الرد على مغالطات بعض النصارى في محاولة تبرير الثالوث باستخدام مصطلح الميمرا في الترجوم
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قامت في الفترة الاخيرة دعاوي من بعض المنصرين لمحاولة تبرير عقيدة الثالوث و محاولة ايجاد مكان له في العهد القديم فلجؤو الى محاولة الربط الخاطئ بين مفهوم الميمرا في الترجومات و بين مفهوم الكلمة كاقنوم الابن في المسيحية
و تالله ان هذه المحاولة تبين لنا مقدار الضعف العقدي الموجود في عقيدة الثالوث و ذلك لان الميمرا في المفهوم اليهودي و ان كانت ترمز الى كلمة الله و لكنها لم تستعمل في الترجومات الا للاسباب التالية :
1. كعبارة بديلة عن الله عز وجل اذا كان النص ينسب لله عز وجل بعض الصفات البشرية و هذا من باب توقير الذات الالهية عن المشابهة
2. كمجاز للتدليل على الوجود الالهي في النصوص التي تتكلم عن علاقته مع البشر والعالم و اوامره و نواهيه فالميمرا هنا تعمل كوسيط - مجازي - للتعبير عن المشيئة الالهية في افعاله و عن علاقة الاله بمخلوقاته و الكون . و سنذكر ادناه المصادر التي تؤكد ذلك و تنفي وجود صلة مطابقة بين الميمرا في اليهودية و بين الكلمة في المسيحية بل و تصرح بان اعتبار كون الميمرا في الترجومات استعمل للدلالة على شخص او كائن الهي مستقل عن الاله او كونه ذات لوحدها هو مفهوم خاطئ و ينافي سياق النصوص التي ورد فيها في الترجومات و استعمال اليهود له.
نقرا من MEMRA IN THE TARGUM TO ISAIAH דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות DOMINGO MUOZ LEN and Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / Vol. , DIVISION A: THE PERIOD OF THE BIBLE // 1985), pp. 135-142 (8 pages) الصفحة 139 - 141:
(( ?B. What is then the meaning of the Memra
Our conviction is that Memra in targumic use maintains its original meaning of the word. Memra related to God in the Divine Word. This meaning is coherent with the verbs and expression in which it is used. It must not be denied that the expression "Memra of YHWH" and specially the form " Memri", has got a value of " terminus technicus" and in certain cases its use seems similar to an appelativ but that does not exclude, rather it requires, the meaning of word. Other wise we should have a pure grammatical phenomenon, the posibility of which we have excluded . We must have in mind that even Titulature- terms do not lose their original meaning as far as they do not become a pure grammatical phenomenon. In other respects we must remember that the employ of the targumic memra does not have any Titulature mark
automatism, substitution of the first person for the third, etc
? C. Is Memra an intermediary being
that is, any hypostatic or personal, divine or angelic being distict from God? The answer must be in the negative. In Isaiah Targum Memra does not appear as an independent entity ( nor even is it used absolutely). Memra is always related to Word. The distinction between God and his word sometimes clearly underlined (cf Chilton), can not be interpreted as a personal or hypostatic distinction.
It is only a way of explaining the manner of speaking about God in many biblical texts by introducing a feature which represents God as acting by his word
D. Theological dimensions of the Targumism Memra in IsTgWe can distinguish the following main lines :
a The divine word (memra) as concrete reference or fundament of man's revelation to God.
The targumist has substituted God by his Memra :
- in context with the verbs " to exult" (29, 19a , 19b ; 41, 16.... , "to trust"... " to hopefor " .... etc. These substitutions are a cathechetical and exagetical way of asserting God's presence in his word.- in contexts with the verbs"to hear", " to listen", " to rebel" etc. cf. 1, B,c and 3, D,C. These substitutions underline that the divine word is the concrete expression of God'd will.
b. The creative word of God (God who creates by his Word) In 44, 24 ( I suspended the heavens by my Memra) the targumist has substituted the heb. 1 bdw. With this substitution the targumist gives us a coherent explanation of the creation by the divine word, an idea common to the early Judaism and NT ; bMymry is then a theological interpretation. We meet the same explicitation in 45, 12 (I have made the earth by my memra) and 48, 13 (by my memra I have founded the earth).
c. The revealing word of God......
d. The acting ( saving or punishing) word of God ....
e. Memra as antianthropomorphism....
f. The meaning of (divine) Word as center of Memra's associations....
