New Test. Stud. 25, pp.

1632

C. T. R. HAYWARD

THE HOLY NAME OF THE GOD

OF MOSES AND THE PROLOGUE OF
ST JOHN'S GOSPEL*
It is now over twenty years since Alejandro Di'ez Macho announced his
discovery of a complete text of the Palestinian Targum contained in the
Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. 1 Even before the first volume of the
editio princeps was published,2 the importance of Neofiti I (N) and its marginal
and interlinear glosses (Ngl) was apparent not only to specialists in the
Aramaic language, Old Testament studies, and Jewish Literature of the
Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic times,3 but also to New Testament
scholars.4 A particular feature of N which was bound to attract attention
sooner or later is its frequent use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of
Yahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the 'Elohim of the Masso-
retic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum
(FT) .5 As we shall see presently, the exact significance of the term Memra
was once a matter for keen scholarly debate, some asserting that it repre-
sented an entity separate from God, an intermediary between God and the
created order, others roundly denying that it was any such thing, and re-
garding it only as a reverent means of avoiding pronunciation of the Holy
* The writer of this paper is most grateful to Dr Geza Verities for his advice and assistance in its
preparation, and to the Rev. Andrew Louth, Fellow of Worcester College, for his comments on
reading the article.
1
Cf. A. Diez Macho, 'Una Copia de todo el Targum jerosolimitano en la Vaticana', Estudios
Biblicos xvi (1956), 446-7. For Diez Macho's description of this Targum, cf. 'The Recently Dis-
covered Palestinian Targum: its Antiquity and Relationship with the other Targums', Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, Oxford Congress Volume VII (1960), 222-45.
2
At the time of writing, four volumes of the Aramaic text have been published under the editor-
ship of A. Diez Macho: Neophyti I, Tomo I Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona, 1968); Tomollxodo (Madrid-
Barcelona, 1970); Tomo III Levitico (Madrid-Barcelona, 1971); Tomo IV Numeros (Madrid, 1974).
In each volume the Aramaic is translated into Spanish (by A. Diez Macho), French (by R. le
Deaut), and English (by M. McNamara).
8
Cf. the introductions to each of the published volumes, in which Diez Macho surveys and
summarizes scholarly discussion related to Targum, and idem, 'Le Targum Palestinien', in Extgese
Biblique et Judaisme, ed. J.-E. Menard (Strasbourg, 1973), pp. 1577.
4
Cf. R. le Deaut, La Nuit Paschale (Rome, 1963); idem, Liturgie juive et Notweau Testament (Rome,
1965); M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966);
idem, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972). For the most recent survey of the effect of Targumic
studies upon New Testament scholarship, cf. R. le Deaut, 'Targumic Literature and New Testa-
ment Interpretation', Biblical Theology Bulletin rv (1974), 243-89.
6
Das Fragmententhargum, ed. M. Ginsburger (Berlin, 1899), hereafter FTG; cf. also the Targum
Yerushalmi II, ed. B. Walton, SS Biblia Polyglotta (London, 1657), hereafter FTW. The Targums
Onqelos (TO) and Pseudo-Jonathan (Ps-Jon) do not include the Memra in their versions of Gen. i.
For TO, cf. the edition of A. Berliner (Berlin, 1884), and for Ps-Jon the edition of M. Ginsburger
(Berlin, 1903).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 17
and Ineffable Name. For reasons shortly to be described it was the latter
opinion which finally prevailed and which is now generally accepted as
established fact; but in the days before the scholarly debate on Memra was
concluded it had been quite common for New Testament scholars to argue
that, as an hypostasis and intermediary between God and the world, Memra
had formed either the single antecedent, or one of the antecedents, to the
Logos of the prologue of St John's Gospel. The presence of Memra in the text
of N to Gen. i, and its frequent appearance in the Ngl, has led to renewed
scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so
that A. Diez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Munoz 1 are all prepared to
consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of St John's prologue. With
the results of previous scholarship in mind, and in the light of new evidence,
it would appear that the time is now right for a critical evaluation of these
recent claims.
This paper is an attempt to provide a new solution to the question whether
Memra forms part or whole of the background to the Johannine Logos. In the
light of new evidence drawn from N and the other Targums we shall see that
the Memra is neither an hypostasis, nor a pious periphrasis for the Name
YHWH, but that it is an exegetical term which stands for the Name revealed
by God to Moses at the burning bush, the Name 'HYH I AM/WILL BE
THERE. 2 Further, we shall attempt to show that Memra originated in pre-
Christian times, and that its use by St John cannot be ruled out tout court.
Finally, an attempt will be made to indicate some of the effects which our
observations, if they are correct, might have on the interpretation of St John's
prologue.
A brief survey of opinions which scholars have held concerning the rela-
tionship between Logos and Memra will serve not only to put this study into
perspective, but also to make clear the peculiar nature of the problem of
Memra's meaning. We remarked earlier3 that New Testament scholars had
often invoked the aid of Memra in their comments on John i. This was cer-
tainly the case in the last century. No less a scholar than B. F. Westcott held
that Memra had influenced St John's writing of his prologue,4 and that the
Memra tended towards the idea of a divine person subordinate to God.5
A. Edersheim,6 similarly, traced Targumic influence upon the prologue, and

1
Cf. A. Diez Macho, 'El Logos y el Espiritu Santo', Atldntida 1 (1963), 381-96; idem, ' L a Data-
cion de Neofiti I (Las Denominaciones de Dios) Memra de Yahweh', in Neophyti I, Tomo IV Niuneros,
4O*~43*; M. McNamara, 'Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum',
Exp. T. LXXIX (1968), 11517; idem, Targum and Testament, 101-6; Domingo Munoz, 'Apendice
sobre El Memra de Yahweh en el MS Neophyti I ' , in Neophyti I, Tomo IIILevitico, 7O*-83*. This
'Ap&idice...' is a summary of his doctoral thesis, which is soon to be published.
2 3
This translation is explained below, pp. 21-3. Cf. above, p. 16.
4
Cf. B. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 4th ed. (London, 1872), pp. 147 f.;
idem, The Gospel according to St John, 1 (London, 1908), 5 f.
6
An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 147.
* Cf. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London, 1890), 1, 46-8.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

