This kind of nonsense makes me cringe. Some may attempt to justify this type of reading by labeling it a “theological reading” or a “Christian reading.” Maybe it is. But my response would be that if a “theological reading” or “Christian reading” is based on absolute historical nonsense then it is still nonsense. In my opinion, our theological and Christian readings should be informed and shaped by historical/critical readings, not in stark contradiction to them.
Bottom line: the speakers and authors of Targum Neofiti did not present a Triune picture of God and did not promote the idea of a Trinity. Those are the facts. A good theological and Christian reading will deal with those facts as they stand, not toss them to the side and proceed willy nilly.
25 August 2009 at 1.03 pm
What’s the correct reading of Targum Neofiti? I think I heard somewhere that the “us”, “our”, etc in Genesis is kind of like the royal “we” or had something to do with the belief in a heavenly court (maybe you can straighten me out on that point too), but what does that translation “the Firstborn God” mean? What were they getting at?
25 August 2009 at 1.12 pm
Wow…just to begin Targum Neofiti is probably 400-500 years younger than he suggests (ie, not 200 BCE but 250ish CE). But far more interesting is that I can’t manage to figure out how in the world he ends up with that translation. Any edition of Neofiti that I have on hand has בחכמה which would be “with wisdom.” As opposed to “by the Firstborn.”
25 August 2009 at 1.24 pm
@Chris Martin: Calvin is correct on both accounts. TgNeof is usually dated to the second century CE. The Aramaic phrase in question is מלקדמין בחכמה ברא ייי, which is usually translated as “From the beginning, with wisdom, YHWH created…” I think Driscoll is using the New Living Translation of TgNeof or something. It seems that whatever translation he is using is imputing the idea that Wisdom was the first thing that God creation. This is a theme found not only in some Biblical books (Prov 3.19, etc.), but also in extra-biblical sources as well. The “translation” Driscoll is using, then, interprets ‘wisdom’ as being the ‘firstborn’ (i.e., the first thing God created) and translates it as such. No idea why they decided to capitalize it…although I’m sure his goal was a big part of it.
As for the ‘we,’ most people do see it as (what they call) a ‘royal we’ which goes back to the ANE idea of there being a council of gods in the heavens. In this Israelite narrative YHWH would obviously be the high God (i.e., el elyon) and would be speaking on behalf of the council’s decision.
25 August 2009 at 2.13 pm
Art, It seems that Marks guru (Breshears) has been strongly influenced by Michael Shepherds article in JETS (Shepherd, Michael B. “Targums, the New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah.” JETS. 51:1 (2008), 45-58.) Note to self….Do your research before you speak, even if it comes from someone you respect!
25 August 2009 at 2.17 pm
Well said, art & Calvin.
I’d also point out that even if we didn’t have the divine council ane background, there isn’t necessarily any basis for say the plural ending requires a plural reference, any more than there’s significance for the referent of plural neuters with singular verbs or Russian feminine nouns that require masculine noun agreement on adjectives. Grammatical number in no way should be expected to always align with referent number. And as I understand it, Elohim, even though morphologically plural, is often (always?) treated as a syntactic singular – in fact as it is quite clearly in Genesis 1:1(!).
25 August 2009 at 2.21 pm
[...] a comment » Ark Boulet popped up in my google reader this morning with a video and comments on Discoll’s use of Targum Neofiti, which is pricariously uses to show that the Trinity is in [...]
25 August 2009 at 2.28 pm
See Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, p 66
26 August 2009 at 12.15 pm
@Bill Boulet: I read that article after we talked yesterday and I think you are write. If only Breshears would have seen how that article got slammed in the following issues of JETS!
@Mike Aubrey: You are correct that Elohim is often treated as a syntactic singular, it is not always treated as such. A famous example would be Ex 20.3: לֹֽ֣א יִהְיֶֽה־לְךָ֛֩ אֱלֹהִ֥֨ים אֲחֵרִ֖֜ים עַל־פָּנָֽ֗יַ. In this instance, elohim is a syntactical plural referring to other gods besides YHWH. There are many other instances of this in the OT (although sometimes the term for idol [תְּרָפִ֖ים] is translated as ‘gods’). The referent(s) is determined by the context.
