John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[dybmh]

Metatron, in the Sefer Hekhalot traditions I cited, assumes a similar intermediary function for this particular group of Jews: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’"

That is surely a level of uniqueness and exaltation that is comparable to anything one finds in John or the rest of the New Testament concerning Jesus. He is indeed portrayed by the author of Enoch as "second manifestation of the Deity in the name YHWH", as one scholar notes.

You may be right, I need to review this source before commenting more.

 

[Vouthon]

You may be right, I need to review this source before commenting more.

Please take your time! Here is an actual translation of the Sefer Hekhalot (opening with one of the passages that's relevant concerning Rabbi Ishmael's merkabah vision of Enoch - Metatron) with scholarly commentary in the footnotes:

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

I should emphasise that in the Hekhalot literature, the angel Metatron is the same person as the biblcal Enoch:

This Enoch, whose flesh was turned to flame, his veins to fire, his eye-lashes to flashes of lightning, his eye-balls to flaming torches, and whom God placed on a throne next to the throne of glory, received after this heavenly transformation the name Metatron.

— Scholem, Gershom G (1961) [1941], Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 67.​

So, he is not simply an angel - but rather a human/angelic/divine manifestation hybrid.

The same theme (of Enoch being the angel Metatron) was hypothesized in the earlier Similtudes of Enoch as well (which is dated by most scholars to around the turn of the first century BCE to the first century CE, making it a Second Temple text contemporaneous with the Qumran literature). Indeed, portions of the first Book of Enoch have been found at Qumran.

I will also highlight a slightly earlier passage of the Sefer Hekhalot where God informs Rabbi Ishmael concerning Enoch-Metatron:

"I have appointed Metatron my servant as a prince and ruler over all the denizens of the heights...Any angel or any prince who has anything to say in my Presence should go before him and speak to him. Whatever he says to you in my name you must observe and do..."​

That's a close parallel to the text of John concerning Jesus being the "way" to the Father (in both cases Jesus/Metatron function as the mediators of the Divine Presence to 'angels' and 'men' because of their unparalleled closeness to God).

Compare with John:

"Believe in God, believe also in me....Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me...Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works...If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." (John 14:6)

 

[dybmh]

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

I should emphasise that in the Hekhalot literature, the angel Metatron is the same person as the biblcal Enoch:

OK, this is what I needed...

Sefer Hekhalot is speaking to a specific audience, Merkabah mystics. The idea of this angel being a gate or intermediary fits into that context, however, taking it out of that context and putting it into the Moshaich context is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Vouthon]

OK, this is what I needed...

Sefer Helachok is speaking to a specific audience, Merkabah mystics. The idea of this angel being a gate or intermediary fits into that context, however, taking it out of that context and putting it into the Moshaich context is a bit of a stretch.

In the earlier Second Temple Enochian and Qumran literature, however - of which the later Hekhalot literature of the Merkabah mystics represents a development - the human-angelic figure (typically identified or associated in the texts with the Angel of the Lord in Exodus, the one who has YHWH's name in him) that serves as an intermediary of the Divine Presence - usually Enoch or Melchizedek depending on the Jewish sect in question (but also other personages) - was understood as having a Messianic role.

The early Christians picked up this tradition and 'rolled' with it for their presentation of Jesus.

In the Melchizedek scroll, for example, he is the messianic agent of a future Jubilee salvation. In the ancient exegete's bold interpretation of Isaiah 61:2 (which speaks of “the year of the YHVH’s favor”) the name Melchizedek is substituted for YHWH (as Enoch-Metatron would later be as well in the Hekhalot literature). In addition, Melchizedek is said to atone for the sins of the righteous and execute the divine judgment upon the wicked.

In these capacities, Melchizedek is described in the text as: "the Messiah of the spirit [mashiach haruach] about whom Dan[iel] spoke "...until the time of (the/an) Anointed Prince [mashiach nagid] there will be seven weeks . . . after sixty-two weeks, (the/an) Anointed shall be cut off" Dan 9:25, 26 ... good who announces salv[ation] is the one about whom it is written that [he will send him Isa 61:2-3 "to comfo[rt the afflicted, to watch over the afflicted ones of Zion"]", according to the scholarly reconstructions.

