Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:30:18.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Joseph Heinemann
Joseph Heinemann
Affiliation:
Department of Hebrew Literature, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A considerable number of detailed studies have been devoted to the Messiah of Ephraim (or of Joseph). Among the problems which were raised by scholars are the following: What need was there for the creation of another messianic figure? Why was this second Messiah ascribed to the Joseph tribes in particular? Why and when did the strange motif of the forerunner of the Davidic Messiah, who was doomed to fall in battle, come into being? Does this figure have any connection with the “suffering servant” of Isaiah or, perhaps, with the Christian Messiah, destined to suffer and die?

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The following abbreviations will be used throughout:

Aptowitzer = Aptowitzer, V., Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum (Wien: Kohut-Foundation, 1927).Google Scholar

Dalman = Dalman, G. H., Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge … (Berlin: H. Reuther, 1888).Google Scholar

Ginzberg = Ginzberg, L., “Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 58 (1914) 159–77, 395–429.Google Scholar

Hurwitz = Hurwitz, S., Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias (Zürich / Stuttgart: Rascher, 1948).Google Scholar

Klausner = Klausner, J., Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten (Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1904).Google Scholar

Rowley = Rowley, H. H., The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952) 64ff.Google Scholar

Urbach = Urbach, E. E., The Sages — Their Concepts and Beliefs (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: 1969).Google Scholar

2 Speculations of this type have already been refuted by Dalman (21f.) and need not concern us any longer; cf. also Rowley, 64f.; Urbach, 619.

3 Pp. 88–90.

4 Dalman, 17–18.

5 I do not accept the general validity of this principle of Klausner, but in this particular case he would seem to be right, if only because the verse in question does not appear to supply the materials necessary for the creation of the legend of the Messiah ben Joseph who will fall in battle.

6 Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (2d ed.; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1924) s.v. (3. 271); a similar view had already been put forward by Hamburger, cf. Dalman, 21.Google Scholar

7 We need not discuss the various theories which hold that the figure of the Messiah ben Ephraim had its origin in the Northern Kingdom; for not only is there no evidence whatsoever to support it, but even if there had been such a doctrine prior to the destruction of the Israelite Kingdom, it is impossible to explain its revival in the second century c.e.; cf. Klausner, 90f; Rowley, 69f.; Hurwitz, 171, 180.

8 Ginsberg (416 n. 2) holds that the R. Dosa mentioned in B. T. Sukkah may not be a Tanna at all, but an Amora; but since one of the two sources concerning the Messiah ben Joseph (ibid.) is undoubtedly a baraita, this does not alter the position that the motif of the Messiah ben Joseph who is killed is no later than the end of the second century. How much earlier it may be, the sources do not tell us; but see below.

9 Pp. 105ff.

10 Especially of Levi; cf. below.

11 Pp.414ff.

12 Pp. 108f.

13 Cf. Marmorstein's, A. detailed review of Aptowitzer's book in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 73 (1929) 244–50, 478–87.Google Scholar

14 Cf. the summing-up and criticism of recent views: Rowley, 64ff.; Hurwitz, 172ff.

15 Sic! (403f.; 411); and not as stated erroneously by Wieder, N., JJS 6 (1955) 14, and by Hurwitz, 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Cf. Aptowitzer, ibid.; Ginzberg, 402ff.; Hurwitz, 194ff.; also Wieder, N., JJS 4 (1953) 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 2; 6 (1955) 14f., 24; Kuhn, K. G., “The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel,” The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Stendahl, K.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957) 54ff.Google Scholar; Schubert, K., Jud 11 (1955) 216f., 226f.Google Scholar; Liver, J., HTR 52 (1959) 149ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Cf., e.g., Woude, A. S. van der, in OTS 14 (1965)Google Scholar; Meyer, R. in Volume du congrès international pour l'étude de l'Ancien Testament (Genève: 1965)Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., “Further Light on Mekhizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967) 25–41.Google Scholar

18 Aptowitzer, ibid.; cf. also Dalman, 8f.

19 As Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1946) 2. 370, puts it.Google Scholar

20 Pp. 193ff.

21 This arbitrary assumption is shared by practically all scholars; cf. especially Klausner, 94f.

22 Quoter by Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 3.495.Google Scholar

23 E.g., Dalman, 10f.

24 B. T. Sukkah 52b; Pesiqta de Rav Kahana V (ed. Buber, 51a); Pesiqta Rahbati XV (ed. Friedmann, 75a); Cant. Rabba on 2.13; Num. Rabba XIV. 1; cf. also Ginzberg, 418f. It is noteworthy that the Munich ms of the Babylonian Talmud has Melchizedek instead of “Kohen Zedeq,” cf. Rabbinovicz, R., Variae Lectiones III (Munich: 1870) 170.Google Scholar

