A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud & Midrash

Christian Alexander

Does anyone have A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud & Midrash and know where it would cover the Johannine Prologue?

Rosie Perera

How would knowing where it would cover the Johannine Prologue help you if you don't own the book? Are you trying to figure out which of the three volumes to buy? They are pricey, so I can understand that. But if you're going to be working in this field academically in the long run, you might want to own the whole set, and it's definitely cheaper to buy them as a set. Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are about $58 each and the whole set is about $160, which would save you $14 off of buying each volume individually. Volume 4 is only available in Pre-pub at the moment, but if you bought the set of 1-3, then once 4 ships, they'll probably provide an upgrade set that has all 4 and you'd get the dynamic pricing on it, which would save you some off the single-volume price.

All of that said, the Gospel of John is covered in Volume 2.

MJ. Smith

Yes, I own it. I believe it is under copyright and will only copy it its comment on a single clause

[quote]

1:1 A: In the beginning was the Word, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος.

According to John 1:3, the Logos created the world, and he was present before the world. The temporal specification ἐν ἀρχῇ “in the beginning” (John 1:1) therefore essentially has the meaning “before the creation of the world.” As such, John teaches the real pre-existence of the Logos Messiah. Apart from the few authorities who have taught the pre-existence of all human souls since the middle of the 3rd century, the ancient synagogue did not know anything about the real pre-existence of the Messiah, despite the repeated claim by Christian scholars.264 The relevant passages are to be understood differently.
A. Pseudepigrapha and Septuagint.
a. The ideal pre-existence of the Messiah in the conceptual world or God’s plan of the world is taught in the following:
1 Enoch 48:6: “He (the Son of Man Messiah) was chosen and hidden in the presence of God before the world was created.”—Dillman, Schürer, Hühn, Beer-Kautzsch, Bousset, and others find the real pre-existence of the Messiah expressed here.265 ‖ 1 Enoch 48:3: “Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, before the stars of heaven were made, his (the Messiah’s) name was mentioned before the Lord of Spirits.” ‖ Septuagint Psalm 110:3: “From the mother’s womb I created you, before the morning star.”—Gfrörer understands this verse as a reference to the real pre-existence of the Messiah.266
b. A Messiah who comes out from among the number of the deceased righteous ones (i.e., who returns from the dead) is described in 1 Enoch 40:5; 62:7; 39:6f.; 70:1, which belong to a larger whole.—These passages are interpreted by Schürer, Hühn, Dalman, Beer, and Bousset as evidence of the pre-existence of the Messiah.267 ‖ In Sib. Or. 5.247–285; 414–432, Joshua the son of Nun is expected as the Messiah (see § Matt 1:1 C, #1, n. b).
c. A Messiah who is taken up alive into heaven or into paradise before taking up his ministry in order to remain hidden there until the hour of his messianic appearance is attested in 4 Ezra 7:28; 13:1–13, 25–52; 12:31f.; 14:9.—Schürer, Dalman, Hühn, and others also interpret these passages as evidence of the pre-existence of the Messiah.268 ‖ In 2 Baruch 29:3; 30:1, it remains uncertain whether the type of Messiah described in notes b and c is present. In the first case, one would have to think of the returning king Josiah as Messiah in line with 66:1f.
d. Septuagint Psalm 72:5 does not belong here. The words “before the moon” have no reference to the pre-existence of the Messianic king, as, for example, Gfrörer and Edersheim interpret it.269 For they do not deal with the eternity of the Messiah a parte ante, but a parte post. See LXX Ps 72:17: πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμενεῖ. ‖ Septuagint Isaiah 9:6 is not to be interpreted messianically, but refers instead to king Hezekiah. 1 Enoch 46:1f. forms the content of a vision. If in a vision Enoch looks at the Messiah in paradise at the beginning of the messianic period, it does not follow from this that the Messiah was already present in Enoch’s days as a pre-existent entity. ‖ In 1 En. 71, Enoch himself is proclaimed Messiah in heaven.
For a detailed discussion of the passages mentioned under points a–d, as well as of all other messianic types which can be found outside the rabbinic writings in the ancient Jewish literature, see the journal Nathanael (1903), 97–125; (1905), 89–150.
B. The Rabbinic Literature.
In the rabbinic literature, we initially encounter the same ideas about the Messiah as we have seen above in A, notes a–c.
a. The Ideal, Pre-Existence of the Messiah.
A baraita in b. Pesaḥ. 54A: Seven things were created before the world was created. These are the Torah, repentance, the garden of Eden, gehenna, the throne of glory, the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah.… On the name of the Torah, see Ps 72:17, “May his name endure for eternity; his name (or, ‘Yinnon’ was his name; see § Matt 1:21 B, #2, n. f) sprouted forth before the sun (according to the Midrash = before the son existed).”—Likewise in b. Ned. 39B; Midr. Prov. 8:9 (30A); Pirqe R. El. 3. ‖ Genesis Rabbah 1 (2B): Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some of them were (really) created, and some of them came into (God’s) thoughts to be created. The Torah and the throne of glory were (really) created.… The fathers, Israel, the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah came into (God’s) thoughts to be created.… On the name of the Messiah, see Ps 72:17 (as above). R. Ahaba b. Zeira (ca. 350) said, “Also repentance, see Ps 90:2f., ‘Before the mountains were born … since that hour, you allowed man to turn back with contrition, saying “Repent” ’ (thus the Midrash).”—Further parallels in TanḥB נשא § 19 (17B): Our teachers have taught in this manner: “Seven things preceded the creation of the world. These are the throne of God, the Torah, the sanctuary, the fathers of the world (patriarchs), Israel, the name of the Messiah, and repentance.” Some say, “Also the garden of Eden and gehenna.…” On the name of the Messiah, see Ps 72:17. ‖ Midrash Psalm 93 § 3 (207B): “Your throne has been firmly established from time immemorial” (Ps 93:2). This is one of the six things that came into (God’s) thoughts before the creation of the world. And these are the throne of glory, the king the Messiah, the Torah, Israel, the sanctuary, and repentance.… On the king, the Messiah, see Ps 72:17 etc. ‖ Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 31 (160): Six things were created before: the Torah, gehenna, the garden of Eden, the throne of glory, the name of the Messiah, see Ps 72:17.—Midrash Psalm 90 § 12 (196A): Seven things preceded the creation of the world by 2,000 years: the Torah, the throne of glory, the garden of Eden, gehenna, repentance, the upper sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah …, and the name of the Messiah was buried in a gem above the altar. ‖ Targum Micah 5:1: “You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, … out of you will come forth before me the Messiah, to have dominion over Israel, whose name was given since the beginning, since the days of eternity (or the world).” ‖ Targum Zechariah 4:7: “He (God) will reveal his Messiah, whose name has been given since the beginning, and he will reign over all kingdoms.” ‖ Targum Psalm 72:17: “His name (the name of the messianic king) will be mentioned forever, before the sun was, his name was established. And by his merit, all nations will be blessed and will say, ‘Glory be to him!’ ”
The doctrine of the ideal pre-existence of the Messiah in God’s thought world makes the Messiah an essential component of God’s eternal and therefore unalterable plan for the world. It is intended to strengthen Israel’s confidence in its messianic hopes.
b. It is expected that the Messiah will come from among the number of those who have died: Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and David.
Jerusalem Talmud Soṭah 9.24C.26: R. Jacob b. Idi (ca. 280) said on behalf of R. Joshua b. Levi (ca. 250), “When Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai passed away (ca. 80), he ordered and said, ‘Clear the court because of impurity (so that the tools therein may not be made unclean by the corpse), and prepare a throne for Hezekiah, king of Judah.’ ” When his disciple R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (ca. 90) passed away, he decreed and said, “Clear the court because of impurity and make a throne for Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai.” Others say, “What his teacher has seen (המא) he has (also) seen (המא).” They wanted to relate one of them, who belonged to the Pazzi270 family, with the patriarch’s house, but he did not accept it. He said, “So they do not have to be ashamed of me.” When he passed away, he ordered and said, “Clear the court because of impurity, and prepare a throne for Jehoshaphat, king of Judah.” Then they said, “He who went after honor will come after him who fled from honor.” (Jehoshaphat became related to Ahab by his son Joram who married his daughter Atalyahu, see 2 Chr 18:1; 21:6.)—The same is said in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3.42C.38; very briefly in the baraita in b. Ber. 28B: In the hour of his departure, he (Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai) said to his disciples, “Remove the utensils because of the impurity and prepare a throne for Hezekiah king of Judah when he comes!”—As the twice used verb המא shows, these are visions of people who had died. In his dying hour, Rabban Yohanan looked at Hezekiah, R. Eliezer at Rabban Yohanan, or Hezekiah, who came from the family Pazzi Jehoshaphat. The meaning of the vision is questionable. One can read into the remark about Jehoshaphat that Jehoshaphat will provide the funeral procession for the deceased. This is also how Rashi understood Rabban Yohanan’s comment about Hezekiah in b. Ber. 28B. Levy understands it similarly, in which he interprets it with reference to Hezekiah Rabban Gamaliel (II) and with reference to Jehoshaphat R. Judah Nasi.271 But why should the participation of living individuals within a funeral procession be made the content of a vision? Moreover, according to b. B. Meṣ. 59B, Gamaliel II was no longer alive after the death of R. Eliezer. So how could he have meant him under the code name king Hezekiah? And as far as the appearance of the departed from the afterlife to give the final escort to a famous teacher is concerned, no other testimony for this idea is known to us.—We can therefore infer from the passages quoted above that the dead occupied themselves with the future of their people in eternity, and have gone on to eternity with the conviction that the messianic redemption was imminent. In this vein is their admonition, “Prepare the throne of the Messiah for Hezekiah, or Yohanan b. Zakkai, or for Jehoshaphat!” A whole series of passages deals with the messianic vocation of Hezekiah;272 the king Jehoshaphat will have been granted the dignity of the Messiah on the basis of Joel 3:2, 12 (cf. 1 En. 53), and that R. Eliezer has looked up to his late teacher Rabban Yohanan as the Messiah is analogous to the practice of several scholars who name the Messiah after the name of their teachers; see b. Sanh. 98B at § Matt 1:21 B, #2, notes e, f, g, and i. ‖ Midrash Song of Songs 1:16 (59A): R. Judah b. Simon (ca. 320) said in the name of R. Samuel b. Isaac (ca. 300), “If the king, the Messiah, comes from the living, ‘David’ will be his name. If he comes from the dead, his name (also) will be ‘David.’ ” R. Tanḥuma (b. Abba [ca. 380]) said, “I want to state his reason: It does not say here, ‘Grace manifests itself to his Messiah (thus the Midrash) and to David’ (Ps 18:50), but rather ‘his Messiah, David.’ ”—In y. Ber. 2.5A.10, the rabbanan are named as the authors. From the version of the wording of the passage, it follows that the idea of a Messiah coming from the number of the dead (ca. 300) was just as common as the idea of the Messiah coming from among the living. The same is true of the even older passage b. Sanh. 98B. Rab († 247) said, “If he (the Messiah) is among the living, he will be like our holy teacher (i.e., Judah I). If he is among the dead, he will be like Daniel, the beloved man.”—The construction of R. Samuel b. Isaac demonstrates that the messianic king David is not to be understood as the old king David returning from the dead without further ado. It can also mean a Messiah coming from among the living, who is to be identified by the name “David” as a second David. Thus, it says in b. Sanh. 98B: Rab Judah († 299) said that Rab († 247) said, “One day God will give them a second David דוד אחר; see Jer 30:9, ‘They will serve Yahweh their God and David, their king, whom I will present to them.’ It does not say, ‘whom I presented to them,’ but rather, ‘whom I will present to them.’ ”—The Messiah king David can be (α) the historical king David returning to life; (β) any other messianic personality that shares that name. Different from α are, however, two other cases. In the first two centuries CE, and even later, the future world—which is to follow the days of the Messiah and be raised with the resurrection of the dead and the general final judgment—was often thought of as a glorified continuation of the messianic period. The resurrected fathers and rulers of Israel were then assigned the same leading position in this new world as they had held during their lifetime. But the greatest of them was king David, who is therefore celebrated as the prince of the future world.γ So this position of David within the future world may be compared with the one mentioned under α, according to which he is to be the messianic king in the messianic period.—From the third century CE, the days of the Messiah began to be more and more idealized. They were raised to such heights that they were comparable to what was expected in the future world. Accordingly, the resurrection of the dead was also transferred to the messianic period. So now the resurrected king David was able to stand side by side with the Messiah in the messianic age, and their rank with respect to one another was such that the Messiah was the emperor and David functioned as co-regent.δ