Originally, Daniel 9:25 (the 'messiah' who is "cut off" i.e. dies) probably referred to the murder of Onias III during the Maccabean Revolt - but for this ancient Jewish exegete writing in circa. 100 BCE, it became a messianic prophecy of the future which he connected with Isaiah 61.

This same kind of tradition is reflected in the contemporary Similtudes of Enoch where the Daniel passages are used to refer to Enoch-Metatron in a messianic context (thus beginning the tradition where Enoch is the heavenly mediator, rather than Melchizedek, which culminates in the Hekhalot literature). 1 Enoch reads:

(1 Enoch 46:1) There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the
appearance of a man;
And his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy
angels.
(2) And I asked the angel of peace, who went with me and
showed me all the hidden things, about that son of man
—who
he was and whence he was (and) why he went
with the Head of Days.
(3) And he answered me and said to me,
“This is the son of man who has righteousness, and
righteousness dwells with him,
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, . . .

(1 Enoch 48:2) And in that hour that son of man was
named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
and his name, before the Head of Days [God].
(3) Even before the sun and the constellations [of the
zodiac] were created,
[and] before the stars of heaven were made,
his name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
(4) He will be a staff for the righteous,
that they may lean on him and not fall;
He will be the light of the nations,
and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their hearts.
(5) All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship
before him,
and they will glorify and bless and sing hymns to the name
of the Lord of Spirits.
(6) For this (reason) he was chosen and hidden in his
[God’s] presence,
before the world was created, and [he will remain] before
him forever.

(1 Enoch 62:2) And the Lord of Spirits seated him [the Son
of Man] upon the throne of glory,
and the spirit of righteousness was poured upon him.
And the word of his mouth will slay all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous will perish from his presence.
(3) And there will stand up on that day all the kings and
the mighty
and the exalted and those who possess the land

And they will see and recognize that he sits on the throne
of his glory;
And righteousness is judged in his presence,
And no lying word is spoken in his presence. . . .
and he revealed him to the chosen. . . .

(9) And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and
those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his
presence;
and they will worship and set their hope on the Son of Man,
and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him."​

Later on in the text, we learn that a biblical personage from the Torah - Enoch - is the eternal Son of Man whose name (according to text) pre-existed with God before the creation of the world:

(1 Enoch 71:13) And that Head of Days came with Michael
and Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel,
and thousands and tens of thousands of angels without
number.
(14) And he [the angel Michael] came to me and greeted
me with his voice and said to me,
“You [Enoch] are that Son of Man who was born for
righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake
you.”​

Whether one puts the 'divine agent' in a Messianic role (as did the earlier Qumran/Similtudes of Enoch) or in a pure intermediary function, the basic fact is that the texts portrary a human being as an angel and manifestation of God (indeed the "Lesser YHWH") and arguably this is the right context within which to understand the portrayel of Jesus in early Christian texts, such as the Gospel of John.

In this respect, the scholar Peter Schafer writes:

"His [the author of the Similtudes of Enoch's] message was: the highest being alongside God is not one of his well-known angels and archangels but rather an angel who had previously been a man, and this man—as the Messiah—will bring justice and eternal peace to humanity. There is also no doubt that this Son of Man–Enoch of the Similitudes is part of the Jewish repertoire that the New Testament drew on."

(Schafer, p.52 (2020))
​

There would appear to have been many different and competing understandings of the Messiah in Second Temple Judaism - some Qumran texts posit two Messiahs (a Messiah Aaron and a Messiah Israel), others posit a 'heavenly mediator' Messiah who acts as God's agent and is given the title Elohim (as with the human-angelic Melchizedek in 11Q13), whilst other texts conform more closely to the ideas that became the mainstream of orthodox Rabbinic Judaism - a purely human messiah with no angelic or divine aspect.