Conclusion :
As we can see, the use of Memra in Is Tg is very similar of Onqelos and is a clear example of the whole targumic tradition which consists in substituting God's mention in definite contexts by his word . The reasons the Targumists had had for this are various (cathachetical, theological, exegetical etc) but the issue has been a theology of the Divine Word inserted in the biblical text. Within this great Targumic tradition of representing God as acting by his word, IsTg does mention of the creative function of the Word and substitutes by Memra various expressions related to God's assistance to righteous and punishment to the evil. However it underlines in a special way the meaning of Memra as a manifestation of the Divine will in the Law and in the Prophetic word.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2352779...o_tab_contents
و نقرا من Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron George Foot Moore The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1922), pp. 41-85 (45 pages) الصفحة 42 :
As was pointed out in a former article in this review, the material that was diligently collected to prove that Jewish theology made a place for a being (or beings) of divine nature through whose mediation the ends of the supreme God were effectuated in the world of nature and of men as they were in Christian theology by the Son and Spirit has more recently been appropriated to prove that Jewish theology, unlike Christian inter posed intermediaries between God and the world, rendered necessary by its "transcenedent" idea of God, of which error, conversely, the invention of such intermediaries is the proof. Christian investigation and discussion of the terms Memra and Shekinah have thus in all stages been inspired and directed by a theological motive, and the results come around in a circle to the theological prepossesions from which they set out ))
و نقرا من الصفحة 52 -53:
(( Undoubtedly, if we had to translate idiomatically many of the passages in which memra is used we should say " myself, himself" and the like; but inasmuch as the whole motive of the paraphrase is to avoid bringing God himself" into such immediate relation to the act or circumstance, it can hardly be supposed that the translator deliberately introduced a word which would be understood by his hearers to emphasize the relation. If he did not say simply that God did so and so, he would be still less inclined to say that God himself did it..... Most of the uses of the word are easily explicable in their contexts in the light of the ends and methods of the synagogue interpretation... In many instances it is used as a verbal buffer - one of many such in the targums- to keep God from seeming to come too close quarters with men and things; but it is always a buffer word, not a buffer idea still less a buffer person ....
The sum of the whole matter is that nowhere in these Targums is Memra a " being" 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., as in Mamimonides' theory; or God himself in certain modes of manifestation, which has been thought to be the opinion of R Moses ben Nahman.....))
و نقرا من الصفحة 54:
((The very question whether the memra is personal or impersonal implies, from the philological point of view , a misunderstanding of the whole phenomenon; and every answer to a false question is by that very fact false.
These conclusions are strongly confirmed by the fact that memra is found only in the Targum; not in such Aramaic texts as are preserved in the Midrashim, nor in the voluminous Aramaic parts of the Talmuds, nor, so far as I am aware in the Zohar. In other words , it is a phenomenon of translation, not a creature of speculation.The error is magnified to immensity when memra is connected with the Logos of Philo, whether it be supposed, as by Gfroerer, that the Palestinian mystical theology represented in the Targums (!) borrowed its intermediary being, Memra, from the Logos of Alexandrian 'theosophy ' or contrariwise, that the Logos was derived and developed by Alexandrians from the palestinian Memra. The former theory involves a complete misunderstanding of what the targums are and what they were made for as well as misinterpretation of the memra in them; the latter besides a similar misinterpretation of memra in the Targums, involves a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Logos is in Philo and what it is for))
و نقرا من الصفحة 55 :
((It is an error of equal dimensions , 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 an ' hypostatus'. For the modern reader 'hypostatis' has no use or meaning except that which it acquired in the controversies of the third and fourth centuries over the ontological relationof the Logos- son to the Father; and to employ this term with its denotation and all its trinitarian connotations, of the supposed personal or quasi personal, Memra of the Targums, is by implication to attribute to the rabbis corresponding metaphysical speculations on the nature of the Godhead. But of speculation on that subject there is no trace either in the exoteric teaching of Judaism or in anything we know of its esoteric, theosophic, adventures into the divine mysteries. ))
