What is the Dead Sea Scrolls Text called the Joseph Apocryphon (4Q372) really about? I propose here that it is about a dying and rising Josephite Messiah.
I proposed in 2005 that a Josephite Messiah is represented in the Qumran text 4QTestimonia (4Q175), but noted that there is no indication that this figure dies, as does the rabbinic Messiah ben Joseph.[1] However I have suggested elsewhere that a sacrificial Josephite Messiah was known in the early second century BCE, the idea ultimately deriving from the Josephite warrior of Deut. 33.17 who contains in embryo the main characteristics of Messiah ben Joseph.[2] If this is so, then it is possible that a Josephite Messiah who is slain might appear in the Qumran literature. In this paper I wish to suggest that such a figure does indeed feature in the text 4Q372.
1. 4Q372
The manuscript 4Q372, known also as The Joseph Apocryphon or more recently as 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb, is part of a text attested in three large fragments (4Q371-373) and 24 smaller pieces. It was first edited by E. Schuller.[3] Emendations based on Deut. 32.16-17 and internal parallelism were subsequently published by E. Qimron.[4] These were then incorporated in the official text published by E. Schuller and M. Bernstein.[5] Paleographic dating shows the manuscript to be late Hasmonean or early Herodian (c. 50 BCE),[6] although Schuller has suggested on linguistic grounds that the work itself was composed in the ‘Persian-Hellenistic’ period, or c. 200 BCE.[7]
As regards interpretation, Schuller states “in this type of biblically-based material, ‘Joseph’ can be used in two quite different ways”: first, in reworkings of the Genesis narrative and, second, in reference to the tribes of the northern kingdom.[8] She concludes that this text is an example of the latter, the “Joseph” of the text referring to the tribes of the northern kingdom, and the text being part of an anti-Samaritan polemic.[9] This theory has become generally accepted, and subsequent discussion has bypassed questions of overall interpretation to focus on details such as Joseph’s prayer.[10]
2. Joseph not the northern kingdom
Schuller and Bernstein’s work on the text leaves nothing to be desired. But the excellence of their descriptive scholarship masks an interpretational hypothesis that may not bear the same scrutiny. They are surely correct in saying that 4Q372 is not a reworking of the Genesis story.[11] But there are major difficulties with the proposed ‘northern kingdom anti-Samaritan’ hypothesis.
First, the text tells how Jerusalem and the temple are delivered to destruction at the hands of foreign invaders.[12]
| 4 עליון ויתנם ביד הגוים ל[…] | 4 …the Most High, and he gave them into the hands of the nations to… |
7 הגוים ית˚נ˚ו˚ עומדת בגי החזון ו[…] ציון ויעש[…] 8 ירושלים לעיים ואת הר אלהי לבמות יע[…]
7 the nations[13]… [it (f.)] standing in the Valley of Vision[14] and…[…]Zion, and they made[…] 8 Jerusalem into ruins and the mountain of my God into high places[15]…
| 14 אמרי כזב ידברי להכעים ללוי וליהודה ולבנימן בדבריהם ובכל זה יוסף […] 15 ביד בני נאכר אכלים את כחו ושברים את כל עצמיו עד עת קץ לו | 14 words of deceit they spoke to anger Levi and Judah and Benjamin with their words. And in all this Joseph […] 15 into the hands of foreigners, devouring his strength and breaking all his bones until the time of his end. |
19 …]אמצו ממני ומכל אחי אשר 20 נלוו עמי עם אויב יושב עליה וכ[…].ף ופתח פיהו על 21 כל בני אהביך יעקב בכעסים לל[…]
19 …they are too strong for me[16] and for all my brothers who 20 joined me. An enemy people lives in it and […] and opens its mouth against 21 all the sons of your beloved Jacob with insults for…
Lines 14 and 15 tell how Joseph falls into the hand of foreigners.
Joseph’s foreign foes are certainly the same people who vex Levi, Judah and Benjamin in line 14, for the phrase ובכל זה and in all this (l. 14) indicates contemporaneous events usually dependent on one another.[17] Thus the vexing of Levi, Judah and Benjamin seems to refer to the invasion of the territories around Jerusalem, the ancestral lands of Judah and Benjamin and the sons of Aaron. Therefore, the invading enemy who destroys Jerusalem and angers the southern tribes is the same one who seizes Joseph. Here then is a serious obstacle to any form of the northern kingdom theory. At the time of the historical northern kingdom’s captivity Jerusalem and the temple were unscathed (2 Kgs 17-19); likewise at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, the northern kingdom was long gone. Thus, if Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed at Joseph’s capture, Joseph cannot be the northern kingdom.
Further, it seems that the enemy attack is directed at neither the northern nor the southern kingdom alone, but rather at “all the sons of your friend Jacob” (line 21; cf. line 13), apparently implying an Israel united against the invader. So if the attack is directed at united Israel, the case for taking the text as historical is further undermined, for there is no record of any such successful attack in the narratives of the united monarchy.