l8 G. T. R. HAYWARD
boldly asserted: ' . . .if words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis',1
with the added proviso that there is in it no marked element of personal sub-
sistence. The works of A. Tholuck,2 J. S. Lange,3 E. F. Scott4 and C. F. Nol-
loth5 all claim that St John was to a greater or lesser extent under the in-
fluence of the Targumic Memra when he wrote his prologue. And when the
great Aramaic scholar C. F. Burney came to render the prologue into what,
in his opinion, was its original form,6 he chose Memra to represent Logos,1 and
traced its origin to the Old Testament dabar which, he argued, was in certain
places (e.g. Pss. xxxiii. 6; cvii. 20) used in such a way as to suggest that it was
an hypostasis.8 Until at least 1925, therefore, New Testament scholars could
seriously consider the Memra as an antecedent to St John's Logos,9 and in so
doing would have found themselves in agreement with such students of
Jewish thought as F. Weber,10 K. Kohler11 and W. Bousset.12
In more recent times, however, almost all the leading authorities on St
John's Gospel have rejected the influence of Memra on Logos, and follow the
opinion that Memra is a mere circumlocution for YHWH, and that it is used
to avoid anthropomorphisms in speaking of God. C. K. Barrett sums up the
current attitude when he says that' Memra is a blind alley in the study of the
biblical background of John's Logos doctrine'. 13 Similar views were held by
earlier writers like J. Estlin Carpenter,14 D. F. Buchsel,15 E. Percy,16 R. H.
Strachan17 and P-H. Menoud,18 and are reiterated by R. Schnackenburg,19 who
states that the Memra has nothing to do with speculation on hypostasization,20
but is simply a periphrasis for God, to avoid irreverence. We might finally
1
Ibid. pp. 47-8.
2
Cf. A. Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of St John (Edinburgh, i860), appendix 2, p . 436.
3
Cf. J . S. Lange, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Leipzig, 1868), pp. 38, 40.
4
Cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology (Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 149-50. For
him the Memra is an hypostasis which evolved after the time of Philo.
6
Cf. C. F. Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist, his Place in the Development of Religious Thought (London,
1925), p. 175. He notes that the extant Targums were not written down until the third century A.D.
and later, but contain earlier elements.
6
Cf. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922), pp. 37-43.
' Cf. his translation, ibid. p. 40: iNTlVx m 1 ? NIH N i n ^ i K i n 1 * N1H K1j?3.
8
Ibid. p. 38.
8
But not all were so inclined: cf. A. Loisy, Le Quatrie'me Evangile (Paris, 1921), p. 89. He attributes
Logos to Egyptian ideas, comparing especially the figure of Thoth-Hermes.
10
Cf. F. Weber, System der Altsynagogalen paldstinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud
(Leipzig, 1886), pp. 161-8; idem, Judische Theologie (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 180-4.
11
Cf. K. Kohler, article ' M e m r a ' in The Jewish Encyclopaedia, vm (New York, 1904), 464-5.
18
Cf. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen %eitalttr (Berlin, 1906), p . 399.
Cf. 4th ed., 1966.
13
Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (London, 1965), p . 128.
11
Cf. J . Estlin Carpenter, Thejohannine Writings (London, 1927), pp. 291-2; 313. He believes that
T O is the earliest Targum, and dates it to the second century in Palestine.
15
Cf. D. F. Buchsel, Johannes und der hellenistische Synkretisrrms (Giitersloh, 1928), p . 33.
16
Cf. E. Percy, Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung der johanneischen Theologie (Lund, 1939), p . 303.
17
Cf. R . H . Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment (London, 1941)^.93,11.3.
18
Cf. P.-H. Menoud, L'Evangile dejean (Neuchatel, 1947), p. 52.
19
The Gospel according to St John, 1, tr. K. Smith (New York, 1968), Excursus 1, ' T h e Origin and
Nature of the Johannine Concept of the Logos', pp. 481-93.
10
Ibid. p . 485.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 19
note Rudolf Bultmann's comment that Memra is God's self-manifestation as
numen praesens: it is never used absolutely in Targum, and is found in paral-
lelism with words like NTI31, Kmsn, and Kni'DP. It can often stand for
irn when it is in parallelism with "fc~l, and has no affinities with John's
Logos.1
This current scholarly attitude towards Memra is due almost entirely to the
careful and painstaking work of students of Rabbinic Judaism, who were
fully conscious that Memra could not be an hypostasis. The fundamental
monotheism of mainstream Rabbinic Judaism, reflected in the Targums,
rules out the existence of any such independent or semi-independent entity
between God and creation. This basic fact of Jewish belief was clearly stated
by J. Abelson in 1912,2 but it was not until G. F. Moore undertook a radical
re-examination of the Targumic evidence that the world of New Testament
scholarship in general paid attention.3 Moore demonstrated that Memra of
YHWH nowhere represented the Old Testament expression nijT'naT, but
meant dictum in the widest sense, and translated such Hebrew terms as
'command', 'voice', etc. He rejected the view that it could mean 'self', nor
could it be called an angel, power, or mode of divine manifestation. Only a
semblance of personality attached to it, and this resulted simply from its use
in avoiding the Name of God. The great Kommentar of H. L. Strack and P.
Billerbeck endorsed Moore's conclusions,4 and V. Hamp's study5 of all the
Targumic evidence then available, including the Cairo Geniza fragments
(G),6 appeared to settle the matter finally and convincingly; The work of
these experts must stand as an assured result of Jewish scholarship: the
Memra is in no way an hypostasis nor an intermediary, and those New Testa-
ment scholars who have rejected Memra's influence on St John almost in-
variably refer to Moore, Hamp or Strack-Billerbeck.
The Memra is not an hypostasis.7 But does it then follow that Memra is
just a circumlocution for the Tetragram? There have been scholars who were
not prepared to follow such a view,8 and in his recent commentary on St
John's Gospel R. E. Brown has once more revived the question of the evan-
1
Cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, a Commentary, tr. G. Beasley-Murray (Oxford, 1971), p. 22.
See especially note 4.
2
Cf. J. Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature (London, 1912), pp. 150-73.
3
Cf. G. F. Moore, 'Intermediaries in Jewish Theology', H.T.R. xv (1922), 41-85. This article is
commended by F. C. Burkitt, 'Memra, Shekinah, Metatron', J.T.S. xxiv (1923), 158-9.
4
Cf. H. L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Miin-
chen, 1924), 11, 302-33. Note especially p. 333, where Memra is defined as 'ein inhaltsloser, rein
formelhafter Ersatz fiir das Tetragram', words later cited by Moore, Judaism, 1 (Harvard, 1927),
418, n. 1. Cf. also G. Dalman, Die Wortejesu (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1930), pp. 187-9.
6
Cf. V. Hamp, Der Begriff" Wort" in den aramdischen Bibelubersetzungen (Munchen, 1938).
Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Western, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1927, 1930).
7
Although some still, apparently, believe that it is; cf. A. Nego'itsa and C. Daniel, 'L'Agneau de
Dieu est le Verbe de Dieu', Nov.Test. xm (1971), 24-37.
8
Cf. G. H. Box, ' The idea of intermediation in Jewish theology', Jewish Quarterly Review xxm
(1932), 103-19; R. D. Middleton, 'Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel', be. cit. xxix (1938-9),
101-33.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

