Targurns, is not found in the Talmud. But w« cannot doubt that it existed, thou'di perhaps on a more limited scale, in the period of the NT.
The place of tlie Memra is taken in the later Talmudic literature by the Slieckinah. In the Targurns the two conceptions stand side by side, the iShcchinah representing the manifested glory of the divine presence. The Shcchinah dill'ers from the Memra as being, at least at this earlier date, impersonal. Praj'er and trust are predicated of the one, but not of the other. The Memra does, and the Ulieekinah does not, take an active part in the redemption of Israel. The Greek enui- valent Sofa is of frequent occurrence in the NT (Weber, §§ 38, 39).
In the OT there are a few allusions to the IIolu Spirit (see sen. art. ). One of the principal is Ps 51" ' Take not tliy Holy Spirit from me,' where its function is clearly indicated as keeping alive re- ligion in the soul, and as the special medium of communication between God and the spirit of man. The 'S|>irit of God' is repeatedly spoken of as the source of inspiration and revelation. It is, in par- ticular, the moving cause of the utterances, and, so far as they are divinely prompted, of the actions of the prophets and other organs of the Deity. In one 01 writing there is a tendency to go further than this, and to make of the Holy Spirit a dis- tinct hypostasis. This is Deutero-Isaiah, where we have such expressions as, ' The Loud God hath sent me, and his Spirit' (48'*), and 'They rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit ' (03'" ; cf^ Clieyne, ad loc). There is hardly any clear advance upon this until we come to NT. The conception is not one that is largely used : ^v Tryfufiari ayl<)) occurs once in Ps.-Sol (li*') and 'immitte in me Spiritum Sanctum' in 2 Es 14-'^.- But in neither ca.<e is there any attribution of personality. In Targ. and Talm. there is a fluctuating use, the tendency to personify being sometimes greater than it is at others (nn is both masc. and fein., but more often the latter, the sense of which is more impersonal, Weber, p. 191). The conception cannot be said to have assumed a fixed form at the time when NT literature begins.
Besides these intermediate agencies there is the Me^'isiah ('Son of Man' in Similitudes of Bk. of Enoch), whose function is esp. that of judgment and of the restoration of the chosen people. And there is also the whole celestial hierarchy of niKjels, which, from the Persian domination on- wards, had become more and more defined and elaborated.
The Jew had a vahmble corrective ag&inst the injurious effecte of an exap(feniu<i doctrine o( the trunsccndciice of Ood In the OT doctrine of His oinniiiresence, though Itiis km not one of the doctrines which took the strongest hold on the Jpwish mind. * In the development of the Jewish religion, this conception of Go<i's omnipresence was only reached at a comparatively lat« period, and It was for long crossed and obscured hv other simpler and more childish notions. To the moral attributes of Deity, to Ills svipremo pity and Justice, there are endless references in tJ»e P8;dter and the Prophets ; to the divine onmipresence there are but few And, indeed, there Is an element of j)hilo«ophy and of mynti^-ism In this conception, to neither of which the native liehrcw mind was pre-eminently prone.' Still, the doctrine finds magnilk-ent ana classical expression in Ps ISO ; and it is natural that the moilem writer, who seeks for the germs of a belief In the immanem'« of tJo<l as well as in His transcendence, should fall liack uiwn this (see Jlonteltcire in AtfcU <i/ Judaitm, Ixindun, IMtt. pp. 107-124). On the relation of iuunanence and trnnsi-endence in Uie theology of Philo, see lierriot, fhilon U Jui/, p. 211 B.
3. PARTICCh.tnrsT LIMITATIOSS. -- Although there was in .Imhtism this tcmloncy to empliiusizo the transcendence of tJod, and nllhough the atti- tude of mind corres|>onding to this tendency was one of reverential awe, which is often linely ex- pressed, there was at the .sjinio time another .-<-t of tendencies which were apt to run counter to lliix, anil to bring back in an unattractive lorni lb«
very faults from which Judaism was trying to free itself. These counter-tendencies had their root in the overweening estimate of the Law and the rabbinical study of the Law, and of the privileged position of the Jewish people.
The fundamental mistake of Judaism, frau<jht with disastrous consequences along the whole line of relij:ious belief and practice, was its neglect of the Prophets in comparison with the Law, and its failure to grasp the principle that the Law was to be interpreted in the spirit of the I'ropliets and not by tlie rules of a minute literalism. The Jew believed that his Law came from God, and we must do justice to the strength and tenacity of this belief. It is easy to see now many of his errors of interpretation flowed directly from it. lint it must be confessed that his zeal was not according to knowledge (Ro 10"). However well meant in the iirst instance, it was often strangely devoid of in- sight (though from time to time llaslies of insight may be discerned in it for which we are liardly