Yet another objection to this theory is that Joseph does not share the characteristics of the northern kingdom. He is viewed favourably, as all admit.[18] In fact, he is righteous and blameless. He cries out to God in his distress, without any confession of sin, as to a father who will hear him (line 16). He anticipates the time when he will do justice and righteousness and the will of his creator, when he will sacrifice sacrifices, tell of the mercies of Yhwh, praise and bless him, and teach sinners his laws (lines 23-27). This is not the northern kingdom, banished for idolatries. This is a righteous sufferer.
A final objection to the anti-Samaritan hypothesis must be the labyrinthine reasoning it requires. The text views Joseph favourably. Yet this, we are told, means that the writer is favourable to the “real Joseph”, that is, the dispersed ten tribes, but not to the Samaritans, who “even though they might claim descent from Joseph, are obviously imposters” who have usurped the place of the “real ‘Joseph’”.[19] But, further, the author did not necessarily have any concern for the ten tribes per se (despite his favourable view of Joseph), but is merely making the point that, if the real Joseph is in exile, then the Samaritan claim to be his descendants is spurious.[20] Yet, as the text mentions neither Samaritans nor the ten tribes – and as the broader Qumran corpus shows antipathy to the latter rather than the former[21] – one might be forgiven for missing the point.
3. Joseph an individual
It follows then that in 4Q372 another Joseph, not the northern tribes, is present at the destruction of Jerusalem. If the text relates historical events, as Schuller and Bernstein propose, then this Joseph must be an otherwise unknown individual, for no corporate Joseph or known individual of that name was present at the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem. If, however, one allows that the writer was depicting a future invasion of Jerusalem, like those of Ezekiel 38-39 or Zechariah 12.3 and 14.1-2, then one must decide whether Joseph is an individual or corporate entity.
There are details which suggest that Joseph looks like an individual. First, the language used of him is resolutely singular. That includes pronoun suffixes: כחו, עצמיו, לו,להושיעו (lines 15-16), אבי, ואלהי, תעזבני,בי (lines 16-17); singular verbs in the third person: ויזעק,יקרא , ויאמר (lines 15, 16); or in the first person: ואקום, ואגיד, אהללך (lines 23-26). While singular language might perhaps be used of a kingdom or tribal confederation, it would be surprising if there were no evidence at all of its collective nature, as is the case here. Similarly the crushing of Joseph’s bones (line 15) would be unusually anthropomorphic if used of a corporate entity.
4. Joseph a righteous king messiah.
Joseph predicts that he will arise to execute justice and righteousness (l. 23;אקום לעשות משפט וצ[דקה]). Since the execution of justice requires wisdom, authority, and power, it rather looks like Joseph is, or is to be, a righteous ruler. Indeed a series of significant Psalms citations may allow us to go further and say that he is a mashiaḥ.
Although a full discussion of the messianic interpretation of the Psalms is beyond the scope of this paper, there are, broadly, three senses in which a psalm can be called messianic.[22] (1) It can be historico-messianic; that is, an author refers to a historical king, often his contemporary, as Yhwh’s mashiaḥ, the throne-title which embodied Israel’s sacral kingship ideology. (2) It can be authorially eschatologico-messianic; that is, the author was describing an anticipated future mashiaḥ. (3) It can be redactorally eschatologico-messianic; that is, a psalm conceived as historico-messianic was taken by a later redactor to refer to an eschatological mashiaḥ.
Now many psalms, and particularly the ‘royal’ psalms, fall into the first and third categories.[23] That is, originally historico-messianic psalms were taken by the Psalter’s redactor and incorporated into his eschatologically-oriented collection. In this way they took on a new life as eschatological prophecy pointing to a future mashiaḥ.[24] We, of course, can read these psalms as we choose. We may look for a historical Sitz im Leben and take them in the authorial sense, as referring to a historical mashiaḥ. But we are fully justified, on the basis of redactor intent, in taking them as referring to an eschatological mashiaḥ. And this, of course, is exactly how they were taken in ancient Israel.[25]
Now let us return to 4Q372.Line 16, where Joseph cries to God for deliverance, is an allusion to Psalm 89.27 [26], the only passage in the Hebrew scriptures where an individual addresses God as ‘my father’.[26]
| Ps 89.27[26] | 4Q372.1, line16 | ||
| יקראני אבי אתה אלי | He will cry to me, “My father you [are], my God!” | יקרא אל אל… אבי ואלהי | He will cry to God… “My father and my God!” |
Now Psalm 89 is a messianic psalm par excellence. It has more occurrences of משח than any other psalm. Its suffering hero is twice called משיחך your mashiaḥ, the term even bringing the long psalm to its sombre close(vv. 39, 52 [38, 51]). His messianic anointing is further implied in the symbol of the oiled shield (v. 19 [18]).[27] Divine help is sought on the basis of the hero’s father David and his messianic anointing with holy oil (משח v. 21 [20]). And David’s cry, My father you [are], my God (v.27 [26]),marks him as the ‘son of God’, a messianic title, conferred also on his descendants.[28] Thus Jewish interpretation routinely interprets the psalm of the Messiah.[29]
However the mashiaḥ of Psalm 89 is is no conqueror, as in Psalms 2, 45, 72 or 110. For this psalm is a lament for the fall of the house of David following the mortification of the king.[30] This mashiaḥ has been defeated in battle, his sword turned back, the days of his youth cut short (vv.44-46 [43-45]). Yhwh has pierced / defiled his crown to the earth (v.40 [39]), suggesting that he has been pierced through.[31] Jewish tradition recognizes the terminal nature of his condition, applying the psalm not only to the Messiah’s rejection, but to the mortal sufferings of Messiah ben Ephraim (ben Joseph).[32] Thus, when the Joseph figure of 4Q372 cites the psalm’s “father” cry, it not only connotes Psalm 89’s mortified mashiaḥ, but also marks this Joseph himself as a son of God, like David.