α. David returning from the dead as Messiah. Midrash Psalm 57 § 3 (149A): R. Tahlifa of Caesarea (ca. 270) said, “… Saul began to say to David, ‘I know that you will rule as king מלוך תמלוך’ (1 Sam 24:21): ‘reign as king’ in this world, ‘will rule’ in the world to come (here in the wider sense, as is often the case, of the days of the Messiah); for it says in Ezek 37:24, ‘My servant David will be king over them.’ ”—Since Ezek 37:24 can only be related to the messianic period, the resurrected David must be thought of as the Messiah according to this passage. ‖ In a discussion God has with David during his lifetime on Ezek 34:22 (“I will save my sheep …”), it says in Midr. Ps. 29:1 (116A): “And what,” God said, “will I do to them (the Israelites)? My servant David (i.e., you) will feed them. As it says in Ezek 34:23, ‘I will put over them a shepherd to feed them, my servant David.’ ” And David said, “You are the helper, and you are the shepherd.…” ‖ Genesis Rabbah 88 (56A): Who would have expected David to be king until the end of the generations?—See further above at the statement by R. Samuel b. Isaac, “When the Messiah comes from the dead, his name will be ‘David.’ ”
β. A second David as Messiah (so that “David” is only the Messiah’s name). Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 2.5A.8: The request for David (i.e., for the Messiah named David) is made under the benediction: “The one who builds Jerusalem” (the 14th of the Eighteen Benedictions according to the Palestinian counting); see Hos 3:5, “Then the children of Israel will return and seek Yahweh their God and David their king.” ‖ Babylonian Megillah 17B: When Jerusalem is built (14th of the Eighteen Benedictions), then David (the Messiah with that name) will come; see Hos 3:5 above (15th of the Eighteen Benedictions according to the Babylonian counting). And when David comes, Prayer comes (16th of the Eighteen Benedictions), see Isa 56:7.—In the Babylonian recension of the Habinenu prayer (by Samuel [† 254]), it says, “The righteous may rejoice over the building of your city, the building of your temple, the sprouting of the horn of David your servant, and the making of the lamp for the son of Jesse your Messiah.”—The Palestinian recension says, “Let all who trust in you rejoice in the building of your city and in the renewal of your sanctuary and in the offspring your servant David”; see b. Ber. 29A and y. Ber. 4.8A.49.—These passages reflect the content of the 14th (the 15th according to the Babylonian counting) of the Eighteen Benedictions; it is to be assumed therefore that “David” stands for “offspring of David” = Messiah. ‖ Targum Ezekiel 34:23f.: “I will set a leader over them to lead them, my servant David. He will lead them, and he will be their leader. And I, Yahweh, will be their God, and my servant David will be king among them. I, Yahweh, have decided it by myself.”—Targum Ezekiel 37:24: “My servant David will be king over them.”—One may at first be inclined to understand David in both passages as king David returning as Messiah from the dead (type α). But since the targum in the two related verses of Jer 30:9 and Hos 3:5 translates “David” with מְשִׁיחָא בַר דָּוִד = “Messiah son of David,” then in Ezek 34 and 37 “David” is also intended in the sense of a “second David.”
γ. David as king of the world to come. Midrash Psalm 5 § 4 (26B): למנצח אל הַנְּחִילוֹת (Ps 5:1). R. Samuel b. Nahmani (ca. 260) said, “Because of the two inheritances הַנְּחִילוֹת,”273 for David has inherited the kingdom in this world and in that world. And likewise, it says in Ps 89:28, “I will also274 make him the firstborn.” Was David a firstborn? Is it not said in 1 Sam 17:41, “David, he was the youngest”? And why does it call him the firstborn? As the firstborn receives the double inheritance, so also David received the kingdom as two inheritances, namely in this world and in the world to come. David said with regard to them both, “I sing to the choirmaster with regard to (both) inheritances” (Ps 5:1).—See also Midr. Sam. 19 § 6 (52B) on 1 Sam 16:12: (Yahweh said to Samuel, “… This is it.” R. Samuel b. Nahman said, “This is it in this world, and this is it in the world to come.” ‖ Midrash Psalm 18 § 27 (78A): “He made ויתן my way blameless” (Ps 18:33), that is, he pays the wages (= ויתן) because of the blamelessness of my way. And another passage says, “He gave abundantly ויתר to him who was blameless of his way” (thus Midr. 2 Sam. 22:33), that is, he gave abundantly הותירני to me to be king in this world and in the future world because I walked blamelessly on his way. ‖ Targum Psalm 110:4: “Yahweh has sworn and he will not change his mind. You are destined to be prince in the future world because of the merit that you acquired when you were a just king.” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Ḥagigah 14a: One passage reads, “His throne (sing.) was fiery flames” (Dan 7:9), and another passage reads, “Until the thrones (plural) were placed” (Dan 7:9). There is no contradiction here. The one is for him (God) and the other is for David. As it says in a baraita, “The one for him and the other for David”; these are the words of R. Aqiba († ca. 135). R. Yose the Galilean (ca. 110) replied, “Aqiba, how long do you profane the Shekinah (Godhead)? Instead, the one (throne) is for the strict justice (of God) לדין and the other is for his mercy לצדקה.” Did he (Aqiba) accept this from him, or did he reject it? Come and hear: One for the strict justice and the other for mercy; these are (later) the words of R. Aqiba (so he accepted the interpretation of R. Yose the Galilean). Then R. Eleazar b. Azariah said to him (ca. 100), “Aqiba, what are you doing in matters of haggadah (interpretation of non-halakhic Scriptures)? Stop with your words and go to (the treatises about) leprosy and bezeltungen (pollution by corpses)! Instead, one is an armchair and the other is a footstool. The armchair to sit on, the footstool as a stool for his feet; see Isa 66:1, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.’ ”—A parallel passage is in b. Sanh. 38B.—According to R. Aqiba, the messianic period should have a short duration of only 40 years, so it was considered, analogous to the 40 years of wilderness wanderings, to be only a transitional period for the future world. Only this period brings the consummation into glory. From this point of view, the judgment scene in Dan 7 no longer belongs to the days of the Messiah, but rather opens the future world with the preceding resurrection of the dead. Aqiba can therefore not have meant in his first explanation that the David of whom he spoke was the David of this name (the second David), but only the resurrected historical David, who as king of the future world takes an active role in the universal judgment. This attracts the rebuke of R. Yose, who sees in it an intervention in the prerogatives of the divine judgment of the world. ‖ Midrash Psalm 75 § (170B): There are ten horns which God has given to the Israelites: The horn of Abraham …; the horn of the king, the Messiah, in the kingdom, see 1 Sam 2:10, “He raises the horn of his Messiah”; the horn of David in the light of the coming day (= the future world), as it is said in Ps 132:17, “There I will have a horn sprout for David, a lamp for my anointed one.”—The reign of the Messiah is followed here by the regiment of David in the world to come.—See § Matt 1:1 B, #2, in the middle. The parallel passage in Midr. Song 2:3 (65A) does not have this juxtaposition of the Messiah and David. The greatness of David in the future world, which surpasses all the fathers, can also be recognized by the fact that he alone is considered worthy to speak the praise at the meal of the righteous in the future world; see the excursus “Sheol, Gehenna, and the Garden of Eden,” III, #4, n. y.
δ. David as co-regent. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98B: (Regarding Rab’s opinion that God would awaken a second David as Messiah because it says in Jer 30:9, “They will serve Yahweh their God and David their king,” see above,) Rab Papa († 376) said to Abbayye († 338/39), “But it is said in Ezek 37:25, ‘My servant David is their prince (נשיא) forever!’ ” (How do both fit together, the Messiah as king and David as prince? Abbayye answers,) “Like emperor and co-regent קֵיסַר וּפַלְגּוּ קֵיסַר (literally, emperor and half-emperor).” ‖ David’s position next to the Messiah is less valued in Pesiq. 123B: Isaiah 1:26, “I will bring back your judges as before,” that applies to Moses and Aaron; “and your councilors as in the beginning,” that is David and Solomon; “and after that you will be called the city of righteousness, the most faithful fortress.”—The last words undoubtedly make the whole passage relate to the days of the Messiah.
c. One who is living and has retreated into hiding and then returns as Messiah:
Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 2.4 (5A); see § Matt 2:5.—R. Abin (ca. 370) linked together with the narrative in y. Ber. 2.4 the remark that the coincidence of the destruction of the temple and the birth of the Messiah was already caused by the juxtaposition of Isa 10:34 and 11:1 (see § Matt 2:5). According to this, the belief that the Messiah was born at the time of the destruction of the temple and was later raptured seems to have been widespread in broader circles. This opinion is expressly mentioned in two additional passages. R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260) had established the exegetical canon that the verbal form והיה always introduces something joyful in Scripture. As a refutation, Jer 38:28 among other passages was also given to him, “And it happened והיה, when Jerusalem was taken.” He replied, “This was also a matter of joy, for on the same day, the Israelites received a deed of remission (אופכי read אַפּוֹכֵי = ἀποχή, receipt) for their sins. Thus Gen. Rab. 42 (26A); Lev. Rab. 11 (113B); Midr. Ruth 1:2 (124B); Tanḥ. 151 שמיני 151B; Pesiq. Rab. 5 (20A). Later the justification might not be sufficient. They therefore expanded it in the following way: For on the same day, Menahem (the Messiah’s name) was born, and on the same day, the Israelites received.…” Thus Num. Rab. 13 (169C) and Midr. Esther 1:1 (83A). The addition was not very clever, for the remark of R. Samuel b. Nahman on Jer 38:28 referred to the first temple, while the birth of the Messiah should coincide with the destruction of the Second Temple. In order to eliminate this discrepancy, another more recent Midrash attested without hesitation to the Messiah born in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. Aggadat Berešit 67 (46A): Nebuchadnezzar is compared to a camel; see Isa 21:7, “He … sees a procession of donkeys, a procession of camels.” With the expression “riding in a procession of donkeys” the Messiah is intended (cf. Zech 9:9); with “riding in a procession of camels” Nebuchadnezzar is intended. For on the day on which Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, the Messiah was born; see Isa 10:34, “Lebanon (= temple in the sense of the Midrash) falls by a glorious one” (and then follows Isa 11:1,) “But a shoot will spring forth from the stump of Jesse.”—The older period knew nothing of the fact that the Messiah had already been born in the Babylonian period, for in b. Meg. 12A, which could at best be used for this purpose, משיח does not designate the Messiah, but rather the “anointed” high priest (see § Matt 23:38). ‖ Numbers Rabbah 14 (at § Luke 2:49) also seems to presuppose the birth of the Messiah, which has already taken place at some point.
The question of where the Messiah was kept hidden (נִגְלָה, e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 36 [162A]; 37 [163B]; Pesiq. 149A) or detained (נֶתְבָּא Midr. Ps. 21 § 1 [89A]) from his rapture until his “appearance” or “revelation” (נִתְעַכֵּב Pesiq. Rab. 34 [159B]) has been answered in various ways.
α. The Messiah dwells in Rome.—In b. Sanh. 98A, it is told of how R. Joshua b. Levi (ca. 250) visits the Messiah in Rome; see § Luke 24:26, I, #4, n. e. ‖ According to Leqach Tob on Num 24:17, the Messiah reveals himself נגלה to his victorious people in Rome; see § Luke 24:26, I, #3, n. b. ‖͗Aggadat Berešit 23 (20A) has the Messiah “sprout up from the gates of Rome”; see § Matt 24:30 B, #1.—The reason that the Messiah had been left hidden in Rome could be found in the endeavor to parallel the messianic redemption with the redemption from Egypt as far as possible in all regards. Exodus Rabbah 1 (67B): The daughter of pharaoh raised the one who would take revenge on her father, and also the king, the Messiah, who will take revenge on Edom (= Rome), sits with them in the city (Rome); see Isa 27:10, “There, the calf (which is, according to the Midrash, a picture of the Messiah) will graze, and there it will camp and eat up its branches.”—The same is said in Tanḥ. שמות 61B; see also TanḥB תזריע n. 65. ‖ See further at § Luke 24:26, I, #4, n. q.
β. The Messiah dwells in the north; see § Matt 4:15.
γ. The Messiah dwells in paradise.—In Der. Er. Zut. 1 (20C), the Messiah is numbered among the nine persons who have entered paradise alive; see the excursus “Elijah,” I, #1, n. d. ‖ See further at § Luke 24:26, I, #4, n. p.