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507936...o_tab_contents
و نقرا من الموسوعة البريطانية :
((Here as in the other cases we cannot always say whether the Word is regarded as a mere attribute or activity of God, or an independent being, though there is a clear tendency towards the latter. The ambiguity lies in the twofold purpose of these activities: (1) to establish communication with God; (2) to prevent direct connexion between God and the world. The word of the God of revelation is represented as the creative principle (e.g. Gen. i. 3; Psalm xxxiii. 6), as the executor of the divine judgments, (Hosea vi. 5), as healing (Psalm cvii. 20), as possessed of almost personal qualities (Isaiah lv. I 1; Psalm cxlvii. 15). Along with this comes the doctrine of the angel of Yahweh, the angel of the covenant, the angel of the presence, in whom God manifests Himself, and who is sometimes identified with Yahweh or Elohim (Gen. xvi. 1r, 13; xxxii. 29-31; Exod. iii. 2; xiii. 21), sometimes distinguished from Him (Gen. xxii. 15, &c.; xxiv. 7; xxviii. 12, &c.), and sometimes presented in both aspects (Judges ii., vi.; Zech. i.). To this must be added the doctrine of Wisdom, given in the books of Job and Proverbs. At one time it is exhibited as an attribute of God (Prov. iii. 19). At another it is strongly personified, so as to become rather the creative thought of God than a quality (Prov. viii. 22). Again it is described as proceeding from God as the principle of creation and objective to Him. In these and kindred passages (Job xv. 7, &c.) it is on the way to become hypostatized…..
In the Targums, on the other hand, the three doctrines of the word, the angel, and the wisdom of God converge in a very definite conception. In the Jewish theology God is represented as purely transcendent, having no likeness of nature with man, and making no personal entrance into history. Instead of the immediate relation of God to the world the Targums introduce the ideas of the Memra (word) and the Shechina (real presence). This Memra ( Ma'amar) or, as it is also designated, Dibbura, is a hypostasis that takes the place of God when direct intercourse with man is in view. In all those passages of the Old Testament where anthropomorphic terms are used of God, the Memra is substituted for God. The Memra proceeds from God, and retains the creaturely relation to God. It does not seem to have been identified with the Messiah.' ' Cf. the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch under Gen. vii. 16, xvii. 2, xxi. 20; Exod. xix. 16, &c.; the Jerusalem Targum on 3. Philo.
https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/bri/l/logos.html?fbclid=IwAR2RCiTLvzlRBm3gActYmDxd55D3YvV2qqddhTvs Gqs7VchUFKVDTvrKodw
نقرا من الموسوعة اليهودية Jewish Encyclopedia :
((a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided....
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22)...
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7)…. As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12)
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/a...swzm4U#anchor6
و نقرا من Logos and Memra
By Jorgensen ErnestTheir connotations: Memra
Apart from this, the Jews in Aramaic speaking countries had a logos concept different from that of Hellenized Jews. The article “In the beginning was λόγος ...” in Bible Researcher has this observation:
“After the Babylonish captivity the Jewish doctors combined into one view the theophanies, prophetic revelations and manifestations of Jehovah generally, and united them in one single conception, that of a permanent agent of Jehovah in the sensible world, whom they designated by the name Memra (word, λόγος) of Jehovah. The learned Jews introduced the idea into the Targums, or Aramوan paraphrases of the Old Testament, which were publicly read in the synagogues, substituting the name the word of Jehovah for that of Jehovah, each time that God manifested himself. Thus in Genesis 39:91, they paraphrase, ‘The Memra was with Joseph in prison.’ In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra. The Memra is the angel that destroyed the first-born of Egypt, and it was the Memra that led the Israelites in the cloudy pillar.”32
One will notice the similarity with a certain aspect of Philo’s logos-concept, although the approach of Aramaic speaking Jews was not influenced by Hellenic philosophy to the extent of that of Greek speaking Philo.
In the Greek Septuagint version the word logos is often used, but mostly in connection with the content of a message and in many places similarly to the use of Memra, as mentioned above.
https://www.academia.edu/39812028/Lo...Gd1_PtMKTJl_Dc
هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم
رد مع اقتباس
المفضلات