115
Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the
Palestinian Targum (Ex 12
)
42
By FATHER MARTIN McNAMARA, M.S.C., BALLYGLUNIN, GALWAY, IRELAND
THERE was a time when many scholars believed
that John called Christ the Word (Logos) because
of the then current use of the expression the Word
(Memra) of the Lord in the Aramaic paraphrases
of the Old Testament (i.e. Targums) which were
used in the synagogues of Palestine. The Word
(in Aramaic Memra) of the Lord is of extremely
frequent use in these versions. The religious
mentality which produced the Targums shrank
from speaking of God as acting directly in the
world and spoke instead of His Memra doing so.
Some of the earlier scholars we have referred to
went so far as to consider the Memra of the
Targums as a hypostatized being between God
and the world, an intermediary through which
God communicated with visible creation. In this
case, the doctrine as well as the term used by
John would have been prepared in the synagogue
theology.
When this presumed origin of the Logos doctrine
of the Fourth Gospel came to be studied in greater
detail weaknesses soon became apparent. To begin
with, whereas in John Logos is not just another
manner of expressing the divine Name but is a
term rich in theological import, the Memra of the
Targum seems to be a term devoid of special
content; it appears to be merely another way of
saying God or the Lord . In no sense can the to maintain that synagogue usage did not in-
Memra of the Lord be taken as a hypostasis,
an intermediary between God and man. This
view is now generally accepted by students of
Jewish and Christian theology. As for the memra
of the Targum , writes H. A. Wolfson, no
scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is
either a real being or an intermediary. This
change of view on the nature of the Memra of the
Lord in the usage of the Targums has also had
its effects in exegetical circles. The targumic
expression has come to be seen as no true prepara-
tion for the rich Johannine doctrine of the Logos.
In this case, John would not have been influenced
by the paraphrases of the synagogue in his choice
of term. And, in
point of fact, many scholars
have come to see the preparation for the doctrine
of John in the Wisdom literature of the Old
Testament, and for the term he uses in the creative
Word (in Hebrew dabar) of God.
1Philo, Harvard, 1948, vol. I, p.
287.
While there are some who still believe that the
Word of the Lord (Memya) in the Targums is,
at least to some extent, hypostatized, it is hard
to deny that the weight of evidence favours those
who see in the term no more than another way of
saying God , or the Lord . An examination of
targumic usage appears to make this clear. The
text can pass with the greatest of ease from
mention of the Lord to mention of the Word of
the Lord, and vice versa. In one verse, or in one
half of a verse, the subject can be the Lord ,
while in the next verse, or in the very same verse,
it can be the Word of the Lord . The same
conclusion is reached when we compare the
parallel renderings of the Palestinian Targum
among themselves. One text will have the
Lord where another has the Word of the Lord .
This is especially evident in the numerous marginal
glosses to Neofiti where we repeatedly find the
Word of the Lord when the text itself has the
Lord . One feels justified, therefore, in maintain-
ing that the term in the Targums has no special
significance ; it is simply another way of saying
the Lord , or God .
But it is one thing to say that the expression
has no special significance (it being neither an
hypostasis nor intermediary), quite another thing
fluence John in his choice of the term Logos
in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel. Even if in
the Targums the Word of the Lord is no more
than a metonym for the Lord , this by no
means excludes a possible influence of the phrase
on the author of the Fourth Gospel in his choice
of terms for the realities of the New Testament
dispensation. For John, too, the Word was
God (il). His teaching on the nature of the
Logos John got from the revelation of the New
Testament. The source from which he drew the
words that express this new doctrine is then the
point at issue.
While studying the overall relation of the New
Testament to the Palestinian Targum on the
Pentateuch 2 it became apparent to the present
writer that there is a very close relationship
2
The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to
the Pentateuch (Analecta Biblica 27, Rome : Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 255 f.
 116
between the Apocalypse and the Jewish liturgy as
expressed in this Targum. If this is so, one may
expect to find explanations for difficult texts of
the Fourth Gospel in this same body of Jewish
literature.1 In view of this, the ancient problem
of the origin of the Johannine doctrine of the
Logos merits reconsideration.
