Of these Targums, and others of a later date, it is known that they exhibit or construe the predictions concerning the Messiah in the same way as is done by Christians. That of Onkelos in particular, which is held to be the most ancient and the purest, and from which Prideaux supposes our Saviour to have quoted in several instances, which he specifies, is remarkable in this respect. And if, as is supposed, it represents literally or substantially the version which originated under the superintendence of Ezra, when, from the long disuse of the Hebrew Scriptures and the ignorance of the people generally of their meaning, it was of the first necessity to their instruction and reformation to explain the import and reference of the Divine names and titles in the books of Moses, where the prophets and church of preceding ages understood them to designate the Personal WORD; then the frequent insertion, before the names Jehovah and Elohim, of the term _Memra_ as equivalent to Logos, is a reliable exposition and attestation of the faith of Ezra and his predecessors. And, apparently, every consideration is in favor of this view of the case. The word in question is inserted before the words Jehovah and Elohim where the creation is asserted, so that the act is affirmed of the WORD, or the _Word_ Elohim, or the _Word_ Jehovah Elohim; for which no reason can be assigned or justification offered, unless the personal reference was the same as that of John in ascribing the creation to the Logos. By a like insertion the giving of the law to Moses at mount Sinai is ascribed to the WORD Elohim; speaking to him face to face, to the WORD Jehovah; and in numerous other instances, where personal acts are affirmed, and where the personal reference necessarily includes the added as well as the original designation. If this was done by Ezra, then he did but add what the circumstances of his time required to the example of Moses, who sometimes referred to the delegated ONE, the personal WORD, by the single terms, Jehovah and Elohim, and at others by the compound designations, Melach Jehovah and Melach Elohim. In his case, uniformity in this respect was rendered unnecessary, and diversity intelligible, by the prevalent sentiment, knowledge, and usage of the people. On the contrary, in the other case, the ignorance and disuse of the original Hebrew, on the part of the people, rendered it necessary, first in the oral translation and exposition, and afterwards in the written versions of the sacred books, to insert, at appropriate places, a term adapted, like Logos in the Greek, to suggest, or by definition and use to receive and fix the requisite meaning as a designation.