20 C. T. R. HAYWARD
1
gelist's use of Memra. Some of his comments are most perceptive, as for
example when he quotes the Targum to Exod. iii. 12,2 but generally he does
not define Memra's function, nor are we given an adequate description of its
nature.
Brown's commentary brings us back to the start of this discussion, where
we briefly alluded to the views of Diez Macho and others.3 Unlike Brown,
these scholars build their arguments on N. Their views will be examined
more fully later,4 but here we may record that McNamara argues on the
basis of N to Exod. xii. 42 that Memra is identical to the primordial light
which shone at Creation, and may well provide one of the background ideas
for John's Logos.5 Domingo Mufioz makes no very definite pronouncement
on the nature of Memra, but an indication of his underlying views is most
probably given by his statement that the idea of Memra was probably fixed in
writing in the first century A.D., a time, he says, not characterized by anti-
hypostatic tendencies.6 Diez Macho, supporting Domingo Mufioz, believes
that John i. 14 and Apoc. xix. 13 presuppose the Memra, and comments:
'The step from a "word of God" pronounced in order to create (Gen. 1) to
"the Word" in the absolute, already occurs in Philo's exegesis (Somn. 1. 75)
in commenting on Gen. i. 3.''
Both Diez Macho and Domingo Mufioz are rightly dissatisfied with the
current view of Memra as a mere substitute for YHWH, and they have quite
properly reinstated Memra as a topic for research; indeed, their contribution
to scholarship in this area has been of the greatest benefit and assistance.
Often, however, they approach the view that Memra is an hypostasis - cf. the
statement quoted above a view which we have seen to be unacceptable.
Three points are to be noted here. First, no one has ever attempted to
account for the origin of the term Memra. The intellectual and theological
antecedents of such Targumic terms as Shekhinah and Yeqara (Glory) are
fairly evident, but this is not the case with Memra. Why was this particular term
devised, when the Old Testament already had dabar, and there were so many
other available means of avoiding anthropomorphisms or for the expression
of some theology of divine communication or immanence? The question
will not disappear. Why Memra?
1
The Gospel according to St John, 1, Anchor Bible (New York, 1966), appendix n: 'The Word',
pp. 519-24-
a
Ibid. p. 524: 'He (Jesus) is the Memra, God's presence among men*. This, we maintain, is the
crux of the matter: cf. below, pp. 21-3.
3
Cf. above, p. 17. * Cf. below, pp. 30-1.
5
' Logos of the Fourth Gospel...', pp. 116-17.
'Apendice...', p. 82*.
7
'Elpasodeuna"palabradeDios"pronunciadaparacrear(Gen. 1) a"laPalabra" enabsoluto,
ya ocurre en le exegesis de Fil6n (Somn. 1. 75) al commentar Gen. 1. 3 ' ; 'La Datacion Neophyti
I . . . ' , pp. 42*~3*. Cf. with this his statement in 'El Logos y El Espiritu Santo', p. 387: ' . . .Es
patente que la creation se atribuye al Verbo de Yahv6, ya se le considere como metonimia pura-
mente verbal de Yahve, ya como hip6stasis distinta de Yahve.'

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 21
Second, the term Memra is found as such only in Targum. It never, ap-
parently, spread into Talmud or Midrash. At some point its development
seems to have been restricted or to have ceased altogether. Mufioz suggests
that the Rabbis revised the Targums to remove a term which could have led
to dangerous speculation.1 But Memra was not an hypostasis: there could
come from it no threat to Judaism, and it is inherently unlikely that it was
taken up by the Gnostics or Jewish Christians to prove some sort of ditheistic
proposition.
Third, preoccupation with finding in the Memra a background to the
Johannine Logos serves only to confuse an already difficult situation. What is
of primary concern here is the meaning of Memra as it is used by the Tar-
gumim.
In this paper we are faced with three separate problems. First, can we
define and account for the origin of Memra? Second, was St John aware of
Memra's existence? Third, if the answer to the last question is yes, did St John
make use of Memra in any way in the composition of his prologue ?

i. THE 'MEMRA

Fundamental to our understanding of Memra is that it directly represents the

Name which God Himself revealed to Moses from the burning bush, the
Name n^i 'HYH (vocalized as 'ehyeh), I AM/WILL BE THERE. 2 Having
been ordered to bring Israel out of Egypt, Moses is reluctant to accept the task,
for how can he, of all men, go to Pharaoh and demand Israel's release? The
Hebrew text of Exod. iii. 12 tells us:
And He said: For I will be there with you, "]J? iTHS "O, and this shall be the sign
that I have sent you...
Now N renders this verse as follows:
And He said: For I will be there, My Memra with you, ~|S7 """IBB "ninK miK, and
this shall be the sign...
Our translation represents the actual sense of the Aramaic, a sense partially
obscured by the translations given in the editio princeps.3 The other Targums
are in agreement with N, although their identifications of Memra with God's
'HYH 4 are not so forceful. Ps-Jon, TO, and Ngl, with only slight differences
of orthography, read:
1
Cf. 'Ap6ndice...', p. 82*.
2
Cf. P. Vermes, 'Buber's Understanding of the Divine Name related to Bible, Targum, and
Midrash', Journal of Jewish Studies xxiv (1973), 147-66. I am most grateful to Mrs Vermes for her
many valuable comments and suggestions on this matter, which forms the substance of my doctoral
thesis ' The Use and Religious Significance of the term Memra in Targum Neofiti I in the light of the
other Targumim', submitted to the University of Oxford in June 1975.
8
Cf. Exodo 14 (Diez Macho): 'Y dijo: (Con) mi Verbo estare ciertamente contigo'; 284 (le
D6aut): ' (Avec) ma Parole...'; 412 (McNamara): 'But I (in) my Word will be with you...'.
* That 'HYH is here a divine Name is indicated by its use as subject of a verb in the third person
at Exod. iii. 14; cf. below, p. 22.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