δ. The Messiah dwells near Elijah, so probably in heaven; see Midr. Ruth 2:14 (133A) at § Luke 10:20, #2, n. ε.
ε. The place of concealment remains unnamed in the passages above at n. c and at § Luke 24:26, I, #4, notes g–i.
So far, the messianic types within the rabbinic texts do not differ in any way from those created by the pseudepigrapha. In rabbinic Judaism, the doctrine of the pre-existence of human souls has brought forth a new type, albeit a late one.
C. The image of the Messiah based on the doctrine of the pre-existence of human souls.
1. Alexandrian Judaism appropriated the Platonic-Pythagorean teaching of the pre-existence of human souls to the greatest possible extent.275 The equation ἄγγελος = δαίμων = ψυχή276 appears to be a special Jewish feature.
The (Alexandrian-gnostic?) apocryphal “Prayer of Joseph”277 offers an instructive contribution. Therein, it says, “Jacob said, ‘I, Jacob, who am speaking with you, and Israel, I am an angel of God and a primordial spirit.’ Abraham and Isaac were also created before any work. But I, who am called Jacob by men, while my real name is ‘Israel,’ have been called ‘Israel’ by God, which means ‘man who sees God’ because I am the firstborn before all beings which have been given life by God.… But when I came from Mesopotamia to Syria, Uriel, the angel of God, came forth and said that I had descended to earth and dwelt among men and was called Jacob. But he became jealous and fought and struggled with me, saying that his name had precedence over my name and over every angelic name. Then I told him his name and how he was ranked among the sons of God: Are you not Uriel, the eighth after me? And am I not Israel, the archangel of the power of the Lord, and the chief prince of the sons of God? Am I not Israel, the first angel of service before God, and did I not call my God by his everlasting name (i.e., the name Yahweh)?”—In these sentences, the patriarchs are understood to be angelic beings made human. The Alexandrian anthropology, which identified the pre-existent human souls with the angels, offers an explanation for this view that is quite alien to Palestinian Judaism. That in fact the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls forms the basis for the above statements about the patriarchs is indirectly confirmed by our apocryphon itself, by putting in Jacob’s mouth in another place the utterance that he, serving in the body on earth by doing what he had been doing in heaven, recognized this when Uriel’s words reminded him of it.278 It is precisely this tendency to forget about the former heavenly state which also appears to be the bitter fate which pre-existent souls must endure in their incorporation; see below at Tanḥ. פקודי 127A.
2. In Palestine, the dogma of the pre-existence of souls was first taken up by the Essenes. Josephus expressed their view on this as follows: “The bodies are perishable, and their materiality does not possess anything lasting. But the immortal souls are eternal. Coming from the finest ether, they are united with the bodies as well as with prisons, into which they are drawn down through a natural (sensual) inclination to love. But when they had cast off the fetters of the flesh, they would then, as if freed from long bondage, joyfully rise up into the air” (J. W. 2.8.11). Philo also spoke similarly about the descent of souls into mortal bodies; see De gigantibus § 3 (Mangey’s ed. 1:263f.).—Whether the pseudepigrapha here or there assumes the pre-existence of souls is more than doubtful.
2 Esdras 4:40f.: “ ‘Go, ask the pregnant woman if her womb, when her nine months have been completed, can still keep the child with her?’ I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord.’ He said to me, ‘The dwellings of souls in Hades are like the mother’s womb.’ ”—Gunkel comments on “souls in Hades” saying, “according to the context, these are unborn souls.” More correct would be to say, “according to the context, these are deceased souls.” That the pre-existent souls should be in Hades would have been an unimaginable idea in Jewish thought. ‖ 2 Baruch 23:3f.: “As you (Baruch) know of the people who are present and of those who are (already) past, I (God) am also aware of those who will come in the future. For when Adam had sinned and death had been decreed upon those who would descend from him, the great number of those who were to be born was counted at that time.”—This is the number of all those who are to see the light of the world, that is to say, the ideal pre-existence of all humanity in God’s plan for the world, but not at the same time the real pre-existence of souls who are to be incorporated in the course of time. ‖ The real pre-existence of souls is most likely to be present in 2 Enoch 23:4f.: “Write (down) every soul of men, whichever of them who have not yet been born. Their places279 have been prepared before the beginning of the world. For all souls are prepared before the world, before the formation of the earth.” However, the words “prepared before the world” is not accompanied by compelling evidence. In Midr. Ps. 3 § 3 (18B), David says to God, “Lord of the world, it is evident and known before you that Bathsheba is prepared for me נכונה since the six days of creation.”—The parallel passage in b. Sanh. 107A demonstrates how נכונה was intended. There, the Babylonian Raba († 352) uses ראויה for the term, which means “it was previously intended for David.”—Mekhilta Exodus 14:15 (25B) has R. Eleazar from Modiim († 135) say of God in relation to the Israelites: “Have they not long since been prepared מוכנים before the six days of creation?”—Here, too, “prepared” is to be interpreted as “previously foreseen” or “envisaged.”—For further information, see § Matt 25:34 A.
3. In rabbinic literature, the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is only encountered from the middle of the 3rd century CE.280 Its representatives in Palestine are R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260), R. Asi (ca. 300), R. Levi (ca. 300), and R. Isaac (ca. 300). In Babylon, at least in later times, the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls has come to be identified with the Persian/Iranian Fravashi.
Tanḥuma נצבים 26A: “I am not making this covenant with you alone” (Deut 29:13), but also with the generations which are to come there in that hour, for it says in verse 14, “But with him who stands עֹמֵד here with us before Yahweh our God today, and with him who is not here with us today.” R. Abbahu (ca. 300) said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260), “Why is it written in Deut 29:14, ‘Who stands here with us today,’ and why does it say, ‘Who is not here’? Because the souls were there and the bodies (for them) had not yet been created, it is not written of them that they were’standing.’ ”—The same is said anonymously in TanḥB נצבים § 8 (25B).—See another saying by R. Samuel b. Nahman from Gen. Rab. 85 (54B) at #4. ‖ On R. Asi, see #5. ‖ Genesis Rabbah 8 (6B): R. Joshua of Sikhnin (ca. 330) said in the name of R. Levi (thus read with Yalquṭ instead of R. Samuel), “God has consulted with the souls of the righteous (before the creation of the world). That means in 1 Chr 4:23, ‘These are the potters and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah. They lived there with the king in his service.’ These are ‘the potters היוצרים,’ because Yahweh-Elohim formed ויצר mankind from the dust of the ground (2:7); the inhabitants of ‘Netaim’ (= plantings), because Yahweh-Elohim planted ויטע a garden in Eden before the beginning (thus מקדם according to the Midrash) (Gen 2:8); and of ‘Gederah,’ for I have set the sand as the boundary גבול for the sea (Jer 5:22) (Gederah is interpreted according to גדירא ‘wall, fence’ = גבול); ‘they lived there with the king במלאכתו,’ that is, the souls of the righteous dwelled with the King of all kings, praise be he!, for God consulted with them and (then) he created the world. (The Midrash has interpreted במלאכתו with בְּמִלְכְּתוֹ ‘in his council’).”—The same is said anonymously in Midr. Ruth 2 (126A).—In another saying, however, R. Levi rejected any idea of God consulting with others in the creation of the world. He says in Gen. Rab. 8 (6C): לית הכא מלכו “There was no council”; but as the attached parable shows, he only wanted to reject the idea that council somehow influenced God’s decisions. ‖ Tanḥuma יתרו 89A: God spoke all these words and said, “I am Yahweh” (Exod 20:1f.). R. Isaac said, “Whatever the prophets are to prophecy at one time or another, they have all received from Mount Sinai. From where is this proven? Because in Deut 29:14 it is written, ‘With him who stands עומד with us today before Yahweh our God’; see, whoever was already created was there, that is whoever was in the world. ‘And with him who is not with us today,’ that is the one who should one day be created. It does not mean here ‘who does not stand here with us today,’ but ‘who is not here with us today’; by this, we mean the souls which are to be created (i.e., incorporated) someday, of whom it cannot be said’standing.’ For they also belonged to the total number (of those present there). Likewise, it is said in Mal 1:1, ‘The oracle, word of Yahweh in the hand (ביד is understood literally by the Midrash) of Malachi.’ It is not said ‘to’ אל Malachi, but ‘in the hand’ of Malachi. This is to teach that the prophecy has already been in his hand from Mount Sinai. Likewise, Isaiah (48:16) says, ‘Come to me, hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, from the time when it (became the Torah [according to the Midrash]) I was there, and now Yahweh-Elohim (according to the Midrash) has sent me and his spirit has sent me.’ Isaiah means, ‘Since the hour when the Torah was given, I have received this prophecy; this is what the words say, “From the time it became the Torah, I was there.” But “now Yahweh-Elohim has sent me and his spirit.” For until now, I had not been given permission to prophesy. And not only the prophets alone (were at Sinai), but also all the scholars who were and will be, for it says, “These words Yahweh spoke to all your congregation” (Deut 5:19).’ ”—The same is said in Exod. Rab. 28 (88C). ‖ Leviticus Rabbah 4 (107B): R. Levi and R. Isaac have said, “Two things rest in the right hand and two things rest in the left hand (of God). The two things in his right hand are the Torah and righteousness. From where is it said that the Torah is in his right hand? ‘From his right hand came the fire of the law’ (Midr. Deut. 33:2). From where is it said righteousness is in his right hand? ‘Your right hand is full of righteousness’ (Ps 48:11). The two things in his left hand are the soul and justice. On the soul, see Job 12:10, ‘In whose (left) hand281 is the soul of all living things.’ On justice, see Deut 32:41, ‘And my (left) hand takes hold of judgement.’ ” The soul that was in the place of the right hand (i.e., in heaven before its incorporation) and which goes out from the place of the right hand, does it sin?—There are various deviations in the parallel passages at Tanḥ. ויקרא 134A and TanḥB ויקרא § 11 (4A). ‖ Tanḥuma פקודי 127A: R. Yohanan († 279; according to the note above, the name is pseudepigraphic) has said, “What does ‘Who does great things beyond fathom, who does wonders that cannot be numbered’ (Job 9:10) mean?282 You must know that all souls נשמות, which have been from the first man to the end of the whole world, have all been created in the six days of creation; and all are in the garden of Eden, and all were present when the Torah was given (see Deut 29:14 [as above]). And what does ‘the great things beyond fathom’ mean? These are the great things that God does in the formation of the child. In the hour when a man attends283 to his wife, God gives the angel whose charge is conception and whose name is Layela (= the angel of the night) a signal and says to him, ‘Know that this night a man is formed from the seed of so-and-so. Know that and be careful with this drop טִיפָּה and take it in your hand and scatter it on the threshing floor into 365 parts.’ And he does so. Immediately, he takes it into his hand, and he brings it before the one who spoke and the world was, and says before him, ‘I have done all that you have commanded me. What will be decided now about this drop?’ Immediately, God decides about the drop, what it will finally become, whether it will be a man or a woman, a weakling or a hero, poor or rich, short or tall, ugly or beautiful, fat or thin, despised or honored. And so he decides on all this person’s destinies, but not on whether he should become righteous or wicked. He places this alone in the hand of the man (see Deut 30:15).284 Soon, God gives a signal to the angel who is set above the spirits (רוחות, here the same as’souls’) and says to him, ‘Bring me such-and-such spirit (= soul), which is in the garden of Eden and whose name is so-and-so and whose appearance is such-and-such.’ For all spirits that are to be created (i.e., incorporated) are all created (present). From the day he created the world, until the end of the world, they are destined for the (respective) people; as it is said in Eccl 6:10, ‘Whatever has happened, it has already been named.’ Immediately the angel goes and fetches the spirit from before God. And when the spirit comes, it immediately bends its knees and prostrates itself before the King of all kings, the Holy One blessed be he! In that hour, God says to the spirit, ‘Enter into this drop, in the hand of so-and-so.’ Then the spirit opens its mouth and says before him, ‘Lord of the world, the world I have lived in since the day you created me is enough for me. Why would you let me enter into this stinking (decomposable) drop? For I am holy and pure. Am I to be excluded from the part in your glory?’ Immediately God says to the soul נשמה, ‘The world in which I let you enter will be more beautiful for you than that in which you have lived (up until now), and in the hour I formed you, I formed you only for this drop.’ Immediately God lets it enter into the drop against its will. Then the angel returns (to earth) and lets the spirit enter into its mother’s womb. And two angels are appointed to guard him so that he does not go out from there or fall out (as a miscarriage). And one lets him enter there with a kindled light above his head (see Job 29:2f.) (It then follows that the angel later leads the soul through the whole world and shows it everything, the garden of Eden and gehenna and the place of its death and its grave, etc. Then the text continues.) Finally the time has come for the child to come out into the light of the world. Immediately that angel comes and says to him in that hour, ‘Your time has come to go out into the light of the world!’ And he answers the angel, ‘Why do you want me to come out into the light of the world?’ The angel answers, ‘My child, know that you were formed against your will, and now know that you will be born against your will, and against your will you will die, and against your will you will one day have to give an account to the King of kings.’285 But the child will not go out from there until the angel strikes him and extinguishes the light that is lit over his head.… Immediately the child forgets all that he has seen at his exit and all that he knows.”286 According to Weber,287 Rab (†247) also belongs among the Babylonian scholars who represent the idea of pre-existence, namely because of b. Men. 29B: When Moses (at the giving of the law) ascended to the top, he met God as he was sitting and attaching crowns to the letters (of the Torah). He said to God, “Lord of the world, who would deny your hand (to give the Torah even without these crowns)?” God said to Moses, “There will be a man who will live toward the end of many generations, and Aqiba b. Joseph († ca. 135) will be his name. He will lecture on the basis of his research on every tick288 heaps of halakhot.” And Moses said to God, “Lord of the world, show him to me!” God answered him, “Turn around.” He went and sat down at the end of eight rows. (Aqiba and his generation belonged to a later time.) But he did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength weakened. (He began to despair because he could not grasp the erudition they presented.) But when they came to a word, his disciples said to Aqiba, “Rabbi, what Scripture did you say that was based upon?” He answered them, “This is a halakah of Moses from Sinai.” Then Moses’ mind became calm (for he recognized from Aqiba’s answer that the later times respected his authority). He returned again before God and said to him, “Lord of the world, you have a man like this one, and you wish to give the Torah through me? (Wouldn’t that man be more suitable?)” God said to him, “Silence! That is how I have conceived it.” And Moses said to him, “Lord of the world, you have made me see his knowledge of the Torah. Now let me see his reward.” God said to him, “Go back.” He turned around again. He saw that his flesh was weighed like in a meat shop (his body was chopped into pieces). Moses said to God, “Lord of the world, with such knowledge of the Torah and this is his reward?” He said to him, “Silence! That is how I have conceived it.”—Weber comments, “In b. Men. 29B, Moses sees the soul of R. Aqiba sitting in the Oṣar.…” If these words stood in the passage of the Talmud, then they would undoubtedly be a testimony to the preexistence of souls. Only the passage does not mention the “soul” of R. Aqiba, nor even the “Oṣar.” We do not know of any place where people talk about the אוֹצָר (the treasure house, storage chamber) of pre-existent souls. Where the Oṣar for the souls289 is mentioned, it is regularly about the souls of the deceased; see § Luke 23:43, #3, E. To understand Rab’s saying, one must interpret it in light of R. Simon b. Laqish (ca. 250) in b. Sanh. 38B and b. ʿAbod. Zar. 5A: “What does the Scripture ‘This is the book of the generation of Adam’ (Gen 5:1) teach? It teaches that God showed Adam every single generation and its scribes, every single generation and its scholars. When he came to the generation of R. Aqiba, Adam rejoiced at his knowledge of the Torah and grieved at his death and said, ‘How dear are your friends (so the Midrash) to me, O God! (Ps 139:17).’ ”—Both statements wish to express the thought that Aqiba, despite his tragic end, had been chosen by God from eternity to become the great teacher of the Torah whom posterity thereafter glorified. R. Simon b. Laqish speaks of Adam having this knowledge on the basis of an insight into the book of the generation of Adam, in which all the events on earth are recorded from the beginning,290 and Rab has Moses gain this knowledge by virtue of a prophetic vision, in which he sees Aqiba in his teaching house and in his suffering in the slaughterhouse. But the wording of poetic constructions should not be pressed in order to derive specific doctrines from them. Therefore, we cannot see in b. Men. 29B any evidence that Rab represented the idea of the preexistence of souls, especially since we have no other articulation of the doctrine from Rab.
The preexistence of human souls is spoken of anonymously in b. Ḥag. 12B, namely in the later additions to the statement by R. Meir (ca. 150) about the seven heavens (see b. Ḥag. 12B at § Luke 23:42, #3, B and at § 2 Cor 12:2). Here, there is a note about the seventh heaven, which is called Araboth: In it are righteousness, justice, and mercy, the treasures of life, the treasures of peace, and the treasures of blessing, the souls of the (deceased) righteous and the spirits רוחות and souls נשמות which will be created (i.e., incorporated) one day.… Isaiah 57:16 is used as supporting evidence for the pre-existence of souls; see #5 on this. ‖ The preexistence of human souls is associated with the Fravashi in b. Šabb. 145B: When the snake attended Eve, it threw dirt291 in her. Because the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai, the “dirt” ceased having an effect; with the non-Israelites, however, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, the “dirt” did not cease having an effect. Rab Aha b. Raba († 419) said to Rab Ashi († 427), “What is the situation (in this respect) with the proselytes?” He answered him, “Although they were not present, their genius292 was still present, as it is said in Deut 29:14, ‘With the one who stands here with us before Yahweh our God today, and with the one who is not here with us today.’ ” (See above at the discussion involving R. Samuel b. Nahman and R. Isaac on Deut 29:14). ‖ Babylonian Talmud Megillah 3A: “And I alone, Daniel, saw this vision, and the men with me did not see the vision, but a great terror fell upon them, and they fled into hiding” (Dan 10:7). Why were they frightened if they saw nothing? Although they saw nothing, their genius מזליהו saw something. Rabina (I, † 499; II, † 499) said, “It can be learned from there that if anyone is frightened, even though he saw nothing, his genius מזליה has seen something. What is the remedy? He should recite the Shema, or if he is in a place of impurity (where he is not allowed to speak the Shema), he should move four cubits away from this place. If that is not possible, he is to say, ‘The goat at the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am’ ”—The same is said in b. Sanh. 94A.2.
4. The pre-existence of the Messiah’s soul is mentioned:
Genesis Rabbah 85 (54B): “At that time, Judah departed from his brothers …” (Gen 38:1). R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260) opened his lecture with Jer 29:11: “ ‘I know my thoughts.’ The fathers of the tribes (Gen 38:1) were busy selling Joseph; Joseph was busy with his sackcloth and fasting (out of mourning); Reuben was busy with his sackcloth and fasting; Jacob was busy with his sackcloth and fasting; Judah was busy taking a wife, but God was busy creating the light (the soul) of the king, the Messiah” (to incorporate it, namely by laying the foundation for the lineage through Judah (Gen 38), which would finally lead to the incorporation of the soul of the Messiah).—This is followed by the following anonymous saying: “Before she conceived, she went into labor, she gave birth” (Isa 66:7). Before the first tyrant (pharaoh) was born, the last redeemer (the Messiah) was born נולד” (namely virtually in his progenitor Perez in Gen 38). The statement says approximately the same as the claim of R. Samuel b. Nahman.—The expression אורו של משיח “light of the Messiah” usually refers to the light that the Messiah will let shine on the righteous in the future and that is usually identified as the primordial light (Gen 1:3); see Pesiq. Rab. 36 § # 6. That R. Samuel b. Nahman uses the term to describe the soul of the Messiah perhaps has its reason in the fact that pre-existent human souls were thought of as figures of light. But for the explanation of the expression, Prov 20:27 is also sufficient: “A lamp נר of Yahweh is the soul of man.” See, for example, Midr. Ps. 17 § 8 (66A): R. Eleazar Haqqappar (ca. 200) said, “God says to man, ‘May my lamp be in your hand and your lamp in my hand.’ On ‘My lamp in your hand,’ see Prov 6:23: ‘For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is a light.’ On ‘Your lamp in my hand,’ see Prov 20:27: ‘A lamp of Yahweh is the soul of man נשמת אדם.’ If you keep mine, I will keep yours.”—אורו של אדם in the sense of “soul of man,” see also ͗Abot R. Nat. 31 (8B), where humans are introduced as a microcosm with the words, “God formed everything in humans that he created in his world.” In this construction then, it means, “He created a sun in the world, a sun in people: that is the light (= the soul) of humans.”—See also Matt § 6:23.
5. In connection with the pre-existence of human souls, the Messiah is called:
Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 62A: R. Asi (ca. 300) said, “The son of David (= Messiah) does not come until all souls in the גּוּף 293 have come to an end יכלו,” see Isa 57:16.—Parallel passages are in b. Yebam. 63B; ʿAbod. Zar. 5A; b. Nid. 13B; in the last two passages, R. “Yose” = R. “Asi.”—In the written Palestinian works, the opinion of R. Asi is given to R. Tanḥum b. Hiyya (ca. 300) or a larger circle of scholars. Genesis Rabbah 24 (16A): R. Tanḥum b. Hiyya has said, others have said it in the name of the rabbis, “The king, the Messiah, will not come until all the souls נשמות have been created, which have come into the mind (of God) to be created); these are the souls which are named in the book of Adam.”294—Parallel passages can be found in Lev. Rab. 15 (115C); Midr. Eccl. 1:6 (7A), which has the incorrect author attribution.—The Palestinian and Babylonian traditions agree on the main thing; the difference lies in the fact that one assumes an ideal and the other a real pre-existence of souls.—Just as clear as the saying of R. Asi is in its sense, so also is the view of the quotation of Isa 57:16. Our interpretation is provided at § Matt 11:12, toward the end. Rashi on b. Nid. 13B finds in the words of Isa 57:16a, “I will not quarrel forever …” the assurance that redemption and the redeemer Messiah will at last come. Verse 16b then gives the reason for the delay, “for the spirits before me, that is, the souls that I have created, hold back redemption, namely to the extent that they must all first pass into human bodies before the messianic time can dawn.”—The Tosafists on ʿAbod. Zar. 5A כי understand “Spirit before me” on the basis of Lam 4:20 as a reference to the Messiah and interpret verse 16b as follows: For the Messiah hesitates with his coming because of the souls that I have created, that is, because they must first be incorporated before the appearance of the Messiah.—Bacher has, “For I will not quarrel forever, nor be angry forever, for the spirit (the Messiah) will only linger until I have created all souls.”295—All these explanations take עטף in the sense of “to hold back, hesitate,” which otherwise cannot be proven (not even by Gen 30:42).—In addition to the pre-existent human souls, R. Asi’s statement also conceives of the Messiah as a pre-existent soul. But the opinion can also be that he is with God as a departed or raptured person, in order to return in due time from the hereafter as the Messiah of his people.
6. A portrait of the Messiah that has its basis on the pre-existence of souls.
In the Midrashic work Pesiqta Rabbati, chapters 34–39 form a whole work in itself, a work that originates from the beginning of the 10th century. Here, a Messiah is described, whose history begins at the same time as the history of the world. Like the souls of all human beings, his soul is called into existence at the beginning of creation and has been with God in heaven ever since then. In the divine plan for the world, suffering is set out for him for Israel’s salvation. He declares himself willing to take upon himself every need only if it saves the whole of Israel. The battle that awaits him on earth also casts its dark shadows into the upper world. Heavenly powers under Satan’s leadership plan to destroy him already in the hereafter. God protects him. In the meantime, the sins of his people on earth have become great so that for their sake his appearance as Messiah is delayed. When the time finally comes, he enters into earthly existence, like all other human souls, by way of human birth. His enemies bring suffering upon him without number; he endures it patiently, thus atoning for Israel’s sins and enabling his people to receive all the blessings of the messianic time. He himself is given an unspeakable reward.—Here, we give the part of the Midrash that refers to the heavenly period of the Messiah; for the remaining pieces which come from Pesiq. Rab. 34–37, see § Luke 24:26 I, #4, notes i–o.
