Of the Chaldee Paraphrasts--Their method of designating the
Personal WORD or Revealer--Occasion and Necessity of it.
He who, in the primeval dispensation, was, in his official character,
distinctively announced as the Messenger Jehovah, and the Messenger
Elohim, is, in the same character, no less distinctively announced, on
his visible appearance incarnate, as the Word. And, taking the words,
John i. 1, last clause, in the order in which they occur in the
original, "God (Elohim) was the Word," He, in that character, is
declared to be the Creator. "All things were made by him." "By
him"--referred to as the Son, and as the image of the invisible God, in
whom we have redemption through his blood--"were all things created,
that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible." Col.
i. These designations and ascriptions undoubtedly identify him in
respect to his person, and his official character, with Elohim, who
(Gen. i.) in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.
But the designation translated Word--a term employed in the abstract for
the concrete, as light for the enlightener, life for life-giver, Logos,
or Word, for revealer--has a counterpart, of like personal and official
significance, in the Hebrew Scriptures, which was recognized by the
ancient Jewish church, and by the Chaldee paraphrasts; and which, in a
Chaldee form, the latter in their paraphrases inserted in numerous
instances before the Divine names, where they understood them to
indicate the official delegated Person, and where the context did not
necessarily convey that meaning.
"The Chaldee paraphrases," says Prideaux, "are translations of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament made directly from the Hebrew text into
the language of the Chaldeans; which language was anciently used through
all Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. These
paraphrases are called _Targums_, because they were versions or
translations of the Hebrew text into this language. These Targums were
made for the use and instruction of the vulgar Jews, after their return
from the Babylonish captivity. For although many of the better sort
still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew language during that
captivity, and taught it their children; and the Holy Scriptures that
were delivered after that time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and
Ezra, and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein; yet the
common people, by having so long conversed with the Babylonians, learned
their language and forgot their own. It happened indeed otherwise to the
children of Israel in Egypt. For although they lived there above three
times as long as the Babylonish captivity lasted, yet they still
preserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it back entire
with them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt they all lived
together in the land of Goshen; but on their being carried captive by
the Babylonians, they were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and
being there intermixed with the people of the land, had their main
converse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their language,
and this soon induced a disuse of their own among them; by which means
it came to pass, that after their return, the common people, especially
those of them who had been bred up in that captivity, understood not
the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after
them. And therefore when Ezra read the law to the people, (Neh. viii.,)
he had several persons standing by him well skilled in both the Chaldee
and the Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what
he first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards, when the method was
established of dividing the law into fifty-four sections, and of reading
one of them every week in their synagogues, (as hath been already
described,) the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew text
first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, was still continued.
For when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an interpreter
standing by did render it in Chaldee; and then the next verse being read
in Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in the same language as
before; and so on from verse to verse, was every verse alternatively
read, first in Hebrew and then interpreted in Chaldee, to the end of the
section; and this first gave occasion for the making of Chaldee versions
for the help of these interpreters. And they thenceforth became
necessary not only for their help in the public synagogues, but also for
the help of the people at home in their families, that they might there
have the Scriptures for their private reading in a language which they
understood."
After further showing how this practice was perpetuated in the public
services of the synagogues, first in respect to the law, and afterwards
in respect to the prophetic and other Scriptures; and that as copies of
the Scriptures both for public and private use were multiplied, and the
number of synagogues increased, the Chaldee version was reduced to
writing, and read alternately with the Hebrew, and finally, as he
supposes was done in the time of our Saviour, read without and in place
of the Hebrew, he proceeds to describe the several Targums which have
come down to the present time. Of these, the two which are most esteemed
are those of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and Jonathan on the Prophets,
which are supposed to have been copied or essentially derived by them
from the earlier and well-accredited versions, and to have been written
or edited about the same time, and not long before the commencement of
the Christian era. The Targum of Onkelos, he observes, is rather a
version than a paraphrase, for it renders the Hebrew text word for word.
But Jonathan, he adds, takes on him the liberty of a paraphrast.