Following the allusion to Psalm 89, Joseph’s next words (line 16) are a quotation from Psalm 38 and an allusion to Psalm 22.
| 4Q372.1, line 16 | ואלהי אל תעזבני | My God, do not abandon me. |
| Psalm 38.22[21] | אל־תעזבני יהוה אלהי | Do not abandon me, Yhwh my God. |
| Psalm 22.2[1] | אלי אלי למה עזבתני | My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? |
Bearing in mind the principle of redactoral eschatologico-messianic interpretation, Psalms 22 and 38 are also readily amenable to messianic interpretation. First being l’dawid psalms, they can be read as the voice of the mashiaḥ David speaking for his latterday son.[33] In the case of Psalm 22 such a view is borne out by the text. For no individual in ancient Israel could expect his personal deliverance (vv. 20-26 [19-25]) to result in blessing for the nations (vv. 27-32 [26-31]) except Yhwh’s mashiaḥ, David (or by extension his son).[34] As with Psalm 89, there is evidence for just such an interpretation in Hebrew literature.[35]
As for imagery, in Psalm 38 the psalmist has been pierced by arrows (v,3 [2]); he is wounded (vv 6, 12 [5, 11]); his enemies seek his life (v. 13 [12]). In Psalm 22 he is God-forsaken, laid in the dust of death, his bones dislocated (vv. 2, 15-16 [1, 14-15]), and, in at least one ancient tradition (LXX v. 17 [16]), he is pierced.
So Joseph in his plight cries out in the words of three psalms, one explicitly and two implicitly messianic. All three depict a mashiaḥ who is, metaphorically at least, pierced and in the throes of death. It therefore rather looks like the same characteristics may be predicated of our Joseph.
5. Joseph’s fate.
In l. 15 the foreigners crush Joseph “breaking all his bones until the time of his end (עת קץ לו)”. Schuller and Bernstein render the phrase ‘until the time of the end for him’ and suggest, by appeal to Dan. 8.17; 11.35-40; 12.4-9, that it points to a future day when Joseph will be vindicated.[36] However, while the Daniel passages are the only biblical occurrence of עת קץ, it is doubtful whether Daniel’s time of the end can be equated simply with vindication after the Antiochan persecution, as Schuller and Bernstein suggest. It is much more. It is the end of the age when the dead shall rise, as in 12.2-4. If we are to interpret the phrase in terms of Daniel, then it carries heavy eschatological freight.
My feeling however is that this is all a bit wide of the mark. Given the biblical use of קץ to indicate destruction (Job 6.11; Amos 8.2; Ezek. 7.2-3, 6; Lam. 4.18), it rather suggests that what is in view is not the general time of the end, but the time of Joseph’s end. Could this be simply metaphor without his actual demise being in view? Perhaps. But in the context of the psalms quoted and the overall language and allusions of 4Q372, it seems to me that Joseph is slain by the enemy.[37] For, if Schuller and Bernstein see in Joseph the actual destruction of the northern kingdom, and if it is now seen that Joseph is not the northern kingdom but an individual, then it follows that it is the individual Joseph who is destroyed.
Joseph predicts, after his sufferings, his resurgence: And I will arise (אקום) to do justice and righ[teousness…] the will of my creator, and to sacrifice sacrifices of thanksgiving (lines 23-24). What kind of resurgence is envisaged clearly depends on Joseph’s fate. However resurrection belief is attested in biblical times, particularly in Ephraimite tradition.[38] And קום is a key term for resurrection in several biblical texts.[39] Therefore the possibility of Joseph’s resurrection should be allowed. For, if he dies, as l. 15 suggests, a resurrection is required if he is to arise to do anything at all.
6. The nation’s fate
Lines 4, 5 and 11 suggest Israel, or part of Israel, is exiled.
| 4 עליון ויתנם ביד הגוים ל[…] 5 אתם בכל הארצות | 4 …the Most High, and he gave them into the hands of the nations to… 5 them in all the lands |
| 11 בגוי נאכר ובכל תבל מפצפצים כל הריהם שממים מהם… | 11 among a foreign nation and they [will be] dispersed in all the world. All their mountains [will be] desolate of them… |
Levi, Judah and Benjamin are ‘vexed’ or ‘angered’ by words of deceit (ll. 14-15). These three tribes represent the southern Kingdom of Judah, as in other texts of the period (1 En. 89.72; 1QM 1.2) which see the southern tribes as three against Joseph’s nine, rather than the biblical ten and two (e.g. 1 Kgs 12.21). The plural verb suggests that the speaker of vexatious words is the invader rather than Joseph, whose words and actions always take singular verb forms. As noted above, ובכל זה (l. 14) suggests this takes place when Joseph falls into enemy hands.
