Book Review - The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism by Eric H.H. Chang
(c) 2009, 2017, 546 pp, ISBN 978-1532898204, Kindle ASIN B074VXY7LF Free on Website and as PDF
Review by Lee Bright
Version 0.3
Eric H.H. Chang was a highly educated pastor who had international appeal. Around 2005 he started to question his trinitarianism and with continued study and research produced The Only True God in 2009. Although I do not believe it was ever his intention, the book may have produced a new unorthodox Christian sect in its wake. His book has all the elements of an honest informed questioning of the received model of faith and nothing of self-aggrandizement, which makes him a worthy author to review. Chang passed away in 2013.
This book is arguing against trinitarian Christianity and at times does so with erudition. What attracted me to it is the breadth of biblical material covered and its look into the Aramaic Targums. However, more often than not the author gets hung up on some fairly unphilosophical literalisms, inadvertently producing a small version of God. My main criticisms:
The author may be gratified to know that when I pray, it is addressed to 'Yahweh' or 'God'. But this capital 'G' God is referred to as Elohim in the Hebrew text - a plural of generic 'god' used as a singular noun. The plurality in unity within God is even emphasized within Genesis and "divine assembly" verses elsewhere. While otherwise a stickler for the meaning of words, nowhere within Chang's 15 references to Elohim does he deal directly with this implicit plurality of the second most commonly used term for God in the Bible. If he did, his arguments would get turned around on most verses he considers.
'Monotheism' as an English term was first used by the Cambridge Platonist Henry More in 1660 to label a type of Egyptian pantheism (pg. 62), which necessarily would include all the hypostases of gods and men. More's second use was for the Saracens (ie. Muslims, pg. 188) in which he refers to the previous use insinuating their religion may ultimately be pantheistic as well. Before this, there was not a simple label that arguments about the nature of God could latch onto. Chang insists upon a pedantic definition of the 'monotheism' label, prejudicing his argument throughout the book against trinitarian Christianity. As with many Greek-derived words, 'monotheism' should be read backward - "the belief that God is one."
The philosophical problem of the One and the Many - where anything identified in a singular could also be referenced as a plural - makes any reference to the number of gods, persons, or hypostases superficial, even trite. It is like asking how many clouds there are in the sky - the answer is in the eye of the beholder. The real question is "What is God and what is not?" If what is God shows no fundamental disunity, then we have monotheism or possibly pantheism. If there is fundamental disunity then polytheism. Anything else is putting a thumb on the scales.
The clear relationship between Hebrew monotheism and the Sumerian Triad of creator gods shows they derive from a common source: the father An ('heaven' or 'highest'), Enlil ("Lord Spirit/Wind/Breath"), and the embodiment of the divine word Enki/Ea ("Lord Ground/Place" and "House/Temple/Lord of Living Water"). It takes little speculation to see that the common source was a trinity.
Perhaps more importantly, the Sumerian Triad is the backbone of the religion that Abraham would have been brought up in. Many of the concepts and symbols that Chang and most other Christians trace to certain stories, verses, or authors within the Bible are present in the much older Sumerian literature, such as the firstborn son of God, the Day of the LORD, and the Branch. Despite being within a system of idolatrous polytheism for at least a millennium before Abraham, these symbols serve a trinitarian meaning just as much as they do in the Bible.
The first criticism - Chang's misconstrual of the Hebrew word Elohim - is enough to cast doubt on his whole project. He specifically makes errors in Chapter 3 on pg 295, putting the cart before the horse regarding Genesis 1:26-27. This leads to a further misconstrual of the most frequently used reference to God - Yahweh. The sensitivity to the way these two terms for God are used in the Bible has led me to find their origin, which I begin to lay out in this review, beginning in Chapter 4.
Despite my movement in the opposite direction as Chang toward a trinitarian view, there is value in many of his attitudes and criticisms. While he has flown away from the Trinity, Chang has rightly hit on a key issue: What does it mean for Jesus to be the Word of Yahweh incarnate? Should Jesus the man be called Yahweh? This is the issue that undermines the witness to Jews and Muslims, which modern Christians only exacerbate by ecstatically chanting 'Jesus' at every turn. Perhaps the Trinity should be more muted - more focused on the Father as the end - the Son and Spirit as the Way and the Means?
From my reflexive belief, I can call Jesus the man lord - as in Adonai. I still very much hesitate to call Him LORD - as in Yahweh. However, I have no problem calling the Logos (ie. Word) both God (ie. Elohim) and Yahweh. While a reflexive belief, it is also one that the Old Testament seems to support. It is "the Voice," the Angel (ie. 'messenger') of Yahweh, and the Word of Yahweh that shows up again and again in the Hebrew text in person, in visions, in dreams, and through prophets. Looking at the Sumerian literature for the Mesopotamian basis of Judaism has only strengthened the connection of those appearances.
In the Targums - Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible - the equivalent of the Word of Yahweh is the Memra. The Memra is scattered throughout the Targums, putatively to make the distinction between Yahweh and the Word of Yahweh clearer. Is not the Word of Yahweh that proceeds from Yahweh, comes in the name of Yahweh, and cannot be said to be separated from Yahweh, also then not Yahweh? Do we not call the man Jesus (ie. "Yahweh Saves") Yahweh once he has proven himself incorruptible in life and conquered death? Certainly, conquering death through His resurrection and ascension makes Him a god, doesn't it? Is there any other god who would have more direct importance for the human species than the one who has conquered death? If not for the Trinity, how can we call this monotheism?