22 C. T. R. HAYWARD
And He said, For My Memra will be for your support...
The equation of Memra with God's 'HYH is again affirmed by N to Exod.
iv. 12, and on this occasion the Hebrew form 'HYH is retained in the Targum
text, and is not translated into Aramaic. God promises to Moses: 'And I will
be there with your mouth', Hebrew "ps DS? rpflN 'D3S1, which N understands as:
And I, with My Memra 'HYH (will be there, Hebrew) with the speech of your
mouth.
Before we examine how exactly the Targumists understood God's 'HYH,
it will be useful to point out that a statistical analysis of the occurrences of
Memra in N and Ngl shows that Memra's use as subject of verbs other than the
verb to be is a secondary development, and that originally the term was used
only in certain carefully chosen and well-defined contexts and phrases.1 Only,
it seems, when the original meaning of Memra as representing the Name 'HYH
had been lost, did it come to be used quite arbitrarily as a replacement of
YHWH. Such is the situation very often found in Ngl. This observation
would mean that N's use of Memra as subject of the verb to create in Gen. i is
secondary, and not relevant for consideration here.
But what precisely is the meaning attached to this 'HYH? The Targumists
disclose their interpretation in Exod. iii. 14. Here it will be necessary, for a
complete understanding of the Targumic exegesis, to recall the original
Hebrew:
And God said to Moses: I AM THERE.2
"WK rrnN And He said: Thus you shall say to the
Israelites: I AM THERE has sent me
to you.
The Targumic tradition interprets this verse in three slightly different, but
related ways.
(a) N (cf. TO) retains in Hebrew the formula 'HYH 'asher 'HYH, and
proceeds to offer the following interpretation of'HYH, which in verse 12 it
has identified with Memra:
He who said, and the world was there from the beginning, and is to say to it 'Be
there', and it will be there, He has sent me to you.
The final 'HYH of the Hebrew text is here interpreted in the light of the
repeated 'HYH of 'HYH 'asher 'HYH. The Targumists take the first occur-
rence of 'HYH to refer to the past, the second to the future, and predicate
them of the One who has said and will say. The root oftosay is 'amar, and what
1
Cf. the present writer's article 'The Memra of YHWH and the development of its use in Targum
Neofiti I', Journal of Jewish Studies xxv (1974), 412-18. The article also discusses the opinions of
Domingo Mufioz.
8
As will be seen, the Targumists understand the Hebrew verb to be not in the sense of mere
existence, but as implying relationship and presence. Cf. P. Vermes, art. cit. pp. 148-9.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 23
is said is Memra, utterance, word. And we are told what is said: it is 'Be
there', the first recorded utterance of God, for according to Gen. i. 3, God
said, and the light was there. The 'HYH of God, His Memra, accordingly ex-
presses His presence in the past and future acts of the creation of the world.
(b) FT(G) and the first Ngl have the same basic interpretation as N,
except that they expound 'HTH 'asher 'HYH, and refer their exegesis to the
final 'HYH. FT(G) reads:
He who said to the world from the beginning, 'Be there', and it was there, and is
to say to it 'Be there', and it will be there. And He said, Thus shall you say to the
Israelites, He has sent me to you.
(c) The second Ngl expounds Memra in such a way as to make it include
not only God's presence in creation, but also His presence in the whole
history of Israel:
I was there before the world was created, and I was there after the world was
created. I am He who was for your help in the exile of the Egyptians, and I am He
who is to be for your help in every generation.
The Targums 1 to Exod. iii. 12, 14, therefore, show that Memra is equivalent
to God's 'HYH, and is a means of speaking about His presence with His
people in the past and in the future, in creation and in history. Memra is the
'exegetical shorthand' which the Targumists have evolved to express their
insight into God's Name for Himself, 'HYH, a part of the verb to be which
they associated with His primal utteranceyehi, 'let it be there', the very
word which He said, and the world was there. 2
The Targums to Exod. vi. 1-8 develop the notion of God's presence in
history which was alluded to by the second Ngl to Exod. iii. 14, and also
indicate the relationship of 'HYH to the Name Yahweh. The Hebrew of
Exod. vi. 2-3 reads:
and He said to him (Moses), I am YHWH. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob as El Shaddai; but My Name YHWH I did not make known to them.

N, Ngl, and the Geniza Fragment (MS D) tell us that God was revealed in
His Memra to the Fathers, but that He did not make known His powerful
(N)/Holy (G) Name YHWH. Ngl, however, has the important note: 'But
the Name of the Memra of TTTI did not make known to them.' This Name of
the Memra of TTT occurs often in N : it is important, for it reveals that the
spheres of meaning and content represented by Memra on the one hand and
YHWH on the other are not coterminous. Memra is not a replacement for
YHWH, for in N's terminology at least the Name of the Memra is used to stand
for the Tetragram YHWH as uttered with its vowels. So much is evident

1
The version of Ps-Jon presents a combination of the various traditions described here.
2
Presence is the key-note of Memra: cf. N to Gen. xxvi. 3, xxviii. 15, xxxi. 3; Exod. iv. 5, etc.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 24 C. T. R. HAYWARD
1
from N to Lev. xvi. 8, 9. The Name of the Memra is YHWH, given to men
to use in worship: God's own Name is 'HYH.
The presence of God in redemption comes to the fore in N to Exod. vi. 7,
where God promises that His Memra will become a redeemer God for Israel.
Several times in this Targum does the Memra appear as redeemer,2 as well as
being party to the covenant made with the Fathers,3 a covenant already
recalled in Exod. vi. 5. It can also be shown that Memra is equivalent to
God's good mercies, which recalls the Rabbinic' Measure of Mercy' :4 this mercy
is naturally associated with the covenant and redemption of Israel in N's
version of Exod. ii. 24-5, where that Targum declares that God 'remembered
in His good mercies' the covenant which He had sworn with the Fathers,
'and He said in His Memra to redeem them'. God's remembering 'in good
mercies' and 'saying in His Memra' are parallel, and equivalent in
meaning.
That Memra is equivalent to God's mercy explains its importance in
creation, for it is common Jewish teaching that God created the world by
mercy.5 The Palestinian Targums to Gen. iv. 8 depict the argument between
Cain and Abel as including the question whether the world was created and
led (i.e. sustained) by mercy.6
To sum up: Memra is God's Name 'HYH, which by midrashic exposition
refers to His presence in past and future creation, history, and redemption.
Memra is God's mercy, by which the world is created and sustained.