However the relation between the exile and the ‘vexing’ of the southern tribes is unclear. Are the Josephites exiled (lines 4-5, 11) and the southern tribes living in the land vexed? Or are the exile passages a proleptic summary of the fate in store for the southern tribes, or even for all Israel, after Joseph’s demise?
7. A future Joseph
I noted the possibility that the writer of 4Q372 is depicting future rather than historical events. Several points support such a view.
First, the text is dominated by imperfect (prefix-conjugated) verbal forms, with no solid evidence of perfect (suffixed) forms at all.[40] Nonetheless Schuller and Bernstein render the imperfects as English past tenses, saying they are waw-converted imperfects in a past-tense narrative.[41] Their proposed additions are therefore supplied in the perfect (cf. [דע]י and [נתן] in lines 10 and 14), and the whole text is rendered in the English past tense. However this procedure compels them to the unlikely view that the text’s unconverted imperfects (i.e. without waw-prefix; l. 9: יעמוד; l. 14: ידברו; l. 16: יקרא) should be taken as converted forms, apparently written defectively.
But it is surely safer to assume that the narrative does not employ waw-consecutive at all. The usage was already dying out in late biblical times. And although it appears in imperfect verbs in some Qumran documents, apparently as a deliberate archaism,[42] the unconverted imperfects here argue against such a usage. It would therefore surely be better to take the verbs – with and without waw-prefix – only as simple imperfects, and render them as the English future. This would change the flavour of the text entirely, from historical to prophetic.
Such a prophetic reading is supported by other factors. First, since the events described – particularly Joseph’s presence at the capture of Jerusalem – cannot be reconciled with any known historical scenario, then a future scenario should be considered. Second, 4Q372’s discovery among the Dead Sea literature should alert us to the possibility of an eschatological interpretation. For eschatology dominates many of these texts; their authors repeatedly testify to the conviction that they were living in the אחרית הימים, or “the final period of history”.[43] In 4Q372 itself an eschatological timescale is confirmed by fragmentary references to יובלים jubilees or ramshorns,a term occurring elsewhere in the Qumran literature only in eschatological contexts.[44]
8. Joseph exiled?
We noted above that Israel appear to go into exile. Is the same true for Joseph, as Schuller and Bernstein suggest? We should not be misled by the beginning of l. 11, for the following plural participle (מפצפצים) clearly shows that it is Israel, in whole or part, who are dispersed among a foreign nation. The idea of Joseph’s exile depends on two passages, in lines 19 and 10 respectively.
Line 19 is rendered by Schuller and Bernstein, following Qimron, as follows:[45]
| 19 [לקחו ]ארצי ממני ומכל אחי אשר | 19 …[They took ]my land from me and from all my brothers who |
Yet Schuller originally rendered the line with no hint of exile, as follows:[46]
| 19 […]אמצו ממני ומכל אחי אשר | 19 …they are too strong for me and for all my brothers who |
Since Schuller’s later revision offers no explanation for these changes, I assume that the former reading remains palaeographically defensible, and that the choice between them depends solely on their possible sense in context. On this basis, Schuller’s original reconstruction is surely to be preferred. After all, אמצו ממני is biblical – uttered by the mashiaḥ King David in Psalm 142.7 – while ארצי ממני is not. Given the psalmic nature of 4Q372, a quote from the psalms is highly likely. Grave doubt is therefore cast on their revised reading that sees Joseph exiled.
Schuller and Bernstein’s second reference to Joseph’s exile appears in line 10, as follows:
| 10ובכל זה יוסף מוטל בארצות לא י[ ] | 10 …And in all this, Joseph was cast into lands he did not k[now…] |
Now מוטל, rendered here “cast [out]”, might be equally rendered “cast down” or “struck down”. This appears, for instance, in the talmudic passage cited in defence of the translation, Ber. 3.1: “one whose kinsman lies dead [מוטל] before him”.[47] Next, to render בארצות לא י[…] as “in lands he did not k[now…]” is questionable. Such a translation would normally require a relative pronoun, אשר or ש-, before לא, just as appears in the passages cited as evidence (Jer. 16.13: הארץ אשר לא ידעתם; Jer. 22.28: הארץ אשר לא ידעו; cf. Jer. 17.4).[48] Therefore the given translation, while not impossible (cf. Jer. 15.14), is unlikely. However, now that we are no longer wedded to a past tense narrative, an almost unlimited number of possibilities opens up for the lonely yodh. It could be a niphal future, giving “lands not escaped” (לא ימלטו; cf. Dan. 11.41) or “not saved” (לא יושעו) or “not delivered” (לא ינצלו) or even “not tilled” (לא יעבדו; Deut. 21.4) because of the enemy invasion. Or it might be adjectival: “lands not united” (יחד). Or if, following Schuller and Bernstein, we dispense with the relative pronoun joining the verb to Joseph, we can supply virtually any imperfect verb for the yodh. Or, noting that the yodh is a doubtful reading anyway, we can complete the line just about anyway we like. However we do it, the “lands” might then be Israel and Judah, and Joseph might not be exiled at all, but rather struck down in his native land.