Having grown up in Utah surrounded by Mormons claiming many prophets for a theology that really is polytheistic (with a god or two on every habitable planet), it is in answering this big question myself that I can call Jesus lord at all. Certainly, He needs to be more than the greatest prophet, or the Christian message is not credible. Chang affirms that Jesus the man is more - that he was/is the Messiah:
Christians talk as though Jesus alone is the savior, but he is savior because “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5:19). This was also precisely what Jesus himself kept on repeating in different ways in John’s Gospel, namely, that everything he said and did was actually done by “the Father” in him (Jn.14:10, etc). This is because God lived in Jesus in a way He had never done before in human history. This is what made Jesus completely unique as compared to anyone else who had ever lived on earth, and this is also why he enjoyed a uniquely intimate spiritual relationship with God, which was like that of a son with his father. This is why he was called the “Son of God” which, in the Bible, never means “God the Son”. Because of his unique relationship with the Father, three times in John’s Gospel he is spoken of as the “only (or unique) Son” of God (Jn.1:14; 3:16,18).
Referring to 2 Corinthians 5:19:
...namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
So to unpack in Hebrew terms, Elohim was in Messiah reconciling the world to Himself? The Godhead (ie. Theos = Elohim) was inside a man named "Yahweh Saves" (ie. Jesus, Jeshua) to council (καταλλάσσων) towards the Godhead (or is it toward the Messiah?) by forgiving sins and putting in us "the word" (ton logon) of reconciliation/restoration/redemption (καταλλαγῆς)? Is God 'in' the Messiah in the same way the "word of reconciliation" can be 'in' us? If the answer is 'yes' with the Trinity, great! If the answer is 'no' with the Trinity, great! If 'no' without the Trinity, how is this monotheism?! If 'yes' without the Trinity, I can't see what is so special about the Messiah. Is Islam right when it says Jesus was just a prophet? Why were John the Baptist, Elijah, Moses, and the other prophets not good enough? Did God not live within them also? And how do the resurrection and ascension - the two ultimate events that viscerally raise Jesus to god status - fit into Chang's thinking?
There is still a lot of nuance to Jesus' relationship in Elohim that needs exploration, but ultimately, a Messiah outside of Elohim doesn't seem very credible.
Table of Contents
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!" - The Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4
While ignoring that Elohim (ie. the word translated as 'God') is a plural used as a singular, Chang argues somewhat convincingly that the "one" in the Shema refers to a 'singularity' rather than a 'unity'. Fine. So what is a singularity? In philosophically aware fields of knowledge:
A singularity in physics is a point that has an infinite value. As an infinite quantity cannot occur in our understanding of Nature, singularities are not considered real by scientists. Instead, when theories predict a singularity, scientists take it to mean that the theory has been extended beyond its applicability.
In mathematics, a singularity is a point for which a mathematical expression is not defined.
- Quantum Physics Lady: Singularity - quantumphysicslady.org
A singularity is the point of the unknown where the normal rules no longer apply - the point of uncertainty where almost anything is possible. The point at which God becomes irreducible and undefined does not rule out unity in diversity. Quite the contrary. The Problem of the One and the Many demands unity in diversity - it is literally the problem of the diversity found in unity.
Chang rightly goes to the next verse:
"And you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." - Deuteronomy 6:5
And makes the right observation:
The thrice repeated “all”, which comprehends the whole human being in his entirety, leaves nothing whatever with which to love another deity.
But then he gets it wrong in the application:
...we cannot possibly love three distinct persons with our “all” simultaneously.
We can if those three "alls" correspond to the three persons of the Trinity. And in fact, they do. Heart (lebab, lə-ḇā-ḇə-ḵā) with its range of meaning - inner man, mind, speech - corresponds to the Word, which is made even more clear in the very next verse. Soul (nephesh, nap̄-šə-ḵā) with its range of meaning - breath, life, self, desire, passion, appetite, emotion - corresponds precisely to the Spirit. Strength (meod, mə·’ō·ḏe·ḵā) with its range of meaning - abundance, excess, immensity - corresponds to the Father. The triune human is specifically told to love the triune God!
These are not just random flowery words being used. Philosophy has long dealt with the Mind-Body Problem. When accepted as fundamentally unresolvable this is called Philosophical Dualism. However, if we are being more specific we should call this the Two-Minds-Body Problem and its acceptance Trialism. Human brains have left and right hemispheres that experience and experiments have shown are capable of functioning as independent consciouses. While there is much functional redundancy between them, there are also many specializations. For instance, the right hemisphere primarily controls muscles on the left side of the body and the left hemisphere controls muscles on the right side of the body.
What allows a human to function holistically is communication between the hemispheres provided by the Corpus Callosum - the area where the two hemispheres are joined. If the Corpus Callosum is cut or malformed, or a person has a stroke affecting a hemisphere, the independence and specializations of the hemispheres become apparent. Language and speech functions are a specialty of the left hemisphere in most people. The right hemisphere has visual, spatial, and belief-updating specializations (Marinsek et. al. 2016).
The Curious Case of the People With Split Brains - youtube.com
Elizabeth Schechter The Other Side Self Consciousness in the 'Split Brain' Subject - youtube.com
We have no evidence that ancient peoples associated the Shema's Heart and Soul with brain hemispheres - the association was clearly with the heart and the lungs. However, it would be a clear case of presentism to say ancient people had no phenomenological experience with the effects of independently conscious brain hemispheres. It is more than interesting that Heart so easily corresponds to the left hemisphere, Soul so easily to the right, and with the body, all unify into one person. It really seems that mankind is made in the image of God!
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." - John 14:6
Chang asks:
But why is it that every time we see or hear a statement of Jesus in the form “I am the way…” we assume that he is asserting, or claiming, divinity?