Excursus: the date of Memra

Space requires that we treat this important matter briefly. Suffice it to say
that Memra occurs in the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1.
IQGenAp xxii. 30-1, commenting on God's word to Abram (Gen. xv. 1)
' I am your shield, your reward will be exceedingly great', reads:
1
N reads: 'And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Name of the Memra of
YYY... and Aaron shall offer the goat on which came up the lot to the Name of the Memra of
YYY...'. We know that at this moment in the service the High Priest called aloud the Expressed
Name: cf. Mishnah Yoma iv. 1.
8
Cf. N to Gen. xvii. 8; Exod. xxix. 45; Lev. xxii. 33, xxvi. 45, xxv. 38, etc.
8
Cf. N to Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 11, ix. 12-17.
4
The rule that YHWH equals the' Measure of Mercy', 'Elohim the ' Measure ofJustice', is stated,
for example, at Sifre to Deut. xxvi (ed. H. S. Horowitz and L. Finkelstein, reprinted New York,
1969); Gen. R. xxxiii. 3. Cf. P. Vermes, 'Buber's Understanding...', pp. 155-60, for the relation
of Memra to Exod. xxxiii-xxxiv, where Yhwh is described as flttSl "7011 3 1 .
6
Cf. Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Kaspai. 58 (ed. J. Z. Lauterbach, 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1933). The
translation is our own. 'And I will hear, for I am gracious: for by mercy I created my world.' Cf.
Nezikin x. 158; Mekilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, ed. J. N. Epstein (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 1.
6
The dispute probably reflects debates within Judaism before the Destruction of 70; cf. S.
Isenberg, 'An anti-Sadducee polemic in the Palestinian Targum tradition', H.T.R. LXIII (1970),
433-44; G. Vermes, 'The Targumic versions of Genesis 4: 3-16', Annual of the Leeds University
Oriental Society m (1961-2), 103. This article has now been reprinted in the collection Post-Biblical
Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975); cf. p. 116.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 25
a
I am with you and I will be (riTl^) support and strength for you: I am a shield
over you, and a mighty safeguard round about you.1
The bracketed word is Hebrew, as read by the original editors N. Avigad and
Y. Yadin.2 The lines above the word indicate an unclear reading, and J. A.
Fitzmyer emends the text,3 following H. L. Ginsberg,4 to read the Aramaic
equivalent. Whichever reading is adopted will suit our purpose. The simple
divine ' I ' of the Hebrew Bible has been 'rewritten' into a statement of
God's presence very much in Targumic style: ' I am with you' and ' I will be
a support.. .for you'. The latter expression is very close to the common
Targumic phrase ' My Memra will be for your/his support'; cf. N to Gen.
xxxi. 5; Ngl to Gen. xxi. 20; xxvi. 29; Num. xiv. 9, 43, etc. If the original text
had Hebrew rPHN we have a direct reference in an Aramaic document to
what in Targum is called Memra. IQGenAp may be dated in the first
century B.G.5
M. McNamara has shown that the writer ofJohn's Apocalypse drew upon
Targumic tradition for his version of the Divine Name.6 The Name of the
Apoc. is closely related to the Targumic exposition of the Name in Exod. iii.
14, which, as we now know, refers to the Memra.

2. COULD ST JOHN HAVE KNOWN OF THE MEMRA?

This question inevitably resolves itself into the more general problem of
whether the Fourth Gospel is Hellenistic or Jewish, and is therefore far too
complex for present discussion: consequently, we shall here rely upon the
assessment of Professor C. K. Barrett, who recently undertook an investiga-
tion of the status quaestionis.1 His considered opinion is that:
This Gospel contains Judaism, non-Judaism, and anti-Judaism...He (the Evan-
gelist) could at the same time write: 'Salvation is of the Jews' (4: 22), and: 'You
are of your father, the devil, and you will to do according to his desires' (8: 44) .8
From Barrett's survey it is clear that it would be an unwise interpreter who
1
Cf. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin, 1966), p . 224.
2
A Genesis Apocryphon (Jerusalem, 1956), adloc. 3 The Genesis ApocryphonqfQumranCave 1, second,
revised edition (Rome, 1971), p. 74, and the note on p. 181 which refers to the relevant line.
4
'Notes on some old Aramaic texts', Journal of Near Eastern Studies xvin (1959), 148, where he
merely asserts: ' The fact that the language is Aramaic similarly necessitates correction of the trans-
cription w'hyh to w'hwh.' But lectio difficilior potior, and perhaps the text of Avigad and Yadin should
stand: they had no reason to read a Hebrew word when the text is Aramaic.
6
The view generally held is that it was written in the first century B.C., and in the early part of
that century; cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit. pp. 16-19. He himself prefers a dating at this time, while
citing the views of others, including that of G. Vermes, who is inclined to date it in the second
century B.C. on account of the non-sectarian nature of the aggadah.
6
The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum..., pp. 97-118. For the date of John's Apocalypse,
cf. W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 327-9.
7
Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel ofJohn and Judaism (London, 1975). This book is an English trans-
lation of his Franz Deiitzsch lectures, delivered at the University of Miinster in 1967. For a further
survey of the problem, cf. D. Moody Smith Jr., 'Johannine Christianity: some reflections on its
8
character and delineations', N.T.S. xxi (1975), 222-48. Op. cit. p . 71.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