Is this likely? Well, it must be admitted that, while the Bible does refer to Israel’s ארצות (2 Chr. 11.23; 34.33; Ezek. 35.10), בארצות usually refers to foreign nations.[49] It must also be admitted that elsewhere in 4Q372 ארצות refers to foreign nations (l. 5). So the question of whether or not Joseph is exiled ultimately turns on the little hinge of how far we feel usage of ב/ארצות elsewhere determines what lands are referred to in line 10. Therefore, leaving the matter of Joseph’s exile for now, we shall move on and return to it later.
9. A revised reading of 4Q372
Therefore taking into account the points made above, and borrowing liberally from Schuller and Bernstein, the legible portions of the document can now be rendered as follows:
3. and the idol-priests, and its glory with those who serve/work…
4. the Most High, and he will give them into the hand of the nations…
5. them in all the lands, and among all…
6. Israel and he will destroy them from the land…
7. the nations… [it (f.)] standing in the Valley of Vision and…[…]Zion, and they will make[…]
8. Jerusalem into ruins and the mountain of my God into high places…
9. God, and also Judah together with him [יהודה יחד עמו; or perhaps Judah joined/will join his people], and he will stand at the crossroads…
10. to be together with his two brothers. And in all this, Joseph [will be] cast down in lands not…
11. [they will be] among a foreign nation and they [will be] dispersed in all the world. All their mountains desolate of them…
12. and making for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy; and they spoke with wor[ds ]…
13. the sons of Jacob and they will act terribly with the words of their mouth to revile against the tent of Zion; and they will speak…
14. words of deceit they will speak to anger Levi and Judah and Benjamin with their words. And in all this Joseph…
15. into the hands of foreigners, devouring his strength and breaking all his bones until the time of his end. And he will cry out…
16. and he will call to God the mighty to save him from their hand. And he will say, “My father and my God, do not abandon me into the hands of the nations.
17. Do justice for me so that the afflicted and poor will not perish. You have no need for any nation or people
18. for any help…is greater and stronger than anything in the world. For you select the truth, and there is not in your hand
19. any violence. Also your mercies are abundant, your kindnesses great for all who seek you.…they are too strong for me and for all my brothers who
20. are allied with me. A hostile people dwells upon it and…and they will open their mouth against
21. all the sons of your friend Jacob with vexations to…
22. the time (when) you will destroy them from the entire world, and they will give…
23. And I will arise to do justice and righ[teousness…]
24. the will of my Creator and to sacrifice sacrifices of…
25. You are my God and I will proclaim [? your] kindnesses…
26. I will praise you, Yhwh my God, and I will bless you…
27. the former things, and to teach sinners your laws and all who abandon you [your] Tor[ah ?]…
28. and evil so that your testimonies do not reproach me and to tell the words of [your ?] righteousness…
29. for God is great, holy, mighty and majestic, fearful and marvellous…
30. and the earth and also in the depths of the deep. Splendour and…
If we were to try to determine some kind of event sequence in this, it might run as follows. The enemy attack Jerusalem, the Valley of Vision (ll. 7-10). What Judah is doing in l. 9 is unclear; he may be ‘with’ his own people, or Joseph, or even the invader. Then Joseph is cast down (l. 10) and a group of people, almost certainly Israel, are exiled (l. 11). Someone apparently dwelling in the land, probably the invader, will practise idolatry to provoke Israel and speak blasphemously to vex the southern kingdom (ll. 12-14). Then Joseph appears again (l. 14). He is in the power of the foreigners who are intent on destroying him (l.15). He cries out to God to deliver him for the sake of the nation (ll. 16-17) and bring retribution on the foe (l. 22). Then, in a psalm of praise, he predicts his arising again to do justice and righteousness (ll. 23-30).
How far these events are chronological is open to question. In particular, one may ask whether there are two exiles or simply one exile twice told (ll. 4-5, 11). Likewise, Joseph’s casting down in line 10 may or may not be the same event as befalls him in lines 14-15.
