seem to orient this story more precisely, that is, the majesty of Jesus is that he can bear the divine name.\u201d Another way to put it would be that John focuses his readers\u2019 attention on features of the miracle whose significance may have been overlooked by those not well versed in the OT background. John does this not only in his \u201cspecial emphasis on eg\u014d eimi in the rest of the Gospel\u201d (especially where \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 may be related to Isa 43:10), but also in his calling Jesus the divine Word, both features helping make the connection to Isa 43 and its Targum. John also gives a briefer account of the incident, leaving out, for example, the episode of Peter walking on the water, perhaps so as not to distract from the impression of a theophany. On the other hand, the saving of Peter from drowning in Matthew and Mark could also have targumic relevance, since Tg. Neof. [mg.] and Frg. Tg. P Exod 14:27 say that the Word of the LORD drowned the Egyptians in the sea, and we saw above that the miracles God did for Israel are often an opposite to the judgments of God against the Egyptians.<\/p>\n
THE DIVINE WORD AS JUDGE (MATTHEW 18:20)<\/p>\n
Where two or three have gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.<\/p>\n
We noted above the similarity of this claim to what is said of the Shekinah in b. Berakhot 6a. The concept of the divine Word could be used in a similar way. In ch. 2, we noted that in Tg. 2 Chr. 19:6, Jehoshaphat says to the judges whom he is sending out through Judah that they are judging before the Word of the LORD and that his Shekinah dwells with them when they are passing judgment. Jesus appeared to men as another man who might make up the number required to pass judgment, but he spoke as the divine presence promised to be with Israel when rendering judgment.<\/p>\n
THE GREAT COMMISSION (MATTHEW 28:18\u201320)<\/p>\n
There are a number of similarities between Jesus\u2019 Great Commission and the commission that was given to Joshua after the death of Moses: (1) The command, \u201cteaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you,\u201d (Matt 28:20) can be compared to the command to Joshua to keep the whole law of Moses (Josh 1:7\u20139); (2) The promise, \u201cI am with you always, even to the end of the age,\u201d can be compared to Josh 1:5, 9, \u201cJust as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.\u2026 The LORD your God is with you wherever you go.\u201d
\nTwo other similarities are not quite so obvious, but they are based on some observations already noted in ch. 5, namely, that the preaching of the gospel is a new kind of conquest (thus especially the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles) and that John\u2019s baptism (on which Christian baptism is based) took place at the Jordan River because of its historical and theological significance in Israel\u2019s history. Thus we can note additionally, that the command to make disciples of all nations is analogous to the command to Joshua to conquer the seven Canaanite nations (Josh 1:3\u20135), and that the command to baptize them is analogous to the command to cross the Jordan (1:2).
\nEven if one is skeptical of these last two points, Tg. Josh. 1:5, 9 could be seen as connecting Jesus with the targumic Word: \u201cAs my Word was for the help of Moses, so my Word will be for your help.\u2026 The Word of the LORD your God is for your help, wherever you go.\u201d Similarly, Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 31:8, which also looks forward to Joshua\u2019s conquest: \u201cThe Word of the LORD, his Shekinah, is marching before you, and his Word will be for your help. He will not forsake you or be far from you.\u201d Targum Neofiti Deut 31:8 has Moses say to Joshua, \u201cThe Word of the LORD, the glory of whose Shekinah is leading before you, shall be for your help.\u201d Targum Onqelos does not mention the Shekinah but does render \u201che will be with you\u201d as \u201chis Word will be for your help.\u201d The targumic background thus helps us see the divine nature of the one who is commanding and promising his help in fulfillment of his command, as the Son of God goes with his people on a new kind of conquest.<\/p>\n
THE REVELATION OF JESUS TO SAUL OF TARSUS (ACTS 9:3\u20137; 22:6\u20139; 26:12\u201315)<\/p>\n
A human parallel can be seen in the fact that Jesus speaks to this Saul from heaven in a manner that reminds us of David speaking to Saul\u2019s namesake, King Saul. In the following comparison of texts, keep in mind that in both Greek and Hebrew, the same word can mean either \u201cpursue\u201d or \u201cpersecute\u201d:<\/p>\n
Saul, Saul, why do you persecute [\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9] me?\u2026 I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting. (Acts 9:4\u20135; 22:7\u20138; 26:14\u201315)<\/p>\n
Why then does my lord pursue [\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e3; LXX: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9] his servant? (1 Sam 26:18)<\/p>\n
After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? [\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e3; LXX: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9] A dead dog, a single flea? (1 Sam 24:14)<\/p>\n
We can also compare Saul\u2019s question \u201cWho are you, Lord?\u201d with Abner\u2019s in 1 Sam 26:14, \u201cWho are you who calls to the king?\u201d One difference between the accounts is brought out in the fact that King Saul recognized David\u2019s voice and thus knew whom he was persecuting; he could not say, as Paul, \u201cI acted in ignorance\u201d (1 Tim 1:13).
\nIn Paul\u2019s account before Agrippa, he reports Jesus\u2019 saying to him, \u201cIt is hard for you to kick against the goads\u201d (Acts 26:14). That is, by persecuting Jesus, Saul was only hurting himself in an effort as futile as kicking against a sharp point used to prod animals. Likewise, King Saul was hurting himself by pursuing David, driving the best officer out of his army, inspiring many other defections as well, so that Saul perished in battle against the Philistines.
\nFor the divine character of Jesus\u2019 speech, all three accounts have \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, which might stand for Aramaic \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0, though this possibility alone is not decisive. The Nestle-Aland Greek NT cross-references Acts 9:7 with Deut 4:12, from Moses\u2019 account of Israel\u2019s experience at Mt. Sinai:<\/p>\n
Acts 9:7
\nThe men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.
\nMT Deut 4:12
\nYou heard the sound of words, but you saw no form, only a voice.
\nTg. Ps.-J.
\nYou heard the voice of the Word [Dibbura], but a likeness you did not see, only a voice speaking.
\nTg. Neof.
\nYou heard the voice of his words [dibber], but you did not see a likeness, only the voice of his Word [Memra].<\/p>\n
If Acts 9:7 is indeed meant to allude to Deut 4:12, then we have a good example of the OT background supporting the twofold message that Jesus is both human and divine, or in John\u2019s language, the targumic Word has become flesh.<\/p>\n
PAUL AT CORINTH (ACTS 18:9\u201310)<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s words of assurance to Paul at Corinth are reminiscent of the LORD\u2019s words to Jeremiah when he was commissioned:<\/p>\n
Acts 18:9\u201310
\nJer 1:17, 19
\nDo not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.
\nDo not be dismayed before them, lest I dismay you before them.\u2026 They will fight against you, but they will not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the LORD, to deliver you.<\/p>\n
For \u201cI am with you,\u201d Tg. Jer. has \u201cmy Word is for your help,\u201d as in the case of Tg. Isa. 43:2, 5. By \u201cthe Lord,\u201d Luke most likely means Jesus, as would seem to be the case in the similar passage Acts 23:11 (the Lord stood by Paul and encouraged him that he would testify \u201cabout me\u201d in Rome as he had in Jerusalem).<\/p>\n
CHRIST IN NUM 21 (1 COR 10:9)<\/p>\n
We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Many translations have \u201cthe Lord\u201d instead of \u201cChrist\u201d due to scribes who, likely confused about the person of Christ, changed the Greek text. Like many moderns, they would read Num 21 and point to the bronze serpent raised up on a standard as a foreshadowing of Christ (John 3:14), overlooking the doctrine that Jesus was both God and with God from the beginning, not just from the incarnation.
\nRecall that in Tgs. Ps.-J. and Neof. Num 21:5, \u201cthe people spoke against the Word of the LORD\u201d and complained against Moses (Tg. Neof. [mg.]: they spoke against \u201cthe name of the Word of the LORD\u201d and against Moses). The Tgs. Ps.-J. and Neof. [mg.] and Frg. Tgs. P, V Num 21:6 say that \u201cthe divine Word\u201d let loose poisonous serpents. Targum Neofiti Num 21:7 describes the people confessing to Moses that \u201cwe have spoken against the [name of the] Word of the LORD and against you;\u201d Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 21:8 says that \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d told Moses to make a bronze serpent. In Tg. Ps.-J. vv. 8\u20139, the one who is bitten by a snake lives, \u201cif his heart is directed toward the name of the Word of the LORD.\u201d
\nSo, Paul could have made the point: \u201cthe divine Word has become flesh.\u201d Perhaps he did when speaking to Aramaic-speaking Jews. But if, as I suggested, identifying Jesus with the divine Word of the Targums is only a means to an end, that end being to identify Jesus as YHWH, the God of Israel, then Paul is simply taking a more direct route by telling the Corinthians that the Israelites tested Christ in the wilderness. That raises the question, why did John not follow Paul\u2019s example? Why complicate things by calling Jesus the Word? One reason might be that when John was writing years later, the presence of unwitting targumic prophecies pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem had become evident (our subject in ch. 10), and calling Jesus the Word facilitated pointing to such prophecies.
\nAnother thing that may have become clear by the time John wrote his Gospel is that there were many Christians who were not perceiving the christological message of the earlier NT writings (just as later scribes in their confusion may have altered texts such as this because they did not understand the implications of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s deity for a proper understanding of the OT). Perhaps the words of Jesus to Philip express John\u2019s burden as he observes the church in his day: \u201cHave I been with you for so long Philip, and you have not come to know me?\u201d (John 14:9).
\nContemporary approaches often lack an appreciation of the close association, as seen in the Targums, between the work of God and the work of the divine Logos. Consider a modern example from an author writing on how to treat the OT as Christian Scripture: \u201cThere may indeed be sessions of studying an Old Testament passage in which there is no mention made of Jesus,\u201d meaning that mention of God in the OT does not inherently constitute mention of Jesus. So when God is referred to in the OT, the reference is presumed to be exclusively to the Father. If this is the case, how can a sermon on such a text have Christological import without a direct reference to Christ? The author continues:<\/p>\n
The assumption is made [by a Christian preacher preaching the OT to Christians without mentioning Jesus] that when God is spoken of it is the God of Jesus and the apostles. When this God addresses us as his people, we have not suddenly become followers of Judaism. We remain Christians.<\/p>\n
That is, the sermon is Christian because the preacher and hearers share the assumption that the God being referred to is the Father of Jesus (but not Jesus). The Son of God is apparently seen as somewhere on the sidelines, waiting to come into the world. Paul\u2019s assumption reflected in 1 Cor 10:9 is quite different. For Paul, Christ was present in OT texts that speak of God\u2019s words and deeds.<\/p>\n
PROVOKING CHRIST TO JEALOUSY (1 COR 10:22)<\/p>\n
Paul warns, \u201cYou cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons\u201d (1 Cor 10:21). Here the cup and table of the Lord refer to the rite of the \u201cLord\u2019s Supper\u201d (cf. 10:16; 11:20) that the Lord Jesus established. The expression \u201ctable of the LORD\u201d is an OT expression for the altar, which the prophet Malachi warned against defiling (Mal 1:7, 12). Paul contrasts the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper with pagan observances that honor the false gods of demonically inspired pagan religion (1 Cor 10:20; echoing Deut 32:21). Such a contrast implicitly treats the Lord Jesus as the divine object of the religious observance. Paul then asks, \u201cOr are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?\u201d (1 Cor 10:22). This rhetorical question clearly alludes again to Deut 32:21, where Moses warned against provoking the Lord YHWH to jealousy. Paul\u2019s train of thought here makes no sense unless \u201cthe Lord\u201d whom we should avoid provoking to jealousy (1 Cor 10:22) is the same \u201cLord\u201d to whom belong the cup and the table (10:21). In short, Paul here assumes that the Lord Jesus is in fact the Lord YHWH.
\nIn Deut 32:21, the LORD says, \u201cThey have made me jealous with what is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their idols.\u201d The plausibility of connecting 1 Cor 10:22 to this verse becomes evident when we compare MT Deut 32:30 with Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. V:<\/p>\n
MT
\nTgs.
\nTheir Rock sold them, the LORD delivered them up.
