In exploring the possibility that ancient Judaism included an expectation that a Messiah would build the Temple, scholarship has been drawn to passages in Targum Jonathan which have been seen by some to evidence such an anticipation. The analysis of these passages offered in the present study suggests that while TgJon was exegetically interested in those ‘Anointed Ones’ whom the Hebrew tradition had expected to build the First and Second Temples, its translation manifests no contemporary expectation of a Messiah who would build a new Temple in the meturgeman’s own time or the world to come.
Thus while D. JuelMessiah and Temple p. 187is correct in understanding that the targumic interpretation makes clear that the actions of the Anointed One belong to the future this is nothing more than what the clearly prophetic character of the Hebrew assumes and cannot be taken as indicating the expectation of the building of an ‘eschatological temple’ (p. 184). This fact recognized by L. Gaston No Stone (p. 149) is seemingly also lost on J. Ådna Jesu Stellung p. 81 n. 202 whose criticism of the former is thus misguided.
While ÅdnaJesu Stellung p. 79suggests that the Targum’s reading of “stone” as “Messiah” imposes a messianic interpretation which is entirely unsolicited by 4.7 the Hebrew text’s mention of Zerubbabel and the specific overtones of 4.8 make God’s revealing of his Messiah an obvious and indeed virtually inevitable interpretation for the meturgeman. (cf. also TgPs 118.22 where the rejected stone is interpreted in Davidic terms).
LeveyThe Messiah p. 80n. 97 notes that “shepherd” becomes “leader” in TgEzek 34.23 while as Y.S. Chae Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament Second Temple Judaism and in the Gospel of Matthew. (Tübingen Germany: Mohr Siebeck 2006) pp. 153–154 notes that this same adjustment is found in 34.2 5 as part of the meturgeman’s overall approach of dissolving the pastoral metaphor of MT in Ezek. 34.
JuelMessiah and Temple p. 187; Gaston’s assertion (No Stone p. 149 n. 1) that this is a gloss depends on H. Hegermann Jesaia 53 in Hexapla Targum und Peschitta (BFCT 2. Reihe 56. Band Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann 1954) p. 79 who in turn cites G. Dalman Aramäische Dialektproben (Leipzig: Hinrichs 1896) p. 10 n. 2 whose assertion is unsubstantiated.
J. ÅdnaJesu Stellung p. 77; The basic fidelity of the meturgeman to the MT of 2Sam 7 and the absence of a messianic interpretation has also been acknowledged by D. Juel Messiah and Temple p. 185 who nevertheless proceeds to suggest that the absence of a rejection of a messianic interpretation should be taken as evidence of its endorsement.
So A. Chester‘The Sibyl and the Temple’ p. 51who sees this omission as ‘apparently deliberate’ and rightly denies that the text discloses the expectation of a messianic temple builder. Contrast the treatment by Juel Messiah and Temple pp. 172–179 whose argument that such an expectation is visible in the text is undermined when he omits to observe that 7.13a is itself omitted in the exegesis of 4QFlorilegium.