26 C. T. R. HAYWARD
tried to show that Memra alone - or indeed any other concept alone - lay
behind the Logos-docXxmt. Judaism, however, appears as one constituent
element in the Gospel. This is true also of the prologue, whether it come from
the hand of the Evangelist or not. 1 While rejecting the theory that the pro-
logue may have had an Aramaic original, Barrett notes that its language
recalls the Hebrew of the Old Testament in those passages where the his-
torical Christ is described.2 Study of vocabulary and literary form confirm,
for Professor Barrett, the view that Judaism is one element only in the Gospel.3
For our purpose this is enough. We are not attempting to discover Aramaic
language, style, or vocabulary in the prologue, nor are we concerned directly
with its literary form.4 We assume that Jewish ideas were known to John, and
if proof is needed it is available in Barrett's survey. We have argued also that
the Memra-theology was alive in his day,5 and there would appear to be no
a priori reason why he should not have known what Memra signified.
But is it possible to advance from this, and to decide whether or not it is
probable that St John knew of the Memra? Certainty in this matter is un-
obtainable, in view of the nature of the Gospel, but we would submit that the
balance of probability lies with a view which holds that St John knew of the
Memra. Two pieces of evidence support such a view. First, the Apocalypse
expounds the Name in Targumic language which is integral to the Memra-
theology, and it is possible that the Apocalypse originated in the same milieu
as the Gospel.6 Second, St John's Gospel is elsewhere aware of specifically
Targumic traditions. Thus the identification of Jesus with the true bread
from heaven (vi. 41-51) would seem to relate directly to an haggadic passage
found only in N; 7 the well of Jacob and the murderer Cain are the subjects
of Targumic exegesis in much the same way as they are in the Gospel;8 and
the symbolism of water, beloved of this Evangelist, owes much to Targumic
thinking.9
Two important articles point to specific Targumic influence upon the
prologue. Thus P. Borgen10 suggests that the structure of the prologue invites
comparison with the structure of Targumic paraphrases like that of the
1
On the authorship of the prologue, cf. the literature cited by Brown in his commentary, pp. 36-7.
2 a
Op. cit. p. 27. Op. cit. pp. 31-5.
* Cf. the commentaries, and C. Demke, 'Der sogennante Logos-Hymnus im Johannes-Prolog',
5
Z-N.W. LVIII (1967), 45-68. Cf. above, pp. 24-5.
6
Cf. above, p. 25, n. 6. McNamara refers to the strongly liturgical character of the Apocalypse,
and shows how this is dependent upon Jewish liturgical elements found in Targum. Cf. also R. H.
Charles, The Revelation of St John, 1 (Edinburgh, 1920), xxxii-xxxiii; A. M. Farrer, A Rebirth of linages
(London, 1949).
7
Cf. G. Vermes, 'He is the Bread. Targum Neofiti Ex. 16: 15', in Neotestamentica el Semitica
(Studies in honour of Principal Matthew Black), ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh, 1969),
pp.256-63.
8
Cf. J. R. Diaz, 'Palestinian Targum and New Testament', Nov.T. vi (1963), 75-80.
8
Cf. P. Grelot, M. E. Boismard, J.-P. Audet, 'Les Citations Targumiques dans le quatrieme
Evangile', Revue Biblique LXVI (1959), 369-86.
10
Cf. P. Borgen, 'Observations on the Targumic character of the prologue of John', N.T.S. xvi
(1969-70), 288-95.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 27
Jerusalem Targum (Ps-Jon, FT) to Gen. iii. 24, and that the prologue is an
exposition of the opening of Gen. i, this factor accounting for the prologue's
apparent disunity of thought. He does not claim that Memra forms a back-
ground to Logos, but regards dabar as understood in midrash (e.g. Gen. R. iii.
3) and Philo (Somn. i. 75) to be the clue to Logos.1 It is, however, the Tar-
gumic-type structure of the prologue which is so suggestive,2 and Borgen's
most important remarks centre on that observation.
Professor M. D. Hooker3 has drawn attention to an important connection
between the Divine Name and Attributes of Exod. xxxiii-xxxiv and the
prologue. Both Memra and Exod. xxxiv. 6-7 expound the Name.4 Continuing
lines of research initiated by M. E. Boismard,5 Professor Hooker shows how
Exod. xxxiii. 12-23 forms a background to John i. 14-18. Moses' request that
he be shown God's glory is answered by the promise that God's goodness will
pass before him, and the proclamation of the Name YHWH: Moses may not,
however, see God's face. In John i. 14-18 the Glory is revealed: Moses and
Christ are contrasted. According to John i. 18, no one has ever seen God, but
Christ has revealed Him to men, unlike Moses, who could not do this, since
he had never seen God's face. The proclamation of the Name of God in
Exod. xxxiv. 5-7 includes the description DDXl TOPI 31, which Professor
Hooker takes as a possible model for John's description of Christ's glory as
irAripris x&piTos KOCI &Ar|0Eias. Professor Hooker's insight that the prologue is
concerned with the exegesis of the Divine Name is of obvious importance for
our present study, confirming as it does a particular interest of the Evanglist
which would undoubtedly predispose him towards a positive evaluation of
the Me?nra-theology.6
The cumulative effect of this evidence is to suggest that St John probably
knew of the Memra, because he displays a knowledge of Targumic tradition
not only in the gospel proper, but also in the prologue.
1
Cf. the opinions of Diez Macho noted above, p. 20.
2
His argument from the paraphrase of the Targum to Gen. iii. 24 is not entirely convincing. He
suggests that both John i. 1 and the Targum to Gen. iii. 24 derive their present content from having
incorporated into themselves elements from Gen. i. 1. ' The word lVB?Ni3 in Gen. i. 1 is replaced in
the Targum (i.e. to Gen. iii. 24) by the interpretative phrase X? "7S? Ulp, since the term is understood
as referring to the time before the creation of the world' (art. cit. pp. 293-4). But surely the point of
departure for the Targumists' exposition of Gen. iii. 24 is not Gen. i. 1, but the Hebrew of Gen. iii.
24 itself, which reads: D'SVlSn DN ]~IV "ph mpK) p t T l . Here, as so often in Targum, Hebrew B"Tj7
(from of old, or from the east) is taken to refer to the time of the creation, and is rendered |V37p7 ]0,
which N to Gen. i. 1 substitutes for rVtt?N*13. One could accordingly argue that Gen. iii. 24 had in-
fluenced the Targum to Gen. i. 1. It should also be noted that the Targum to Gen. iii. 24, in making
mention of the Law, Gehinnom, and the Garden of Eden, is expounding the Hebrew text, where
Eden is actually named, the tree of life represents the Torah, and the fiery sword Gehinnom.
8
Cf. M. D. Hooker, 'The Johannine prologue and the Messianic secret', N.T.S. xxi (1974),
40-58.
Cf. P. Vermes, art. cit. p. 158.
6
M. E. Boismard, St John's Prologue (Westminster, 1957), 136-40.
Cf. art. cit. p. 54. But it should be noted that the ' I am' sayings of Jesus, which are sometimes
associated with the Divine Name, do not belong with the Memra-theo\ogy, since Memra stands for
'HYH, I AM THERE.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