\nBecause they sinned and provoked to anger before him, the Strong One has forsaken them, and the Word of the LORD delivered them over into the hand of their enemies.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s rhetorical question, \u201cWe are not stronger than he, are we?\u201d (1 Cor 10:22b), comes naturally from seeing Christ as \u201ctheir Rock\u201d = \u201ctheir Strong One,\u201d also equated in the Tgs. with \u201cthe Word of the LORD.\u201d
\nWe have also noted that Deut 4:24, \u201cThe LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God,\u201d is in Tg. Onq., \u201cThe LORD your God, his Word, is a consuming fire, a jealous God.\u201d Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says the same and adds, \u201cthe jealous God is a fire, and takes vengeance in jealousy.\u201d
\nIn Deut 4:3, Moses draws the people\u2019s attention to what the LORD did at Baal Peor; in Tgs. Ps.-J. and Neof. he says, \u201cYour eyes have seen what the Word of the LORD did to the worshippers of the idols of Peor.\u201d Paul referred to this incident shortly before his discussion of the Lord\u2019s table (1 Cor 10:8). Moses refers to the incident recorded in Num 25, in connection with which Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 25:10\u201311 says that \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d said that Phinehas \u201cwas jealous with my jealousy.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES (PHIL 2:9\u201311)<\/p>\n
In this passage, Paul says that God has given to Jesus the name above all names, which name is not \u201cJesus\u201d but can only be the Tetragrammaton. This conclusion agrees with John 17:11\u201312, which says that the Father has given his name to Jesus. Paul then says that as a consequence, every knee should bow to Jesus and every tongue will confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Since this passage draws on Isa 45:23, where the LORD swears that every knee will bow to him, it is among the clearest passages teaching the deity of Christ, so that the confession of Jesus as \u201cLord\u201d means one confesses him as \u201cLORD,\u201d that is, YHWH.
\nTargum Isaiah does not say that every knee will bow to the Word. However, the clause \u201cBy myself I have sworn\u201d (MT) is rendered in the Targum, \u201cBy my Word I have sworn.\u201d Likewise in MT 45:22, where the ends of the earth are invited to \u201cturn to me and be saved,\u201d the Targum has \u201cturn to my Word and be saved.\u201d And vv. 17, 25 in the Targum say, \u201cIsrael is saved by the Word of the LORD with an everlasting salvation\u201d and \u201cIn the Word of the LORD all the seed of Israel will be justified and glorified.\u201d<\/p>\n
CREATION THROUGH THE SON (COL 1:16; 1 COR 8:6; HEB 1:2)<\/p>\n
Colossians 1:16 says of Christ, \u201cby him [\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7] were created all things [\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1], in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, rulers or authorities; all things were created through him [\u03b4\u1f30 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] and for him [\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd].\u201d This agrees quite nicely with John 1:3, 10, and as we have seen, creation is accomplished through the Memra in Tg. Jon. (Isa 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; Jer 27:5); Tg. Onq. Deut 33:27; Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. P Gen 1 (throughout); Tg. Neof. [mg.] Gen 3:1; 14:19, 22; Frg. Tg. V and Tg. Neof. [mg.] Gen 35:9; Tg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 20:11; [mg.] Exod 31:17; Tg. Ps. 124:8; and some mss of Tg. Ps. 33:6.
\nFirst Corinthians 8:6 does not use verbs such as \u201ccreate,\u201d \u201cmake,\u201d etc., but says that all things are from God the Father and through one Lord, Jesus Christ. This statement is most naturally interpreted in agreement with Col 1:16.
\nHebrews 1:2 speaks of Jesus as \u201cheir of all things, through whom [\u03b4\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f57] he also made the world.\u201d \u201cThe world\u201d is not \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, but \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, which, with its possible dual meaning of \u201cworld\u201d and \u201cages,\u201d can be related to Hebrew \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd and Aramaic \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dd, which was used in Tg. Onq. Deut 33:27, \u201cthrough his Word the world was made.\u201d<\/p>\n
WAITING FOR CHRIST FROM HEAVEN (1 THESS 1:9\u201310)<\/p>\n
You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.<\/p>\n
It is not necessary to turn to the OT to understand this passage: Jesus promised to return and his followers wait for him. But this passage does have a number of features in common with Isa 25:9 and 26:8:<\/p>\n
And it will be said in that day, \u2018Behold, this is our God, for whom we have waited, that he might save us. This is the LORD, for whom we have waited. Let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.\u2026\u2019<\/p>\n
We have waited for you eagerly. Your name, even your memory, is the desire of our souls.<\/p>\n
Besides the idea of waiting, both passages are focused on eschatological deliverance. Paul also speaks about turning from idolatry, which may allude to the exclusion of Moabites from the eschatological banquet of Isa 25:6\u201312. Earlier the Moabites were condemned for their sins of pride and idolatry (Isa 16:6, 12), which were also sins of Judah (Isa 2:11\u201318), so their exclusion from the banquet is likely a symbolic indication that the proud and idolatrous are excluded. For MT \u201cThis is the LORD, for whom we have waited,\u201d Tg. Isa. 25:9 reads, \u201cThis is the LORD; we were waiting for his Word.\u201d<\/p>\n
TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD (1 PET 2:3; HEB 6:5)<\/p>\n
Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski note, \u201cTwo passages in 1 Peter refer to Jesus as \u2018Lord\u2019 in a way that identifies or equates him with the Lord YHWH.\u201d We will consider these verses in this section and the next. Peter encourages Christians to be like newborn children longing for spiritual milk whereby we might grow up to salvation, \u201cif indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good\u201d (1 Pet 2:3). Verse 4 indicates that \u201cthe Lord\u201d refers to Jesus: \u201cAs you come to him, a living stone, rejected of men.\u2026\u201d But the idea of tasting that the Lord is good is from Ps 34:8, where Lord is LORD (YHWH). That Peter is quoting Ps 34 is confirmed by the fact that he quotes again from the Psalm in the next chapter (1 Pet 3:10\u201312; Ps 34:12\u201316). In Tg. Ps. 34:8, a personal pronoun referring to the LORD is rendered with Memra. Note the following comparison:<\/p>\n
1 Pet 2:3
\nPs 34:8
\nTg.
\nif indeed you have tasted that the Lord (Jesus) is good.
\nTaste and see that the LORD is good. Happy is the man who takes refuge in him!
\nRecognize and see that the LORD is good. Happy is the man who trusts in his Word!<\/p>\n
In the Targum, \u201chappy\u201d is the noun \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 (pl.), related to the adjective \u201cgood\u201d (\u05d8\u05d1; cf. Heb. \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1). Interestingly, Heb 6:5 speaks of those who have \u201ctasted the goodness of the word of God\u201d (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1). We have seen that there is good reason to believe that the author of Hebrews was aware of the paraphrase of \u201cI am he\u201d from Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 32:39, so possibly he was familiar with the Targums more broadly. If one allows that Heb 6:5 may be influenced specifically by Tg. Ps. 34:8, or generally by the targumic practice of substituting \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d for \u201cthe LORD,\u201d then it is possible that \u201cthe word of God\u201d in this verse is a targumic equivalent of \u201cthe LORD.\u201d In context, the author also says they have tasted the heavenly gift, and shared in the Holy Spirit, which would support the view that he is talking about tasting the goodness of God personally, not just in his spoken or written word. Hebrews 4:12 also speaks of God\u2019s word in terms that could be just as well used of God himself, as \u201cliving and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, \u2026 able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.\u201d The author does not identify the targumic Word specifically and exclusively with Christ (if in fact he is using a targumic expression), but, as we have seen, John makes such an identification in his adaptation of the targumic Word.<\/p>\n
THE LORD AND HIS WORD AS STONE OF STUMBLING (1 PET 2:8)<\/p>\n
As with Ps 34, Peter quotes from Isa 8 in both ch. 2 and ch. 3 in a way that equates Christ with YHWH. First Peter 3:14\u201315 is based on Isa 8:12\u201313:<\/p>\n
Isa 8:12\u201313
\n1 Pet 3:14\u201315
\nDo not fear what they fear, or be in dread. The LORD of Hosts, him shall you regard as holy. He shall be your fear, he shall be your dread.
\nDo not fear their fear, and do not be troubled, but hallow Christ as Lord in your hearts.<\/p>\n
Isaiah goes on to say, \u201cHe (i.e., the LORD) will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel.\u201d Again, what is said of the LORD is said of Christ by Peter, as he quotes this verse after quoting several passages interpreted as speaking about Christ as a stone or rock: a choice and precious cornerstone (1 Pet 2:6, from Isa 28:16), the stone rejected by the builders which became the cornerstone (v. 7, from Ps 118:22), and a stone of stumbling, a rock of offense (v. 8, from Isa 8:14). Targum Isaiah 8:14 says, \u201cAnd if you do not listen [lit.: receive], his Word will become among you an avenger, and a stone of striking and a rock of stumbling.\u201d Thus, while it is true that Peter equates Christ with \u201cthe LORD\u201d in Isa 8:14, the corresponding passage from the Targums speaks of his Word as the stone of stumbling. This is not to suggest that Peter had the Targum on his mind (certainly the Targum did not regard the Memra as equivalent to the Messiah), but if he had, he could have identified Jesus as the Word who became flesh, as John did, without having to elevate his Christology.<\/p>\n
JESUS SAVED HIS PEOPLE FROM EGYPT (JUDE 5)<\/p>\n
Jude reminds his readers \u201cthat Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe\u201d (v. 5 ESV). For \u201cJesus,\u201d some MSS read \u201cLord\u201d (so most editions and versions), others \u201cGod.\u201d ?72 has \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. As Metzger notes, the reading \u201cJesus\u201d is favored by several principles of textual criticism:<\/p>\n
Critical principles seem to require the adoption of \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses.\u2026 Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul\u2019s reference to \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (\u1f41) \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.<\/p>\n
According to Tg. Neof. Exod 14:30, \u201cOn that day the Word of the LORD saved and delivered Israel from the hands of the Egyptians.\u201d We also saw frequent association of the divine Word with the death of the Egyptian firstborn in the Targums. I suggested that early Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians would have understood the symbolism of the baptism of Jesus in light of Tg. Ps.-J. Num 7:89, identifying Jesus as the divine Word, but that this was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was to identify Jesus as YHWH the Son, the God of Israel. Jude\u2019s language is thus natural.