Because even ignoring the clear emphasis of "I Am" that any practicing Jew of any time in history would associate with the divine name as exposited in Exodus 3:14, the statement is so arrogant that it could only be true of a god. It is an impossible statement for just a man. That man could only believe himself to be the Logos incarnate - the Word of creation made flesh. Jesus' followers took it that way:
Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6
While Jesus the Man became the way, the truth, and the life, many Christians without a clear concept of the Trinity would say there was no way or a different way before the Messiah; thus, the emphasis on the New Covenant and the ignorance of the Old. Taken with the "I Am the Way..." statements, 1 Corinthians 8:6 specifically refutes this by attaching the "one Lord, Jesus Christ" to the Word of Creation, the Word of Yahweh. The resurrected and ascended Messiah of the New Covenant can only be understood as the Word of Yahweh in the Old Covenant.
There are plenty of other verses he works through, but his arguments depend on concepts already critiqued above. Chang has argued that God is a singularity and yet is somehow convinced that supports his thesis.
Instead of using negative theological terms such as 'incorruptible', 'infinite', and 'unbounded', Chang has chosen positivist terms and translations which tend to be misleading when used in strictly logical ways. I will take his copious use of 'perfect' and use 'incorruptible' instead. So, wherever Chang writes "Perfect Man," I read "Incorruptible Man."
What makes a son perfectly incorruptible in his father's eyes is that he never steps out of line with his father and always actively seeks to do his father's will. The son is then both receiving and advancing the name of his father. If he did step out of line, they would no longer be in unity - Jesus would be making a name for himself. The result for the firstborn or oldest surviving - at least under the widely practiced primogeniture - is that he inherits the family name and property.
If our question is "What is God and what is not?" The dividing line for what is God is set by what is incorruptible. The Word of Yahweh, then, is God (ie. Elohim). The minimum statement of the Trinity identifies Jesus the man as the "The Voice," the Angel of Yahweh, and the Word of Yahweh incarnate. Jesus the man throughout his life had to demonstrate that he was incorruptible. While He came in the name of Yahweh and advanced the name of Yahweh, it is only upon his suffering, death, and resurrection that we could call him LORD God - the very point at which it became utterly clear that he was no mere man.
Throughout the chapter, Chang correctly shows that the text represents Jesus as an incorruptible man, but in the process of being tested and hardened - in a word, perfected. He asks in regards to Hebrews 2:10, 5:8, and 7:28:
What kind of a son is it that had not yet learned obedience to his father? That a human son, even a good one, needs to learn obedience to his father is perfectly understandable; and his being good consists precisely in his obedience. But how is one to explain the case of the preexistent, eternal Son who has not yet learned obedience to the Father, and only finally learns it when he comes to earth?!
Chang brings up an extremely important problem here, but it is of timing, not Trinity. Any god carrying the cosmic characteristics of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience cannot be a subject of the Arrow of Time. The Arrow must in some way be a created thing. To be a firstborn or only begotten son is a statement of an event happening in time. Regardless of when that time is - whether it occurs at the beginning, middle, or end of creation - the begotten is a contradiction of type to cosmic God.
But that contradiction only applies to Jesus the man. It does not apply to a resurrected and ascended Jesus no longer beholden to the Arrow. Jesus the man can be born and made perfect in time to become the Logos for all time. That is punishing our sensibilities because of our difficulty considering anything without the Arrow of Time, but there is no contradiction. We still have a two-natures problem, but that is a qualitative sensual problem like the Minds-Body Problem and not ultimately a logical one.
Here, we are supported by physics. The only place in physical law that requires the Arrow of Time is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a law of probability that says any closed system will tend to disorder. The term used for this disorder is entropy - all closed systems tend to increase entropy. All the other physical laws can be run backward in time just as easily as run forward; therefore, entropy is the only one of the physical laws closely associated with the Arrow of Time.
Entropy is the fundamental characteristic of created things, but a resurrected and ascended Jesus pays no regard to entropy. Quite the contrary, a resurrected Jesus shows the reversal of entropy. The Ascension shows this reversal to be as permanent as he wants it to be. The Ascension logic of Jesus shedding his bodily limitations - including time - also shows that there must be a pre-existent Christ, although not one that would be known necessarily as the "Son of Man."
The precise claim for which Jesus was put to death is his confirmation of his resurrection and ascension before the high priest. The high priest fully understood the claim - Jesus was not just claiming he was the Messiah, but that he was equal to God:
Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You offer no answer for what these men are testifying against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
Notice that Jesus does not say the "right hand of God." The particularly pious might be able to claim to be seated on the right hand of God in a heavenly assembly. He instead says the "right hand of power" making himself an intimate executive feature of this power - a co-ruler. This 'power' is a direct reference to the 'Strength' of the Shema. Jesus had included himself in God!
There are passages where Chang seems to get this:
Christ’s perfection rests on the fact of the unique divine involvement in his person as the one in whom the Word (Memra) was incarnate or “became flesh” (Jn.1:14); “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col.1:19); “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col.2:9). This means that Christ’s perfection was attained through the unique indwelling presence and power of God in him. Yahweh God established a union with Christ at the deepest level of his being (“I and my Father are one,” Jn.10:30); in this union Christ was empowered to attain what no man could of himself attain. It was for this reason that he was called “the only son,” or “only begotten son” (Jn.1:14; 3:16,18; 1Jn:4:9); this is what distinguished him from Adam, the man “from the earth,” as “the man from heaven (i.e. from God)” (1Cor.15:47). Without Yahweh God’s unique indwelling in Christ, the necessary perfection could not have been achieved. The perfect man was the man in whom Yahweh’s fullness lived bodily here on earth among men to accomplish man’s salvation.
But ultimately, Chang cannot even conceive of God outside the Arrow of Time, much less the resurrected and ascended Jesus. His God is too small to be triune.
If it's helpful, the ancient Sumerian (and thus Mesopotamian) idea of declaring the fate of the world and its people is that it occurred at the dawn of a day-age. We see this represented in Genesis chapter 1 with the words of creation spoken at the dawn of each day of creation. That in itself is a solution to the two-natures problem if Chang is so worried about the Word of Yahweh tampering with the full humanity of the Son of Man.
