john’s prologue as midrash

am]” in response to the question.) Jesus here quotes from of a vast host of angels, organized in a hierarchy, who are
Daniel 7.13, implying that his future role will be as ruler, responsible for all aspects of the world. Postbiblical Chris-
seated at the right hand of God. John’s Gospel uses “Son tian writers also continued to elaborate ideas about an-
of Man” twice in sayings of Jesus to refer to the preexis- gels. In the early sixth century ce, a Christian writer known
tent Christ: see Jn 3.13: “No one has ascended into heaven as Pseudo-Dionysius wrote The Celestial Hierarchy, which
except the one who descended from heaven, the Son presented the angels in a threefold hierarchy, using terms
of Man.” Eventually, in Christian usage, the title “son of known both from Tanakh and the New Testament. The
man” for Jesus was replaced by the title “son of God.” highest order included seraphim, cherubim, and thrones;
Later Jewish rabbinic and mystical literature continued the second order consisted of dominions, authorities,
to develop earlier concepts about angels and lesser divine and powers; the third order encompassed principalities,
beings, ranging from the midrashic idea that God consult- archangels, and angels. In the Middle Ages, the Jewish
ed the ministering angels when deciding whether to cre- philosopher Maimonides also organized the angels into a
ate human beings, to the portrayal in early mystical texts hierarchy containing ten levels.

logos, a jewish word

JOHN’S PROLOGUE AS MIDRASH
Daniel Boyarin the plural) are seen as light is seen, for we are told that
In the first centuries of the Christian era, the idea of the all of the people saw the Voice [Ex 20.18], not that they
Word (Gk Logos) was known in some Greek philosophi- heard it; for what was happening was not an impact of
cal circles as a link connecting the Transcendent/the air made by the organs of mouth and tongue, but the
Divine with humanity/the terrestrial. For Jews, the idea radiating splendor of virtue indistinguishable from a
of this link between heaven and earth, whether called by fountain of reason. . . . But the voice of God which is not
the Greek Logos or Sophia (“wisdom”) or by the Aramaic that of verbs and names yet seen by the eye of the soul,
Memra (“word”), permeated first- and second-century he [Moses] rightly introduces as “visible.” (Migr. 47–48)
thought. Although monotheistic, Jews nevertheless rec-
ognized other supernatural beings who communicated This text draws a close connection between the Logos
the divine will. The use of the Logos in John’s Gospel (“In and light, as in John 1.4–5: “In him was life, and the life
the Beginning was the Word/Logos, and the Word was was the light of all people. The light shines in the dark-
with God, and the Word was God” [Jn 1.1]) is thus a thor- ness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”
oughly Jewish usage. It is even possible that the begin- Further, for Philo as for the Gospel of John, the Logos
ning of the idea of the Trinity occurred precisely in pre- is both a part of God and also a separate being:
Christian Jewish accounts of the second and visible God
that we find in many early Jewish writings. To His Word (Logos), His chief messenger (archange-
Philo, writing in first-century ce Alexandria for an au- los), highest in age and honor, the Father (Pater) of
dience of Jews devoted to the Bible, uses the idea of the all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the
Logos as if it were a commonplace. His writings make ap- border and separate the creature from the Creator.
parent that at least for some pre-Christian Judaism, there This same [i.e., the Word] both pleads with the im-
was nothing strange about a doctrine of a manifestation mortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts
of God, even as a “second God”; the Logos did not conflict as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glo-
with Philo’s idea of monotheism. ries in this prerogative and proudly proclaims, “and
Philo and his Alexandrian Jewish community would I stood between the Lord and you” [Deut 5.5], that
have found the “Word of God” frequently in the Septu- is neither uncreated by God, nor created as you, but
agint (LXX), where it creates, reveals, and redeems. For midway between the two extremes, a surety to both
example, speaking of the exodus, Philo writes: sides. (Heir 205–6)

whereas the voice of mortals is judged by hearing, the Philo oscillates on the point of the ambiguity between
sacred oracles intimate that the words of God (logoi, separate existence of the Logos, God’s Son, and its total