\nAs for Jude\u2019s assertion that Jesus \u201cafterward destroyed those who did not believe,\u201d the extant Targums do not ascribe this destruction to the divine Word in Deut 2:15, the most comprehensive description of this judgment: \u201cAlso the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from within the camp until they perished.\u201d But in Tg. Ps.-J. Num 16:11, 26, Korah and his company are gathered together against the divine Word, and in Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 16:30 the swallowing up of those who followed Korah is a work of the divine Word. Similarly, in Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 16:14\u201315, the Word of the LORD says he will destroy the congregation; in Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 21:6 the Word of the LORD let loose the poisonous serpents; and in Tg. Neof. Num 25:10 [mg.], 11, the Word of the LORD says that Phinehas in his zeal has kept him from destroying the whole nation. If the point of identifying Jesus as the divine Word was to identify him as YHWH the Son, there would be no need to confine Jesus\u2019 divine activity to OT passages where the Targums happen to employ Memra. The divine Word is commonly used in passages speaking of divine warfare, including warfare against his own people (e.g., Tg. Isa. 63:10: \u201cHis Word turned to be an enemy to them; he himself fought against them), which is also an activity of the Son in the NT era (Rev 2:16).<\/p>\n
CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
In his study of John\u2019s Gospel, A. T. Hanson said, \u201cThe truth is that Jesus did not claim to be God, and in representing him as making no such claim the other three evangelists were being faithful to history. John is not just bringing out into the open what was always implicit. He is creating his own christology.\u201d We have seen that, to the contrary, just as there can be no name higher than the Tetragrammaton, so there can be no higher Christology than one finds in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, or NT letters. The Christology found in the rest of the NT is completely consistent with \u201cthe Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.\u201d Only John\u2019s manner of expressing this Christology, and his emphasis on it, are unique.<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
THE SUPERIORITY OF THE TARGUM VIEW<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
We saw in ch. 1 that several views of the origin and background to the Logos title in John are plausible. Examined in isolation, the case for each might seem rather compelling. Now that I have made as compelling a case as I can for the Targum view, it is time to make the case for why the Targum view is to be preferred quite decisively over the other views. My focus here will be on (1) the conceptual overlap between the various views, which may account in part for why the Targum view has been overlooked (i.e., interpreters citing evidence for other views are unaware that such evidence also fits with the Targum view); and (2) methodological and other types of errors made by those arguing against the Targum view. The first subject involves ignorance of or insufficient attention to evidence for the Targum view; the second involves misdirected arguments by those who do pay attention to the Targum view.<\/p>\n
COMMON FEATURES BETWEEN THE TARGUM VIEW AND OTHER PROPOSED VIEWS<\/p>\n
The Old Testament Word of the LORD<\/p>\n
As we saw in ch. 1, Dodd acknowledged that a fairly strong case could be made for the view that the Logos title was derived simply from the concept of \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d in the OT. We also noted K\u00f6stenberger\u2019s four reasons why this view should be preferred to either Wisdom or Philo\u2019s Logos:<\/p>\n
(1) the evangelist\u2019s deliberate effort to echo the opening words of the Hebrew Scriptures by the phrase \u201cin the beginning\u201d; (2) the reappearance of several significant terms from Gen 1 in John 1 (\u201clight,\u201d \u201cdarkness,\u201d \u201clife\u201d); (3) the Prologue\u2019s OT allusions, be it to Israel\u2019s wilderness wanderings (1:14: \u201cpitched his tent\u201d) or to the giving of the law (1:17\u201318); and (4) the evangelist\u2019s adaptation of Isa. 55:9\u201311 for his basic christological framework.<\/p>\n
We can see now that the first three reasons, while they may show the superiority of the OT word view over proposed backgrounds in the Wisdom literature or Philo, do not favor OT word over the Targum view at all, since the Prologue\u2019s allusions to Gen 1 and other OT passages such as Exod 34 are allusions to passages where in the Targums (especially the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch) the targumic Word (whether Memra or Dibbera\/Dibbura) figures prominently. The fourth argument, as acknowledged previously, appears to be a strong argument. Yet if there is some degree of conceptual overlap between the targumic Word of the LORD and OT word of the LORD, interpreters need not be in an either-or situation. Both backgrounds could find support in various passages in John.
\nAgainst the idea of such overlap, Moore pointed to the fact that for \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d and related expressions in the MT, \u201cword\u201d is usually Heb. \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8, and in Tgs. Onq. and Jon. it is translated by pithgam or milla, not Memra or Dibbera. But the picture is not so clear-cut elsewhere. In Gen 15:1, \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d which came to Abram is rendered as \u201ca word [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8] from before the LORD\u201d in Frg. Tg. P. In Ps 119:42, \u201cI trust in your word [\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8]\u201d is translated with \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05da in one MS. Similarly, \u201cI shall praise his word\u201d [\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9] of Ps 56:4, 10 (2x) is in the Targum \u201cI will praise his Memra.\u201d We have already noted that in the MT of Ps 106:12, \u201cthey believed his words [\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5]\u201d becomes \u201cthey believed in the name of his Word [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4].\u201d Also \u201cYou heard the sound of words\u201d (Deut 4:12) is in Tg. Ps.-J. \u201cYou heard the voice of the Word [Dibbura].\u201d
\nAlso of interest is Ps 106:24, not because of how it is rendered in the Targum, but because of how it alludes to Num 14:11, where in MT, God asks, \u201cHow long will they not believe in me?\u201d Referring back to this event, Ps 106:24 says, \u201cThey did not believe his word\u201d [ \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9], which could be taken as precedent for Tgs. Onq. and Ps.-J. Num 14:11, \u201cHow long will they not believe in my Word\u201d [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d9], which was further developed by Tg. Neof. to \u201cHow long will they not believe in the name of my Word?\u201d Recall that John 12:37 makes excellent sense as a paraphrase of Num 14:11, even without John\u2019s designation of Jesus as the divine Word. Tg. Ps. 106:24 is translated literally (they did not believe \u05d1\u05e4\u05ea\u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05d4), which is somewhat surprising because of the Targum reading from earlier in the Psalm (v. 12) that we have just noted.
\nIn addition, there are other Hebrew words used for the word of God besides \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8. When the MT has the Hebrew noun \u05d0\u05b5\u05ab\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 or \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u2014both etymological relatives of Aramaic \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u2014about two thirds of the time they are translated with \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 in the Targums. If we make the reasonable assumption that there were Targums (whether written or oral) before the development of the Memra theology, then it follows that there could be several Aramaic words used to render the several Hebrew words for \u201cword.\u201d Based on our extant Targums we could posit that \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd was regularly used to translate \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8 and \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 was regularly used to translate \u05d0\u05b5\u05ab\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 and \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4. With the adoption of the \u201cWord\u201d theology into the Targums, the question would have arisen as to which Aramaic word for \u201cword\u201d would be best to use when rendering the Tetragrammaton by \u201cthe Word of the LORD.\u201d There would be a number of reasons to use the term that was (presumably) already in use to translate \u05d0\u05b5\u05ab\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 and \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4:
\n1. In the MT of Ps 105:19, there would already be what could be viewed as a ready-made exemplar for the targumic usage: \u201cUntil the time of his word [\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9; Tg. \u05e4\u05ea\u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05d4] came, the word of [\u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea] the LORD tested (Joseph).\u201d The NLT understands \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d here as metonymy, translating it as \u201cthe LORD tested Joseph\u2019s character.\u201d This is a reasonable interpretation, as it is clear from Genesis that it was the LORD who tested Joseph. Such an interpretation would appear just as reasonable to the targumists. If \u201cthe word of the LORD tested Joseph\u201d can be used to mean \u201cthe LORD tested Joseph\u201d in Ps 105:19, why not also substitute \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d for \u201cthe LORD\u201d elsewhere? Targum Psalms 105:19 has the familiar \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 for \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d; presumably this was also how it read in an earlier, more literal stage of the Targums, and this expression could be readily extended to other passages, modifying the Tetragrammaton to \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d in situations where God was described as interacting with his creation. Such modifications eventually numbered in the hundreds. Targum Psalms 105:19 is an example showing that targumic phraseology that differs from the MT may have precedent elsewhere in Scripture.
\nSimilarly, Tg. Ps. 107:11 says, \u201cThey rebelled against the Memra of God\u201d for Hebrew \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc, \u201cthe words of God.\u201d Again we can posit an intermediate stage, prior to the development of the Memra theology, where the Targum used the plural of \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 as a literal translation of the plural of Hebrew \u05d0\u05b5\u05ab\u05de\u05b6\u05e8. With the development of the Memra theology, only a slight change would make the plural (and literal) \u201cwords\u201d into the singular (and metonymic) \u201cWord.\u201d
\n2. Since \u05d0\u05b5\u05ab\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 and \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 are fairly rare words (less than one hundred total uses), the \u201ccommon\u201d (literal) meaning of \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 would also be fairly rare. On the other hand, \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8 in the MT is very common; therefore its translation by \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd in the Targums would also be very common. The use of \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 in the Targums for the Word who is God would allow listeners in the synagogue who were not fluent in Hebrew to distinguish between \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d as a literal translation of the Hebrew and \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d as a way of referring to God himself. Capitalizing Word in translation accomplishes the same purpose for modern readers, at least in English. Note, for example, the following from Tg. Jer. 17:20\u201327:<\/p>\n
Say to them: \u201cListen to [lit.: receive] the word [\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd] of the LORD, O kings of the house of Judah.\u2026 Sanctify the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.\u2026 But they did not receive.\u2026 But if you will certainly receive my Word [\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9].\u2026 But if you will not receive my Word [\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9].\u2026<\/p>\n
3. \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 in particular refers to God\u2019s word in a high percentage of cases, primarily because so many of its occurrences are in Ps 119. \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8, on the other hand, often does not even mean \u201cword\u201d at all.
\nLooking more generally at the idea of God\u2019s written word, whatever word is used to describe it, one can observe that in one place in the MT the psalmist writes of trusting in the LORD (e.g., Ps 37:3, 5, 9, 34, 40), while in another place he writes of trusting in his word (e.g., Ps 119:42). One can see how the idea of God\u2019s word as a surrogate for God could develop in loose translations like the Targums (Tg. Ps. 37:3, 5, 9, 34, 40) and eventually be extended to all facets of divine interaction with the creation.
\nAbove we noted the targumic expression \u201ca word [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8] from before the LORD.\u201d Evans noted that this expression can be compared to John\u2019s statement \u201cthe Word was with God.\u201d \u201cA word from before the LORD\u201d is often personified: a word from before the LORD (or God) took Enoch away (Tgs. Neof., Frg. Tg. V, and Ps.-J. Gen 5:24) and cursed the earth (Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 5:29), struck Pharaoh (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 16:1), came to Abimelech and Laban in a dream (Tgs. Onq. and Ps.-J. Gen 20:3; 31:24), caused the deaths of Er and Onan (Tg. Neof. Gen 38:7, 10), spoke to Moses at the burning bush (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 10:29), and met, came to, or was heard by Balaam (Tg. Onq. Num 22:9, 20; 23:3, 4, 16; 24:4, 16). In Gen 20:3 as well as five of the seven passages mentioned above dealing with Balaam (all but the last two), Tg. Neof. uses \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d rather than \u201ca word from before the LORD.\u201d Targum Pseudo-Jonathan usually agrees with Tg. Onq. in its use of this expression. In Frg. Tgs. P, V Num 24:4, 16, \u05de\u05dc\u05dc is used. In Tg. Mic. 2:7, the question, \u201chas the LORD grown impatient?\u201d is rendered (presumably to avoid the anthropopathism) \u201chas a word [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8] from before the LORD been shortened?\u201d Clearly, this \u201cword [\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8] from before the LORD\u201d is personified as much as is the OT word of the LORD.
\nOne could posit the following development in targumic thought: (1) The \u201cword from before the LORD\u201d is personified as is \u201cthe word of the LORD\u201d in the MT, as a way of describing how God intervenes in the world; (2) the term is simplified to \u201cthe Word of the LORD,\u201d initially meaning the same as (1) but later used as metonymy to refer to God himself. Therefore, as noted above, Balaam can be \u201cmet\u201d by either \u201ca word from before the LORD\u201d in one Targum or \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d in another. The following \u201cparallels\u201d give another illustration:<\/p>\n
MT Gen 12:17
\nThe LORD struck Pharaoh \u2026 with great plagues. (similarly Tg. Neof.)
\nTg. Ps.-J. Gen 16:1
\nHer name was Hagar, a daughter of Pharaoh, whom he gave to (Abram) \u2026 being struck by a word from before the LORD (referring back to Gen 12:17).
\nTg. Ps.-J. Gen 12:17
\nThe Word of the LORD sent great plagues against Pharaoh.<\/p>\n
It is natural to suppose that these three examples represent a general chronological development in targumic practice: (1) literal\u2014Pharaoh was struck by the LORD; (2) specification of the agency\u2014Pharaoh was struck by a word\/decree going forth from the LORD; (3) a rewording of (2)\u2014the word (taken literally) of the LORD struck Pharaoh; (4) metonymy\u2014\u201cthe Word of the LORD struck Pharaoh\u201d as a way of saying \u201cthe LORD struck Pharaoh,\u201d while guarding the transcendence of God.
\nAlternatively, one could suppose that \u201ca word from before the LORD\u201d is a development from \u201cthe Word of the LORD.\u201d Chester takes this position, stating that this phraseology was used particularly for encounters between God and unbelievers\/Gentiles as an accommodation to rabbinic doctrine, which limited the possibility of God\u2019s revelation to pagans. But Chester only discussed examples that came up in his investigation of Targum passages speaking of revelation using the verb \u05d0\u05ea\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9; thus he did not take note of passages which cannot be explained this way, such as Frg. Tg. P Gen 15:1 (\u201ca word from before the LORD came to Abram\u201d) and Ps.-J. Exod 10:29, where Moses says, \u201cIt was told me [at the burning bush] by a word from before the LORD.\u201d
\nWhether there was such a development from \u201ca word from before the LORD\u201d to \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d or not, we can observe that the Targums have both \u201cthe Word\u201d who is God (\u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d as a way of referring to \u201cthe LORD\u201d) and the (personified) word which is with God (\u201ca word from before the LORD\u201d) and goes forth from before him to accomplish his will, which is how Jesus describes himself (John 8:42; also 13:3; 16:27\u201330; 17:8). Thus \u201cWord\u201d in the latter sense could have been taken by John and applied as a title to Christ in exactly the same way as proposed for the OT word of the LORD (or for Wisdom, for that matter). That the Targums have a word who is with (\u201cfrom before\u201d) God and the Word who is God means that the Targums provide background material that is closer conceptually to John\u2019s description of the Logos than any other proposed source material.