In this we are thinking especially of the Prologue
to the Fourth Gospel. It is clear that the author
is here thinking against the background of the
first chapter of Genesis. If we turn to the Aramaic
paraphrases of this chapter we find little that will
help us in our task. It may be this, among other
things, that has turned scholars away from the
Targums when seeking the origins of the Johannine
usage. It has, however, been too long forgotten
that Gn i is not the only place in the Palestinian
Targum where the creation of the world is referred
to. We find it again in the beautiful midrash on
the Four Nights in the paraphrase to Ex I2z (to
Ex I 516 in the Paris MS IIO). In the paraphrase
in question, sacred history is summed up in four
nights, all apparently believed to be Passover
nights. The first was that of creation; the
second when the promise of posterity was made to
Abraham. The third was that in which the Lord
slew the first-born of the Egyptians. The fourth
and final night will be that of the advent of the
Messiah, when the world will be redeemed and
iniquity blotted out.
The first night is thus described in the text of
Neofiti (i.e., the entire text of the Palestinian
Targum found in the Vatican Library) : 2
The first night : when the Lord was revealed above
the world to create it. The world was void and empty
and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss.
AND THE WORD (MEMRA) OF THE LORD WAS THE LIGHT
AND IT (or he ) SHONE (wmmryh dYY whwh nhwr
wnhr) ; and he called it the first night.3
The first part of the relevant passage of this
text would be rendered literally as : And the
Word of the Lord and it was the Light... (whwh
nhwr).4 The was before lawh is evidently a
scribal error, due to the numerous raws of the
context. That this is so seems to be clear from
the parallel versions of this text in the Fragment
Targum as found in Waltons London Polyglot and
in the Paris MS 110. Waltons text reads : and
1 Cf. ib., pp. 145-149.
2
On the value of the Targums for New Testament
studies and on the latest report on progress in publica-
tion of Neofiti, see Scripture 18 (1966), pp. 47-56 ; the
editio princeps of Genesis, with Spanish, English, and
French renderings is already in proof form. Exodus
and Leviticus should soon follow.
3 For
light and darkness during third night, see Pal.
Targ. to Ex 14 .
20
4 See N.
Séds objections in Revue des études juives.
Historia Judaica 3 [123] (1964), pp. 529-533. esp. p. 532.
the Word of the Lord was shining (hwh nhyr)
and illuminating . The Paris MS has : and
in His Word He was shining (hwh nhyr) and
illuminating .
Apart from showing that the waw of Neofiti is
scribal error, these texts indicate that Neofitis
a
paraphrase is in the tradition of the Palestinian
Targum. While they may appear to differ from
it, the other two texts in fact say the very same
thing, identifying the Word of the Lord with the
primordial light. If the Word of the Lord shone
at creation, as these two texts of the Fragment
Targum say it did, this can only mean that the
Word was Light. Neofiti, then, merely states
explicitly what is implicit in the other texts.
Arguments have been produced elsewhere in
favour of a very early date, and a generally
faithful transmission, of the form of the Palestinian
Targum as found in Neofiti.5 It may well have
been in use in Palestine from the second century
A.D. onwards. Its substance would then go back
to pre-Christian times. In fact some authors
claim that there are positive arguments for dating
it in the pre-Christian era.e
It is legitimate, then, to presume that the
author of the Fourth Gospel heard read in the
synagogue that, at the very beginning of time, at
the creation of the universe ( the first night ),
there was an all-pervading darkness. There was
also God, or the Word of the Lord . This Word
of the Lord was the light and it shone-to use the
very words of Neofiti. This is the very thing the
prologue says when it speaks of the creative action
of the Word (Logos) at the beginning of all things : 7
In the beginning was the Word ... ; and the
Word was God. In him was light and the light
shines in darkness ... (Jn if-3).
The mention of the primordial darkness which
we find in the midrash to Ex i z 42 is not incidental.
The text is speaking of the first night. The im-
plication in the Targum is that the light dispels
the darkness. According to the same targumic
paraphrase, the Messiah will come on the fourth
night. No mention is made there, however, of the
Messiah dissipating the darkness. The same need
not be true of John and it is quite possible that the
author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine
Epistles is thinking against the same background
5
The New Testament and the Palestinian to
Targum
the Pentateuch, pp. 45-46.
6
This is the opinion of M. Kasher and A. Diez Macho.