@pduggie: That section of Kugel does not prove Driscoll’s point (which I’m unclear as to if you cited this because you thought it did) as Kugel points to Plato and how early Christians interpreted Gen 1.1 as displaying the Trinity. The only limb on which this interpretation has to stand is an emended reading of TgNeof (reading בר instead of ברא). Even the much later Genesis Rabbah has as its focus the creation of Torah (or ‘wisdom’) at the beginning of God’s creating acts.
26 August 2009 at 12.20 pm
I just did one of my term papers last semester on 2nd Temple messianic expectations, more specifically, whether Jews expected that the messiah would be divine or that YHWH was trinity.
What I find interesting about this debate is that both positions are argued with similar intent, on both sides. Some “conservative” scholars argue for 2TJ understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation in order to say, “See? Jesus was what Judaism predicted all along!” Some “liberal” scholars will use the same evidence to argue that Christian doctrine is purely derivative.
Other conservatives argue against incarnational and trinitarian expectations in 2TJ in order to support the uniqueness of NT revelation and explain why the Jews largely rejected Jesus. Liberals will variously argue that Paul’s trinitarian theology is a corruption of Judaism or a strange fusion of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy, ala Philo.
Art, you might find this equally infuriating:
26 August 2009 at 12.55 pm
@Benj: That made my head hurt. Spoken in Hebrew? The way he pronounces ‘logos.’ Logos meaning ‘written word of God’? ‘Immediately translated into Greek’? ‘BAR-reshiet’? ‘Elohim’ being plural? They don’t know what ‘et’ means?
Benj, you put me in a weird position. On the one hand I want to ban you indefinitely for posting that and giving me high blood pressure. On the other hand, I love you for it.
27 August 2009 at 6.54 am
Sorry ’bout that, Art–Your blood pressure must already be high enough anticipating your forthcoming nuptials. I relish any chance to share that video. Karyn T. showed it in one of our Hebrew classes a couple of years ago, and I got a kick out of it.
27 August 2009 at 10.56 am
For all the good that Driscoll is doing in advancing the kingdom he at times makes some critical errors. Unless I’m mistaken, he doesn’t have a seminary degree or biblical language study which is the likely reason he error in this way.
However, on a more theological level, the error is that Driscoll doesn’t seem to recognize that revelation is progressive. Its likely that Driscoll’s preparation was spent in systematic textbooks rather than biblical exegesis.
27 August 2009 at 11.13 am
steve,
According to Wiki he has a masters in “exegetical theology” from Western Seminary. Im not sure what good a degree gfrom Western is, or what their rigor and standard is. Incidentally another famous graduate of Western is Tim Lehay of “Left Behind” series fame, for whatever thats worth.
27 August 2009 at 11.23 am
Nick,
Thanks for clarifying. That of course makes things more embarrassing.
30 August 2009 at 6.37 pm
Art:
There are many other instances of this in the OT (although sometimes the term for idol [תְּרָפִ֖ים] is translated as ‘gods’). The referent(s) is determined by the context.
Sorry, let me clarify. I left too many thoughts in my head and not enough in the comment. The “Always?” was supposed to specifically refer *only* to places where the referent of Elohim is the God of Israel. Is that a possible “always” – that Elohim is always syntactically singular with reference to YHWH?
In either case (if it is or is not an “always”), it’s still highly dubious that with number agreement on both the verb & the noun in Genesis 1:1, Discoll only discusses the one that supports his theological agenda for the text.
30 August 2009 at 6.39 pm
Nick & Stephen:
http://www.westernseminary.edu/AcademicPrograms/PDX/programs_pdx_mabts.htm
There’s a good chunk of language credit, but that doesn’t really mean anything unless languages are maintained, which most pastors don’t.
11 September 2009 at 6.28 am
Mike Aubrey,
The translation and connotation of “Elohim” is found in http://www.netzarim.co.il ; click on Glossaries (main page)
Also,
A logical analysis of the historical documents and archaeology shows what the first century historical man Ribi Yehoshua from Nazareth taught and how to follow him.
It also shows the origin of trinity-doctrine, and much more.
Learn more in the above website.
27 November 2009 at 2.37 am
Совсем недавно попал на Ваш блог, теперь каждый день захожу глянуть, не написали ли чего новенького.
К сожалению только Вы не каждый день свой сайт обновляете 
27 November 2009 at 2.49 am
Apparently, the above (when fed into google translator) says this…
“Recently got to your blog, now every day I go to glance, I have not written anything new. Unfortunately only you every day your site updated.”
For those of us who don’t read languages in a Cyrillic Alphabet, such as Russian.