The early Christians emerged from the other strain of Messianism that we find reflected in the some of the Qumran texts in my OP, the 'divine mediation / second power in heaven' aspect of which persisted into the Rabbinic era (shorn of its messianism) in the Hekhalot literature and caused controversy with the Rabbis in light of its relationship with monotheism, as reflected in the Talmudic references to a "two powers in heaven" heresy among Jews.

The intellectual history behind these ideas and their transmission is extremely complicated.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's a fascinating perspective, Brick.

So, how would the narrative read if Jesus is not talking about himself or any person? Can you elaborate a little more on this?

Yes, but it takes me a while to crank out a post. I'll put an @ on it when I finally post it.

 

[dybmh]

Enoch or Melchizedek depending on the Jewish sect in question - was understood as having a Messianic role.

Do you happen to have source material for this? Pretty please? Ideally I'm looking for the role. I'm guessing that this role is different in the messianic context vs. the Merkabah context.

 

[Vouthon]

Do you happen to have source material for this? Pretty please? Ideally I'm looking for the role. I'm guessing that this role is different in the messianic context vs. the Merkabah context.

Sure thing, the messianic functions associated with Melchizedek and Enoch-as-heavenly Son of Man are discussed in a number of articles by scholars, for instance by the Jewish Talmudist scholar Daniel Boyarin in his The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (2012) and in this following lecture from 2016 which can be listened to online here:

Daniel Boyarin: Enoch or Jesus? The Quest of the Historical Metatron


A different scholar addressing some of the same stuff:


Jesus as the Son of Man in Mark

Crispin Fletcher-Louis (a Dead Sea Scholar I referenced earlier) also writes on this in various books (some of which I cited on the first page) but also in this one:

Jesus Monotheism

And in quite a full treatment by Gabriele Boccaccini's "Enoch and the Son of Man" (2007), some of which you should be able to view on googlebooks:

Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man

The role seems to be 'pretty' similiar to be honest, it's just in that in the Qumran and earlier Enochian contexts, the 'divine agent' is also a messianic figure.

However, the most recent study of the entire swathe of the literature - both the Qumranite / Enochian and the later Hekhalot - would be Peter Schafer's, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (2020):

Two Gods in Heaven

Schafer's latest study, refines some of his earlier claims in debates with Boyarin over the 'Metatron' dimension of this scholarship (they are both leading authorities on this strain of thought in Second Temple Judaism).

 

[Vouthon]

On the possible links between Qumran and later Hekhalot mysticism, this study is the best (especially chapter 4.4):

The Mystical Texts

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Baralaha. Benelohim. Son of God. Is all over the place in Judaism. But doesn't mean what it means in the Christian theology.

Precisely. Christians always either knowingly or unknowingly apply a wholly anachronistic exegetical approach to these things which render them eisegetical.
And clearly it shows the opposite is true, the existence of terms like Son of God (as well as other variations like SonS of God, and "The Firstborn Son of God", both render literalizing it in regards to Jesus as being inherently fall)
Jews in the 1st century writing things about the claimed Moshiach, are not going to write things that (under much later Christian reinterpretations) heavily contradict all the fundamentals of Torah exegesis.

Also anyway, in Luke 3:38, Adam is referred to as a Son of God. Christian apologetics have no valid answers to these issues of their eisegesis.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

But to claim "No one goes to the father except through me", in other words, "there is only 1 gate, 1 door, 1 route, 1 path, just me...", that's not what's described in the examples above. In Judaism there are many paths, many ways, not just 1 gate.

I agree, regarding your view of the Christian interpretation.
It is entirely illogical, if such an interpretation is correct, for Jesus to be considered the messiah or even a prophet - if those words mean what Christians think they mean.
It nullifies all the Prophets from Adam to Malachi etc.