Of these Targums, and others of a later date, it is known that they
exhibit or construe the predictions concerning the Messiah in the same
way as is done by Christians. That of Onkelos in particular, which is
held to be the most ancient and the purest, and from which Prideaux
supposes our Saviour to have quoted in several instances, which he
specifies, is remarkable in this respect. And if, as is supposed, it
represents literally or substantially the version which originated under
the superintendence of Ezra, when, from the long disuse of the Hebrew
Scriptures and the ignorance of the people generally of their meaning,
it was of the first necessity to their instruction and reformation to
explain the import and reference of the Divine names and titles in the
books of Moses, where the prophets and church of preceding ages
understood them to designate the Personal WORD; then the frequent
insertion, before the names Jehovah and Elohim, of the term _Memra_ as
equivalent to Logos, is a reliable exposition and attestation of the
faith of Ezra and his predecessors. And, apparently, every consideration
is in favor of this view of the case. The word in question is inserted
before the words Jehovah and Elohim where the creation is asserted, so
that the act is affirmed of the WORD, or the _Word_ Elohim, or the
_Word_ Jehovah Elohim; for which no reason can be assigned or
justification offered, unless the personal reference was the same as
that of John in ascribing the creation to the Logos. By a like insertion
the giving of the law to Moses at mount Sinai is ascribed to the WORD
Elohim; speaking to him face to face, to the WORD Jehovah; and in
numerous other instances, where personal acts are affirmed, and where
the personal reference necessarily includes the added as well as the
original designation. If this was done by Ezra, then he did but add what
the circumstances of his time required to the example of Moses, who
sometimes referred to the delegated ONE, the personal WORD, by the
single terms, Jehovah and Elohim, and at others by the compound
designations, Melach Jehovah and Melach Elohim. In his case, uniformity
in this respect was rendered unnecessary, and diversity intelligible, by
the prevalent sentiment, knowledge, and usage of the people. On the
contrary, in the other case, the ignorance and disuse of the original
Hebrew, on the part of the people, rendered it necessary, first in the
oral translation and exposition, and afterwards in the written versions
of the sacred books, to insert, at appropriate places, a term adapted,
like Logos in the Greek, to suggest, or by definition and use to receive
and fix the requisite meaning as a designation.
There is in the nature of the case a very strong probability that the
practice of inserting this expository term in the Chaldee versions was
originally sanctioned by higher authority than any that we have notice
of, after the time of Ezra, or that of Malachi, who is by some supposed
to have been the same person as Ezra, and by others to have been
contemporary. Of all people, the Jews were the least likely to receive
and adopt such an exposition in relation to the Divine names, without
the prescription and sanction of a prophet. The supposition of its
having originated and been brought into use and favor at a later period
is wholly improbable, whether considered in relation to the nature and
tendency of the practice, or to the condition of the Jews down to the
time of our Saviour. It is, in itself, far more probable that the devout
Jews during the captivity in Babylon, with Ezekiel, who had visions of
the Personal Word in the likeness of man, and who appears sometimes, if
not often, to refer to Him by the Hebrew term _Dabar_, answering to the
Chaldee _Memra_, Word, or Revealer; with Daniel, who had visions of the
same delegated one, in the same form; and with Ezra and other of their
disciples of the sacerdotal and prophetic order, held the same faith as
the prophets and patriarchs of earlier times, concerning the person,
agency, and manifestations of the Messiah; recognized him under the same
designations, and, on their return to Jerusalem, adopted, under the
guidance of Ezra, an additional title, rendered necessary to the common
people by their disuse of Hebrew, and their use of another language,
which was thenceforth to be their vulgar tongue.
And if not, from the circumstances of the case, to be assumed as needing
no confirmation, it is at least probable in the highest degree that the
Great Revealer would in such a way provide for the maintenance and
perpetuity of a church of true worshippers, holding the doctrines and
the faith of the patriarchs and prophets concerning his person, and the
manifestations and titles by which he was known to them; a succession
of devout, instructed, and faithful worshippers, who, at whatever time
his advent might take place, would, on his appearance in a form
answering to that in which Abraham and others saw him, be ready and
waiting, like Simeon and Anna, to see and to proclaim their recognition
of him.