I completely agree with Chang that Jesus was fully human before his resurrection. I also agree that fact cuts into the narrative of the total depravity of mankind...except for one nagging problem alluded to in the introduction of this review. When Chang sees scripture saying that God is 'in' someone, what does that mean? I must ask because in my mind the preposition 'in' contradicts the main argument against the Trinity in this chapter.
Chang sees that Jesus is the image of God just as mankind was made in the image of God. He sees that even the sinful man is still in the image of God. An image is of course not God. Therefore in Chang's mind, being an image precludes the Messiah from being God.
The image of the Image is that of a form that can be filled up. Mankind is created and formed in the image of God. What if God were poured into that form to the halfway mark? What if almost to the top? We have a marvelous set of verses to answer that:
See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts. - Exodus 31:1-6; also ch. 35
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses. - Deuteronomy 34:8-10
That is to say, the image of the Image is a form that will almost always be 'filled' with something. For the saints - part measures of God and iniquity:
There is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of mankind to see if there are any who understand, Who seek God. They have all turned aside, together they are corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. - Psalms 14:1-3, also 53:1-3
Indeed, there is not a righteous person on earth who always does good and does not ever sin. - Ecclesiastes 7:20
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,... - Romans 3:19-23
“Now when the unclean spirit comes out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they come in and live there; and the last condition of that person becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.” - Matthew 12:43-45, Jesus speaking
If the fullness of God were "poured in" a form in the Image of God and then hardened (ie. perfected) so iniquity could not find room even by force, what would the glorious incorruptible man be?
[W]ho, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross... - Philippians 2:6-8, Young's Literal Translation
If then there was a final transformation that cast off any bodily limitations, what would He be?
wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:9-11, Young's Literal Translation
A very strong hint is given at the end of the passage when the glory is not just given to 'God', but precisely given to "God the Father." Why the distinction after Jesus' exaltation? The answer leaves no place for monotheism if not for the Trinity.
For an ancient collection of 66 books written by at least 35 authors over a more than 2000-year timespan, the Bible is amazingly cohesive. So cohesive that we can have detailed arguments and models developed to encapsulate things well outside the purview of everyday life. Chang has sincerely attempted a different model than that offered by orthodoxy. The orthodox model is so ingrained he rightfully sees the need to reread all the texts in light of his new model. Along the way, he is bound to find some weak places in the orthodox model regardless of whether it is true or false. Confirmation bias can take hold, tempting him to read into the text his model where it is not warranted. The big concern is that he starts putting his thumb on the scales. When several idiosyncratic 'reformers' do this, all people from the outside will see is arguing and confusion in the Church. They will assume then the text really is not that cohesive and the faith is really not that put together.
Right from the beginning of this chapter, Chang makes some assertions that the doctrine of the Trinity was entirely made from whole cloth at the Council of Nicaea. In his mind, the scriptural justification took place after that. However, there are some nearly airtight verses in the New Testament that conclusively point to the Trinity: John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, and Hebrews 1. If we take the religious context that Abraham was born into seriously, we will see the Old Testament is filled with trinitarian gems as well.
Chang insists the most common translations of Colossians 1:16 - where the Greek en autō is translated as "by him" - has skewed the verses to support the Trinity. Most of the modern translations have made more severe changes than that for the sake of readability. I have chosen Young's Literal Translation (1898) to get a fair uncomplicated reading of the text:
12 Giving thanks to the Father who did make us meet for the participation of the inheritance of the saints in the light,
13 who did rescue us out of the authority of the darkness, and did translate [us] into the reign of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,
15 who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.
18 And himself is the head of the body -- the assembly -- who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] -- himself -- first,
19 because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle,
20 and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.
It seems unquestionably clear that verses 14 to 20 are referencing the Son regardless of an "in him" or "by him" translation in verse 16. But Chang is under pains to prove there is no pre-existent Christ and thereby claims several facts from the Old Testament that are opposed to a trinitarian reading of this text (bold emphasis mine):
"God, the Father, is without question the creator."
"nowhere in Scripture can it be shown that God’s image created all things."
"nowhere is it stated that the firstborn brought creation into existence."
"Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” There is no question that in Romans 11:36, it is Yahweh God who is the source of all things."
Same as 4 - Hebrews 2:10: “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation (Christ) perfect through suffering.”
"Yahweh God, the Father, who created all things....Jesus is consistently referred to as “the Lamb”."
"The attempt to interpret Col.1:16 as “by him” in relation to John 1:3 is based on the trinitarian assumption that the Word in John’s Prologue is a separate individual from Yahweh, and the further assumption that this individual is the preexistent Christ."
Several of these so-called facts can be addressed very quickly:
1) English 'God' = Greek Theos = Hebrew Elohim. Elohim is a plural of the generic term for god el or eloha. When using singular verbs with Elohim to make it a singular noun by grammar, it is referring to the Godhead, which makes it a prima facie trinitarian term. It is not specifically referencing the Father unless the context says so. In chapter 3 (pg. 295), Chang gets this completely turned around with singular verbs and Elohim with regard to the creation of Adam, Genesis 1:26-27. If the Father alone is the creator, then what are the Spirit (Hebrew ruach) and the Word doing so conspicuously in Genesis chapter 1?
2 and 3) As shown in chapters 2 and 3 of this review above, 'Firstborn' and 'image' are different aspects of the same concept. The firstborn is intricately involved in creation.