546 | essays
 john’s prologue as midrash
incorporation within the godhead. Philo’s Logos is nei- not a mere name, but an actual divine entity functioning
ther just the Wisdom (Gk sophia; Heb okhmah) of the Bi- as a mediator.
ble, nor is it quite the Platonic logos, nor the divine Word The following examples from the Targumim suggest
(Heb davar), but a new synthesis of all of these. that the Memra has many of the same roles as the Logos:
Although this particular synthesis is as far as we know
original to Philo, he develops it, as is his wont, by biblical Creating: Gen 1.3: “And the Memra of H’ (a form of ab-
allegories: breviation for the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton)
said ‘Let there be light’ and there was light by his Memra.”
The Divine Word (Theios Logos) descends from the In each of the following verses, it is the Memra—intimat-
fountain of wisdom (Sophia) like a river to lave and ed by the expression “and he said”—that performs all of
water the olympian and celestial shoots and plants the creative actions.
of virtue-loving souls which are as a garden. And Speaking to humans: Gen 3.8ff.: “And they heard the
this Holy Word (Hieros Logos) is separated into four voice of the Memra of H’. . . . And the Memra of H’ called
heads, which means that it is split up into the four out to the Man.”
virtues. . . . It is this Word (Logos) which one of Mo- Revealing the Divine Self: Gen 18.1: “And was revealed
ses’ company compared to a river, when he said in the to him the Memra of H’.”
Psalms: “the river of God is full of water” (Ps 65.10); Punishing the wicked: Gen 19.24: “And the Memra of H’
where surely it were absurd to use that word liter- rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah.”
ally with reference to rivers of the earth. Instead, as it Saving: Ex 17.21: “And the Memra of H’ was leading
seems, he represents the Divine Word (Theios Logos) them during the day in a pillar of cloud.”
as full of the stream of wisdom (Sophia), with no part Redeeming: Deut 32.39: “When the Memra of H’ shall
empty or devoid of itself . . . inundated through and be revealed to redeem his people.”
through and lied up on high by the continuity and
unbroken sequence from that ever-flowing fountain. These examples show that the Memra performs many, if
(Dreams 2.242–45) not all, of the functions of the Logos of Christian theol-
ogy (as well as of Wisdom).
Other versions of Logos theology, namely notions of the In the Targumic tradition, the translation of Exodus
second god as personified Word or Wisdom of God, were 3.12–14, the theophany of the burning bush, offers an
present among Aramaic-, Hebrew-, and Syriac-speaking instructive illustration of the essence of the Memra. The
Jews as well. Hints of this idea appear in Jewish texts that Hebrew text reads, “God said to Moses: ‘I am that I am,’
are part of the Bible such as Proverbs 8.22–31, Job 28.12– and he said: ‘Thus shall you say unto them, I am has sent
28, as well as those not in the Hebrew Bible (but included me to you.’” “I am” is here a name of God. The Palestinian
in the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books): Sirach 24.1– Targum translates: “And the Memra of H’ said to Moses:
34, Wisdom of Solomon 7.22–10.21, and Baruch 3.9–4.4. He who said to the world from the beginning, Be there,
Especially common is the Aramaic word Memra (“Word”) and it was there, and who is to say [to it Be there, and it
of God, appearing in the Targumim, the early Aramaic will be there]; and he said, Thus shall you say to the Isra-
translations and paraphrases of the Bible (e.g., Targum elites, He has sent me to you.” In other words, the name
Onqelos, Targum Neofiti ), where it is used in contexts that “I am” is glossed in the Targumim by a reference to Gen-
are frequently identical to ones where the Logos has its esis 1.3, “And God said: Let there be”: the Word by which
home among Greek-speaking Jews. God brought the universe into being is the Memra.
Although official rabbinic theology sought to sup- In the next verse in the Palestinian Targum, this name
press all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the her- for God, “He who said to the world ‘Be there,’” becomes
esy of “Two Powers in Heaven” (b. Hag. 15a), before the transformed into a divine being in its own right: “I, My
rabbis, contemporaneously with them, and even among Memra, will be with you: I, My Memra, will be a support
them, there were many Jews in both Palestine and the for you.”
Diaspora who held on to a version of monotheistic the- Targum Neofiti (Ms. 1) confirms this connection be-
ology that could accommodate this divine figure linking tween the divine being and the word. In Exodus 3.13,
heaven and earth. Whereas Maimonides and his follow- in answer to Moses’ apprehension that he will not be
ers until today understood the Memra, along with the up to the task of going to Pharaoh and persuading or
Shekhinah (“Presence”), as a means of avoiding anthropo- forcing him to allow Moses to bring out the Israelites,
morphisms in speaking of God, historical investigation God answers: “I will be with you.” Neofiti reads: “I, My
suggests that in the first two centuries ce, the Memra was Memra, will be with you.” The other Targumim maintain