\nAs for the word of God in Isa 55:9\u201311 as a summary of the work of Jesus, there are no clear allusions to this passage in the Gospel. Of far greater christological significance, we have seen clear dependence of the words of Jesus on the divine invitation \u201ccome to me\u201d from earlier in the chapter (vv. 1\u20133) which, in the Targum, is an invitation to receive the divine Word (John 5:40; 7:37).
\nFurther, even if one wants to focus on the OT word of the LORD as a basis for the Logos title, one could point to Aramaic \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\/\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, meaning divine speech in the Targums, which can be highly personified as well. The first and second commandments in the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch are much like the word of God in Isa 55:10\u201311 and would be just as attractive to adapt to the person of Christ.<\/p>\n
The first word [\u05d3\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8], when it came forth from the mouth of the Holy One, may his name be blessed, was like shooting stars, like lightning, and like flames of fire; a fiery torch on its right, and a fiery torch on its left, flying and floating in the air of the sky; it returned and was seen over the camps of Israel; it turned round and was engraved on the tablets of the covenant that had been given into the palm of Moses\u2019 hands, and it was changing from side to side on them. Then he cried out and said, \u201cMy people, children of Israel, I am the LORD your God who redeemed and brought you out redeemed from the land of the Egyptians, from the house of bondage of slaves.\u201d (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 20:2)<\/p>\n
Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 32:19 says that when Moses broke the tablets at the foot of the mountain, the holy writing upon them began flying and circling in the sky again, and pronounced a woe on the people who heard the second commandment and just forty days later made a useless molten calf. Thus \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8 in its literal sense comes forth from God and speaks to his people (supporting \u201cthe Word was with God\u201d and providing an analogy with the incarnation and ministry of Jesus) but also functions as metonym for God (supporting \u201cthe Word was God\u201d). Note that this first and second \u201cword\u201d were also light which illumined men.
\nOne could argue, then, that both \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8 and \u05d3\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8, in their literal meanings in the Targums, could provide background for the Logos title in the same way that OT word (\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8) is thought to do, supporting \u201cthe Word was with God.\u201d But the targumic Word is closer to the Logos of the Prologue because it also gives background to \u201cthe Word was God.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Targumic Word and Wisdom or Philo\u2019s Logos<\/p>\n
Some targumic usages of Memra are suggestive of the Wisdom\/Logos idea. The Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch have a long refrain describing the disposition of four cases brought to Moses in the wilderness; two of them capital cases (Lev 24:10\u201314; Num 15:32\u201336), and two civil (Num 9:6\u201313; 27:1\u201311). According to Pal. Tgs. Num 7:89, the decision would have been communicated to Moses by \u201cthe Word\u201d speaking to Moses from above the mercy seat, between the cherubim. Part of the refrain in all four cases in Tg. Ps.-J. is the statement that Moses judged these cases \u201caccording to \u2014\u2014.\u201d The terms which fill in the blank in the four cases are (1) \u201cthe Memra which is above\u201d (\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05dc; Lev 24:12); (2) \u201cthe Memra of the Holy One\u201d (\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0; Num 9:8; 15:34); and (3) \u201cthe understanding\/mind which is above\u201d (\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05dc; Num 27:5; also Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. P Lev 24:12). The use of \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 with such parallels is perhaps reminiscent of Philo\u2019s Logos as the mind of God or rational principle. Also note James\u2019 reference to \u201cthe wisdom that comes from above\u201d (Jas 3:17; cf. Wis 9:17: \u201cAnd who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your holy Spirit from above?\u201d [NJB]) and Jesus\u2019 statement \u201cI am from above\u201d (John 8:23). A word (\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8) from before the LORD (i.e., from above; MT, \u201cwords of God\u201d) is also used in parallel with knowledge (\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4) from before the Most High in Tg. Neof. Num 24:16 (Balaam \u201cheard a word (\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8) from before the LORD, and acquired knowledge (\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4) from before the Most High\u201d). The passage in Frg. Tg. V is the same except it has \u05de\u05dc\u05dc instead of \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8.
\nIn these passages and many others, \u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 has the sense of \u201cknowledge,\u201d but in others it means \u201cmind.\u201d In Tg. Neof. Num 16:28, Moses says that in the sign of Korah\u2019s death, Israel would know that what has happened is \u201cnot from my own mind\u201d (\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9; Tg. Neof. [mg.] and MT have \u201cmy heart\u201d). Similarly, in Tg. Neof. Num 24:13 Balaam says, \u201cIf Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the decree of the Word of the LORD to do either good or evil from my own mind.\u201d
\nThe difference of opinion over whether the Memra of the Targums has anything to do with the Logos of Philo is about as wide as it could be. Most today would agree with Alfred Edersheim\u2019s conclusion, if not his reasoning, of 125 years ago: \u201cThe Logos of Philo is not the Memra of the Targumim. For, the expression Memra ultimately rests on theological, that of Logos on philosophical grounds.\u201d It seems doubtful that Philo and other ancients would make such a complete separation between philosophy and theology.
\nIn contrast to Edersheim, Daniel Boyarin states that Philo\u2019s Logos and the targumic Memra represent variations in detail of \u201cthe Logos theology [which] was a virtual commonplace\u201d (and into which John\u2019s Prologue fits comfortably). Levey writes, \u201cThe Memra is the most versatile literary device in our Tg.\u2019s [i.e., Ezekiel\u2019s] theological exegesis, similar to Philo\u2019s logos.\u201d Israel Abrahams, after acknowledging Philo\u2019s dependence on Greek philosophy, comments, \u201cOn the other hand, Philo\u2019s Logos is rooted in the biblical idea of the creative word of God, the Targum\u2019s Memra, the mystical concepts of the merkavah (\u2018divine chariot\u2019), the Shekinah, the name of God, and the names of angels.\u201d Unlike Boyarin, however, who sees John\u2019s Prologue as an understandable development from the current \u201cWord theology,\u201d Abrahams states that the idea of the incarnation of the Word \u201ccreated an impossible [sic; impassible?] gulf between Judaism and its daughter faith.\u201d Similarly, Westcott: \u201cNo one \u2026 who had accepted [Philo\u2019s] teaching could without a complete revolution of thought accept the statement \u2018the Logos became flesh.\u2019 The doctrine of the personality of the Logos, even if Philo had consistently maintained it, would not have been in reality a step towards such a fact.\u201d A key purpose of targumic Memra and Philo\u2019s Logos was to guard the transcendence of God\u2014to keep God up in heaven, so to speak, and out of contact with the world. Thus, to accept the idea that the Word (defined as God) became flesh, one would have to repudiate the Memra\/Logos theology. In fact, if Palestinian Judaism had absorbed Middle Platonic ideas (as indicated in the use of Memra), it would raise the interesting question as to what extent these foreign ideas played a role in the fact that the Jews by and large did not recognize Isa 9:6 as a prophecy of the incarnation, and hence would not consider the possibility of its fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. \u201cThe Word became flesh\u201d is a clear refutation of, not a development from, the Logos\/Memra theology. It could be that first-century Judaism (or elements of it) had the opposite problem addressed in Jer 23:23, where God asks Judah, \u201c \u2018Am I a God near at hand,\u2019 says the LORD, \u2018and not a God afar off,\u2019 \u201d which could be interpreted, \u201cAm I only immanent, and not also transcendent?\u201d The question (and thus the suggestion of God\u2019s immanence) is totally avoided in Tg. Jer., which has in common with the MT only \u201cI\u201d, \u201cGod\u201d (2x), and \u201csays the LORD\u201d: \u201c \u2018I, God, created the world from the beginning,\u2019 says the LORD; \u2018I, God, am going to renew the world for the righteous.\u2019 \u201d In the Targum, \u201cafar off\u201d is evidently taken as activity in the distant past (creation), and \u201cnear\u201d as activity in the near future.
\nBeyond the discussion of general conceptual similarities between Philo\u2019s Logos and the Targums\u2019 Memra, one can point to cases where Philo speaks of the Logos in connection with a certain biblical passage in a way that is similar to the Memra in one or more of the Targums of that passage. Explaining the Passover ceremony, Philo says, \u201cThey make the Passover sacrifice while changing their dwelling-place in accordance with the commands of the Logos,\u201d and \u201cThe divine Word gives the command \u2026 to keep (the festival)\u201d (Questions and Answers on Exodus 1.4, 5). Likewise, the first Passover instructions are given by \u201cthe Word of the LORD\u201d in Tg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 12:1, and the command to keep the festival in the wilderness is given by the Word of the LORD in Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 9:1, as are the supplementary instructions for the keeping of the feast in the second month (Tg. Neof. [mg.] Num 9:9).
\nPhilo\u2019s explanation of the idea of God meeting with\/speaking to Moses from between the cherubim is interesting in light of our discussion above of Pal. Tgs. Num 7:89, which records the fulfillment of Exod 25:22; 29:42; 30:6, 36. Recall that in the Exodus passages the Targums (including Tg. Onq.) use Memra for God meeting\/speaking with Moses from above the mercy seat, between the cherubim, while at Num 7:89, Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. say that from there the Dibbera spoke with Moses.
\nPhilo also employed the agency of the Word for God\u2019s presence between the cherubim. In Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.68, Philo puts the question, \u201cWhat is the meaning of the words, \u2018I will speak to thee above from (= from above) the mercy-seat, between the two cherubim\u2019?\u201d Philo then describes the situation in the holy of holies: \u201cdirectly above them (the cherubim), in their midst, (is) the voice and the Logos, and above it, the Speaker [\u1f41 \u039b\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd]\u201d and \u201cthere appears as being in their midst the divine Logos and, above the Logos, the Speaker.\u201d
\nPhilo\u2019s description differs in various details from Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. Num 7:89, but Tg. Ps.-J. Num 7:89 is like Philo in employing two concepts (the Spirit and the Word) to explain the situation in the most holy place, and Philo has the Speaker above the Word, just as Tg. Ps.-J. has the Spirit (whom Moses hears) descending to the place from which the Word spoke to him. Philo also quotes Exod 25:22 in On Flight and Finding 101, where he says that the divine Logos (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) is above the cherubim. Here Philo does not make a distinction between Logos and Speaker, but rather the invisible Logos, the image of God, is in closest possible proximity to the only truly existing God.
\nPhilo\u2019s On Dreams 1.70\u201371, 229\u2013230 is also of interest in light of the reading of Pal. Tgs. Gen 28:10 that the Word desired to speak with Jacob at Bethel. Philo has Jacob meeting the Logos and implying that Moses also took the people out to meet the Logos (Exod 19:17), whereas the Targums of Exod 19:17 say that Moses brought them to meet the Word of the LORD (Tg. Onq. and Frg. Tg. P), the glory of the LORD\u2019s Shekinah (Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. V), or the Shekinah of the LORD (Tg. Ps.-J.). On Dreams 1.70 also implies that Abraham met the divine Word in Gen 18, which we saw (in ch. 2, p. 52, no. 5) was a revelation of the divine Word in Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tgs. P, V Gen 18:1, etc.
\nPhilo also allegorizes the rescue of Lot and the destruction of the cities of the Plain as a work of the Word (Logos) of God: \u201cFor the Word of God, when it arrives at our earthly composition, in the case of those who are akin to virtue and turn away to her, gives help and succour, thus affording them a refuge and perfect safety, but sends upon her adversaries irreparable ruin\u201d (On Dreams 1.85). Likewise, Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 19:24 and Tg. Neof. Gen 19:29 say that the cities were destroyed by the Word of the LORD, and Tg. Neof. [mg.] 19:13 says the Word of the LORD sent the angels to destroy Sodom (so, presumably, the divine Word also sent the angels to rescue Lot).