The problem that always arises though is trying to square the Jewish understanding of the authors of the book (as they were Jews), with the later Christian interpretations and doctrines.
90% of the symbols in in New Testament, in the Gospel of John and other books, have generally quite distinct precedent in the Tanakh, sometimes with developed significance, but still very Jewish precedent.
The trouble is always trying to crowbar the text of the Gospel of John far away from the later Christian context and back into it's original Jewish context without the superman-skydaddy nonsense.



P.S. I will also add (admitting that it's off-topic) that the particular verse from John you cite actually has a profound and very different meaning in Shia Islam but I won't discuss that here, perhaps another time.

 

[PruePhillip]

...

John wrote the Gospel of John, just as Luke wrote Luke and Acts.
These documents were circulated widely throughout the Roman Empire long
before the modern New Testament was compiled. The books in the NT were
named for what they known as.
John's character is seen in the Gospels. He wasn't a man of law like Paul
or a historian like Luke - he was a very simple, gentle man. It shows in his
Gospel and his letters.
John didn't invent any new doctrine, he traveled widely and did not form any
"Johanine community"

 

[metis]

I disagree.

That's fine, however you might be interested in reading this: Why the Maccabees Aren't in the Bible | My Jewish Learning

 

[Vouthon]

@dybmh Another great article by a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, FG Martinez, which sets out and explains in detail all of the Messianic concepts extant in the Qumran and Enochic literature:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1047&context=mi&type=additional&ved=2ahUKEwjK1srEuYbqAhWVQhUIHVbdBIkQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0EU2lRY3bDFe5BpLN_uUbd

This is probably the most concise scholarly overview of the material.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Hello dybmh,

Thank you for your response, I very much appreciate it!

Having only read that initial post of yours, I was not aware of what element - specifically - in John you were referring to. So, I decided to post some information about the specific Jewish interpretative tradition which a number of scholars believe preceded and shaped the theology of John, namely a number of Qumran tracts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By understanding the interrelationship - conceptual and linguistic - between these texts (dating circa. second century BCE to late first century BCE) and John, it is possible to 'contextualize' John against the background of the precise strain in Second Temple Jewish thought which appears to have spawned the text. Ultimately, the only way to properly 'exegize' and understand a given text, is to trace the prior origins of its key ideas and influences. That's what I'm doing with John in the OP.

I thank you for providing me with the element in Johannine thought which strikes you as the most heterodox from a Jewish POV.

You are right that the Gospel of John describes Jesus's in an 'intermediary' function (between God and creation) and equally correct that this could be construed as standing in a potencially tense relationship with the mitzvot in Exodus 20:10. This 'mediatory' role is quite a common Christological notion in the early Christian literature.

In one of the texts I cited in my OP, 11Q13 (the Melchizedek scroll), scholars believe that the Torah figure of Melchizedek - a rather minor person in Genesis, who has a famous discussion with Abraham and is described as the high priest of El (Most High God) in Salem - had been elevated to a heavenly 'mediator' role as an eschatological figure, described in the text as being the "your Elohim" (your God) referred to in Isaiah 52:7.

Here is an example of only one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who discusses Melchizedek's elevation in the text to the role of a 'divine mediator':

The Dead Sea scrolls as background to postbiblical Judaism and early Christianity

So, in my opinion, my OP does actually relate to this issue of 'mediation'. There was a strain of thought in pre-Christian Second Temple Judaism - and I place emphasis upon the word "strain" so as to avoid any misunderstanding here - called the 'divine agency' tradition by scholars, first attested circa. 200 BCE, which introduced either angels (such as Michael and Metatron) or human biblical figures (Enoch and Melchizedek, also sometimes Moses himself) as 'deified' personages who sat on a throne next to God and manifested his presence - in the later Metatron tradition, the Jews in question went so far as to label this mediator figure, "the Lesser YHWH", just as Melchizedek in this much earlier Qumran text (from 100 BCE) was accorded epiphets and passages in the Hebrew Bible that are traditionally applied to the God of Israel alone (in this case, Isaiah 52:7, with Melchizedek assuming God's role in the text).