4 to 7) Whereas the singular use of Elohim is a very general term for Godhead. Yahweh (and El Shaddai) are more nuanced names for when the Godhead is focused on the prerogatives of the Word (and the Spirit). When a text wants to individualize to one person of the Trinity, it does so with more context or a more specific name, such as the very common "Angel of Yahweh" or "the Voice" of Exodus; or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Chang anticipates some of these answers. We could go through verse after verse in the Bible, tediously combing every conjugation of every word, agreeing not to agree, and causing the public even more confusion. Or we can look outside of the Bible at the Mesopotamian peoples the Hebrews came from to see what they believed. There is not much to lose here as we know they were idolaters, and therefore polytheists. We know we must filter out and reject the specifically idolatrous conclusions of the Mesopotamians. However, we should remember, whether Abraham came out of ancient Ur or Uruk in the south, or Urkesh in the north, it was Sumerian and closely related Old Babylonian religion that Abraham was steeped in before he renounced idolatry.
The theology at the foundation of Sumerian religion is the triad of creator gods - An (literally ‘heaven’, 'sky' or 'above') is the 'father' of Enlil (‘Lord Wind/Breath/Spirit’) and Enki ('Lord Ground' or 'Lord of Place', possibly 'Lord Benevolence'). All three of them create by speaking or writing me. A me was a divine ordinance or specification of existence uttered or written by the Sumerian triad of creator gods to create, define, and sustain all that is. Used as either a noun or a verb, me is also the common Sumerian word for existence and being - "to be." Unlike our modern words for existence, me is not at all religiously neutral as it is always referring back to the speaker, which is ultimately one or a confluence of the gods that decree. The me word concept is found with the very earliest writing; contracted and conjoined to produce all sorts of other logograms including the pronouns 'I', 'you', and 'we'; and is even one of the easier logograms to write - 𒈨.
While me is the direct equivalent and probably the most direct source of the Greek Logos, Enlil and Enki have a special relationship with me and each other. Enlil initiates and oversees creation. Enki intricately shapes creation. Enlil provided the breath of life. Enki perpetuates that breath. Enlil declares the broad fate of nations. Enki shapes the destiny of every individual. Enlil is known as Nunamnir - "Lordly Prince of Fate" - King of Heaven and Earth, and Counselor of the Divine Assembly. Enki is known as Nudimmud - "Prince Creator of Life (ie. blood)" - and the lover and savior of mankind. It is easy to see Enlil and Enki have intimately created together.
Enki furthermore has the unique task of shaping the destinies of gods and men. This is demonstrated most powerfully in the Sumerian text Enki and Ninmah (ETCSL 1.1.2, lines 44-51) where Enki is praised as the embodiment of the me of destinies.
All the senior gods praised him: "O lord of wide understanding, who is as wise as you? Enki, the great lord, who can equal your actions? Like a corporeal father, you are the one who has the me of deciding destinies, in fact you are the me."
The wisdom of Enki in this text is precisely the ability to create purpose and place in all the futures of gods and men. This wisdom, uniquely possessed and emanating from Enki, was called geštu or geštug, represented by the logogram PI 𒉿, predictably constructed from ME 𒈨. When not used as a word for wisdom, it was the common term for "ear" or some analogy of hearing. The sound of the word seems to make it a combination of the common word for tree, ŋeš 𒄑, and the common word for garment tug₂ 𒌆. Regardless of whether it is to denote wisdom, 'ear', or hearing, most of the time these other logograms are joined to PI - 𒄑𒌆𒉿 - thus emphasizing the tree and garment association. The image a Sumerian would have with geštug wisdom is that having it - 'hearing' your destiny - will shade, clothe, and preserve a person from sun and storm. The longer form of geštug occurs twice in the passage above.
One of the challenges of Sumerian literature is that idolatry is so extensive by the end of Sumerian culture - when most of the writing we have comes from - that it is difficult to find complete passages relatively free from its influence to show the layman. However, in Enki and the World Order ETCSL 1.1.3, lines 62-80, Enki talks extensively about himself, each line of which has relevance to biblical materials. As is typical in Sumerian literature, ideas are repeated in other areas of the tablet. Words in bold contain a use of the logogram ME.
62. My father, the king of heaven and earth,
63. made me famous [ie. the branch or frond, or scepter] in heaven and earth.
64. My elder brother [ie. elder relation], the king of all the lands [kur-kur-ra],
65. gathered up all the divine powers and placed them in my hand.
66. I brought the arts and crafts from the E-kur,
67. the house of Enlil, to my Abzu in Eridug.
68. I am the good semen, begotten by a wild bull, I am the first born of An.
69. I am a great storm rising over the great earth [ki gal-la], I am the great lord of the Land [kalam].
70. I am the principal [gu2-gal lit. "great necked"] among all rulers [barag-barag], the father of all the foreign lands [kur-kur-ra].
71. I am the big brother of the gods, I bring prosperity to perfection.
72. I am the seal-keeper of heaven and earth.
73. I am the wisdom and understanding of all the foreign lands [kur-kur-ra].
74. With An the king, on An's dais [barag], I oversee justice.
75. With Enlil, looking out over the lands [kur-ra], I decree good destinies.
76. He has placed in my hands the decreeing of fates in the place where the sun rises.
77. I am cherished by Nintur.
78. I am named with a good name by Ninḫursaĝa.
79. I am the leader of the Anuna gods.
80. I was born as the firstborn son of holy An.
62) Typical moniker of An - God the Father. In Sumerian literature, lower gods address the upper gods as aya 'father' - possibly pronounced "ehyah." This appears to be regardless of gender as Enki/Ea's spouse, the mother earth goddess Damgalnuna/Damkina, has also been addressed this way - at least during the 1st millennium BC.
63) Sumerian logograms often don't give the particular word that should be used but rather a category or type of word. So what the ETCSL translates as 'famous' is more literally and more often read as "the branch", "the frond", or even "the scepter." Since each is an allowable reading of the text, to an ancient scribe these meanings would be associated and somewhat interchangeable. Many Judeo-Christian interpreters have taken "the Branch" as a symbol of being in the line of David but it is easy to see the symbol far predates David. This is a 'son' metaphor - "the branch" of the Father, king of heaven and earth.