10. Assessing the evidence: Which Joseph?
Who then is this mysterious Joseph? It would seem that there are three possible candidates: the patriarch Joseph of Genesis, the tribes of Joseph, and the Josephite Messiah who appears fully developed in rabbinic literature as Messiah ben Joseph, but who, I have suggested, is found in embryonic form in the Bible (Deut. 33.17; Zech. 12.10) and developed in early post-biblical texts, such as 1 Enoch 90.37-38; Test. Naph. 5.6-8; Test. Ben. 3.8; Sib. Or. 5.256-259; and Joseph and Aseneth.[50]
At first glance it appears that all these Josephs share certain similarities. Each is delivered into the hands of foreigners, each is in some way consigned to a death-like existence, and each is, or is to be, in some way restored. Yet important differences also emerge when the three possible Josephs are compared with the 4Q372 figure.
i) Joseph the patriarch was delivered by his brothers into the hands of the nations (Gen. 37.28), an event likened to piercing by arrows (Gen. 49.23). He was exiled and imprisoned in a subterranean dungeon, a state of virtual death in the underworld (Gen. 37.24; 39.20).[51] Later he was raised to honour (Gen. 41.39-45). Like 4Q372’s Joseph, he was an individual, an innocent and righteous sufferer, a lord (אדון; Gen. 45.10), a ruler (משל; Gen. 45.26) and prince (נזיר; Gen. 49.26; Deut. 33.16). Yet, unlike the 4Q372 figure, his brothers were not vexed by foreigners at the time of his captivity. He was never present at the invasion of Jerusalem. He was not a mashiaḥ, like the figures of Psalms 22, 38 or 89, nor is there any tradition linking him with these psalms.
ii) The tribes of Joseph. The Josephite kingdom of Ephraim was delivered into the hands of the nations (2 Kgs 17.4-23; 18.9-12). King Hoshea was imprisoned in an unstated location, and the people exiled. Shortly after, the southern kingdom was vexed by the invaders (2 Kgs 18.9-16). The prophets foretell that the Josephites will rise again to honour.[52] But unlike the 4Q372 Joseph they were not present when Jerusalem was invaded and the temple destroyed. They were a tribal confederation, not an individual. They were never a mashiaḥ king in Jerusalem. And, in Judean eyes, at least, they were not innocent, but idolatrous and lawless, sacrificers of their own children (2 Kgs 17.7-23). Nor is there any tradition linking them with Psalms 22, 38, 89.
iii) Messiah ben Joseph. Messiah ben Joseph gathers scattered Israel.[53] He rules over them in Jerusalem and rebuilds the temple.[54] Then his kingdom is attacked by foreign foes who vex his people and overcome and slay him.[55] Upon his death all Israel are exiled.[56] But when Messiah ben David appears, Ben Joseph is raised from death to honour.[57] There therefore appears to be a close resemblance between Messiah ben Joseph and the figure of 4Q372. Like 4Q372’s Joseph, he is a righteous mashiaḥ king in Jerusalem at the time of a foreign invasion. Like 4Q372’s Joseph he is slain by invading foreigners, but is later resurrected. As with 4Q372’s Joseph, his gathered brothers of the southern kingdom are vexed, that is, they are subjected to hostilities and then exiled.
Moreover there is evidence to link Messiah ben Joseph with two of the psalms cited by the 4Q372 Joseph. In Pesikta Rabbati 36-37, where the Holy One talks with the Ephraim (Josephite) Messiah about his coming sufferings, Psalm 89 is cited of the Ephraim Messiah three times and Psalm 22 no less than seven.[58] Now the probability of the conjunction of these factors – two particular psalms applied to a suffering Josephite Messiah – is small.[59] It appears to be evidence of an interpretive tradition linking Psalms 89 and 22 with the Josephite Messiah.
Moreover Pes. R. 36-37, like 4Q372, cites Davidic psalms of an Ephraim Messiah. The Holy One even quotes to Ephraim Messiah the words of Psalm 22 as by ‘David your father’. The origin of this phenomemon is open to question.[60] But the application of Davidic psalms to Josephite Messiahs in both Pes. R. 36-37 and 4Q372 not only confirms an underlying common tradition, but shows that the Davidic psalms in 4Q372 are no bar to its figure being a Josephite Messiah.
Thus 4Q372’s Joseph resembles Messiah ben Joseph in many details. A diagram may help summarize it.
Diagram 1: The Joseph of 4Q372
| 4Q372 Joseph | Patriarch Joseph | Joseph tribes | Messiah ben Joseph |
| Present at destruction of Jerusalem and temple | No | No | Yes |
| An attack against “all the sons of…Jacob” (l. 21) | No | No | Yes |
| Individual | Yes | No | Yes |
| Righteous | Yes | No | Yes |
| Messiah | No | No | Yes |
| Slain | Figuratively | Yes | Yes |
| Resurrected | Figuratively | Resurgence foretold | Yes |
| The southern tribes vexed | No | Yes | Yes |
| An eschatological figure | No | No | Yes |
| Proven link with Pss. 89 & 22 | Νο | Νο | Yes |
10. Conclusion
I therefore suggest that the Joseph of 4Q372 represents some form of Josephite Messiah. However, the question now is which form of Josephite Messiah he represents.
If he is not exiled in line 10, then he looks simply like an early version of the rabbinic Messiah ben Joseph. King in Jerusalem, he is killed by the enemy and his people are driven into exile. Such a scenario is the same portion of Messiah ben Joseph’s career as appears in the Targumic tosefta to Zechariah 12.10, where he is slain by Gog at the gate of Jerusalem.[61] Yet 4Q372 goes beyond the Targum in recording his death-cries, in the words of Psalms 22, 38 and 89, and his prediction of rising to righteous reign.