Pesiqta Rabbati 36 (161A): What does Ps 36:10, “In your light we see the light” mean? What is the light that the congregation of Israel will see? This is the light of the Messiah אורו של משיח;296 see Gen 1:4, “And God saw that the light was good.” This teaches that God looked at the Messiah and his works before the world was created, and hid it for the Messiah (hence the term “light of the Messiah”) and his generation under the throne of his glory.297 Then Satan said to God, “Lord of the world, for whom is the light hidden under the throne of your glory?” He said to him, “For him who will come and shame you before your face.” He said to him, “Lord of the world, show him to me.” He said to him, “Come and see him.” When he saw him, he was astonished, and fell on his face, and said, “Truly, this is the Messiah who will one day plunge me and all the princes of the nations of the world into gehenna.” As it is said in Isa 25:8, “He will devour death forever, and Yahweh Elohim will wipe away the tears from every face.” In that hour, the nations (the pre-existent souls of the gentiles with their princes) flocked together and said, “Lord of the world, who is he in whose hand we will fall? What is his name, what is his purpose?” God answered them, “This is the Messiah, and his name is Ephraim,298 my righteous Messiah.” And he will exalt his form and the form of his generation and enlighten the eyes of Israel and create salvation for his people (מושיע עמו = redeem his people), and no people or language will be able to resist him; see Ps 89:23, “No enemy or wicked man will cajole him and no wicked one will oppress him. And all his enemies and his insurgents will flee”; see Ps 89:24, “I will smite his insurgents before him.” Even the rivers will cease in the sea; see Ps 89:26, “I will lay his hand upon the sea, and his right hand upon the rivers.” Then God began to make an agreement with him, saying, “The sins of these (Israelites), which are hidden with you, will bring you into an iron yoke, and will make you like this calf whose eyes are dark, and will smother your breath in the yoke, and because of the sins of these ones, your tongue will stick to your palate. Do you agree with this?” The Messiah answered before God, “Does that misery last for many years?” God answered him, “In your life and in the life of my chief, it is one week of years that I have decided for you. But if your soul is grieved about it, I will drive it out from now on (= immediately).” And he said before him, “Lord of the world, with the gladness of my soul, and with the joy of my heart, I take it upon myself on the condition that none of Israel will perish. And not only are the living to be saved in my days, but also those who are hidden in the dust. And not only the dead in my days will experience salvation, but also those who have died since the time of the first man to the present (my time). And not these alone, but also those who were miscarried will experience salvation in my days. And not these only will experience salvation, but all who have come into your mind to be created. Under this condition, I agreed to take it upon myself.” In that hour, God appointed four living beings (hayyoth) for him, who bear the throne of the glory of the Messiah. In that hour, his enemies and the princes of the world empires spoke, “Come, let us make enemies with (sue) the race of the Messiah, that they may never be created (incorporated).” God answered them, “How will you make enemies with this generation, which is so loved and beautiful, and in which I rejoice, and in which I take pleasure, and which I support, and in which I have good will? As it says in Isa 42:1, ‘Behold, my servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom my soul takes pleasure.…’ How will you make enemies with him? Behold, I will destroy you all, ‘arsonists, girded with flaming arrows’ (cf. Isa 50:11).”
D. The supposedly identical Messiah of R. Simeon b. Laqish (ca. 250) with the spirit of God is in Gen. Rab. 2.
A particular interpretation has been offered in Gen. Rab. 2 (3B): R. Simeon b. Laqish (ca. 250) interpreted Gen 1:2, “The earth was tohu and bohu, and darkness was above the deep, and the spirit of God hovered above the waters” as a reference to world empires. The earth was “tohu,” meaning the kingdom of Babel; see Jer 4:23, “I have seen the land and behold, it was tohu (the desolation was Babel’s work, therefore tohu in Gen 1:2 is an allusion to Babel).” With bohu, the meaning is the kingdom of the Medes; see Esther 6:14, “They quickly took Haman (ויבהילו) away.” (Haman, the representative of the Medes, is the object of ויבהילו להביא; but the derivative of ויבהילו, namely בֶּהָלָה means as much as בֹּהוּ. Therefore, “bohu” [Gen 1:2] is an allusion to the Medes.) “Darkness,” that refers to the kingdom of Javan (= Greece), because it darkened the eyes of Israel through its edicts by saying to them, “Write on the ox’s horn קרן הַשּׁוֹר, that you have no part in the God of Israel.”299 On the “depth,” that means the wicked kingdom (= Roman), because it is immeasurable like the primordial depth. As the primordial depth is immeasurable, so also the sinners. And the “spirit of God” floated, that means the king, the Messiah, as it is said in Isa 11:2, “The spirit of Yahweh rests upon him.” By virtue of what merit does he gradually come to float above the waters? By the merit of repentance (of Israel), which is compared with water; see Lam 2:19, “Pour out your heart (in repentance) like water.”300—The previous explanation was given by R. Simeon b. Laqish. Several scholars301 have expressed the opinion that this passage identifies the Messiah with the spirit of God. In this case, however, R. Simeon b. Laqish would have ascribed to the Messiah a pre-existence, distinguishing him from all other human beings, which would easily put it closer to the idea of the Johannine Logos. But have those scholars truly and correctly struck upon the opinion of R. Simeon b. Laqish? The four mysterious powers of the primeval times—the tohu, the bohu, the darkness and the tehom (depths), and the spirit of God giving them light, life, and blessings—are transformed in the poetic imagination of R. Simeon b. Laqish into a wide-ranging allegorical picture that prophesies the development of world history and its ultimate goal. In those four dark, ominous dimensions, he sees the prototype of the four great world empires, which mercilessly cast everything under their spell until the Messiah appears above the waters of Israel’s penitential tears, who at the end of the present eon will be for mankind what the spirit of God was for the chaos of creation at the beginning, namely the source of life and blessing. The whole is therefore an allegory, and therefore one must also leave the allegorical character of the individual. Just as one would not impute to R. Simeon b. Laqish the opinion that, for example, the Roman Empire was present in the creation in the form of the tehom, one has just as little right to subordinate to it the other opinion that, at that time, the Messiah appeared as a divine spirit over the primeval waters. Such allegories are encountered en mass in ancient Jewish literature. As an example, we will use TanḥB תרומה § 6 (46A): “This is the contribution that you are to raise from them: gold, silver, brass, … red ram skins … oil for the candlestick” (Exod 25:3–6). “Gold,” which corresponds to the kingdom of Babylon; see Dan 2:38, “You (Nebuchadnezzar) are the head of gold.” “Silver,” meaning the realm of Media; see Esther 3:9, “Ten thousand talents of silver I (Haman, the representative of Media) will weigh out.” “Ore,” that is, the kingdom of Javan (Greece), for it was the least of all (the rich). “Red ram skins,” this is the kingdom of Edom (= Rome); see Gen 25:25, “The first (Esau = Edom = Rome) came out red.” God said, “Even if you (Israel) see these four kingdoms rise above you, in your lifetime, I will let a sprout arise for you to help you out of bondage!” What is written afterward? “Oil for the candlestick.” What is this “oil”? This is the king, the Messiah; see Ps 132:17, “There I will make David sprout a horn, I have prepared a lamp for my Messiah.”—Who would like to claim that the author of this construction called the Messiah “oil” or even identified him with oil? From the expression “lamp for the Messiah” (Ps 132: 17), he has made a connection with the “oil” in Exod 25:6 and seen in it an allegorical reference to the Messianic king. In exactly the same way, the spirit-endowed Messiah of Isa 11:1 prompted R. Simeon b. Laqish to use the expression “spirit of God” in Gen 1:2 to allegorically speak of the Messiah. Nothing can be inferred from this passage about the nature of the Messiah and his presence at the time of creation; according to the sense of R. Simeon b. Laqish, the “spirit of God” in Gen 1:2 is an allegorical reference to the Messiah, but not the Messiah himself.
Moreover, we have another interpretation of R. Simeon b. Laqish on Gen 1:2, which clearly shows not what he understood by the “spirit of God” in an allegorical sense, but rather in the actual sense. TanḥumaB תזריע § 2 (16B): R. Simeon b. Laqish said (with reference to the words “after and before you have formed me” [Ps 139:5]), “ ‘After,’ that is, after the work of the sixth day of creation, and ‘before,’ that is, before the work of the first day of creation.” Why? Because R. Simeon b. Laqish has said, “ ‘The spirit of God hovered over the water’ (Gen 1:2), that is the soul of the first man (Adam). For this reason, it says, ‘After and before you have formed me,’ after the work of the 6th day (namely after the body) and before the work of the 1st day (namely after the soul).”—The same is said in TanḥB תזריע 153A and Midr. Ps. 139 § 5 (265A).—However, the two oldest sources Gen. Rab. 8 (6A) and Lev. Rab. 14 (115A) record R. Simeon b. Laqish saying with reference to the spirit of God in Gen 1:2, “This is the spirit of the king, the Messiah.” Genesis Rabbah also includes the addition of evidence from Isa 11:2. But the present reading in Genesis Rabbah is not correct. Yalquṭ on Ps 139:5 (Yalquṭ 2:887) contains the passage from Gen. Rab. 8 with the original, correct reading: “This is the spirit of the first man.” Furthermore, almost all of rabbinic Judaism agrees that the 130th Psalm is a Psalm about Adam. Therefore, in many places, individual verses of this Psalm have been explicitly put into the mouth of Adam.302 R. Simeon b. Laqish also did the same. When God showed Adam Aqiba’s erudition and death, R. Simeon b. Laqish writes, “Adam spoke to God with the words of Ps 139:17, ‘How dear are your friends to me, O God’!” (see b. Sanh. 38B above at C, #3, toward the end). So it is unlikely that R. Simeon b. Laqish would have made a claim about the Messiah on the basis of Ps 139:5. Indeed, in the mouth of the Messiah, this verse would have been almost meaningless. Adam could probably say, “Afterward,” that is, after the work of the sixth day you formed me. But what would these words mean in the mouth of the Messiah? Perhaps that the body of the Messiah was created on the sixth day of creation? Therefore, there exist both internal and external reasons for why the present text of Gen. Rab. 8 appears to be incorrect. Probably a copyist, who still had the allegorical interpretation of the spirit of God as the Messiah in his memory from parashah 2 and felt called to change parashah 8 and Lev. Rab. 14 accordingly. In any case, we have the correct reading in TanḥB חזריע § 2 and the parallel passages mentioned above before us. So the position will have to remain that, under the spirit of God in Gen 1:2, R. Simeon b. Laqish understood it as the soul of Adam created before the world. But this was no obstacle for him—in light of the fact that he allegorically interpreted Gen 1:2 to the four kingdoms—to see in the spirit of God, who hovered over the waters, a reference to the Messiah. An identification of the Messiah with the eternal spirit of God was completely remote from him. With this conclusion, however, R. Simeon b. Laqish’s Messiah, allegorically interpreted in light of the “spirit of God” in Gen 1:2, ceases to form a parallel with John’s Logos.
We have listed above the older rabbinic passages that give information about the nature of the Messiah’s personality, as we hope, without gaps. Apart from the passages in which a deceased person or a person temporarily caught up in hiding is expected to be the Messiah, the remaining passages exhibit a threefold pre-existence of the Messiah:
a. his ideal pre-existence in the world of God’s thought;
b. his virtual pre-existence in his ancestor Perez, see Gen. Rab. 85 at C, #4;
c. the real pre-existence of his soul.
None of these ideas of pre-existence are attributed to the Messiah in order to elevate him by his nature beyond the nature of other human beings. For the same ideas of pre-existence could also be suitable for all other human beings in the sense with which the authors concerned are writing. And this is precisely the reason for the fundamental difference between the rabbinic and the New Testament doctrine of the person of the Messiah. The pre-existence of the Logos-Messiah of the New Testament is such that it elevates him above all other human beings, for it is rooted in the divinity of his being, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1). Despite the numerous messianic figures created within the synagogue, it never allows its Messiah at any place to exceed the general measure given to humans. He remains for them ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (Just. Mart., Dial. 49). Therefore, it was not possible for it to attribute to him a pre-existence that would have distinguished him from other humans. The pre-existence of the New Testament Messiah is inextricably linked to his divine being. Because the ancient synagogue knew nothing of a Messiah who had a divine nature, it consequently did not know of a pre-existent Messiah in the manner of the Johannine Logos.