64) The "king of all the lands" is a clear reference to Enlil. The word used for "elder brother" pap is a homophone of "branch" pa used in the line above. While "elder brother" is an allowable translation, the more typical "big brother" šeš-gal is used in line 71 which casts some doubt on a literal 'brother' translation. Pap is a more general term for elder kinship that could be father, brother, uncle, or even of the same essence. Sumerian religion here and elsewhere casts some doubt on the Filioque found in the Western version of the Nicene Creed first entering the creed in medieval times.
Throughout Sumerian literature, An and Enlil are found in pairs and parallels so that one can hardly be considered without the other. It would not be out of place to say that An creates and acts through Enlil. Enlil creates and acts with Enki and the divine assembly.
65) Enki is given all earthly ME by Enlil so he can decree the fates of gods and men. Occasionally Enki is referenced as KA Enlil-la which means the "word/speech/mouth of Enlil" (ie. "word of Lord Spirit").
66) The chief temple of Enlil is most prominently called the "Mountain House" e2-kur among many other names. As the god that bestows kingship among the Sumerians, Enlil is often called kur gal - the "great mountain" (eg. lines 3, 40, 200, 216). When translated into a Semitic language like Akkadian, Amorite, or Hebrew this becomes some variation of El Shaddai. As king and counselor of the divine assembly, Enlil was the figurehead held most responsible for the really massive destructive events such as the Flood and the later destructions of Sumer. Consequently, references to the "great mountain" also carry the connotation of destruction.
67) Eridu(g) is one of the first cities of Sumer. The source of the "living water," Enki was thought to live in a freshwater aquifer under the extensive marshes of southern Mesopotamia called the Abzu. Eridug was originally built on solid land at the edge of this marsh and housed the main temple of Enki called e2-abzu. These marshes were where the four rivers of the Garden of Eden combine. Through climate changes, sea-level changes, and modern developments, most of the marshlands of southern Mesopotamia and the Pishon River (Wadi Al-Batin) have dried up or are under the seawater of the Persian Gulf.
About 9000 years ago, nearly all of the Persian Gulf was freshwater marsh perhaps containing some large shallow lakes. The River of Eden flowed from where the four rivers joined out through the lakes and marsh to the Strait of Hormuz and then to the Ocean. By 6000 years ago, The ocean water had filled up the Persian Gulf to 3 to 10 feet above present-day Mean Sea-Level.
Genesis 2:10 seems to portray water moving in the opposite direction - "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there, it was separated into four headwaters" The reason for this wording is that Enki and the Abzu were considered the ultimate source of all "living water" springing from the ground and metaphorically as well. The Abzu was thought to be located to the southeast of Eridu in an area now under the waters of the Persian Gulf. In seals and engravings, Enki is depicted with a crown of 4 sets of bull horns and the fish-laden Tigris and Euphrates rivers flowing into his shoulders. Incidentally, during the Early Dynastic period in the first half of the third millennium BC, the logograms for wisdom ŋeštug could also refer to fish.
68) The tenseless "I am" of Sumerian is represented by the logograms ME-en usually added as a suffix to a noun. If not considered as a first-person enclitic copula it would mean "Lord Being" or "Lord of existence". The repetition of "I am" in the next lines only reinforces this meaning for Enki was considered the embodiment of the ME of destiny (eg. line 118). The repetition of "I am" has a special meaning with Enki as he is the only god besides An and Enlil who is self-destined.
The Sumerian word for semen is the word for water. Therefore, semen is a metaphor for freshwater and living water. That semen is from a "Wild Bull." Interestingly unlike nearly every other god, An is never represented with an anthropomorphic idol. He was represented with a symbol of 6 sets of bull horns on a crown and the number 60.
The "firstborn of An" sets up a contradiction for those who see An and Enllil as gods with the same nature as all the others in the Sumerian pantheon. How can An be the father of the gods and Enllil be the "elder brother" (line 64) if Enki is the firstborn? Modern scholarship and perhaps some ancient speculation is possessed with finding another father for Enlil. But the Messiah and the Christian Trinity can thoroughly answer that question. Enlil is the fiat of An. Enlil was never born. Therefore, Enki is the firstborn.
69) The logogram translated as 'storm' is UD, which usually refers to some effect of daylight and is the typical word for day, age, and sun. Only the context can show it to mean "day-storm." It would be appropriate to read "I am a great day rising over all the earth." Either way, this is very clearly "Day of the LORD" language.
The ETCSL translators have helpfully preserved some word distinctions by always translating certain words consistently. The logogram KI is always translated as "place" or "the earth." Capitalized 'Land' is in place of kalam(-ma) which means the familiar land almost always referring to Sumer in the literature. Enki is the "great lord" of Sumer, but not the king. Enlil has a special relationship of kingship over Sumer throughout Sumerian literature well into the Old Babylonian era. In lines 192-209, Sumer (ki-en-gi) is also called a "great mountain" in verses that show Enlil has specially protected Sumer. Sumer is represented as the first chosen land.
Interestingly, the Sumerian language has other dialects that are occasionally used in its literature. One of the most widespread is called Emesal which roughly means "fine tongue" often used in the speech of goddesses. The direct equivalent of "the Land" kalam(-ma) in the Emesal dialect is ka-na-aŋ₂ 𒅗𒈾𒉘 or ka-naŋ 𒅗𒅘 which seems to have a pronunciation perilously close to the Hebrew Canaan.
Another name for Enlil from Emesal is dmu-ul-lil2 - "ancient name/year spirit/wind/breath." The mu-ul part of the name is a close homophone of mul which means star. The direct Akkadian equivalent for mu when it means "name" is šumu and in Hebrew shem. The land we have referred to as Sumer is a Semitic exonym that should be pronounced 'Shumer', 'Shuma', or even 'Shum'. Perhaps the etymology of 'Sumer' and the ancestor Shem traces its way back to the idea that it is the land or people of the ancient name dmu-ul-lil2?