The weight of this probability is greatly enhanced by the consideration,
that the earlier and principal agencies and instrumentalities by which
those doctrines and that faith had been maintained were discontinued
prior to the deportation of the Jews and the destruction of their
temple, and were never afterwards renewed. For, previous to these
events, Jehovah in the similitude of man, radiant in appearance as the
brightness of amber and of fire, appeared to Ezekiel at his place of
exile, and in vision transported him to Jerusalem. And having exhibited
to his astonished gaze the utter desecration of every part of the temple
by the most impious and loathsome abominations of idolatry; and having
notified him of the tokens by which the remnant of true worshippers was
to be discriminated, and how they were to be preserved; and predicted
that restoration which is yet future; and shown for his own conviction
and that of the captives on his report to them, the grounds and reasons
of his righteous judgments upon the rest; and finally having passed from
the interior of the temple to the threshold, and assumed the glorious
form, with the cherubic accompaniments, in which he had appeared by the
river of Chebar, (chap. i.,) "he departed from off the threshold of the
house, and," in the sight of the prophet, "mounted up from, the earth,"
and afterwards "went up from the midst of the city," (rather, from over
the city,) "and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of
the city." "So," adds Ezekiel, "the vision that I had seen went up from
me." Ezekiel, chap. viii.--xi.
Ezekiel was one of the captives carried to Babylon with Jehoiachin, B.
C. 600. Jehoiachin was the last who in due succession sat on the throne
of David. He was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, who placed Zedekiah on the
throne as his own viceroy and vassal.
No one of the family of David ever afterwards reigned over Judah. The
theocratic viceroyalty ceased; the temporal kingdom of the house of
David was dissolved. Jehovah, being rejected by his covenant people, and
idolatry substituted for his worship, forsook his temple, discontinued
his former theocratic relation, ceased to manifest himself in the
Shekina, and turned to execute wrath upon Judah and Israel for their
idolatrous abominations, and upon the surrounding nations whose idols
they worshipped, and by whom they had been seduced and oppressed.
This signal procedure was the sequel of many clear and emphatic
predictions, and a long course of discipline tending to restrain the
whole house of Israel, and more especially the house of Judah, from
total apostasy and alienation; and its occurrence is distinctly noted by
the prophets.
The reformation and reign of Hezekiah were succeeded by unprecedented
abominations of idolatry during the reign of Manasseh his son. "He built
up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he
reared up altars for Baal; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and
served them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the
Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. And he built altars for all
the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he
made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used
enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought
much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, [his presence in the Shekina,]
to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove [_i.
e._, the pillar or statue] that he had made, in the house of the Lord,"
probably within the veil confronting the Shekina. He seduced the people
"to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the
children of Israel. And the Lord spake by his servants the prophets,
saying: Because Manasseh King of Judah hath done these abominations, and
hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did which were before
him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols, therefore thus
saith the Lord God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such evil upon
Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall
tingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the
plummet of the house of Ahab; and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth
a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down. And I will _forsake_ the
remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their
enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies."
2 Kings xxi. and 2 Chron. xxxiii.
Manasseh was succeeded by Amon his son, "who did that which was evil in
the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways that his father walked
in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them." 2
Kings xxi. In the next reign, that of Josiah, a general reformation was
wrought, and idolatry and its monuments were temporarily put away.
"Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great
wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the
provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. And the Lord said, I
will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and
will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and _the house_
of which I said, My name shall be there." 2 Kings xxiii.
On the death of Josiah, the people set up his son Jehoahaz to be king,
who did "evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his
fathers had done." And at the end of three months he was deposed by the
King of Egypt, who placed in his stead as his vassal, another son of
Josiah, whose name he changed from Eliakim to Jehoiakim, probably in
derision, substituting the initial of the name Jehovah for that of the
name Elohim, to indicate his assumed triumph over the peculiar God of
the Jewish people.
Jehoiakim "did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according
to all that his fathers had done." From him the kingdom passed to his
son Jehoiachin, who at the end of three months was vanquished by the
King of Babylon and carried captive with the princes, officers, and most
of the people, and the treasures of the temple. The kingdom was thus
broken up. Nebuchadnezzar, however, left Zedekiah as his vassal in
charge of Jerusalem. Under him, notwithstanding the impending
destruction of the city and temple, "the chief of the priests and the
remaining people transgressed very much after all the abominations of
the heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in
Jerusalem. They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words,
and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord rose against his
people till there was no remedy;" and they were subdued, the temple and
city burnt, and the wall of Jerusalem broken down. 2 Chron. xxxvi.