264 S-B: Cf. Christian Schöttgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (Leipzig: Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1742), 2:369ff.; Leonhard Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque aetate (Erlangae: J.-J. Palm, 1811), §§ 20–27; Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 2:292–298; August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1853), XXIV and 160; Edersheim, Life and Times, 1:171–179; Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed. (Freiburg: Mohr, 1897), 1:98f., 755ff.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2:616f.; Wilhelm Schmidt, Der alte Glaube und die Wahrheit des Christentums (Berlin: Wiegandt & Grieben, 1891), 141f., 145f., 163f.; Wilhelm Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit (Strassburg: Heitz, 1892), 85; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1:107, 247; Eugen Hühn, Die messianischen Weissagungen des israelitisch-jüdischen Volkes bis zu den Targumim: Historisch-kritisch untersucht und erläutert nebst Erörterung der alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiszenzen im Neuen Testamente (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 89, 129f.; E. Kautzsch, ed., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1900), 1:at 1 En. 39:6; 48:6; Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 1:at 4 Ezra 14:9; Zimmern, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903), 377ff.; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 248ff.; Paul Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen: Mohr, 1903), 216ff.—Drummond denies that the ancient synagogue had known of a pre-existent Messiah, but can only hold to this claim by declaring the relevant passages in the book of Enoch to be Christian interpolations (The Jewish Messiah: A Critical History of the Messianic Idea among the Jews from the Rise of the Maccabees to the Closing of the Talmud [London: Longmnas, 1877], 49–73, 290–295).