See also this, in terms of Metatron's presentation in the Sefer Hekhalot:


Andrei A

The significance of Metatron’s figure among the angelic hosts can be briefly and accurately summed up in his title the Lesser YHWH,[1] which occurs with abbreviations several times in 3 Enoch, including passages found in Synopse §15, §73, and §76. In Synopse §15, Metatron reports to R. Ishmael that the Deity proclaimed him the junior manifestation of his name in front of all the angelic hosts: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ (N+qh ywy) in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’”[2]

As with Metatron’s other offices, this designation as the lesser Tetragrammaton is closely connected with the angel’s duties and roles in the immediate presence of the Lord. Scholars have thus previously noted that the name the Lesser YHWH, attested in 3 Enoch (Synopse §15, §73, and §76) is used “as indicative of Metatron’s character of representative, vicarius, of the Godhead; it expresses a sublimation of his vice-regency[3] into a second manifestation[4] of the Deity in the name[5] YHWH.”[6]

The sharing of the attributes with the Godhead is significant and might convey the omniscience of its bearer. Peter Schäfer observes that in Sefer Hekhalot, Enoch-Metatron who stands at the head of all the angels as “lesser YHWH” is the representation of God. Endowed with the same attributes as God, Metatron, just like the Deity, is omniscient.[9] Another important attribute that the Deity and the lesser manifestation of His name share is the attribute of the celestial seat, an important symbol of authority. ​

This kind of 'binatarian' heresy, which the Talmudic Rabbis fought against as a violation of monotheism, is thought by many scholars to lie at the roots of the New Testament 'high christology' (with Jesus assuming the role other 'heretical' Jews like Aher gave to 'Metatron') and it is a separate matter from later Nicene Trinitarianism (which relied upon Greek philosophical categories of ontology, in part, for its articulation), which had no analogue in Second Temple Judaism.

To the Jews and later Christians who 'developed' out of this strain of thought in Second Temple Judaism, they did not personally believe themselves to be in violation of monotheism or that particular mitzvot of Exodus which warns against worshipping any gods before God. This is because these 'exalted' figures - whether Enoch, Michael, Metatron, Melchizedek or Jesus depending on the given sect - were incorporated into God's unicity and worshipped with Him as part and parcel of one divine reality (even though, in practice, there were two 'figures' here - hence the scholarly description of this tradition as binatarian).

The early Christians were not 'Trinitarian' - as with later Nicene Christianity - but rather 'binatarian' as representatives of a preceding tradition of such theology (or 'heresy' depending on one's POV) in Second Temple Jewish thought, as reflected in the Qumran texts cited and in the Similtudes of Enoch (and other extra-canonical Jewish literature from the time).

Speaking of the Gospel of John and high Christology, have you ever heard of the Memra?

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Vouthon]

Speaking of the Gospel of John and high Christology, have you ever heard of the Memra?

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I have indeed, the Talmudist scholar Daniel Boyarin has devoted a lot of attention in various studies to its relationship with Johannine theology of the "Word", as in this article:

The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/108%20Gospel%20of%20the%20Memra%20(2001).pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGnaHNz4bqAhUhpnEKHSlADzcQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw21_zP_TV2mmBgnma3FBAzq

 

[dybmh]

Another great article by a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar

OK, thanks. I'll look at it along with others. I'll see you back in here in ... IDK ... a few months to discuss it (I'm still looking at the first set of videos you sent... )

 

[Vouthon]

OK, thanks. I'll look at it along with others. I'll see you back in here in ... IDK ... a few months to discuss it (I'm still looking at the first set of videos you sent... )

At least I cannot be accused of a lack of comprehensiveness

The Boyarin lectures are indeed long and complicated, but they do give a good overview of the scholarship from one of its leading players.

That most recent article cited above, by Martinez, is an especially good overview of the Qumran literature though (and its interrelationship with the pseudopigrapha).