essays | 547
john’s prologue as midrash
this interpretation but add the element of the Memra as interpreted explains why we have here Logos and not
supporter, thus: “And he said: Because my Memra will be “Wisdom.” In an intertextual interpretive practice such
for your support.” From here we see how this Memra, as a midrash, imagery and language may be drawn from
revealed to Moses in the declaration “I am,” supports a text other than the one under interpretation, but the
him, redeems the Israelites, and all the rest of the sav- controlling language of the discourse is naturally the text
ing activities. In the Targum, as in the Logos theology, that is being interpreted and preached. The preacher of
this Word has been hypostasized, turned into an actual the Prologue to John had to speak of Logos here, because
divine being. his homiletical effort is directed at the opening verses
The conclusive evidence for the connection of the of Genesis, with their majestic: “And God said: Let there
Targumic Memra and the Logos of John appears in the be light, and there was light.” It is the “saying” of God
Palestinian Targumic poetic homily on the “Four Nights,” that produces the light, and indeed through this saying,
probably a liturgical text in which four special nights in everything was made that was made.
sacred history are delineated: Philo, like others, identifies Sophia and the Logos as a
single entity. Consequently, nothing could be more natu-
Four nights are wrien in the Book of Memories: The ral than for a preacher, such as the composer of John 1,
first night: when the Lord was revealed above the to draw from the book of Proverbs the figure, epithets,
world to create it. The world was unformed and void and qualities of the second God (second person), the
and darkness was spread over the surface of the deep; companion of God and agent of God in creation; for the
and through his Memra there was light and illumination purposes of interpreting Genesis, however, the preacher
[italics added], and he called it the first night. would need to focus on the linguistic side of the coin, the
Logos, which is alone mentioned explicitly in that text.
This text matches the first verses of John’s Prologue, with In other words, the text being interpreted is Genesis,
its association of Logos, the Word, and light. The mid- therefore the Word; the text from which the interpretive
rash of the “four nights” culminates in the coming of the material is drawn is Proverbs, hence the characteristics
Messiah, drawing even closer the connections between of Wisdom:
the Targum heard in the synagogue and John’s Gospel.
Moreover, the midrash of the “four nights” is most likely 1. In the beginning was the Word,
a fragment of Paschal liturgy, suggesting even more pal- And the Word was with God,
pably its appropriateness as a text for comparison with 2. And the Word was God.
John’s Gospel, where Jesus is compared to the Paschal of- He was in the beginning with God.
fering. In order to see this, however, we must pay aen- 3. All things were made through him,
tion to the formal characteristics of Midrash as a mode of and without him was not anything made that
reading Scripture (see “Midrash and Parables in the New was made.
Testament,” p. 565). One of the most characteristic forms 4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
of Midrash is a homily on a scriptural passage or extract 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness
from the Pentateuch that invokes, explicitly or implic- did not receive it.
itly, texts from either the Prophets or the Hagiographa
(Gk “holy writings”: specifically, very frequently Psalms, The assertion that the Word was with God is easily re-
Song of Songs, or Wisdom literature) as the framework lated to Proverbs 8.30, “Then I [wisdom] was beside
of ideas and language that is used to interpret and ex- him,” and even to Wisdom of Solomon 9.9, “With thee is
pand the Pentateuchal text being preached. This inter- wisdom.” As is frequently the case in rabbinic midrash,
pretive practice is founded on a theological notion of the gloss on the verse being interpreted is dependent
the oneness of Scripture as a self-interpreting text, es- on a later biblical text that is alluded to but not explic-
pecially on the notion that the laer books are a form of itly cited. The Wisdom texts, especially Proverbs 8, had
interpretation of the Five Books of Moses. Gaps are not become commonplaces in the Jewish interpretive tradi-
filled with philosophical ideas but with allusions to or ci- tion of Genesis 1. Although, paradoxically, John 1.1–5 is
tations of other texts. our earliest example of this, the form is so abundant in
The first five verses of the Prologue to the Fourth late antique Jewish writing that it can best be read as the
Gospel fit this form nearly perfectly. The verses being product of a common tradition shared by (some) mes-
preached are the opening verses of Genesis, and the text sianic Jews and (some) non-messianic Jews. Thus the
that lies in the background as interpretive framework is operation of John 1.1 can be compared with the Palestin-
Proverbs 8.22–31. The primacy of Genesis as text being ian Targum to this very verse, which translates “In the