28 C. T. R. HAYWARD

3. DID ST JOHN USE THE

Perhaps the most fruitful approach to this question will be to assume, as a
working hypothesis, that St John did use the Memra; to apply the results
established above to the relevant parts of the prologue to evaluate critically
whether an understanding of Logos in the light of Memra would provide a
more satisfactory interpretation of St John's work.
'Ev dpxt) f\v 6 Aoyos. According to our method, this would mean: ' In the
beginning was the Memra.' That is, before and at the time of creation, there
was God's 'HYH, / AM THERE. This in itself is reasonable, for it will be
recalled that the Targums expound 'HYH as the 'One who said, and the
world was there, and who is to say, and it will be there'. 1 Almost all com-
mentators take EV ocpxfj to have the same theological reference as mPSia,
of which it is a direct translation. So both Targum and John i. 1 place Memra
and Logos respectively in a creation context.
Koci 6 Aoyos flv Trpos TOV 0E6V. This would mean: ' And the Memra was
with God.' It will by now be evident that such a statement makes no allusion
to any secondary entity in the Deity, nor to an hypostasis, nor to a mediator
between God and creation, but that we have here an exegesis of God's own
Name, which at the time of creation was with Him, but which he revealed to
Moses at the bush.2 The final revelation of this Name through Jesus would
constitute Jesus as a new Moses in the eyes of St John.
Kcci 0eds fjv 6 Aoyos. The Memra was God, precisely because it is ' HYH,
the self-naming of God.
T
OUTOS i")v ev ocpxTJ irpos TOV GEOV. NO comment is needed here, except to
point out the neat contrast between the Memra's presence with God, where
by right it belongs, and its coming to dwell with men, as described in verse 14.
The Memra is also God's mercy,3 one of His Attributes, part of His Divine
character.
Tf&vTcc 81' OUTOO lylvETO, KOC! xpi5 carroO eyevETo OUSE EV. The Memra's
role in creation has been discussed.4 Here we may note that creation by the
utterance of the divine Name is an ancient idea in Judaism; cf. Jub. xxxvi. 7.
6 yEyovsv EV OCUTCS jcof] fjv, KCCI f) jcof) fjv TO <pcos TGOV ccvOpcoiTCOv. McNamara
has argued that Memra may be equated with primordial light.5 He interprets
this verse and the next on that basis. His argument is attractive, and would
fit into the scheme which we are building; unfortunately, however, it depends
on an emendation of the text and will have to be scrutinized further.6
Kal 6 Aoyos aap eyEVETo Kai Eai<r|vcoc7v EV fjuiv. This would mean:
'And the Memra became flesh, and tabernacled among us.' The merciful,

1 a
Cf. above, p. 23. Cf. above, pp. 21-4.
3 4
Cf. above, p. 24. Cf. above, p.23.
6 8
Cf. above, p. 20. Cf. below, p. 31.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 29
active, and personal presence of God, summed up in the Name 'HYH, took
flesh as his tabernacle to sojourn among us. As has so often been pointed out,
the verb EOKTIVCOO-EV recalls the Tent of Meeting in which the presence of the
God of Israel resided in the wilderness. It is a striking feature of Targumic
theology that the Memra is especially associated with the Tent and its suc-
cessor, the Jerusalem Temple.1 Thus with reference to the altar, which in
post-exilic times could mean only the altar in the Jerusalem sanctuary, N to
Exod. xx. 24 (end) says:
in every place where you remember (invoke) My Name in prayer, I will be re-
vealed in My Memra upon you, and I will bless you.
Keel E0EocaocuE0a TT|V So^av CXUTOO, K.T.X. The glory of the Memra belongs
to the same context, and we have seen how the statement that it was ' full of
grace and truth' would be integrated into the structure. Thus, if these as-
sumptions have any substance, St John may have presented Jesus as the
Memra, the revealer of God's merciful, active presence in creation, redemp-
tion, and covenant, as having come in flesh to tabernacle among men. Jesus
personifies God's 'HYH, the living proof that the God revealed to Moses at
the bush is with His people.
The Fourth Gospel is at pains to show how intimate is the relationship
between Jesus and the Father. Of such importance is this relationship that
Jesus can say: ' I and the Father are one' (x. 30), and devote much of His
high-priestly prayer (chapter xvii) to an explanation of the bonds between
the Father and the Son. As Memra, Jesus would represent God's 'HYH, the
self-naming of God, one with God: KCXI 0E6S fjv 6 Aoyos.
But Memra is God present, the One who is there, active in the affairs of
men: ' My Memra will be for your support', 'My Memra will be for you for a
redeemer God'. Memra is God with us, and as such it is the terra par excellence
to expound the presence and activity of God in Jesus. The Memra is the exposi-
tion of God's Name, which, according to the Torah, dwelled among His
people Israel: Jerusalem was understood as the place where He had caused
His Name to dwell (cf. Deut. xii. 5, n , xvi. 6, xxvi. 2). And Jesus is God's
Name come in flesh: this much at least is evident from a comparison of xii. 28
FF&TEp, 56cccr6vCTOUTO OVOUCC with xvii. 5, Kai vuv So^aaov pie cru, TT&TEp,
TTOtpd aEauTCp Trj 86T) fj EIXOV frpo TOO TOV KOCTUOV EIVOCI TrapocCTOI.The
Father's glorification of His Name and the glorification of Jesus are here
equivalent.2 This is not surprising when it is remembered that the Name
was apparently a common title for Jesus in early Christian circles; cf. the
New Testament evidence cited by J. Danielou,3 especially James ii. 7, and
1
Cf. N to Exod. xxv. 22, xxix. 43, xxx. 6, 36.
2
Cf. C. H . Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1968), p . 95. The whole
section on the Name of God, pp. 93-6, is relevant here.
3
Cf. J . Danielou, Thiologie du Judeo-Christianisme (Tournai, 1958), pp. 199-216. Note especially
p. 202, n. 1.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