If, however, Joseph is exiled, a more complicated figure emerges. For in that case he is both exiled and slain. There are three ways we might explain this.
First, Joseph might be exiled (line 10), then return to the land of Israel, and thereafter be slain. Such a scenario could be consistent with the order of events in 4Q372. Likewise the Messiah ben Joseph literature contains nothing to prohibit it, and may provide limited support for it. For the midrash Pirqey Mashiaḥ has ‘King Nehemiah the Messiah’ first appear in Rome and then ascend to Jerusalem where he is slain,[62] while Seder Eliyahu Rabbah features the strange tale that he is the son of the widow of Sidonian Zarephat, whom Elijah fed.[63]
Second, Joseph might be exiled with his people, perhaps like King Hoshea, and then slain in exile. Such an order of events is consistent with 4Q372. But it is not consistent with rabbinic Messiah ben Joseph literature in which the scene of his death, when stated, is always Jerusalem.[64] However, 4Q372 is not rabbinic-period literature, and Ben Joseph’s death at Jerusalem, although implied in Zech. 12.10-13.1, is certainly not implied in Deut. 33.17. Given the antiquity of 4Q372, it is conceivable that it represents a tradition deriving from Deut. 33.17, uninfluenced by Zech. 12.10.
A third exile scenario would be to see Joseph as an ‘eschatological patriarch’ representing both the eschatological exile of his tribes (line 10), and the slain Josephite mashiaḥ (line 16). Warrant can be found for such mingled corporate and individual identity in other texts of the period. The figures of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs simultaneously represent historical patriarchs, their eponymous tribes, and deliverers to arise from them. In particular, the Testament of Naphtali 5.6-8 features a Joseph figure, in a context replete with eschatological symbolism, who ascends on high on a bull, the symbol of the Josephite deliverer, while a holy writing appears to announce the coming captivity of “the twelve tribes of Israel”[65] – that is, not Joseph’s nine or ten tribes – so pointing not to a historical but a future exile, as in Zech. 14.2 and the Messiah ben Joseph midrashim.[66] Going back a bit further we might note Daniel’s Son of Man, who is both a cloud-rider co-enthroned with the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.9-14) and the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7.17-27).[67] We might also note Isaiah’s Servant of Yhwh, who represents both Israel (49.3) and an individual who will gather Israel (49.5-6).[68] Perhaps the closest parallel might be Jer. 30.18-20 where the speaker is, significantly, Ephraim, and which later tradition applies to Messiah ben Joseph.[69]
Which of the above solutions best fits the text should be a matter for ongoing discussion. As I have said, it largely hinges on how we read line 10 and its בארצות. For now my own preference would be the eschatological patriarch, which allows for an exile and has parallels with Tes. Naph. 5.6-8. But I would welcome other views. Whichever way, I suggest that a Josephite Messiah harmonizes better with 4Q372 than the current anti-Samaritan theory.
Objections will, of course, centre on the early dating of the Josephite Messiah, for it has been claimed that the figure arose well after the turn of the era.[70] But there is a respectable tradition which sees the figure’s roots in the Bible, particularly in Deut. 33.17 and Zech. 12.10.[71] And, as noted above, a similar figure appears in other second century BCE texts, such as 1 Enoch 90.37-38, Test. Naph. 5.6-8, Test. Ben. 3.8 and Sib. Or. 5.256-259, before we arrive at the early rabbinic traditions, such as Tg Tos. to Zech. 12.10 and B. Suk. 52.[72] So it is fair to say that there appear to be both antecedents and postcedents for the 4Q372 figure.
If this proposal is accepted, 4Q372 provides further early evidence for the Josephite Messiah. If the ‘Persian-Hellenistic’ period dating is correct, it is the earliest known post-biblical text to feature the figure. It therefore has implications for the authenticity of other early texts, sometimes rejected on ideological grounds, which feature a suffering Josephite leader, particularly Test. Ben. 3.8 and Sib. Or. 5.256-259.[73] It also suggests that the synoptic gospels’ use of Psalm 22 (Mt 27.46; Mk 15.34; Lk 23.46) drew on existing Israelite traditions which persisted in Judaism until at least the time of Pes. R. 36-37.
For more on this subject, see my book Messiah ben Joseph (2016).
This is the pre-publication version of my paper “A Dying and Rising Josephite Messiah in 4Q372”, which appeared in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.3 (2009): 181-205. A pdf copy of that paper can be found on the Scholarly Articles page.
[1] “The Fourth Deliverer: A Josephite Messiah in 4QTestimonia” Bib 86.4 (2005), pp. 545-53.
[2] See particularly D.C. Mitchell, “Firstborn Shor and Rem: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90.37-38 & Deuteronomy 33.17”, JSP 15.3 (2006), pp. 211-28. See too my “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, Aramaic Studies 4.2 (2006), pp. 221-41 and “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud”, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8 (2005), pp. 77-90, in both of which I propose that the figure of Messiah ben Joseph was developed in all essentials before the Christian period.
