Source: “Border lines : The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity” By Daniel Boyarin, University of Pennsylvania Press. 2004
The Crucifixion of the Memra How the Logos Became Christian.wav
This podcast argues that rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity actively defined themselves in opposition to each other by designating certain shared theological ideas as heresy. Specifically, the author posits that the rabbinic rejection of the concept of a "Two Powers in Heaven" or a divine intermediary like the Logos, which was present in earlier Jewish thought, became a defining feature of rabbinic orthodoxy. Conversely, emerging Christian orthodoxy embraced the Logos concept while labeling the rejection of a separate divine person (Modalism) as "Judaizing." This process of mutual exclusion and branding of internal differences as external heresies helped to construct the distinct identities of both religions.
The Parallel and Divergence of Philo's Logos and Rabbinic Torah: The text highlights a significant parallel between Philo's concept of the Logos as the divine blueprint and instrument for creation and the rabbinic idea, expressed by Rabbi Hoshaya, that God looked into the Torah as a blueprint to create the world. Both conceptions involve a foundational entity used by God in creation. However, the source emphasizes a crucial difference: Philo locates this creative principle in the divine Logos, whereas the rabbinic tradition firmly identifies it with the Torah. This shift is presented as highly significant, indicating a departure in theological focus.
The Rabbinic Identification of Wisdom/Sophia Exclusively with Torah: A key rabbinic move discussed is the insistence that the hypostatized figure of Wisdom (Sophia), particularly as described in Proverbs 8, is identified solely with the Torah. This is framed by the maxim "Wisdom is nothing but Torah." This identification serves to channel all theological discussion about a potential divine mediator or secondary divine principle (a deuteros theos) towards Scripture itself, explicitly denying the existence of any such figure apart from the written law. This is seen as a development beyond earlier traditions that identified Wisdom with Torah, representing a more pointed denial of alternative mediators.
The Rabbinic Repudiation and Denial of Divine Intermediaries: A central argument is that the Rabbis actively and strenuously repudiated all intermediaries between God and humanity, including figures like the angelus interpres, the Logos, Wisdom when understood as a separate entity, and the Memra. This repudiation is seen as a significant theological stance, reflecting a concern for protecting a specific version of monotheistic thinking from the problematic of division within the godhead. The energy expended by rabbinic literature in denying the implications of biblical passages that might suggest intermediaries indicates the attractiveness of these ideas among Jews, which the Rabbis sought to counter.
The Construction of "Two Powers in Heaven" as Heresy: The text posits that a defining move for the Rabbis was to construct the doctrine of "Two Powers in Heaven" (binitarianism) as the arch-heresy within their emerging definition of Jewish orthodoxy. This doctrine, which suggests a division or plurality within the Godhead, was targeted for excommunication from within the rabbinic fold. This process of defining an internal element as heretical is presented as a way for the Rabbis to solidify their authority and define the boundaries of acceptable Jewish belief.
Defining Judaism and Christianity Through Mutual Heresiology: A major theme is the reciprocal process by which rabbinic Judaism and orthodox Christianity defined themselves and each other by labeling certain theological positions as heretical. The Rabbis, by defining "Two Powers in Heaven" as heresy, effectively projected this view onto Christianity (or designated it as non-Jewish), while concurrently Christian heresiologists defined belief in "One Power in Heaven" (Modalism/Monarchianism), which they accurately called "Judaism," as heresy within Christianity. This mutual labeling process is argued to have been instrumental in constructing the distinct boundaries between the two religions, rather than simply reflecting pre-existing differences.
Logos/Memra Theology as an Ancient Jewish Tradition: The source argues that Logos or Memra theology was not originally a uniquely Christian or Gentile concept but was an ancient and living current within Jewish circles from before the Christian era, continuing well into late antiquity. Evidence for this is found in biblical texts that suggest ambiguity regarding the Angel of the Lord and God himself, interpreted by figures like Justin Martyr as support for Logos theology. The text suggests that views implying a second divine figure (Logos, Wisdom, Memra, Metatron, Son of Man, supernal Jacob) were once acceptable within various forms of Jewish piety before the rabbinic intervention.
The Rabbinic Suppression or Repudiation of the Memra: The text highlights the noticeable suppression and eventual disappearance of the term "Memra" in rabbinic literature, particularly in the more rabbinized Targums (like Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan). This is contrasted with the more frequent appearance of Memra in other Targums and non-rabbinic Jewish texts, suggesting a deliberate effort by the Rabbis to move away from Memra theology. This suppression is seen as part of the broader rabbinic project of denying intermediaries and refuting "Two Powers in Heaven," especially in contexts where Targums utilize Memra to describe divine action.
The Debate over Daniel 7 and Its Relation to "Two Powers" and Modalism: The interpretation of Daniel 7, particularly the juxtaposition of the "Ancient of Days" and "one like a Son of Man" sitting on thrones, is presented as a pivotal point of contention. This passage was crucial for early Christology, suggesting two divine figures (Father and Son). The text shows how rabbinic midrash actively engaged with this passage to refute the implication of "Two Powers." The rabbinic response is often framed in terms of "Modalism," interpreting the different descriptions of God (as warrior at the sea and elder at Sinai) as different aspects or modalities of the one God, rather than distinct persons, thereby countering binitarian interpretations.
Rabbi Akiva and Aher (Elisha ben Abuya) as Examples of Internal Heresy: The narratives surrounding Rabbi Akiva's initial interpretation of Daniel 7, identifying the "Son of Man" with David/Messiah, and Elisha ben Abuya's apostasy (becoming "Aher") after seeing Metatron sitting on a throne, are presented as significant examples of how the "Two Powers" heresy was internal to the rabbinic movement. These stories are read as allegorical representations of older, once-acceptable Jewish traditions (like belief in a secondary divine figure such as Metatron/Son of Man) being anathematized and expelled from within the emerging rabbinic orthodoxy.
Rabbinic Modalism as an Orthodox Stance: In contrast to the repudiated binitarianism or "Two Powers" doctrine, the text identifies rabbinic orthodoxy with a form of "Modalism." This theological approach understands any seeming plurality or doubleness in biblical descriptions of God as merely different aspects, qualities, or modes of appearance of a single divine person, rather than referring to real distinctions or separate persons. This Modalist stance is presented as the rabbinic answer to the theological problems raised by passages suggesting multiple divine figures or intermediaries, mirroring, in a precise symmetry, the Modalist position labeled as heresy (Judaism) by second-century Christian orthodoxy.