70) The term "foremost" is a translation of gu2-gal which most directly means "great necked," but is also a homonym of "great bull." In Akkadian, the equivalent word for "neck" is kišādu which may be relevant to several ancestors and place names in the Bible. The term "all rulers" (barag-barag) is referencing the throne platforms called dais or the curtained-off areas that contain the throne.
Enki is the aya "father" of the kur-kur-ra - "foreign lands" or all the lands other than Sumer. Enki is known as Ea in the Levant and elsewhere which is at least a homophone of aya and probably homonym of the Hebrew 'eh-yeh meaning "I am."
71) Enki is the most intriguing of the Sumerian gods because he is into everything. While being the "brother" or at least close relation of Enlil, he is also the "foremost" and "big brother" of the Annuna gods and chthonic (underworld) gods. The last part of this line could be read, "I am the perfecting/pushing hand of prosperity."
72) The use of seals as a way to identify a person, sign a document, or prevent tampering goes back to a time long before writing was able to encode speech. To be a seal-keeper of heaven and earth was the ultimate position of trust. The gist is that as seal-keeper, Enki is the trusted divine accountant.
73) The Sumerian kur-kur-ra could be translated as "all the lands" (eg. line 64) instead of "all the foreign lands" if not for trying to maintain consistency with verse 70 which really does imply "all the foreign lands." While I agree with the consistent principle of translation, this line is paired with the next. In this instance, the meaning is that Enki is the God of Wisdom for "all the lands."
74) Enki is a judge with God the Father. And not just an underjudge, but judging from the same seat (barag) with the same authority.
75) Enki is intimately involved in creating with God the Spirit.
76) The "decreeing fates where the sun rises" has at least a double meaning. Most directly, as the 'father' of the foreign lands, Enki decrees the fate of the eastern lands such as Elam and Marhashi in what is present-day southern Iran. Meluḫa, also called the Black Land (line 221), is thought to be the Indus Valley Civilization.
The "cleansed and purified" land of Dilmun, which is the Sumerian name for the Garden of Eden, is mentioned with these eastern nations on line 238. Deposition of river sediment and a 3 to 10-foot sea level drop to near present-day levels exposed sea shore around the Persian Gulf that had been inundated several hundreds of years prior. Dilmun has been associated with the island of Bahrain, but directions and descriptions here and in other places suggest it is (also) on the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf.
The other meaning is that the decreeing of fates by the "Seven Gods that Decree" which included the triad was thought to take place at the dawn of a day-age.
77-78) Nintur ("Lady Birth") and Ninḫursaĝ ("Lady Head Mountain") are two of many names that represent the mother earth goddess. In general, these names and others such as Ninmah ("Magnificent/Mature Lady"), Aruru ("Water-Remove-Remove"), and Belet-Ili are personifications denoting land that surface animals live on and that water runs off.
The mother earth goddess is the wife of Enki called Damgalnuna which means "Spouse of the Great Prince." In many ways, she is the original spouse. The word for semen is the same as the word for water. Enki is the god of living water which springs from the ground causing life to grow on the surface. Nearly all of the other most popular gods have spouses, but this is thought by most Assyriologists to be a later development.
79) Although the exact membership is controversial, differing in both time and place, the Anunna(ki) gods are those earth and sky gods An created/fathered. Anunna gods are directly equivalent to the angels of the Judeo-Christian worldview. While the Anunna gods don't include Enlil most of the time, they do include Enki. It is the Annuna who are the primary subject of idolatry in Mesopotamian religion. Over time, the effect of idolatry was to flatten the pantheon and crowd out the triad.
80) For the second time (first in line 68) in the concluding verse of the speech it is emphasized that Enki is the firstborn son of An. He is also known as the "Great Prince" and "Prince Creator." Under primogeniture when a king dies the oldest prince is given the throne. In Mesopotamia and the Levant, it was very common for the prince to be deemed a co-ruler to smooth the succession as the king gets into his old age. An is not going to die but he is going to share his authority.
By the ending of Enki's first speech, it can be seen that specifically everything in John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17; Philippians 2:6; and Hebrews 1:1-3a, 4-14 is given in the Sumerian Cosmology long before Abraham was born:
The Father, Spirit, and the Son are each distinct persons intimately united in the acts of creation.
The Spirit and the Son are the means through which the Father creates in the atmosphere (Enlil = "Lord Wind/Breath/Spirit") and on earth's surface (Enki = "Lord Ground" or "Lord Place").
There is a pre-existent Christ, the firstborn prince of all creation, known specifically as the "prince creator of life-blood."
The Son has been uniquely referred to as the Word (ie. Me, Inim, amar (אָמַר), dabar (דָּבָר), Memra, or Logos), although this is the "me of destiny" which is not as wide as the Greek concept of the Logos. As generally understood, the Greek concept of Logos would correspond to all the me of the Sumerian triad and would require the triad to be a trinity.
Creation is directed towards the Son, the firstborn prince. As will be shown in Chapter 5, it is the prerogatives of the Son - the "me of destiny" - within the triad that constitutes Yahweh.
Chang did get something right when he criticizes those who would say "the Word in John’s Prologue is a separate individual from Yahweh," however, the equation "Yahweh = the Father" is an oversimplification to the point of being wrong. A nuanced view of the Trinity cannot promote that equation as any more than a form of scaffolding - an educational simplification or substitution pending a deeper understanding at which it would be removed. There are several cases in Sumerian literature and the Bible of all three persons of the Trinity being called 'father' (such as line 70 above).