548 | essays
 afterlife and resurrection
beginning” by “With Wisdom God created,” clearly also very phrase that opens the Gospel, “In the beginning,”
alluding to the Proverbs passage. “Beginning” is read in shows that creation is the focus of the text. The rest
the Targumim sometimes as Wisdom, and sometimes as of the Prologue shows that the midrash of the Logos is
the Logos, Memra: By a Beginning—Wisdom—God cre- applied to the appearance of Jesus. Only from John 1.14,
ated. which announces that the “Word became flesh,” does
In light of this evidence, the Fourth Gospel is not a the Christian narrative begins to diverge from synagogue
new departure in the history of Judaism in its use of teaching. Until v. 14, the Johannine prologue is a piece of
Logos theology, but only, if even this, in its incarnational perfectly unexceptional non-Christian Jewish thought
Christology. John 1.1–5 is not a hymn, but a midrash, that that has been seamlessly woven into the Christological
is, it is not a poem but a homily on Genesis 1.1–5. The narrative of the Johannine community.

AFTERLIFE AND RESURRECTION

Martha Himmelfarb of the Wisdom tradition: “Long life is in [Wisdom’s] right
Writing toward the end of the first century ce, the Jew- hand; in her le hand are riches and honor” (Prov 3.16).
ish historian Josephus tells us that of the three Jewish Human experience has always offered observers abun-
“philosophies,” two, the Essenes and the Pharisees, dant evidence to the contrary, however, and other Wis-
embraced the idea of the immortality of the soul and an dom works criticize the view that wise and righteous be-
aerlife involving reward and punishment (J.W. 2.154– havior leads to reward. The book of Job launches a frontal
58,163; Ant. 18.14,18). Josephus does not mention a be- aack as the pious Job demands to know why God has
lief in resurrection, perhaps because immortality of the inflicted so much suffering on him. The divine response
soul was a concept more familiar to his Roman audience, appears in the final chapters of the book, where the Lord
but some ancient Jews believed that the soul would be answers Job from a whirlwind with a poetic invocation of
returned to its body at the time of the last judgment. his awesome creative powers and rejects the message
Josephus’s claim that the Pharisees believed in reincar- of the friends who insist that Job must have done some-
nation (J. W. 2.163) may be an aempt to present this idea thing wrong to merit the evils that have befallen him.
in a form more accessible to his audience. Ecclesiastes (Qohelet), likely wrien around the fourth
According to Josephus, the Sadducees were the only century bce, takes a less direct but perhaps even more
Jewish group to reject the idea of the immortality of the subversive approach to the problem of why the righteous
soul and postmortem reward and punishment (J. W. 2.165; suffer and the wicked prosper: it juxtaposes sayings that
Ant. 18.16). Though they were in the minority, the Sad- describe the rewards of wisdom to sayings that claim
ducees would have been right to remind other Jews that that the wicked and righteous share a single fate.
most of the writings that eventually became part of the Neither Job nor Ecclesiastes suggests the possibil-
Tanakh say nothing about reward and punishment aer ity of an aerlife as a venue for righting earthly wrongs.
death. Rather, they envision the dead, righteous and The first Jewish text to take that step is the Book of the
wicked together, enduring a shadowy existence in Sheol, Watchers, as scholars call the work preserved as 1 Enoch
an inhospitable place oen described as a miry pit (e.g., 1–36. This work, which reached its final form by the end
Isa 38.18), a widespread idea in the ancient Near East, of the third century bce, was extremely influential dur-
similar to Hades in the Homeric poems. The blessings ing the Second Temple period. In the last portion of the
and curses that aach to Israel’s covenant with God play Book of the Watchers, the patriarch Enoch, mentioned
a central role in the Torah and prophetic writings, but briefly in Genesis 5.21–24, is taken on a tour of the earth
they are typically experienced collectively by the people in the company of the archangels. Aer seeing the fiery
of Israel as a group, and they take place in this world. abyss in which the watchers of the title of the work,
The only strand of the Tanakh to emphasize the re- angels who descended to earth to marry women, are
ward and punishment of the individual is Wisdom litera- imprisoned (1 En. 21), Enoch comes to a mountain with
ture, but these texts locate rewards and punishments in four chambers. Three of the chambers are dark, but the
this life. The book of Proverbs, which may contain an- fourth is light and has a fountain in its midst (1 En. 22). Al-
cient material but probably reached its final form early in though difficult, the passage suggests that the chambers
the Second Temple period, presents the optimistic side house the souls of the dead, with the souls of the wicked

essays | 549
THE JEWISH
ANNOTATED
NEW TESTAMENT
New Revised
Standard Version
Bible Translation
Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler
Editors