30 C. T. R. HAYWARD
Didache x. 3 Jesus has manifested God's Name to men, according to
John xvii. 6.
St John, then, if our hypothesis be correct, depicts Jesus as the Memra, who
is God's Name, manifesting God's glory, full of the grace and truth of the
covenant, dwelling with us in the flesh, which Jesus himself describes as a
Temple (ii. 19), the very dwelling place of the Memra. We are reminded, too,
of St Matthew's understanding of the birth ofJesus as it fulfilled the prophecy
of Isa. vii. 14: Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. Where two or three gather in
His Name, He declares: EKE! Eijai ev PECTCO CCUTCOV, there I am in the midst of
them. 1 And His final promise confirms what was said in the beginning of the
Gospel: KOCI ISOU iyco UE9' \J\XCOV Eipii.. .EGOS 1% CTUVTEAEIOCS TOU ccicovos.2 St
Matthew, at least, would have no difficulty in accepting St John's belief
that Jesus is the Memra made flesh.3
Diez Macho would further support the argument that Memra is used by the
prologue by pointing to the use of the two Targumic terms Shekhinah and
Yeqara in the same pericope.4 He goes so far as to suggest what the original
Aramaic of John i. 14 may have been.5 As we have seen, for McNamara the
Memra is to be identified with primordial light.
There are, however, several objections to any view which would take
Memra to be the sole antecedent of St John's Logos. First, the language of the
prologue is susceptible of explanation in other ways. It is too well known to
require documentation that the commentaries show how the Old Testament
dabar as understood in the light of speculation on Wisdom can account for
much of St John's thought. The Logos of Philo may also have something to
contribute to an understanding of the language and theology of St John's
prologue.6 Second, the use of Targumic material by the Evangelist does not
of necessity entail his use of Memra. Third, in failing to define Memra, Di'ez
Macho, Mufioz and McNamara tend to work with the categories which were
in use fifty or more years ago, and while they correctly perceive that Memra
is not simply a replacement for YHWH, they draw dangerously close to the
untenable theory of hypostasis. The concern which these scholars have shown
for the Johannine Logos may in some way have conditioned their approach to
the Memra: such a thing is at any rate hinted at by V. Hamp in his review of
Mufioz's 'Apendice...'.'
Furthermore, Diez Macho's attempt to render John i. 14 into Aramaic
must be treated with caution. He may well be correct in his suggested re-
construction, but we have seen that the idea of an Aramaic original is not
free of difficulties,8 and any attempt to render New Testament writings into
1 a
Matt, xviii. 20. Matt, xxviii. 20.
3
Cf. also Acts x. 36-8.
4
'El Logos y el Esplritu Santo', pp. 388-9.
5
Ibid. p. 389. Cf. G. H. Dodd, op. cit. pp. 263-85.
' Cf. Biblische Zeitschrift xvn (1973), 309-10.
8
Cf. above, pp. 25-6.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 THE HOLY NAME AND THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN 31
Aramaic is a hazardous task, to be undertaken only if there is sound evi-
dence in the Greek text itself for a Semitic original.1
Although certain elements in the prologue appear to have something in
common with Memra-theology, the extant Targums express themselves often
in a different way. Thus Memra is very rarely used absolutely, being found
almost always with a pronominal suffix or a genitive.2 If Memra is used in the
prologue, we are told (i. 4) that there was life in it, kv OCUTW 3G0T] fjv, but the
only likely Targumic parallel is different. N to Num. xiv. 21, 28, renders the
divine oath 'As I l i v e . . . ' by means of the phrase: 'As I live and exist in My
Memra...', which is no real parallel to the expression of the prologue,
although the thought may be similar.
McNamara's view of the Logos as primordial light, the antecedent of Logos
in John i. 4, 5, is not only susceptible of a different explanation,3 but depends
upon an emendation of the text. N to Exod. xii. 42, on which his argument is
founded, reads as follows:
The first night, when YYY was revealed over the world to create it. The world was
tohu and bohu, and darkness was spread on the face of the deep; and there was the
Memra of YYY, and there was light, and it shone, inil mini mm "H miD1;
and He called it the First Night.
McNamara removes the Waw copulative from mm to give the meaning:
"And the Memra of YYY was the light, and it shone. . . ' , supporting his
emendation by reference to the readings of FT(W) and MS Paris n o . 4 But
the text makes sense as it stands, and one could also propose an equally
probable emendation to read mini mm WI1 m a a naxi, 'and the Memra
of YYY said, and there was light. . . ' , "lfcNI having been lost by haplography
with miaa. Despite these difficulties, however, McNamara's theory is of great
value, for it is clear that N to Exod. xii. 42 brings light and Memra into the
closest association, and has pointed research away from the first chapter of
Genesis to a broader interpretation of Memra which is not hamstrung by
theories of hypostasis or circumlocution.

4. CONCLUSION
We have seen that St John probably knew of the Memra, that it stood for
God's 'HYH, interpreted as His presence in past and future creation, re-
demption, and covenant, and that it also represented God's mercy. It is
possible that he used it in his prologue, but in his hands it has been fashioned
and moulded by the many different ideas with which this evangelist worked,
1
Cf. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), whose argu-
ments for an Aramaic original for sayings of the Baptist (pp. 145-9) a r e based on sound linguistic,
2
grammatical, and stylistic considerations. Cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, p. 22.
8
Cf. P. Borgen's view of the matter, discussed above, p. 27. His views can be found in art. cit.
(above, p. 26, n. 10), and in 'Logos was the true light', Nov.T. xiv (1972), 115-30.
4
'Logos of the Fourth Gospel...', p. 116.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39

 32 C. T. R. HAYWARD
so that it does not, by itself, account for the whole of the Z-ogoj-doctrine. It
should be stressed that we do not claim here that the prologue shows signs of
Aramaic language, style, or vocabulary: whether it does or not is a separate
question. What we do suggest is that St John knew of the Memra and of what
it represented, and if this is so it will be difficult for future research into
matters concerning the prologue if the Memra of the Targumim is ignored as
being irrelevant to our view of St John's Logos. Indeed, if the Memra's effect
on the prologue is left out of account, an essential element of the Logos-
doctrine will have been passed over in silence.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 12 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.150.190.39