The formal abdication and abandonment of the throne of David was
consummated by the seizure and captivity of Jehoiachin. "As I live, saith
the Lord, though Coniah [Jehoiachin] the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah
were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence." "O
earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write
ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no
man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and
ruling any more in Judah. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will raise unto David a righteous BRANCH, and a king shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days
Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer. xxiii. So,
before the capture and exile of Jehoiachin, it was announced of Jehoiakim
his father, "He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his
dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to
the frost. And I will punish him and his seed, and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem and the men of Judah." Jer. xxxvi.
Thus Jehovah in the most public and formal manner forsook and withdrew
from the temple, and terminated the theocracy; the procedure being
attended by visible exhibitions, and verbal explanations and
announcements intelligible to Ezekiel, and adapted to qualify him to
vindicate it to the captives, and to forewarn them of the inflictions
and desolations which were to follow. Accordingly, neither the Shekina
nor any tokens of the Divine presence there afterwards appeared. When
the structure was demolished by the Chaldeans, the altar and all the
interior furniture was destroyed or removed, and never again recovered.
In the new erection under Cyrus, when dedicated, and ever after, the ark
of the covenant and the mercy-seat upon it, the Shekina, the Urim and
Thummim, the holy fire upon the altar, and the spirit of prophecy, were
irrecoverably wanting. The construction which was substituted for the
original ark had neither the tables of the law nor any of its other
contents, nor any visible glory over it, nor oracles proceeding from it.
The Divine presence, always before visible in a cloud over the
mercy-seat, returned no more. An imitation altar was erected, but the
fire which came down from heaven upon the altar in the tabernacle, and
again at the dedication of the first temple, had been extinguished, and
was not again restored. Jehovah, officially, as prophet, priest, and
king, had withdrawn, not to reäppear till he should come, the Messenger
of the Covenant, in fulfilment of Malachi's prediction.
The new structure therefore was, at least to all but those whose worship
was purely and eminently spiritual, a cold, cheerless, and dark arena of
formal and wearisome rites and ceremonies; a lifeless round of irksome
forms, without any visible tokens of the Divine presence, or of Divine
recognition or acceptance; any oracular responses, any fire from heaven,
or other vindications, confirmations, or sanctions of the doctrines or
faith professed or signified by the services and offerings of the
worshippers.
Hence the degeneracy, formalism, and hypocrisy which subsequently
characterized the temple worship, as recorded by Malachi and his
contemporaries, and in the later history of the Jews down to our
Saviour's time; their separation into discordant sects; the renunciation
by the mass of them of the divine Mediator and the doctrine of
Mediation, and their adoption exclusively of the doctrine of the UNITY,
as held by them to this day; and the necessity, in order to the
maintenance among the true worshippers of the doctrines and faith of the
patriarchs and prophets, of providing and perpetuating in their vulgar
tongue such expositions as were furnished by the Chaldee paraphrasts.
A further confirmation to the same effect might be deduced from a
consideration of the results of the scheme of reformation ascribed to
Zoroaster towards the close of the Babylonish exile, whereby he hoped to
unite the Jews with the Chaldeans, Persians, &c., in one sect, by
purging the Magian system of worship from idolatry, restoring it to what
he held to be its primitive purity, and combining with it the doctrine
of one supreme creative intelligence, the doctrine of a resurrection,
and other tenets of the Jews which might be incorporated in a system
that neither taught nor admitted a Mediator, or any doctrine of Divine
or creature mediation. This artful scheme, which was more or less
successful at the time, and which, among those Jews of Babylon and the
provinces who did not return to Palestine, may be traced down for
centuries in the history of Oriental Gnosticism, obviously furnished a
further reason for guarding the true worshippers, after the period of
exile and the cessation of prophetic gifts, by such means as the Chaldee
versions furnish.
Let it be further observed, as not unworthy of particular notice, that
the Samaritans, from the very commencement of their history, and of
their rivalship and hostility to the Jews, and the erection of their
temple on Mount Gerizim, simultaneously with that of the restored Jews
at Jerusalem, received and used no portion of the sacred writings then
extant, except the books of Moses; and that they perseveringly rejected
all traditions, and all glosses and comments on the original text. And
yet from the saying of the Samaritan woman, "I know that Messiah cometh;
(that is, _the Christ, the Anointed_;) when he is come, he will teach us
all things," it would seem that, down to our Saviour's time, they
understood the true doctrine concerning his person, his incarnation, and
the titles by which he would be distinguished. When told that he who was
then present in the form of man, and who spoke to her, was the Messiah,
she manifested no surprise or doubt. Many of the Samaritans believed in
him on her testimony. "And many more believed because of what they heard
from himself," and said, "We know that this is truly the Saviour of the
World, the Messiah." (_Campbell._)
Now, since they held no intercourse with the Jews, and, from prejudice
and hostility, would learn nothing from them; and since they received
only the Pentateuch and rejected all traditions, it would seem that they
must from the beginning of their history have understood the Mosaic
writings to teach those doctrines, and from continual study of them as
the only source of their religious knowledge, hopes and expectations,
must have perpetuated the sentiments with which they originally received
them.
