In discussions, it is sometimes asserted that the notion of the logos (or “Word”) in John 1 as a person/hypostasis/agent/personification would have been unheard of or unknown for John’s audience and John himself. The motivation for saying this is usually to move into the “Word” being a mere idea/purpose/plan of God, meaning the Word is not a preexisting person but an idea or plan coming to earth via Jesus Christ, a mere man.

Aside from difficulties with this view in John chapter one itself, the initial assertion that understanding the Word as a person (or one of the words filled in above) would be unheard of is false. In fact, many discussions (and most detailed commentaries on John 1) surround Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, and his understanding of the Logos as an agent and that relationship to John’s Logos (mentioned below briefly). Questions on that consist of whether John and Philo understand the Logos the same way and whether or not John is pulling from the Hellenistic influences Philo does [no idea what Hellenism is? Check this out, esp. page 13].

Obviously, despite the relationship with John, Philo’s understanding challenges the conception right out of the gate. Even more than this, the Targums challenge it further in positing a “Jewish” (as opposed to Hellenistic Jewish) understanding of a person/hypostasis/agent/personification of the Word. This post isn’t concerned with discussing the relationships or details between the conceptions of the Word, but basically, to just challenge the initial assertion. That said, what is a Targum? 

The Aramaic term “targum” means translation. However, “the targums” are Aramaic texts of the Hebrew Bible that feature translations and commentary mixed together. 

“Targums were Aramaic versions of the OT biblical books written as soon as Aramaic supplanted Hebrew as the vernacular. The biblical texts (that is, of the Torah and the Prophets) were at that time translated by memory in the synagogue after the text was read in Hebrew. Aiming to render the text immediately understandable and suited to their audience, the translator did not hesitate to conclude, gloss, clarify, and even paraphrase…Therefore, a targum is not a translation in the modern sense, but a transposition that reflects the religious conceptions of a certain era and esp. demonstrates how the bible was understood in ancient times.” (Le Deaut, Targum, Enc. of Ancient Christianity). 

“Though they are a rabbinic corpus of translations, the targums stem from earlier traditions, which may reach as far back as Ezra and Nehemiah” (Dictionary of NT use of the OT).

There are many types of targums, with different approaches to translations and commentaries. The dating of targums in writing is debated, but it ranges between the 2nd century and 4th century (again, “stemming from earlier traditions”).

The use of Targums in the study of the New Testament is “the analysis of verbal linkage and exegetical convergence between the texts of the Gospels and those of the Targums. Since any later renderings of the Targums would not have been dependent upon the Gospels, targumic passages with a unique relationship to the Gospels are likely to have been prior to them (or contemporaneous) in either oral or written form.” (Shepherd, Dictionary of Jesus and Gospels).

As mentioned, of interest (though debated) is the relationship of said Targums and John’s prologue (John 1:1-18) concerning “The Word.” The “Word” in Aramaic is “Memra” (and as most know, Logos in Greek, and davar in Hebrew). It is also worth noting that the “personification” of the Word also appears in the Hebrew Bible, as noted by many, as the “Word” is visible and interacts with individuals such as Abraham (ex. Genesis 15:1-6). In fact, such personifications already present are understood as the foundation for later personifications (this goes hand in hand with other discussions such as the Angel of YHWH, see this for more on that).

Nonetheless, here are some examples of Targums that interest those looking into the relationship of Jewish thought prior to or contemporaneous with the New Testament, but especially John chapter 1.

(Note: I won’t be providing dates or details on where each targum falls on the translation spectrum, so you will need to do independent research. For those wanting to do some independent reading on the relationship of Christology and Targums, check out this book where I have pulled some of the translations from)

On Genesis 1:1-3: 

“From the beginning, with wisdom, the Son of the LORD finished the heavens and the earth.” (Targum Neofiti). 

This reading (“Son of the Lord”) is debated based on the manuscripts in which the texts are found. Without getting into the weeds of the language, “Diez Macho saw [this] as a later attempt to introduce Christian theology. But such Christian tampering is not characteristic of the manuscript elsewhere.” (Shepherd). 

Still, another reading that has been suggested in its place is: “From the beginning, by wisdom, the Word of the Lord created and completed the heavens and the earth.” 

Verse 3, “And the Word (Memra) of the LORD said, ‘let there be light,’ and there was light, as decreed by the Word (Memra).’’ 

Other fragments are similar. 

Exodus 12:41-42, in Targum Neofiti has significant expansion/commentary in verse 42, only part of it will be quoted here. 