7
The bearing of this text of Neofiti on the prologue
of John has been noted independently by A. Diez Macho
(Atlantida, vol. I, no. 4, 1963, pp. 390-394) and R. Le
Déaut (La nuit pascale, Rome, 1963, pp. 215 f.). The
latter, in fact, considers the poem on the Four Nights,
particularly as found in Pseudo-Jonathan, as a type of
hymn to the Word (Memra) of the Lord.

of the poem of the four nights when he speaks of
Christ as dispelling darkness. At His coming the
world was in darkness. He, the Word, is the light
that shines in the darkness (Jn 15). All who are
not attached to Him by faith and good works are
still in darkness (Jn 812, 1 Jn 16, 29,11). They
who refuse to come to Him remain outside the
new Messianic age ; they love darkness more than
the light (Jn 319). He who follows Him does not
walk any more in darkness (Jn 812). He has
submitted to hypostatized Light of the new
creation. This new creation, described in Jn i
as the counterpart of the first creation, began
when the Word was made flesh. The light then
began to shine in the darkness of the non-messianic
age. The progress of the gospel is, then, the
dissipation of darkness and i Jn as can say : the
darkness is passing away and the true light is
already shining . Those who believe in the
Messiah, the Word of God, the light, are the sons
of light ; those who do not are sons of darkness.
If we accept this view of the origin of the con-
cepts and terminology of John it will follow that
In the
The Junior Church
The Best Wish
BY THE REVEREND D. A. DAVIES, BOW,
DEVON
How many of you like to have chicken for dinner ?
And how many of you like to have the wish bone,
after you have eaten it ? And what did you wish
for the last time you had the wish bone ? But
perhaps you had better not answer that one, just
in case your wish may not be granted. People
wish for all sorts of things, dont they ? And boys
and girls certainly do. Do you remember the song
of Snow-White ?
Im wishing, Im wishing,
For the one I love.
Boys wishes, nf course, are very different. They
wish for so many things, that I wont even begin
to describe them. And do you remember the wish
of Winnie the Pooh ?
I wish I were a cloud,
Floating in the blue.
I dont think I should like that at all. I am sure
that, being up so high would make me feel
thoroughly dizzy and, in cold weather especially,
I am sure that it would be most uncomfortable.
Perhaps some of you will know the story about
117
the Johannine traditionis less under the influence
of Qumranic Judaism than is now generally
believed-not, of course, that influence from
Qumran is to be excluded entirely. Johannine
tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influ-
enced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly
of the form found in the Targums. As E. Stauffer
has remarked :
Nowhere in rabbinic literature or in pre-Christian
Hellenism is there a writing or a tradition which can
exhibit anything like the same wealth of Johannine
parallels. That fixes the place of John in the history
of religion. He belongs to the priestly tradition. The
Baptists disciple John is an apocalyptist cast in a
levitical-liturgical mould just as Gamaliels disciple Paul
is an apocalyptist cast in a rabbinic-dialectical mould.1
It is not to no purpose that it (the Apocalypse)
contains more hymns than any other book in the New
Testament, while its framework and its formal language
are unmistakably liturgical in character.z
a
New Testament
1 Theology (Eng. trans., London,
1963), pp. 41 f.
2
Ib., p. 41.
Study
King Midas. Because he befriended a poor
wanderer, he told that he could have whatever
was
he wished. This was a wonderful chance and
Midas thought that the best thing of all would be
to wish for great riches. And so he wished that
everything he touched might turn to gold. At
first it was so wonderful. If he touched a stick or
a stone, immediately it turned to gold in his
hands and, because of this, he knew that he could
have more gold than anybody else in all the world.
But then, when it was too late, he realized that he
had made a terrible mistake. He picked up a nice,
juicy apple, thinking to enjoy it, and what do you
think happened ? Yes, it turned to gold in his
hand and he couldnt eat it at all. Then, he went
to lie down on his bed and, as soon as he touched
it, the sheets all turned to gold. They looked
wonderful, but they were very uncomfortable and
he couldnt rest at all. Then, worst of all, his
little daughter came into the room. Midas was
very fond of her and greeted her with a kiss. To
his horror, she too turned into gold. The unhappy
king longed to be delivered from his terrible
power and, you will be glad to know, that after a
great deal of pleading, he was.
Well, many people have made the same kind of
mistake that King Midas made. They have wished,
above everything else, to have plenty of money,
and, when they have got it, it has not made them