"That the sentiments of the woman who conversed at the well with Christ
were the same with those of the Samaritans in general, will not admit of
a doubt; for from whence could a common person like her have obtained
the information she discovers on several points relating to the Messiah,
unless from popular traditions current amongst those of her own nation?
These sentiments then furnish us with a strong argument in answer to
those who contend that the more ancient Hebrews entertained no
expectation of a Messiah, but that this hope first, sprang up amongst
the Jews some short time before the coming of our Saviour. So deep and
inveterate was the enmity which subsisted between the Jews and the
Samaritans, that it is utterly incredible that a hope of this kind
should have been communicated from either of them to the other. It
necessarily follows, therefore, that as both of them were, at the time
of our Saviour's birth, looking for the appearance of a Messiah from
above, they must have derived the expectation from one common source,
doubtless the books of Moses and the discipline of their ancestors; and
consequently that this hope was entertained long before the Babylonish
captivity, and the rise of the Samaritans. I mention only the books of
Moses, because it is well known that the Samaritans did not consider any
of the other writings of the Old Testament as sacred or of Divine
original; and it is therefore not at all likely that any information
which they might possess respecting the Messiah that was to come should
have been drawn from any other source. In the discourse of the Samaritan
woman, we likewise discover what were the sentiments of the ancient
Hebrews respecting the Messiah. The expectation of the Jews at the time
of our Saviour's coming was, as we have seen, directed towards a
war-like leader, a hero, an emperor, who should recover for the
oppressed posterity of Abraham their liberty and rights; but the
Samaritans, as appears from the conversation of this woman, looked
forward to the Messiah in the light of a spiritual teacher and guide,
who should instruct them in a more perfect and acceptable way of serving
God than that which they then followed. Now the Samaritans had always
kept themselves entirely distinct from the Jews, and would never consent
to adopt any point of doctrine or discipline from them; and the
consequence was, that the ancient opinion respecting the Messiah had
been retained in much greater purity by the former than by the Jews,
whose arrogance and impatience under the calamities to which they were
exposed, had brought them by degrees to turn their backs on the opinions
entertained by their forefathers on this subject, and to cherish the
expectation that, in the Messiah promised to them by God, they should
have to hail an earthly prince and deliverer. Lastly, I think it
particularly deserving of attention, that it is clear from what is said
by this woman, that the Samaritans did not consider the Mosaic Law in
the light of a permanent establishment, but expected that it would pass
away, and its place be supplied by a more perfect system of discipline
on the coming of the Messiah. For when she hears our Saviour predict the
downfall of the Samaritan as well as the Jewish religion, instead of
taking fire at his words, and taxing him, after the Jewish manner, with
blasphemy against God and against Moses, (Acts vi. 13-15,) she answers
with mildness and composure that she knew the Messiah would come, and
was not unapprised that the religion of her ancestors would then undergo
a change." (Mosheim, Int. Com. chap. 2.)
The Jews, on the contrary, as is hereafter more particularly observed,
had renounced the Divine Mediator and the entire doctrine of mediation
between God and man. They did not expect the promised Messiah in the
character of Mediator, but, holding no distinction of persons in the
Godhead, they gloried in the doctrine of the _Unity_; believed the
Mosaic Law and institutions would be perpetual, and trusted to their
observance of them for salvation. It were easy to multiply citations to
show that they still entertain those views. A single instance may
suffice. In the London Jewish Chronicle for May, 1852, the chief Rabbi
of the great synagogue, in a sermon on the first day of the Feast of
Weeks, is quoted as saying: "A man who has a royal patron, when in
distress applies first to the Minister, to know if an audience will be
granted; but with respect to God, if man is in trouble he wants no
Mediator, or angels, but calls to God alone, and he shall be heard. And
this cheering belief in the unity of God is quieting to the mind."