“The first night: when the LORD was revealed upon the world to create it. The world was formless and empty, and darkness was spread over the face of the deep. And the Word (Memra) of the LORD was the light and it shone light…”

And,

“Moses will go up from the desert and King Messiah from on high. One will lead at the head of the flock and one will lead at the head of the herd – and his Word (Memra) leading between the two.” 

Deuteronomy 30:2-4 also has significant expansion/commentary in the Targums, quoting relevant parts here:

“If you accept his Memra (Word) according to all that I prescribe you…then his Memra (Word) will accept your repentance with pleasure and show mercy to you, and turn and gather you from all the nations among which the LORD scattered you…from there the Memra (Word) of the LORD will gather you by the hand of Elijah” (Pseudo-Jonathan). 

Targum Neofiti has a slight variation, “when you return to learning the law of the LORD your God and obey the voice of his Memra (Word)…then the Memra (Word) of the LORD your God will accept your repentance…”

Not only does the Word take agency/action in the Targums but also in the Apocryphal works (also helpful for studying Jewish thought between Testaments). The pseudepigrapha also contains personifications of the Word. However, I will just give two examples from the Apocrypha.

[Note: these are written primarily in Greek]. 

Wisdom of Solomon 18:13-16, v. 15, “your all-powerful word (Logos) leaped from heaven, from the royal throne into the midst of a doomed land, as a relentless warrior.” 

Sirach 43:23-26, v. 26, “On account of him his messenger prospers and by his word (logos) all things are constituted” (a Hebrew version differs, stating, “by his words is the will accomplished”). 

And, of course, there is Philo, the Hellenized Jew (20 B.C. – 40 A.D.). His view on Logos and its relation to both John’s, Hellenistic, and Jewish thought is highly discussed, and one can do independent research to dive into that. There are points of continuity with John and discontinuity. However, the point here is less about that relationship and more about a tradition already present where the Word was seen as a hypostasis (or, as we would say, ‘person’). David Winston noted that in Philo’s writings, he presupposes various things about the Logos his Jewish audience would have to recognize given the little elaboration – meaning Logos theology was already present for Jews minimally in Alexandria when considering Philo. [Winston on the Logos, found in The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John by Daniel Boyarin].

In addition to these examples, there are instances where other “things” (for lack of a better term) act as agents or hypostases, such as God’s ” name,” “voice,” and ” wisdom.” 

Further, many have argued based on a) Jewish writings mentioned here (and the redaction of mentions of the Memra in post-Christian Jewish literature and b) Philo’s own blending of Hellenism and Jewish thought that John’s logos was a Jewish concept. The redaction of Logos/Memra talk by Rabbis is documented in their critique of what they will call the heresy of “Two Powers in Heaven” held by Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora before the New Testament period (For more on that, see Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal).

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum’s book Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective argues for Jewish roots of the Memra/Logos found in John, summarizing that John was familiar with the Targums and that the ‘doctrine’ of the Memra as found in the writings align with John in the following six theological points: the Memra is a) Distinct from but, but the Same as God, 2) the agent of creation, 3) the agent of salvation, 4) the means by which God became visible, 5) the means by which God signed his covenants, and 6) the agent of revelation. 

“The origin of the rabbinic concept of the Memra is in the way the Old Testament used the noun Davar. This Hebrew noun, which in Aramaic is Memra, has dual meaning: It denotes what is spoken and what is done. God spoke and through words brought the universe into being. In Genesis 15:1, the Word of God is personified as a revealer. God revealed Himself to Abraham by means of His Word. Psalm 33:4-6 describes the Word of God as the agent of creation. In Psalm 147:15, the Word runs very swiftly, thus being personified, and it accomplishes things. In Isaiah 9:8, the Lord sent a word into Yaakov; the Word is something God can send, and therefore, it is distinct from God. Isaiah 55:10-11 pictures the Word coming and going. In Isaiah 45:23, the Word goes out in righteousness. According to Ezekiel 1:3, the Word came expressly to the prophet. These examples show that the Word is sometimes identified with God, but is distinct from God; it is the agent of creation and a revealer in some visible form, as in Genesis 15, etc. From such Old Testament passages, the rabbis developed their concept of the Memra.” 

In closing, is the assetion that the logos (or “Word”) in John 1 as a person/hypostasis/agent/personification would have been unheard of or unknown for John’s audience and John himself, true? I don’t see how.

---