\nThe importance of the Memra to the name of God in the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch (\u201cthe name of the Word of the LORD\u201d) suggests another possible connection to Philo\u2019s Logos. As noted in ch. 2, Philo considered the concept of the Logos \u201cidentical with the Name.\u201d
\nSince the Word and the glory of the Shekinah are related concepts in the Targums, we should not be surprised to also find connections between Philo\u2019s Logos and the Shekinah of the Targums, if in fact Philo\u2019s Logos is conceptually similar to the Word of the Targums. Hanson notes that Exod 24:10, \u201cthey saw the God of Israel,\u201d was rendered in the LXX as \u201cthey saw the place where the God of Israel stood,\u201d and that Philo explains somewhat tentatively in Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.37 that \u201cthis place is that of His Logos.\u201d Targum Onqelos says that they saw \u201cthe glory of the God of Israel\u201d; Tgs. Ps.-J. and Neof. [mg.] \u201cthe glory of the Shekinah of the God of Israel\u201d; Tg. Neof. \u201cthe glory of the Shekinah of the LORD.\u201d
\nIn light of these parallels, it hardly seems persuasive to say that we should ignore the similarities between Philo and the Targums on the basis of a generalized claim that Philo\u2019s concerns were philosophical and the Targums\u2019 theological.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Conceptual similarities between the OT word of the LORD, Wisdom of the Wisdom literature, and Philo\u2019s Logos have been noted and addressed by interpreters arguing for their preferred views. This overlap is certainly part of the reason that each of these views has a measure of plausibility. Yet there is also considerable conceptual overlap with a fourth view, the targumic Word. When interpreters favoring one of the first three views interact only with the other two, they miss their mark, since proving that one of them is better than the other two does not prove that any of them is better than the Targum view.<\/p>\n
EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS USED AGAINST THE TARGUM BACKGROUND<\/p>\n
Some of this section will include review, since along the way in earlier chapters some objections against the targumic explanation have been noted.<\/p>\n
Memra Is Not Used for Creation<\/p>\n
Moore claimed that in contrast to Philo\u2019s Logos, \u201cin the Targums memra \u2026 is not the creative word in the cosmogony of Genesis or reminiscences of it.\u201d To make such a claim, Moore had to overlook the many cases in the Frg. Tgs. of Genesis, Tg. Onq. Deut 33:27, variant readings in Tg. Ps., as well as several passages from Tg. Jon. (Isaiah and Jeremiah). These are summarized in ch. 1 (pp. 21\u201324). Even if Moore\u2019s comment had actually been true when he wrote it, the discovery of Tg. Neof. would nevertheless have overthrown this objection.<\/p>\n
Memra Is Not a Hypostasis<\/p>\n
Moore summarizes the argument as follows: From the thirteenth to eighteenth centuries,<\/p>\n
a vast amount of testimony was uncritically accumulated, and conclusions drawn which obtained general assent and continue to be accepted in some quarters to the present time. In the Memra of the Targums, the Word (Logos) was recognized, so to speak, in his own name and character; the Skekinah [sic] was sometimes taken for the Second Person of the Trinity, sometimes for the Third.<\/p>\n
\u2026<\/p>\n
The sum of the whole matter is that nowhere in these Targums is memra a \u201cbeing\u201d of any kind or in any sense, whether conceived personally as an angel employed in communication with men, or as a philosophically impersonal created potency, \u2026 or God himself in certain modes of self-manifestation.\u2026 The appearance of personality which in many places attaches to the memra is due solely to the fact that the phrase \u201cthe memra of Y.,\u201d or, with pronouns referring to God, My, Thy, His memar, is a circumlocution for \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cthe Lord,\u201d or the like, introduced out of motives of reverence precisely where God is personally active in the affairs of men.\u2026<\/p>\n
It is an error \u2026 when, by association of the Christian doctrine of the Logos and by abuse of a technical term of Christian theology, the Memra is described as \u201can hypostasis.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
Like memra, shekinah acquires what semblance of personality it has solely by being a circumlocution for God in contexts where personal states or actions are attributed to him.<\/p>\n
A number of observations are in order: (1) Moore restricts himself to considering the official Targums Onqelos and Jonathan; as we have seen, the most impressive points of contact with John are found in the other Targums. It is true that in Onqelos and Jonathan a large number of uses of Memra could be taken literally, if one is so inclined; the same is not true of the Pal. Tgs., as the expression \u201cname of the Word of the LORD,\u201d which must denote the Tetragrammaton, is sufficient to prove. (2) The claim that \u201cnowhere in these Targums is memra a being in any sense\u201d or \u201cGod himself in certain modes of self-manifestation\u201d is at odds with the admission that Memra is a \u201ccircumlocution for \u2018God,\u2019 \u2018the Lord,\u2019 or the like, introduced out of motives of reverence precisely where God is personally active in the affairs of men,\u201d unless one denies that God is \u201ca being in any sense.\u201d (3) That Memra is a circumlocution for God should count in favor of, rather than against, the idea that John has adapted the Logos title from Memra, for John begins his Gospel by telling us \u201cthe Word was God.\u201d Likewise, Elizabeth Harris, arguing for a Wisdom background and against a Targum background, says that the targumic Word is \u201ca mere periphrasis for God in order to avoid naming him.\u201d Again, why does the fact that Memra is a \u201cperiphrasis for God\u201d not count in its favor as the concept underlying John\u2019s Logos title?
\nMcNamara notes Billerbeck\u2019s claim that \u201cthe expression \u2018Memra of Adonai\u2019 was an empty, purely formal substitution for the Tetragrammaton and is consequently unsuitable to serve as a starting-point for the Logos of John.\u201d McNamara writes elsewhere that \u201cneglect of the targumic evidence in this regard is chiefly due to the writings of P. Billerbeck.\u201d As evidence for this opinion one could cite Rudolf Schnackenburg, who in his commentary spends six pages discussing the evidence for a gnostic background to the Logos title but deals with the targumic view in two dismissive sentences, referring to Billerbeck.
\nVinzenz Hamp\u2019s view is often quoted: \u201cneither the Logos, Philonian or Johannine, nor the preexistent Christ of Paul could be explained by the Memra.\u201d \u201cThe formula has practically nothing to do with the prologue of John or with Christianity.\u201d Philo scholar Harry A. Wolfson is also often quoted: \u201cas for the memra of the Targum, no scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is either a real being or an intermediary.\u201d
\nIsrael Drazin states that Memra should be translated \u201ccommand,\u201d \u201cwill,\u201d \u201cteaching,\u201d \u201cinspiration,\u201d \u201cpower,\u201d \u201cprotection,\u201d etc. (i.e., it should be understood literally). In his translation of Tg. Onq. of Deuteronomy, he writes, \u201cthe retention of the Aramaic [transliteration Memra] should not lead anyone to suppose that Memra is a supernatural being.\u201d Yet in Drazin\u2019s own translation of Tg. Onq. Deut 4:24 the Memra \u201cis a consuming fire, a zealous God.\u201d
\nThe old argument that targumic Word is a \u201chypostasis,\u201d meaning a being distinct from God, certainly overstretches the evidence, though this view is not without advocates today. But showing that Memra is not a \u201chypostasis\u201d in this sense does not settle the question; throughout this book I have sided with McNamara in viewing the Memra not as a hypostasis but as an instance of metonymy; targumic Memra is suitable for John\u2019s use precisely because it is a way of referring to God under certain circumstances (generally speaking, in his interaction with the creation, especially his people, and when God is represented anthropomorphically). Granting that targumic Memra is not a being distinct from God, \u201cIt by no means follows that John was not influenced by targumic usage in his choice of Logos as a designation for Christ.\u201d Similarly, Morris writes against this sort of objection: \u201cBut this is hardly the point. The point is that wherever people were familiar with the Targums, they were familiar with \u2018the Word\u2019 as a designation of the divine.\u201d Evans adds, \u201cThe simple fact that \u2018Word\u2019 appears as a periphrasis or name for God in [some Targums of] Gen 1\u20132 and elsewhere in reference to creation and to God\u2019s Shekinah dwelling among his people means that it could easily have been adopted by the Fourth Evangelist for his own use.\u201d Likewise, Brown reasons, \u201cIf the Aramaic expression for \u2018word\u2019 was used in the Targums as a paraphrase for God in his dealings with men, the author of the Prologue hymn may have seen fit to use this title for Jesus who pre-eminently incorporated God\u2019s presence among men.\u201d
\nSome critics of the Targum view find it more convenient to argue against the nineteenth-century hypostatic Memra view, as it is always easier to knock down the straw man. For example, in 1990 Tobin (a Philo advocate, as noted above) mentioned McNamara\u2019s Expository Times article (in which he argued that Memra was used as metonymy; see ch. 1, n. 45) in a footnote, noting that another view was that the use of Logos in John was derived from targumic usage (he provided no explanation or discussion). In his 1992 ABD article, Tobin included a brief discussion of McNamara\u2019s view, but seems to have entirely missed the point, criticizing McNamara\u2019s view as if he had argued for the old hypostatic Memra view, when in fact McNamara had himself rejected that view. Tobin writes, \u201cMemr\u0101\u02be (word) as used in the Targums is basically a buffer term to preserve the transcendence of God; it has no reality of its own.\u201d This was Hamp\u2019s point in refutation of the nineteenth-century view, and McNamara dealt with it. Yet Tobin inappropriately cited Hamp as a refutation of McNamara instead of addressing McNamara\u2019s view.
\nBruce Chilton notes that \u201ca significant, perhaps disproportionate, influence upon commentators has been exerted by Kittel\u2019s remark in the Theologische W\u00f6rterbuch [TWNT 4:132] that \u2018all attempts to explain the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 statements of John 1 in terms of the targumic \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 have failed, since this is never a personal hypostasis, but only a substitute for the tetragrammaton.\u2019 \u201d Kittel\u2019s statement is inaccurate in the sense that the word \u201cLord\u201d was already substituted for the Tetragrammaton as in the LXX, for example; adding \u201cthe Word\u201d to this substitution serves other purposes. \u201cThe Word of the LORD\u201d is used specifically to refer to God as he interacts with his creation. John begins by telling us that Jesus the Word is God, and then tells us this Word became flesh\u2014surely the ultimate in divine interaction with the creation. Kittel is correct, however, that the targumic Word implies the Tetragrammaton in the sense that it is used to refer to YHWH the God of Israel, a fact that is vital to the understanding of the full christological significance of the Logos title.
\nChilton also notes Barrett\u2019s remark that the targumic Memra is \u201ca blind alley in the study of the biblical background of John\u2019s logos doctrine.\u201d Barrett bases his conclusion on the idea that targumic Memra \u201cwas not truly a hypostasis but a means of speaking about God without using his name.\u201d However, since the Jews already used the substitute \u201cLord\u201d or \u201cGod\u201d to avoid speaking his name, Barrett\u2019s explanation is not persuasive. Barrett cites only a single passage from the Targums (Tg. Onq. Gen 3:8) to explain why targumic Memra \u201cmight erroneously be taken as a hypostasis.\u201d He then mentions McNamara for \u201ca different view,\u201d without providing any discussion.
\nMore recently, Keener, though he cites McNamara\u2019s work and admits that his argument is different from the old hypostasis argument, continues to make the issue revolve around the question of whether the Memra represents a hypostatization.
