The Memra of YHWH [מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ] in Jewish Literature

 

In the Aramaic Targums, there is an interesting concept known as the Memra ("Word") of the LORD. Some scholars have viewed this as a background to the Logos theology of John 1. Others have said it is simply a way that the Jewish rabbis avoided anthropomorphic expressions in the Hebrew Bible. In this article, I will provide the passages from the Targums which talk about Memra as well as give an analysis of the issue based on some scholarship I have read. 

Here are the passages in the Targums which mention the Memra of the LORD. Notice that in these passages (when combined) together the Memra is seen as distinct from YHWH in one sense but also YHWH Himself (in other passages):

"And they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden." (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 3)

"After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not, Abram: My Word shall be thy strength, and thy exceeding great reward … And he believed in the Memra of the Lord, and He reckoned it to him unto justification. (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 15)

"And the Word came from the presence of the Lord to Abimelek in a dream of the night, and said to him, … (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 20)

"Be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be broken before them; for the Memra of the Lord thy God will be the leader before thee, He will not forsake thee, nor be far off from thee. And Mosheh called Jehoshua, and said to him before the eyes of all Israel, Be strong and of good courage; for thou art to go in with this people to the land which the Lord hath sworn to their fathers to give it to them, and thou shalt cause them to inherit. But the Lord, He is the leader before thee; His Word shall be thy helper, for He will not forsake thee, nor be far from thee; fear not, nor be dismayed." (Targum Onqelos, Deuteronomy 31)

"Who hath directed the Holy Spirit in the mouth of all the prophets? Is it not the Lord? He maketh known the words of His will to the righteous, the servants of His Word. (Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, Isaiah 40)"

Notice how the Targums in some passages attribute actions to the Memra of the LORD. This seems to imply that the Memra is personal in some sense. 

The Targums also portray the Memra as being divine:

"And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If the Memra of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Memra of YHWH be my God." (Targum Neofiti, Genesis 28)

"This day you have made the Memra of the LORD your God to be King over you so that he may be for you a savior God, [promising] to walk in ways that are right before him.” (Targum Neofiti, Deuteronomy 26)

Maimonides was the Jewish scholar who put forward the view that the Targums were merely using the Memra terminology to avoid anthropomorphisms, and that there was nothing more to it than that. However, this conclusion is highly questionable. 

"There is some dispute about whether the Targums have avoidance of anthropomorphisms as a goal, not only because the Targums do not consistently avoid anthropomorphisms, but also because some language that has been interpreted as anti-anthropomorphic is also used of kings or people in general, meaning we may be dealing with language of respect or idiomatic renderings." (John Ronnings, The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology, pg. 16)

"It seems not to have occurred to any who hold this view that it is fundamentally incoherent and self-contradictory. Surely this position collapses logically upon itself, for if the Memra is just a name that simply enables avoiding asserting that God himself has created, appeared, supported, saved, and thus preserves his absolute transcendence, then who, after all, did the actual creating, appearing, supporting, saving? Either God himself, in which case, one has hardly “protected” him from contact with the material world, or there is some other divine entity, in which case, the Memra is not just a name. Indeed, as pointed out by Burton Mack, the very purpose for which Sophia/Logos developed within Judaism was precisely to enable “a theology of the transcendence of God.” The currently accepted and dominant view ascribes to the use of the Memra only the counterfeit coinage of a linguistic simulation of a theology of the transcendence of God, without the theology itself. Rather than assuming that the usage is meaningless, it seems superior on general hermeneutic grounds to assume that it means something. It follows then that the strongest use of Memra is that it is not a mere name, but an actual divine entity, or mediator." (Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John” Harvard Theological Review, 94:3, 2001, p. 254-255)

"Indeed, the Targums present the Memra as more than just a "word" or a decree. Targum Neofiti Genesis 1:1-2 attributes the creation of the universe to the Memra . Neofiti Exodus 14:30 says that the Memra redeemed Israel from Egypt. Likewise, the Memra fought Israel's battles as they entered the promised land in Targum Joshua 10:14.In the Abrahamic narrative, Onqelos Genesis 15 suggests that the Memra was God's agent to communicate the covenant to Abraham and to mediate the covenant sign. In each of these cases, the Memra carries out a role beyond verbal speech or declaration from God. In fact, the Memra functions as God's agent in the Targums by doing the work that the Hebrew Bible ascribes to God" (Adam J. Howell, "The Meaning of Memra, Shekinah, and Yeqara and Their Theological Use in the New Testament", pgs. 39-40)

I would be willing to grant that the Targumists may have had guarding against anthropomorphism as an objective in mind. However, it is wrong to assume that this was the only reason why they spoke of the Memra of YHWH. To say that if at one time Memra is used for the sake of removing an anthropomorphism, that therefore this is always its meanings is a composition fallacy.  

Especially in the examples of the Memra in Targum Neofiti, it is hard to see how someone could think that guarding against anthropomorphism is the only issue at play in the minds of the Targumists when it comes to the issue of the Memra. Rather, there are also examples where the Memra appears to be viewed (by the Targumists, at least) as being a person (i.e. hypostasis), especially in Targum Neofiti. Yet the Memra is also portrayed as being YHWH himself. Whether or not this was the background to John 1 is a bit of a different story. Nonetheless, for now we can see that Memra is quite significant in our understanding of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. This is useful when discussing with Orthodox Jews issues regarding the Old Testament and its view of the nature of God.