25 Cf. Ginzberg, 421; Dalman, 6f.

26 The author of this exposition is Shime'on Hasida who, apparently, is a Tanna; cf. Ginzberg, 418 n. 1.

27 Only this designation is found in all targumic sources.

28 The latter part of this exposition recurs also in Gen. Rabba LXXIII.7 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 851, where all parallel passages in which this saying occurs — with only minor variations — are listed in the apparatus).

29 Cf. also Tanḥuma (ed. Buber), 1. 154 and 179.

30 Cf Bacher, W., Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899), 1. 107f., and 2 (1905) 115.Google Scholar

31 Nevertheless, teachers of the third century and after faithfully continue to transmit the older version as they received it, even though they must already have been aware of the new conception of the death of Messiah ben Ephraim.

32 Klausner does not refer to most of this material at all, because he expressly (Introduction, III) limits himself to “Tannaitic material.” Others, however, including Dalman and Ginzberg, quote these sources at length. Strangest of all is the case of Aptowitzer, who bases on these very texts his argument against Ginzberg that the Messiah ben Joseph was the object of promises and hopes, without realizing that these sources do not speak of a “dying Messiah” at all.

33 As, e.g., Klausner, cf. above.

34 E.g., Lam. Rabba on 2.2 (ed. Buber, 101f ). P. T. TaʿFehrat;an. IV. 8, 68d; cf. Ginzberg, 415 n. 4; Bacher, W., Die Agada der Tannaiten (Strassburg: 1903) 1. 284 n. 3; Str-B 1 (1922) 13.Google Scholar

35 Mekhilta Beshallaḥ, beginning (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, 75f.); B. T. Sanh. 92b.

36 Pseudo Jonathan on Ex 13:17 (ed. Ginsburger, 121); Das Fragmententhargum, ed. Ginsburger, 31); Maḥsor Vitry (ed. Hurwitz, 305); Targum on Ez 37, ibid., 167; Targum on Ez 37 (ed. Macho, A. Díez) Bib 39 (1958) 201f.Google Scholar

37 It is no concern of ours here, which ancient and, apparently, long forgotten events these Bible passages may have referred to originally; cf. Krauss, S., Wiener Zeitschrift f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes 38 (1931) 76ff. Krauss's reconstruction of these events on the strength of the versions of this Aggadah, preserved in the latest(!), medieval Midrashim, appears, to say the least, highly questionable.Google Scholar

38 Mahsor Vitry, 167; in Hurwitz’ edition is an error; the ms has

39 Pseudo-Jonathan on Ex 13:17; Fragmententhargum, ibid.; Targum on 1 Chr 7:20f.; Targum on Ps 78:9; Díez Macho, ibid.; cf. also Cant. Rabha on 2.7.

40 Cf. Mekhilta Bo, Tract. Pasḥa (ed. Horovitz-Rabin) 50, and the parallels listed there in the apparatus.

41 On these categories cf., e.g., B. T. Sank. 97b and Cant. Rabba on 2.7; see also Urbach, 601ff., 611.

42 Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragmententhargum, ibid.

43 Hence those versions of the legend which have numbers other than 200,000 “men of valour” are faulty; cf. Targum on Ez 37 (ed. A. Díez Macho); Pesiqta de Rav Kahana X (ed. Buber, 85a-b); Midrash Or Ha-Afelah (unpublished; quoted by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah on Ex 13: 17). The same applies, of course, to those versions where the error in calculation is not given as 30 years but as 80 years, cf. Pesiqta d. R. K., ibid.

44 Cf. Heinemann, I., Darkey Ha-Aggadah (Jerusalem: 1950) 6f. and passim.Google Scholar

45 Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragmententhargum, ibid.; Maḥsor Vitry, 167; Diez Macho, ibid.; B. T. Sanh. 92b.

46 In addition, the legend in its original form, without the sequel from Ez 37, has been preserved also in the following sources: Targum on Ps 78:9; Targum on 1 Chr 7:20f.; Cant. Rabba on 2.7; Ex. Rabba XX.11; Pirkey R. Eliezer XLVIII; Sefer Ha-Yashar.

47 P. T. Berakhot I.8, 3d.