Naturally, this is a huge focus of academic study - so there's a lot of stuff to read.

 

[dybmh]

The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/108%20Gospel%20of%20the%20Memra%20(2001).pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGnaHNz4bqAhUhpnEKHSlADzcQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw21_zP_TV2mmBgnma3FBAzq

From the linked article:

"Targum Onkelos speaks of the Memra of Yahweh. This is not a personification, but the use of Memra serves as a buffer for divine transcendence. It seems not to have occurred to any who hold this view that it is fundamentally incoherent and self-contradictory ... It follows then that the strongest reading of the Memra is that it is not a mere name, but an actual divine entity, or mediator."

Again, mediator for whom and for what purpose? This concept of Memra of Yahweh needs context , just like the concept of a lesser-G-d intermediary angel needs context. Context is needed in order to see if it is relevant at all in the context of redemption / salvation. This context does not appear to be given in the linked article.

 

[dybmh]

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

Please note: this is nothing more than another angel acting on behalf of G-d. It's not a gate. If anything this proves that Jesus saying "There is no way to G-d but through me" is incompatible with Judaism. Why? Because clearly in Judaism there is more than one way to approach G-d. There's the Merkabah approach, which according to your sources is legit Jewish practice. And then we have this Memra, it brings Israel to G-d, that's another way.

So there you have it, from your own sources Jewish theology at the time accepted multiple paths to G-d, In the Book of John Jesus said "No, I'm the only way." Therefore, Jesus as described in the Book of John is incompatible with Judaism.

In order to make The Book of John compatible with Judaism, there would need to be a Jewish source claiming that there is only 1 way to approach G-d. And I don't think it exists.

 

[Vouthon]

From the linked article:

"Targum Onkelos speaks of the Memra of Yahweh. This is not a personification, but the use of Memra serves as a buffer for divine transcendence. It seems not to have occurred to any who hold this view that it is fundamentally incoherent and self-contradictory ... It follows then that the strongest reading of the Memra is that it is not a mere name, but an actual divine entity, or mediator."

Again, mediator for whom and for what purpose? This concept of Memra of Yahweh needs context , just like the concept of a lesser-G-d intermediary angel needs context. Context is needed in order to see if it is relevant at all in the context of redemption / salvation. This context does not appear to be given in the linked article.

In 11q13 the particular lesser-God intermediary in view (Melchizedek in this case, described as the "Your Elohim" (Isaiah 52:7)) is definetely acting in a redemptive eschatological capacity as God's agent of salvation:

"...the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek...

And your ELOHIM is Melchizedek, who will save them from the hand of Belial..."​

In the Johannine prologue, the emphasis is more upon the 'Word's' role as God's agent of creation and subsequently of 'revelation / knowledge' of the Father to mankind (i.e. "all things were created through him", "it is God the only Son who is close to the Father's heart who has made him known") and then an additional redemptive role is brought in further down. That's the overriding purpose of John 1. I surmise that this is where Boyarin is drawing the comparison with the Targumic Memra, as God's creative agent and agent of 'self-revelation', as Boyarin notes in the article:

"We find the Memra working as the Logos works in the following ways:

Creating: Gen 1:3: "And the Memra of H' said Let there be light and there was Light by his Memra." In all of the following verses, it is the Memra that performs all of the creative actions.

Speaking to humans: Gen 3:8 ff: "And they heard the voice of the Memra of H'.... And the Memra of H' called out to the Man.

Revealing himself: Gen 18:1: "And was revealed to him the Memra of H'."

Punishing the wicked: Gen 19:24 "And the Memra of H' rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah."5' Saving: Exod 17:21: "And the Memra of H' was leading them during the day in a pillar of cloud."52

Redeeming: Deut 32:39: "When the Memra of H' shall be revealed to redeem his people." These examples lead inductively to the conclusion that the Memra performs many, if not all, of the functions of the Logos of Christian Logos theology (as well as of Wisdom)"​