\nTo conclude, the anti-hypostatic argument seems to depend on an arbitrary constraint. Scholars seem to want to force John to have taken some concept that was distinct from God and to have adapted it so that he could say that it was not only with God, but was in fact God. Why could not John have gone in the other direction, taking a concept that was recognized as a way of referring to God under certain circumstances and adapting that concept so that it applied both to the one who is God and to the one who is with God? To require that John must have adapted in one direction and not the other is arbitrary.<\/p>\n
Memra Is Not Used in an Absolute Sense<\/p>\n
We noted Moore\u2019s argument in ch. 1: \u201cit is to be observed that memra does not occur without a genitive\u2014\u2018the word of the Lord,\u2019 \u2018my word,\u2019 etc., or a circumlocution for the genitive, \u2018a memar from before the LORD.\u2019 \u2018The Memra,\u2019 \u2018the Word,\u2019 is not found in the Targums, notwithstanding all that is written about it by authors who have not read them.\u201d This argument assumes that targumic Dibbera\/Dibbura, which is used in this absolute sense, \u201cthe Word,\u201d is too late to be of interest. Yet we have seen rather compelling cases where John\u2019s Gospel seems to be illuminated by Targum passages that have this more restrictively used \u201cWord,\u201d especially John\u2019s allusions to the revelation of God to Moses in Exod 34, which in the Pal. Tgs. Exod 33:23 is described beforehand as a revelation of the Dibbera\/Dibbura, and which included God\u2019s self description as \u201cfull of grace and truth.\u201d We also noted the isolated use of Dibbura in Tg. Jon. (Ezek 1), which can most reasonably be ascribed to the work of Johanan ben Zakkai, who was a contemporary of the apostle John. The argument that Memra is not used in an absolute sense, then, loses its force, since a number of targumic passages involving \u201cthe Word\u201d (Dibbera\/Dibbura) can be related to various passages in John. To summarize these: (1) Exodus 34 can be compared to John 1:14\u201318 (ch. 1, pp. 32\u201334; ch. 2, pp. 62\u201368). Various roles in which God appears in Exod 34 are also roles of Jesus in John (he comes down, reveals his name, fights for his people, etc., as described in chs. three through eight). (2) Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num 7:89 can be compared to John 1:32\u201333, the account of the baptism of Jesus as recalled by John the Baptist. The same Targum passage (and the version found in Tg. Neof.) and various Pal. Tg. passages dealing with the giving of the law through the Dibbera\/Dibbura also relate to the theme of Jesus as divine lawgiver in the body of the Gospel, as described above in ch. 7. (3) The revelation of the Dibbera\/Dibbura to Jacob in Pal. Tgs. Gen 28:10 has certain points of contact with John 1:43\u201351, the revelation of Jesus to Nathanael. (4) The Dibbera speaking to Moses from the pillar of fire at the Red Sea in CTg. T Exod 14:30 relates to John 1:4\u20135, 9, which show the Word as light shining upon men and in victorious conflict with darkness (ch. 1, pp. 24\u201328).<\/p>\n
Memra Is Only Used in the Targums<\/p>\n
Keener suggests that the targumic usage is \u201ctoo isolated to suggest that the language was used widely in early Judaism.\u201d This comment seems to reflect a view of the Targums in which they occupy a small portion of the shelf space in a rabbinical academy library compared to that of the rest of rabbinic literature. It overlooks what should be of greater significance, namely, that the Targums (or at least major portions of them) were meant for public recitation in the synagogue on Sabbaths and feast days. They thus would be by definition \u201cwidely used in early Judaism\u201d and are more likely to have been familiar to John and his readers than material meant primarily for scholars. It seems to me that scholars are actually starting with the question, \u201cWhat is important for modern Judaism?\u201d in deciding what John might or might not have been influenced by. If we ask such a question, then the Targums would not be high on the list. I suggest, however, that that is not the right question to ask.<\/p>\n
Memra in the Targums Is Late<\/p>\n
\u201cAll our extant targumic evidence is too late to allow us to be certain that Memra was used in a particular manner in the first century.\u201d Such an argument is fine to make in theory, but it is answered in practice by the pervasive evidence for how John\u2019s Gospel is illuminated by passages in the Targums that feature the divine Word, which we saw over the course of the first ten chapters of the present work. In fact, we could say that John\u2019s Gospel itself constitutes compelling evidence \u201cthat Memra was used in a particular way in the first century.\u201d
\nHere too there seems to be a double standard at work. Dodd, for example, devoted just two sentences (one in a footnote) to a discussion of the targumic background to the Logos title, in part because of its supposed lateness: \u201c[Philo\u2019s] use of the term Logos itself has some affinity with the (probably later) use of the term \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 as a periphrasis for the divine name.\u201d Dodd\u2019s double standard is evident in that although he acknowledged that most of the Corpus hermeticum was later than John, he nevertheless devoted an entire chapter to considering its potential relevance to John\u2019s Gospel. Should not the same approach be taken with the Targums, even if one suspects that the Memra theology in them is later than John? One can argue for an early date by showing conceptual similarities between Memra and Philo\u2019s Logos (acknowledged by Dodd, as noted above), since Philo dates from the first half of the first century. These similarities have already been noted.
\nSimilarly, there are some references to the word of God in intertestamental Wisdom literature that sound like things in the Targums, and such similarities would obviously make an intertestamental development of the Memra theology more plausible. Brown cited two passages from the Wisdom of Solomon that could be used to support the OT word as background for the Logos title, but I mention them here because one can also make connections between them and the Targums (Wis 16:5\u201313; 18:14\u201315).
\nWisdom of Solomon, commenting on the bronze serpent incident, says, \u201cFor the one who turned toward it (the bronze serpent) was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Savior of all.\u2026 For neither herb nor poultice cured them, but it was your word [\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2], O Lord, that heals all people\u201d (16:7, 12 NRSV). We see in this passage similar concerns evident also in Tg. Ps.-J. Num 21, which we looked at above in connection with John 3:14, particularly, the desire to avoid the impression that the Israelites were saved from death by the mere act of looking at the bronze serpent. The Targum says that the one who looked would live \u201cif his heart was directed towards the name of the Word of the LORD.\u201d Hayward links this passage with Tg. Neof. [mg.] and Frg. Tgs. Exod 15:26: \u201cI am the LORD who in my Word heals you.\u201d John might have seen the healing ministry of Jesus as further fulfillment of this promise when the Word became flesh.
\nWisdom of Solomon 18:14\u201315 describes the death of the Egyptian firstborn, saying that at midnight the Lord\u2019s all-powerful Word leapt down from the heavenly royal throne carrying the divine command to strike the Egyptian firstborn like a sword. Various Targum passages also ascribe the death of the firstborn to the Memra:<\/p>\n
Tg. Neof. Exod 11:4
\nIn the middle of the night my Word will be revealed in the midst of Egypt.
\nTg. Neof. Exod 12:12\u201313
\nAnd I, in my Word [mg.: And I will be revealed in my Word], will pass through the land of Egypt this night.\u2026 And I, in my Word, will defend you [mg.: my Word will defend you].
\nCTg. AA Exod 12:12\u201313
\nMy Word will pass through the land of Egypt.\u2026 My Word will see the blood.
\nCTg. AA Exod 12:23
\nAnd the Word of the LORD will pass through to slay the Egyptians.
\nTg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 12:29
\nAt midnight the Word of the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. (similarly Tg. Ps.-J., CTg. AA)
\nFrg. Tg. V Exod 12:42
\nThe third night: when the Word of the LORD was revealed against the Egyptians in the middle of the night.<\/p>\n
What the two Wisdom texts have in common with the Targum texts is that they add \u201cthe Word\u201d where the MT account does not have it. In the case of Exod 12:29, both Wis 18:15 and Tgs. Ps.-J. and Neof. [mg.] Exod 12:29 ascribe to the Word what the MT ascribes to the LORD. Such examples certainly make it plausible that the targumic Memra theology developed in intertestamental wisdom circles rather than in post-first-century rabbinic Judaism, in which there is no trace of its development. Based on Wis 16:10, 12; 18:14\u201316, Hayward concludes \u201cMemra was known in Alexandria in the second half of the first century BC.\u201d
\nAlong similar lines, the Hellenistic Jewish tragedian Ezekiel, who wrote a play reenacting the exodus sometime during the third to first centuries B.C.E., depicted the voice from the burning bush (emanating from behind a curtain) saying to Moses (v. 99), \u201cAnd the divine Word [Logos] shines out from the bush upon you.\u201d Note the association of the Word with shining light, as in John\u2019s Prologue, as well as the repeated use of Memra in the Targums of the burning bush scene: \u201cThe Word of the LORD called to him from the midst of the bush\u201d (Tg. Neof. Exod 3:4; see also Tg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 3:14, 15; 4:2, 6, 11, 21, 30; Frg. Tgs. P, V Exod 3:14); \u201cI have been revealed in my Word to deliver them\u201d (Tg. Neof. Exod 3:8); \u201cI, in my Word, will be with you, and this will be a sign that my Word has sent you\u201d (Tg. Neof. Exod 3:12; similarly Tg. Neof. Exod 4:15); \u201cthey will say to me, \u2018The Word of the LORD was not revealed to you\u2019 \u201d (Tg. Neof. [mg.] Exod 4:1); \u201cthat by my Word they may be delivered\u201d (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 3:8); \u201cit was told me (at the burning bush) by a word [memar] from before the LORD that the men who had sought to kill me had fallen\u201d (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 10:29).
\nEliezer Segal does not hesitate to relate Ezekiel the Tragedian to Philo, and Philo to targumic Memra:<\/p>\n
Philo preferred to minimize God\u2019s direct involvement with the created world by applying the Stoic concept of the \u201cLogos,\u201d an emanated entity that furnished the rational structure that regulates the physical world. In Philo\u2019s interpretations, it was this Logos, not God himself, that was heard or seen by the prophets of the Bible. This usage was adopted by the standard Aramaic translation of the Torah (where the Logos appears as the Memra, the word of God) and continued to influence Jewish philosophers in later generations.<\/p>\n
And so, while striving to fashion a literary representation of God\u2019s appearance to Moses, the tragedian Ezekiel was scrupulous in eschewing all references to the \u201cvoice\u201d of God. Instead, he consistently makes reference to the \u201cword of God,\u201d namely the divine \u201cLogos,\u201d in a manner reminiscent of Philo.<\/p>\n
So targumic Memra theology\/philosophy seems to fit right in with intertestamental Hellenistic Judaism. This makes the refusal to consider a Targum background to the Logos title on the supposition that Memra theology is later than John precarious, to say the least. Those who put the Targums out of bounds for consideration of the background of the Logos title based on date need to consider these facts.<\/p>\n
The Targum View Is Not Even Worth Investigation<\/p>\n
Such is the implication of Barrett\u2019s \u201cblind alley\u201d comment. And to quote Wolfson and Moore again, \u201cas for the memra of the Targum, no scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is either a real being or an intermediary.\u201d (So Memra is God but not \u201ca real being\u201d?) \u201c \u2018The Memra,\u2019 \u2018the Word,\u2019 is not found in the Targums, notwithstanding all that is written about it by authors who have not read them.\u201d The attitude expressed by such statements carries the implication that those who investigate the Targum background to the Logos title may not only be wasting their time; they might be putting their scholarly reputations at risk.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
The Gospel of John provides plenty of clues, beginning with the first verse of the Gospel, that make a targumic origin of the Logos title likely. Because of the conceptual similarity between targumic Memra\/Dibbura and other, better known concepts such as Philo\u2019s Logos, and because of the relative neglect of Targum study in Johannine scholarship, it has been easy to miss these clues and find other plausible explanations for the Logos title, explanations that are not necessarily unrelated to Targum usage. Naturally, it is difficult to find something if one is looking in the wrong place, no matter how much light there is in the location being investigated. The twentieth century should have been a period in which scholarship went forward to more fully uncover the evidence for the targumic backgrounds to John\u2019s Gospel. This is especially true subsequent to the rediscovery, halfway through the century, of a complete Pal. Tg. of the Pentateuch, Tg. Neof. Instead, due to rather reactionary essays focused only on the misguided question of whether the targumic Memra was a hypostasis, scholarship has regressed; believing that targumic Memra is a \u201cblind alley,\u201d scholars have not ventured very far into this path and have ended up going down various truly blind alleys. While I expect it that current trends will continue for some time, it is hoped that scholars will at least be persuaded to carefully consider the Targums when trying to explain John\u2019s Logos title.<\/p>\n
Summation and Implications for Johannine Scholarship<\/p>\n
JOHN\u2019S ADAPTATION OF THE TARGUMIC WORD<\/p>\n
Since all of our extant Targums seem to date from a time later than John, whenever we observe a potential correlation between a text and a passage from John, a measure of uncertainty is warranted. This is augmented by the fact that we are dealing with likely allusions rather than direct quotations. It seems to me, however, that the cumulative weight of evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the Logos title is adapted from the Targums. Since Logos is a christological title, it is important to be clear on just how John has adapted this title. It is adapted (not simply carried over) in at least three ways:
\n(1) In the Targums, the divine Word is distinguished from the Messiah, and the idea of the divine Word seems to come from a philosophical mind-set in which \u201cthe Word became flesh\u201d would be inconceivable.