265 Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 160; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2:617; Hühn, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 89; E. Kautzsch, ed., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1900), 2:264; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 249.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

266 A. F. Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandrische Theosophie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1831), 2:16; Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 2:295f. Cf. Edersheim, Life and Times, 1:172; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 250f.

267 Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2:617; Hühn, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 89; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1:107; Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 1:at 1 En. 39:6; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 249.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

268 Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2:618; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1:107; Hühn, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 108.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

269 Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandrische Theosophie, 2:16; Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 2:295; Edersheim, Life and Times, 1:172.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Pesaḥ. Pesaḥim

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ned. Nedarim

Midr. Prov. Midrash on the Proverbs: Vilnius 1893 (Buber).

Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer: Prague 1784.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. ben (“son of”)

270 S-B: On the surname פזי, see Bacher, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 2:438. The family probably descended from a daughter of R. Hiyya, the Elder (ca. 200), called Pazzi; hence her name.

y. Jerusalem Talmud: Krakau 1609

ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAbodah Zarah

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ber. Berakot

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ber. Berakot

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

271 Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 2:362B.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

B. Meṣ. Baba Meṣiʿa

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

272 See p. 386, fn. 259.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

y. Jerusalem Talmud: Krakau 1609

Ber. Berakot

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

Midr. Ps. Midrash on the Psalms: Vilnius 1891 (Buber).

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ber. Berakot

y. Jerusalem Talmud: Krakau 1609

Ber. Berakot

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

273 S-B: The word נְחִילָה = “inheritance” is missing from Levy; Dalman however has it.

274 S-B: The Midrash in the citation reads גם instead of אף.

Midr. Sam. Midrash on Samuel: Kraków 1893 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

Midr. Song Midrash on the Megillot (Song of Songs): Lviv 1861.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

y. Jerusalem Talmud: Krakau 1609

Ber. Berakot

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Lev. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Tanḥ. Tanḥuma: Vienna 1863.

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

Num. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Meg. Megillah

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

Midr. Ps. Midrash on the Psalms: Vilnius 1891 (Buber).

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

Tanḥ. Tanḥuma: Vienna 1863.

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

275 On Philo, Carl Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten Testaments: An sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betracht (Jena: Dufft, 1875), 242. See further Wis 8:20; 9:15.

276 See Adolf Schlatter, Das neu gefundene hebräische Stück des Sirach: Der Glossator des griechischen Sirach und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der jüdischen Theologie (Gütersloh: Der Rufer, 1897), 180–186.

277 Johann Christian Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (Hamburg and Leipzig: Liebezeit, 1713), 1:761ff.; cf. also Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 3:359f.

278 Christian Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, 1:764.

Tanḥ. Tanḥuma: Vienna 1863.

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

279 Namely the places of retribution (see 49:2).

Midr. Ps. Midrash on the Psalms: Vilnius 1891 (Buber).