Whenever Yahweh is individualized it is referring to the Son. Along with specific context showing individualization such as "Yahweh Elohim" = "LORD God," hints to individualization are verbs about shaping, evolving, or making from pre-existing material (Hebrew: asah). Whereas the Trinity as a whole might create that way there is a verb of divine creating that could be from nothing - Hebrew: bara'. Thus, Isaiah 44:24-28, which could easily be mistaken for a Sumerian text of Enki/Ea:
“This is what the LORD [ie. Yahweh] says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD,
the Maker [ie. asah, not bara'] of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,
who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense,
who carries out the words of his servants
and fulfills the predictions of his messengers,
who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be inhabited,’
of the towns of Judah, ‘They shall be rebuilt,’
and of their ruins, ‘I will restore them,’
who says to the watery deep, ‘Be dry,
and I will dry up your streams,’
who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.”’
With our main criticisms established and his main criticisms obviated above, the other dubious readings in this chapter begin to border on absurdity. The question I have for Chang with so many of these passages is - in what way could they have been written so that you would take them as trinitarian? I fear there isn't an answer. He has applied his model regardless of the text, which is exactly what he says the Trinitarians have done. When all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.
In parts this is an excellent exposition of the name of Yahweh. However, he starts out as a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Yet again he has no realization that Elohim - the word most often translated as God in the Old Testament - is a plural word used as a singular. When it is used as a plural, as it often is in the Old Testament, it is translated as 'gods'. The most direct meaning of Elohim is 'Godhead' when used as a singular. That is what capital 'G' God means unless there is a context that would individualize it such as Ruach Elohim ("Spirit/Wind/Breath [of] God") or Yahweh Elohim ("LORD God"). On its face, it is either a trinitarian or divine assembly term. There might be other legitimate arguments for the word's meaning, but Chang doesn't make them.
“How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD (Yahweh) is God [ie. Elohim], follow him; but if Baal is God [ie. Elohim], follow him.” (1Kings 18:21)
So, when Elijah put the choice before the Israelites on Mount Carmel what he was really asking is which one of these opposing beings is the true member of the Godhead. What is God and what is not? That they can't both be God because they are in conflict actually means that Elijah is assuming the members of the Godhead are fundamentally united - he is assuming something like the Trinity.
As mentioned at the beginning of this review, the Elohim error sinks Chang's whole project. My interest in this review is to show that the Trinity doesn't hang on a word but permeates the Old and New Testaments; is a foundation of the closely related Sumerian, Akkadian, and Old Babylonian religions that Abraham was brought up in; and is a substrate to all Mesopotamian religion and much of the religion in the Levant until at least Medieval times.
To unpack the name Yahweh starting with the Bible we must first go to Exodus 3:14. Verses 10-16 are provided for context and discussion:
10 And now come, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt.”
11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I [mi anoki], that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?”
12 And He said, “Assuredly I will be [ki eh-yeh] with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I [anoki] who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.”
13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am [anoki] going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
15 God furthermore said to Moses, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘The LORD [Yah-weh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is the [i]name for [j]all generations to use to call upon Me. 16 Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD [Yah-weh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has appeared to me, saying, “[k]I am indeed concerned about you and what has been done to you in Egypt.
Chang ably takes this up on page 469 following an agreeable summary of how the word Yahweh has been buried, translated, and pronounced. After a concise but thought-provoking explanation of "I Am who I Am", Chang takes notice of Yahweh's very anthropomorphic un-Godlike character on page 475. This is a big problem for Chang as he has already made the equation that Yahweh = "The Father" and rejected the pre-existent Christ. So, using exactly the kind of argument that he accuses the Trinitarians of using, he explains it away:
By ruling out the possibility of Yahweh’s actually having a “human” form, we must then seek some other explanation as to what it means that we are created in His image. As is well known, a variety of explanations are offered, none of which is satisfactory, or at most offer a partially acceptable explanation.
Would it not be true to say that we are in “divine” form, having been created in His image, rather than that Yahweh appears in “human” form? If this is true according to Scripture, then the gap between God and man, from God’s point of view, is not so wide as we have supposed or been led to believe. So, instead of speaking of God having appeared anthropomorphically we can say that man was created theomorphically, which is what the Scriptures explicitly state.
While he says that "Scriptures explicitly state," he doesn't go on to critically look at any of those scriptures, but rather dishes this off to modern Jewish authorities who are having to deal with a similar problem. These authorities pawn off the problem to "redactional layers of scripture" and "Greek philosophy." Hanging in the air is Colossians 1:15:
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Ockham's razor solves this quickly. Yahweh is the Godhead acting on the Son's prerogatives and when individualized, Yahweh = The Son.
88. I am the lord; I am one whose word is reliable; I am one who excels in everything.
I am the lord! I will travel! I am Enki! I will go forth into my Land! I, the lord who determines the fates, ……,"
Dealing with Memra passages in the Targums in an argument against a trinitarian understanding of Christianity, Chang takes the position of C.K. Barrett:
...מימרא [memra] however was not truly a hypostasis but a means of speaking about God without using his name, and thus a means of avoiding the numerous anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.
And therefore:
Memra is a blind alley in the study of the biblical background of John’s logos doctrine.
This is special pleading:
How can Memra protect against anthropomorphic language without it being considered a hypostasis? Consider, "They heard the voice of the memra of the Lord God." Who's voice did they hear? The answer is either "The Voice", "The Memra" or the Lord God. It has been argued outside of any consideration of the Memra that "The Voice" is a hypostasis of the Word of Yahweh. If that is the case, the use of Memra in this verse is entirely redundant. If the Voice is not a hypostasis then the Memra has to be one for the verse to make any sense at all.
Marinsek, Nicole L.; Gazzaniga, Michael S.; Miller, Michael B. (2016) "Chapter 17 - Split-Brain, Split-Mind" in The Neurology of Conciousness (Second Edition)
Schechter, Elizabeth (2015) The Other Side Self Consciousness in the 'Split Brain' Subject, Mar. 5, 2015 published January 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrC-sWYCsn0