\n(2) Whereas the targumic Word seems to be employed as a way of safeguarding the transcendence of God, it does not follow that Jesus as \u201cWord\u201d is immanent, in contrast to the Father who is transcendent. Jesus is \u201cGod with us,\u201d not merely a projection of God, and Jesus says that the Father is with him (John 16:32), that both he and the Father will come to his disciples and make their dwelling with them (14:23), and that the Holy Spirit \u201cwill be in you\u201d (14:17). The triune God is both transcendent and immanent.
\n(3) In the Targums, the divine Word is employed to refer to God especially in contexts where he is interacting with his creation, and particularly his people; the divine Word is not a Person distinct from God. Thus if the targumic Word were simply carried over from the Targums unchanged and applied to the Son, the theological result would be more like the heresy of modalism. In the Targums, the Word is God (Father, Son, and\/or Spirit), not merely with God. The Word in John\u2019s Gospel is specifically YHWH the Son. John employs this adaptation of the targumic Word in his opening sentence.<\/p>\n
THE UNITY OF JOHN\u2019S GOSPEL<\/p>\n
Seeing John\u2019s Logos title as derived from a background in the Targums is consistent with a greater readiness to see unity between the Prologue and the body of the Gospel. A targumic interpretation of the Logos title would permit a great deal of progress in connecting the Prologue to the rest of the Gospel: (a) \u201cThe Word became flesh\u201d is programmatic for John\u2019s Gospel, once we understand that \u201cthe Word\u201d is a way of saying \u201cYHWH the Son.\u201d Throughout the body of the Gospel, we see Jesus speak and act in the flesh in a manner that echoes the ways in which the God of Israel acted in OT times, ways that the Targums used the concept of the divine \u201cWord\u201d to describe. (b) \u201cThe Word\u201d as a targumic divine title is complemented by Jesus\u2019 repeated \u201cI am he\u201d sayings in the Gospel. These two are joined in Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. V Deut 32:39, where God says, \u201cI, in my Word, am he.\u201d Added confirmation comes from the fact that the various Pal. Tg. renderings of Deut 32:39 figure prominently in many of these \u201cI am he\u201d sayings, and that the many \u201cI am he\u201d sayings added in the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch are spoken by the divine Word according to Tg. Neof. main text or glosses. (c) The connection between the targumic Word and the name of God helps us see the ministry of Jesus as a multifaceted revelation of the name of God along the lines of God\u2019s revelation of his name to Moses after the Israelites\u2019 worship of the golden calf. In proclaiming his name, God revealed himself as \u201cfull of grace and truth.\u201d This was a revelation of the divine Word according to Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tgs. P, V Exod 33:23, and it fits well with the overall mission of Jesus, described as manifesting, or revealing, the divine name to God\u2019s people (John 17:6, 26).<\/p>\n
UNITY OF AUTHORSHIP IN THE JOHANNINE LITERATURE<\/p>\n
Elucidating the targumic background of John\u2019s writings adds significantly to evidence for the unity of authorship of the NT writings traditionally ascribed to John. Not only does the Logos title feature in John, 1 John, and Revelation, but in each of these books a targumic background to this title makes excellent sense. A characteristic common to the Johannine literature emerges, that John takes the language of the Targums applied to the God of Israel and applies it to Jesus, while Jesus uses the equivalent language from the MT. John calls Jesus \u201cthe Word,\u201d while Jesus says \u201cI am he.\u201d John calls Jesus the one who is from the beginning (1 John 2:13\u201314), while Jesus says \u201cI am the first and the last\u201d (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). The divine claim, \u201cI am the first and the last\u201d of Isa 44:6; 48:12 is rendered in Tg. Isa., \u201cI am he who is from the beginning\u201d (which is also included in Tg. Isa. 43:10). Jesus says \u201cI have come down from heaven\u201d (John 6:38), which follows the divine language of the MT (Exod 3:8, etc.), whereas John uses targumic language (or an adaptation) to describe the same event: \u201cthe Word became flesh\u201d (John 1:14); \u201cthe Son of God was revealed\u201d (1 John 3:8). Jesus says \u201ccome to me\u201d in a context which shows it is dependent on God\u2019s \u201ccome to me\u201d of Isa 55:1\u20133 (John 5:40; 7:37), whereas John uses the language of the equivalent expression in the Targums, \u201creceive my Word\u201d in John 1:11\u201312.<\/p>\n
JOHN\u2019S AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE<\/p>\n
It is clear from John 1:38, 41\u201342, where John gives some very elementary translation lessons to his readers (Rabbi = teacher, Cephas = Peter, Messiah = Christ), that at least one segment of John\u2019s intended audience consists of Gentile converts with little or no background in Hebrew or Aramaic. From the extensive evidence of Targum influence on the Gospel, with the implication that to get the fullest possible meaning of what John has written one needs to become familiar with the Targums, it follows that Aramaic-speaking believers should follow John\u2019s example set in these verses, instructing their fellow Gentile believers in this rich background in order to receive everything John has put on their table. The present book (ironically, written by a Gentile) is an attempt to make at least a good start towards that goal. It is indeed lamentable that the first-century Targums have not been completely preserved in our extant Targums, although the evidence suggests that the extant Targums preserve an earlier interpretive tradition. Considering relatively recent finds (e.g., Tg. Neof. and CTgs.), we have reason to hope for further discoveries that will close the gap between us and the first century.
\nI suggested above that John had two motives for calling Jesus \u201cthe Word.\u201d The first was christological, to address the \u201cPhilips\u201d in the church, who, so to speak, have spent so much time with Jesus (i.e., being instructed in the church) yet do not really know who Jesus is. There is still a need for this emphasis in modern times, since many Christians are unable to defend their faith against the christological heresies represented in the contemporary cults, and there is a tendency for Christians to read the OT as though God were not then triune. The second motive I suggested was apologetic, based on the existence of \u201cunwitting prophecies\u201d in the Targums, which would be particularly applicable to the situation of the Jews towards the end of the first century, but would have continuing applicability to Gentile Christians as warnings that, as Paul put it, \u201cIf God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you\u201d (Rom 11:21).
\nJohn is commonly accused of anti-Semitism because of his pejorative references to \u201cthe Jews\u201d and especially because of the words of Jesus in John 8:44, \u201cYou are of your father the devil.\u201d However, \u201coffspring of the serpent\u201d is simply a way of saying they are unregenerate, which is the natural state of all people, not just Jews. (Cain, the prototype of the offspring of the serpent, was obviously not Jewish). The need for regeneration was also an issue that needed to be addressed in the largely Gentile church in second and third generation Christianity for whom John was writing (so he warns professing Christians that they, too, are children of the devil if they are like Cain; 1 John 3:8\u201315). Thus we can see that if there were people in the church (mostly Gentile) who remind John of \u201cthe Jews\u201d of a previous generation, he would write in such a way as to make these parallels evident as well as to make clear the Lord\u2019s sharp denunciation of such false professors who oppose the truth and its true adherents; people who, like Caiaphas, put their own place ahead of all other considerations. Subsequent church history shows that such concerns were clearly warranted. In such circumstances, believers today should be willing to follow Jesus \u201coutside the camp,\u201d whether that unbelieving camp be Jewish or nominally Christian. And as John shows his original hearers as well as Christ\u2019s followers today, this is the place where Moses his servant saw his glory, and where they, too, can see his glory.<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/p>\n
Abrahams, Israel. \u201cWord.\u201d Pages 634\u201335 in vol. 16 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Editor-in-chief, Fred Skolnik. Executive editor, Michael Berenbaum. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971.
\nAlcalay, Reuben. The Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary. Hartford, Conn.: Prayer Book, 1965.
\nAlexander, Philip S. The Targum of Canticles. The Aramaic Bible 17A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003.
\nArchi, Alfonso. \u201cLes textes lexicaux bilingues d\u2019Ebla.\u201d Studi Eblaiti 2 (1980): 81\u201389.
\nAshton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.
\nBall, David Mark. \u201cI Am\u201d in John\u2019s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
\nBarrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
\nBeasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Dallas: Word, 1987.
\nBerg, Werner. \u201cNochmals: Ein S\u00fcndenfall Abrahams\u2014der erste\u2014in Gen 12, 10\u201320.\u201d Biblische Notizen 21 (1983): 7\u201315.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cDer S\u00fcndenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16, 1\u20136.\u201d Biblische Notizen 19 (1982): 7\u201314.
\nBernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1929.
\nBlack, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.
\nBoismard, M. -\u00c9. \u201cAenon, pr\u00e8s de Salem.\u201d Revue biblique 80 (1973): 218\u201329.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLes citations targumiques dans le quatri\u00e8me \u00e9vangile.\u201d Revue biblique 66 (1959): 374\u201378.
\nBonneau, Normand R. \u201cThe Woman at the Well: John 4 and Genesis 24.\u201d The Bible Today 5 (1973): 1252\u201359.
\nBorchert, Gerald L. John 12\u201321. New American Commentary 25B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002.
\nBoring, M. Eugene, Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe, eds. Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
\nBorsch, Frederick Houk. The Son of Man in Myth and History. New Testament Library. London: SCM, 1967.
\nBowman, Robert M., Jr., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cThe Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.\u201d Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 243\u201384.
\nBrady, Christian M. M. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 3. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cited 23 October 2008. Online: http:\/\/targum.info\/meg\/tglam.htm.
\nBrown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 29\u201329A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.
\nBurkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
\nBurney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.
\nBurton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.
\nCalvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul: Galatians and Ephesians, Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
\nCappel, Jacques. Observationes in novum testamentum. Una cum eiusdem Ludovici Cappelli Spicilegio. Amsterdam: Elzevir, 1657.
\nCaragounis, Chrys C. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 38. T\u00fcbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986.
\nCarson, Donald A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
\nCathcart, Kevin K., and Robert P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 14. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1989.
\nChester, Andrew. Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 14. T\u00fcbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986.
\nChilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTypologies of Memra and the Fourth Gospel.\u201d Pages 89\u2013100 in Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums. Vol. 1 of Targum Studies. Edited by Paul V. M. Flesher. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
\nChurgin, Pinkhos. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. New York: Ktav, 1983.
\nClark, Rosemary. The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt: The Esoteric Wisdom Revealed. Saint Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn, 2000.
\nClarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. The Aramaic Bible 5B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998.
\nCoetzee, J. C. \u201cJesus\u2019 Revelation in the EGO EIMI Sayings in Jn 8 and 9.\u201d Pages 171\u201377 in A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during His Visit to South Africa in 1985. Edited by J. H. Petzer and P. J. Hartin. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986.
\nColoe, Mary L. God Dwells With Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLike Father-Like Son: The Role of Abraham in Tabernacles\u2014Jn 8:31\u201359.\u201d Pacifica 12 (February 1999): 1\u201311. Accessed 5 November 2007. Online: http:\/\/www.cecs.acu.edu.au\/coloe\/Pacifica_Abraham_word.pdf.
\nCook, Edward M. \u201cThe Psalms Targum: An English Translation.\u201d Accessed 27 June 2009. Online: http:\/\/targum.info\/?page_id=11.
\nDalman, Gustaf. The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Translation of Die Worte Jesu: mit ber\u00fccksichtigung des nachkanonischen j\u00fcdischen Schrifttums und der aram\u00e4ischen Sprache. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1898.
\nDalman, Rodger Wayne. \u201cThe Theology of Israel\u2019s Sea Crossing.\u201d Th.D. diss., Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, 1990.
\nDay, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: \u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n in the Hebrew Bible. Harvard Semitic Monographs 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
\nDelitzsch, Franz. Psalms. Vol. 5 of Commentary on the Old Testament. London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1887. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
\nD\u00edez Macho, Alejandro. \u201cEl Logos y el Esp\u00edritu Santo.\u201d Atl\u00e1ntida 1 (1963): 381\u201396.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5 Vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\u00edficas, 1968\u20131979.
\nDodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Prophecy of Caiaphas: John 11:47\u201353.\u201d Pages 58\u201368 in More New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
\nDods, Marcus. \u201cThe Epistle to the Hebrews.\u201d Pages 219\u2013381 in volume 4 of The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
\nDrazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Exodus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (Based on A. Sperber\u2019s Edition). New York: Ktav, 1990.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (Based on A. Sperber\u2019s Edition). New York: Ktav, 1982.
\nDriver, S. R. Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892.
\nDuke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
\nEdersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 3d ed. 2 Vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1883. 3d ed. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1886. Rep. 1901.
\nEllis, Earl A. Paul\u2019s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
\nEtheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 Vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman, 1862, 1865. Repr. 2 vols. in 1, New York: Ktav, 1968.
\nEvans, Craig A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John\u2019s Prologue. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
\nFlesher, Paul V. M., ed. \u201cPalestinian Targum to the Prophets.\u201d Page 467 in volume 2 of Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. Edited by Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green. 2 vols. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999.
\nForestell, J. T. Targumic Traditions and the New Testament: An Annotated Bibliography with a New Testament Index. Society of Biblical Literature Aramaic Studies 4. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979.
\nFunk, R. W. \u201cPapyrus Bodmer II (?66) and John 8, 25.\u201d Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958): 95\u2013100.
\nGage, Warren Austin. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Winona Lake, Ind.: Carpenter Books, 1984.
\nGlasson, Thomas Francis. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. Studies in Biblical Theology 40. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1963.
\nGodet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899.
\nGoldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
\nGordon, Cyrus H. \u201cNear East Seals in Princeton and Philadelphia.\u201d Orientalia 22 (1953): 243\u201344.
\nGrossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onqelos to Exodus. The Aramaic Bible 7. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1988.
\nHamp, Vinzenz. Der Begriff \u201cWort\u201d in der aram\u00e4ischen Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Hypostasen-Frage und zur Geschichte der Logos-Spekulationen. Munich: Neuer Fiber-Verlag, 1938.
\nHanson, Anthony Tyrell. \u201cJohn I.14\u201318 and Exodus XXXIV.\u201d New Testament Studies 23 (1976): 90\u2013101.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
\nHarner, Phillip B. The \u201cI Am\u201d of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine Usage and Thought. Facet Books, Biblical Series 26. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
\nHarrington, Daniel J., and Anthony J. Saldarini. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 10. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987.
\nHarris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
\nHarris, J. Rendel. The Origin of the Prologue to St. John\u2019s Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917.
\nHayward, Robert. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa, N.J.: Allenheld, Osmun, 1981.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Targum Jeremiah. The Aramaic Bible 12. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987.
\nHeil, John Paul. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22\u201333, Mark 6:45\u201352 and John 6:15b\u201321. Analecta biblica 87. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.
\nHendriksen, William. The Gospel of John. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1954.
\nHiggins, A. J. B. Jesus and the Son of Man. London: Lutterworth, 1964.
\nHunter, A. M. Paul and His Predecessors. London: SCM, 1961.
\nJastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Putnam, 1903.
\nJeremias, Joachim. \u201cZum Logos-Problem.\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der \u00e4lteren Kirche 59 (1968): 82\u201385.
\nJosephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackery et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926\u20131965.
\nKasher, Menachem M. Genesis. Vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation: A Millennial Anthology. Translated under the editorship of Harry Freedman. New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1957.
\nKasher, Rimon. \u201cEschatological Ideas in the Toseftot Targum to the Prophets.\u201d Journal for the Aramaic Bible 2 (2000): 25\u201359.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Toseftot Targum to the Prophets [Hebrew Title, \u05ea\u05d5\u05e1\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05e8\u05d2\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd]. Sources for the Study of Jewish Culture 2. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1996.
\nKeener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003.
\nKeil, Karl Friedrich. The Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. 1864. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
\nKeiser, Thomas A. \u201cThe Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah\u2019s Prophecy.\u201d Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): 486\u2013500.
\nKerr, Alan R. The Temple of Jesus\u2019 Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 220. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
\nKhouri, Rami. \u201cWhere John Baptized.\u201d Biblical Archaeology Review 31, no. 1 (January\/February 2005): 34\u201343.
\nKlein, Michael L. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources. 2 Vols. Analecta biblica 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1986.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Preposition qdm (\u2018before\u2019), a Pseudo-anti-anthropomorphism in the Targum.\u201d Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979): 502\u20137.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim.\u201d Vetus Testamentum Supplements 32 (1979): 162\u201377.
\nKline, Meredith G. Images of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
\nKoester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
\nK\u00f6stenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
\nKysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2005.
\nLe D\u00e9aut, Roger. \u201cThe Current State of Targumic Studies.\u201d Biblical Theology Bulletin 4 (1974): 3\u201332.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. La nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la P\u00e2que juive \u00e0 partir du Targum d\u2019Exode XII 42. Analecta biblica 2. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963.
\nLehrman, S. M. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. London: Soncino, 1939.
\nLevey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Targum of Ezekiel. The Aramaic Bible 13. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987.
\nLevine, Etan. The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 174. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988.
\nLightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica; Matthew-I Corinthians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
\nLongman, Tremper III. How to Read the Psalms. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.
\nLongman, Tremper III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
\nMaclean, Jennifer K. Berenson. \u201cA Tale of Two Weddings: The Divine Trickster in John.\u201d Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Boston, Mass., November 21, 1999. Accessed December 11, 2007; no longer available. Online: http:\/\/www.roanoke.edu\/religion\/Maclean\/SBL\/DivineTrickster.htm.
\nMaher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 1B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992.
\nManson, William. Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ: With Special Reference to Form-Criticism. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943.
\nMcGrath, James F. John\u2019s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
\nMcNamara, Martin. \u201cLogos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242).\u201d Expository Times 79 (1968): 115\u201317.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Analecta biblica 27A. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Good News Studies 4. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
\nMcWhirter, Jocelyn. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
\nMeagher, John C. \u201cJohn 1 14 and the New Temple.\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 57\u201368.
\nMellon, Brad. \u201cThe \u2018Son of Man\u2019 in Hebrews 2:1\u201310.\u201d Master\u2019s thesis, Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pa., 1985.
\nMetzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994.
\nMiddleton, R. D. \u201cLogos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 29 (1938\u20131939): 101\u201333.
\nMiscall, Peter D. \u201cLiterary Unity in Old Testament Narrative.\u201d Semeia 15 (1979): 27\u201344.
\nMoffatt, James. \u201cThe Revelation of St. John the Divine.\u201d Pages 279\u2013494 in vol. 5 of The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
\nMoore, George Foot. \u201cIntermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron.\u201d Harvard Theological Review 15 (1922): 41\u201385.
\nMorris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Word Was Made Flesh: John 1\u20135. Vol. 1 of Reflections on the Gospel of John. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.
\nMotyer, Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993.
\nMu\u00f1oz-Le\u00f3n, Domingo. Dios-Palabra. Memr\u00e1 en los Targumim del Pentateuco. Granada: Instituci\u00f3n San Jer\u00f3nimo, 1974.
\nNeyrey, Jerome H. \u201cThe Jacob Allusions in John 1:51.\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 586\u2013605.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10\u201326.\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 419\u201337.
\nNiccacci, Alviero.\u201cEsodo 3,14a \u2018lo sar\u00f2 quello che ero\u2019 e un parallelo egiziano.\u201d Liber annuus Studii biblici franciscani 35 (1985): 7\u201326.
\nNickelsburg, George W. E. \u201cSon of Man.\u201d Pages 137\u201350 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
\nN\u00f6ldeke, Theodore. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Chrichton. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904.
\nPearl, Chaim. RASHI, Commentaries on the Pentateuch. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970.
\nPhilo. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 10 vols. and 2 supplementary vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956\u20131962.
\nReim, G\u00fcnter. Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cTargum und Johannesevangelium.\u201d Biblische Zeitschrift 27 (1983):1\u201313.
\nRonning, John L. \u201cThe Curse on the Serpent: Genesis 3:15 in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics.\u201d PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, Pa., 1997.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife\/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis.\u201d Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 1\u201327.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature.\u201d Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 247\u201378.
\nRosenbaum, M., and A. M. Silbermann. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Sabbath Prayers and Rashi\u2019s Commentary. 5 vols. London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1946.
\nSabourin, L. \u201cThe Memra of God in the Targums.\u201d Biblical Theology Bulletin 6 (1976): 79\u201385.
\nSahlin, Harald. Zur Typologie des Johannesevangeliums. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1950.
\nSchnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. Translated by Kevin Smyth. 3 vols. London: Burns & Oates, 1980. Translation of Das Johannesevangelium. Freiburg: Herder, 1965.
\nScott, Martin. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 71. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
\nSegal, Eliezer. \u201cStaging the Exodus.\u201d Jewish Free Press, April 21, 1997, 18\u201319. Repr. as \u201cWho Staged the First Biblical Epic?\u201d pages 169\u201372 in Holidays, History and Halakah. Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 2000). Online: http:\/\/www.ucalgary.ca\/~elsegal\/Shokel\/970421_EzekTrag.html.
\nSlotki, Judah. Midrash Rabbah Numbers II. London: Soncino, 1951.
\nSmelik, Willem F. The Targum of Judges. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
\nSmith, Morton. Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 6. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1951.
\nSmith, Robert Houston. \u201cExodus Typology in the Fourth Gospel.\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 329\u201342.
\nSmolar, Leivy, and Moses Aberbach. Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Pinkhos Churgin. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1983.
\nSmothers, E. R. \u201cTwo Readings in Papyrus Bodmer II.\u201d Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958): 109\u201322.
\nStrack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922\u20131961.
\nStec, David M. The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible 16. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004.
\nTargum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Translated by Martin McNamara. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Translated by Michael Maher. The Aramaic Bible 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994.
\nTargum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Translated by Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 5A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997.
\nTargum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated by Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 1A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992.
\nTargum Neofiti 1: Leviticus. Translated by Martin McNamara. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Translated by Michael Maher. The Aramaic Bible 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994.
\nTargum Neofiti 1: Numbers. Translated by Martin McNamara. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers. Translated by Ernest G. Clarke. The Aramaic Bible 4. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995.
\nThe Targum of Chronicles. Translated by J. Stanley McIvor. The Targum of Ruth. Translated by D.R.G. Beattie. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993.
\nTobin, Thomas H. \u201cLogos.\u201d Pages 348\u201356 in vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation.\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 252\u201369.
\nTreat, Jay C. \u201cThe Aramaic Targum to Song of Songs.\u201d Cited 15 December 2007. Online: http:\/\/ccat.sas.upenn.edu\/~jtreat\/song\/targum\/.
\nUsteri, Johann Martin. \u201cDie Selbstbezeichnung Jesu als des Menschen Sohn.\u201d Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz 3 (1886): 1\u201323.
\nWeber, Ferdinand. System der Altsynagogalen pal\u00e4stinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud. 1880. Repr. in J\u00fcdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schrifen. Edited by Franz Delitzsch and Georg Schnedermann. 2d ed. Leipzig: D\u00f6rfling & Francke, 1897.
\nWestcott, B. F. The Gospel according to St. John: With Introduction and Notes. 1880. Repr., London: James Clarke & Co., 1958.
\nWolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
\nWright, Christopher J. Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1996.
\nYoung, Franklin W. \u201cA Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel.\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der \u00e4lteren Kirche 46 (1955): 215\u201333.
\nZurro, Eduardo. \u201cDisemia de br\u1e25 y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9, 25.\u201d Biblica 62 (1981): 546\u201347.<\/p>\n
@book{Ronning_2011,
\nplace={Grand Rapids, MI},
\ntitle={The Jewish Targums and John\u2019s Logos Theology},
\npublisher={Baker Academic},
\nauthor={Ronning, John},
\nyear={2011}}<\/p>\n
Exportiert aus Verbum, 14:04 3. Juni 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When Jesus says in Matt 18:20, \u201cWhere two or three have gathered in my name, there I am in their midst,\u201d in a context addressing the exercise of church discipline, he is claiming for himself what is said of the Shekinah in the Talmud: \u201cIf three are sitting as a court of judges, the Divine … <\/p>\n