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

280 S-B: The depiction in Weber gives the impression that rabbinic Judaism consistently confessed the pre-existence of human souls (Jüdische Theologie, 212, 225ff.). That is not correct. Although rabbinic anthropology rests on a creative basis (see the baraita in b. Nid. 31A), the pre-existence of souls was not in mind. Weber has been misled by Tanḥ. פקודי 127A. The broadly constructed piece describes the education of the child in the mother’s womb and presents itself as a statement by R. Yohanan († 279). The name of this rabbinic authority seems to have prompted Weber to regard the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls presented in the piece as the generally accepted opinion of rabbinic Judaism as a whole. In fact, even though some parts are borrowed from older written works, the piece belongs to a later period. Above all, however, R. Yohanan was not a representative of the thought of pre-existence, as b. Men. 99B demonstrates: R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar (ca. 270) both have said, “The Torah was given in 40 days, and the soul נשמה will be made in 40 days (in the womb). Whoever keeps his teaching תורתו, his soul will be kept (by God); but whoever does not keep his teaching, his soul will not be kept.” It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael († ca. 135), “Like a man who gave a fast flying bird to his slave. He said to him, ‘Do you think if you lose it that I will accept a carrion from you as the value of its replacement? I will take your soul from you!’ ”

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

Exod. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

281 S-B: According to Mek. Exod. 13:9 (25B); SDeut 6:8 § 35 (75A); and b. Men. 36B, the mere use of יד indicates the left hand.

Tanḥ. Tanḥuma: Vienna 1863.

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

282 S-B: R. Yohanan in b. Ta’an. 2A provides an entirely different interpretation.

283 TN: The context indicates that what is intended here is sexual intercourse.

284 S-B: This version is borrowed from b. Nid. 16B.

285 S-B: These words are borrowed from the end of m. Abot 4.22.

286 S-B: The last causes have been supplied from b. Nid. 30B; cf. also TanḥB תזריע § 2 (17A).

287 Weber, Jüdische Theologie, 212.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

b. ben (“son of”)

288 S-B: Crowns כְּתָרִים and ticks קוֹץ are the decorative dashes on the tops of the Hebrew letters; see § Matt 5:18 B, #3.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

289 S-B: אוצרות של נפשות have an entirely different meaning which is mentioned in the claim of the king of Monobaz in t. Pe’ah 4.18 (see § Matt 6:19f., #1); in contrast to the treasures that consist of money, they denote treasures that consist of souls.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAbodah Zarah

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

290 S-B: Cf. § Luke 10:20, #3.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ḥag. Ḥagigah

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Ḥag. Ḥagigah

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Šabb. Šabbat

291 S-B: זוּהֲמָא “dirt”; this does not mean original sin, but the tendency toward perverse fornication of any kind. This is proved by the context in which this saying in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 22B is found. Here, by the way, R. Yohanan († 279) is mentioned as the same author; likewise in b. Yebam. 103B.

b. ben (“son of”)

292 S-B: מַזָ לָא, planet, skill, here genius = Fravashi. On the Fravashi, see Erik Stave, Über den Einfluß des Parsismus auf das Judentum (Haarlem: Bohn, 1898), 210. “Parsism sees in them in part the eternal prototypes which precede physical existence; in part a component of the human personality, and indeed its actual divine element that is united with the heavenly spiritual world after death.”

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

‖ a break in the preceding material, most often a transition between citations

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Midr. Ps. Midrash on the Psalms: Vilnius 1891 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

͗Abot R. Nat. Abot de Rabbi Nathan.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

293 S-B: גּוּף is understood as the space in which the pre-existent souls are stored until their incorporation; see Rashi’s comments on this passage. What the גּוּף is for the pre-existent souls, the אוֹצָר (see above at #3) is for the separated souls. Cf. the promptuaria in 2 Esdras 4:35, 41; 7:32, 80, 95, 101.—But one can also define גוּף according to its other sense “body.” Then “souls in the גוף” = “souls, that are intended for the body” or “that are to be incorporated.” We have therefore translated the parallel passage in b. Nid. 13B at § Matt 11:12 (toward the end) in this way.

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Yebam. Yebamot

ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAbodah Zarah

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

294 S-B: The thought that a certain number of people must first be born before the end comes is already found in 2 Bar 23:3–5: “(After Adam’s fall) the large number of those who were to be born was counted.… But now, the … number becomes full. Then the creature does not live (any longer).”—On the book of Adam, see also R. Simeon b. Laqish at #3 (b. Sanh. 38N and b. ʿAbod. Zar. 5A).

Lev. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAbodah Zarah

295 Bacher, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 2:173.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

Pesiq. Pesiqta: Lyck 1868 (Buber).

296 S-B: Cf. above at #4.

297 S-B: Babylonian Talmud 12A: R. Eleazar (ca. 270) said, “In the light that God created on the first day (Gen 1:3f.), Adam looked from one end of the world to the other. But when God saw the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion, and saw that their works were corrupted, he arose and hid the light from them; see Job 38:15, ‘Their light was taken from the wrong doers.’ And for whom did he hide it? For the righteous in the future; see Gen 1:4, ‘God saw that the light was good טוב’ and ‘good’ refers to the righteous; see Isa 3:10, ‘Tell the righteous that it will be well טוב with them.’ When the light saw that it was hidden for the righteous, it rejoiced; see Prov 13:19, ‘The light of the righteous rejoices.’ ” In the parallel passages, R. Judah b. Simon (ca. 320) is named as the author, and the garden of Eden is mentioned several times as a storage place of the primordial light, see Gen. Rab. 11 (8A); 12 (9A); 42 (26A); Exod. Rab. 35, at the beginning; Lev. Rab. 11 (113B); Num. Rab. 13 (169B); Midr. Esther 1:1 (82B); Midr. Ruth 1:2 (124B); Tanḥ. שמיני 151B; Pesiq. Rab. 23 (118A); as a baraita in Gen. Rab. 3 (3D); with stronger deviations in y. Ber. 8.12C.3; Gen. Rab. 3 (3D); Exod. Rab. 18 (81A); Midr. Ps. 27 § 1 (111A).

298 S-B: Ephraim, according to Jer 31:9, 20, is a nickname; the name has nothing to do with Messiah b. Ephraim = Messiah b. Joseph.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

299 S-B: The clause, “Writes on the horn of the ox …” occurs quite often in the rabbinic literature, for example, in Gen. Rab. 16 (11C); 44 (28A); Lev. Rab. 13 (114C); 15 (116A); it is slightly modified in Tanḥ. תזריע 157A: “Whoever has an ox should engrave in the horn of the ox that he does not have a part in the God of Israel.”—On the meaning of the clause, see Meg. Ta‘an. 2, toward the end: On the 27th of the same month (Iyar = April/May), the collectors of the money of the crown from Judah and Jerusalem were removed. At the time of Greek rule—so the sholion continues—they brought wreaths of roses and hung them up at the entrances to their idol temples and shops and farms, and they sang songs to their idols and wrote on the forehead of the ox and the donkey that their owners had no part in the God of Israel.… But when the hand of the Hasmoneans was strengthened, this was abolished, and the day of abolition (the 27th of Iyar) was turned into a feast day.—According to y. Ḥag. 2.77D.28, the former colleague of Hillel, the Menahem, and his followers, when they turned their backs on (Pharisaic) Judaism, were called according to the words, “Write on the ox’s horn that you have no share in the God of Israel.” According to this, the phrase is a public documentation of apostasy from Judaism.—Bacher mentions a view according to which the original version of the sentence, instead of “horn of the ox קרן הַשּׁוֹר” probably read “corner of the wall קרן הַשּׁוּר” (Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 1:390). He refers to the analogous passage in b. Sanh. 102B: R. Yohanan († 279) said, “King Ahab wrote on the gates of Samaria, ‘Ahab denied the God of Israel!’ ”

300 S-B: For an anonymous parallel passage with some deviations, see Pesiq. Rab. 33 (152B).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

301 Christian Schöttgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (Leipzig: Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1733), 1:488; Nork, 217; probably also Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 2:433; Edersheim, Life and Times, 1:178.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

Midr. Ps. Midrash on the Psalms: Vilnius 1891 (Buber).

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Lev. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

302 S-B: Midrash Psalm 139 § 2 (264B): R. Judah (b. Ilai, ca. 150) said, “This Psalm (Ps 139) was spoken by the first man.”—See also R. Eleazar b. Azariah (ca. 100) in Pesiq. Rab. 23 (115A); R. Nehemiah (ca. 150) in Gen. Rab. 15 (11A); R. Joshua b. Qarha (ca. 150) in ͗Abot R. Nat. 31; Bar Nezira, probably a later Tannaim, in y. Ber. 8.12B.31; Gen. Rab. 11 (8A); 12 (9A); 82 (53A); Midr. Ps. 92 § 4 (202B); Pesiq. Rab. 23 (118A); R. Bannaiah (ca. 220) in Gen. Rab. 8 (6A); 24 (15D); Rab († 247) in Midr. Ps. 139 § 5; b. Sanh. 38B; b. Ḥag. 12A; Samuel († 254) in Midr. Ps. 139 § 5; R. Yohanan († 279) in TanḥB תזריע § 2 (16B); R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260) in Gen. Rab. 8 (6A); TanḥB תזריע § 2; Lev. Rab. 14 (114D); Midr. Ps. 139 § 5; R. Eleazar b. Pedat (ca. 270) in Gen. Rab. 8 (6A); 24 (15D); Lev. Rab. 14 (115A); b. Sanh. 38B; b. Ḥag. 12A; R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar (ca. 270) in b. Ber. 61A; ʿErub. 18A; and others.

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

b. Babylonian Talmud: Amsterdam 1644ff.

Sanh. Sanhedrin

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Lev. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

TanḥB Tanḥuma: Vilnius 1885 (Buber).

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

R. Rabbi (“my great one”)

b. ben (“son of”)

Gen. Rab. Rabbah: Venice 1545

Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, ed. and trans. Jacob N. Cerone, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud & Midrash (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2022), 388–409.