[3] E. Schuller “4Q372 1” RevQ 14 (1990) 349-76; cf. E. Schuller, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer” (CBQ 54 [1992] 67-79).
[4] E. Qimron, “Observations on the reading of ‘A Text about Joseph’ (4Q372,1)” RevQ 15 (1992) 603-604.
[5] E.M. Schuller & M.J. Bernstein, “371-373. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona-c: Introduction”; “371. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona”; “372. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb”; “373. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionc”; in Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2, ed. D.M. Gropp et al., 151-154, 155-164, 165-198, 199-204. (DJD XXVIII; Oxford 2001). For other early discussion of the text, see H. Eshel, תפילת יוסף מקומראן פפירוס ממצדה והמקדש השומרוני בהר גריזים, (The Prayer of Joseph from Qumran: Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim) Zion56 (1991) 116-23 (Heb.); E. Qimron, טקסטים חדשים מקומראן ותרומתם למילון העברית הקדומה, Tarbiẓ 60 (1990-91) 650-51. (= “New texts from Qumran and their Contribution to the Forthcoming Hebrew Dictionary”. Copied this from Schuller and Bernstein, but no trace at all on internet after an hour’s search. I think it is badly garbled. Delete.) A version of the text can also be found in F. García Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998) II, 734-39.
[6] Schuller, “The Psalm”, 69; Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 165.
[7] The “Persian-Hellenistic” period is from Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 349, 351; “The Psalm”, 69-70. In the latter article she also gives a date of “ca. 200. b.c.” (78).
[8] Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 367-68; cf. “The Psalm”, 69; Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 170.
[9] Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 367-69, 375-76; “The Psalm”, 69; Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 170-72.
[10] DJD 28.170-72. B. Nitzan follows Schuller’s hypothesis (Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry [STDJ XII; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 9n), suggesting that the recopying of this “Persian-Hellenistic” text in the Hasmonean period shows that tension between the Samaritans and the ten tribes was a live issue then. But with no evidence but Schuller’s theory, the point is hardly proven. Most commentators are concerned with the prayer My father, my God (l. 16); see G.J. Norton, “Qumran and Christian Origins,” PIBA 16 (1993) 99-113; E. Chazon, “Prayers from Qumran”, DSD 1 (1994) 265-84; “Dialogue with Scripture in Hymns and Prayers from Qumran”, in M. Bar-Asher & D. Dimant (eds.), MEGHILLOT—Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls I(Jerusalem 2003) 59-70; J. Vázquez Allegue, “¡Abba Padre! (4Q372 1.16): Dios como Padre en Qumrán.” Estudios Trinitarios 32 (1998) 167-186; “4Q372: Dios como Padre en Qumrán” in N. Silanes (ed.), Dios Padre envio al mundo a su Hijo (Semanas de Estudios Trinitarios 35; Salamanca: Secretariado Trinitario, 2000) 53-72; J. Corley, “God as Merciful Father in Ben Sira and the New Testament” in R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321; Berlin-New York 2002) 33-38. M.A. Knibb is interested in the exile language “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390” in F. García Martínez et al., The Scriptures and the Scrolls (Leiden 1992) 164-77; G.J. Brooke investigates “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament” in Z.J. Kapera (ed.) Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumranica Mogilanensia 2; Cracow; Enigma Press, 1993) I,105-29. Only J. O’Neill has connected the 4Q372 Joseph with the Messiah (“What is Joseph and Aseneth about?” Henoch 16 [1994] 189-198 [195 n]). Knowing our mutual interest in the Josephite Messiah I discussed 4Q372 with Professor O’Neill at New College, Edinburgh, in 1993.
[11] Although there are similarities between the 4Q372 Joseph and the Genesis Patriarch, as I note below. Cf. also F. García Martinez, “Nuevos Textos no biblicos procedentes de Qumrán (I)”, EstBib 49 (1991) 121-2, who notes the Genesis themes of being handed over to foreign nations and living in a foreign land.
[12] These quotations generally follow the translation of Schuller and Bernstein, unless noted otherwise. The issue of rendering the Hebrew imperfect verbs in English shall be addressed below.
[13] Schuller’s original version was The nations were given a position (“4Q372 1”, 352-66). However Schuller and Bernstein (“372. 4QNarrative”, 167-173) follow Qimron:the nations did not leave them a remnant (“Observations”, 604). I have preferred to leave it blank.
[14] Schuller and Bernstein rightly point out that the Valley of Vision (Isa. 22,1) should be understood as Jerusalem (“372. 4QNarrative”, 173).
[15] Following Schuller in “4Q372 1”, 352-66. However Schuller and Bernstein (“372. 4QNarrative”, 167-174) follow Qimron: into wooded heights(“Observations”, 604).
[16] Again following Schuller in “4Q372 1”, 352-66, rather than Qimron (“Observations”, 604) and Schuller and Bernstein (“372. 4QNarrative”, 168). A fuller discussion of this important phrase follows later.
[17] In older Hebrew, ובכל זות is preferred. See its usage at Isa. 5.25; 9,11-20; 10.4; Hos. 7.10; Psalm 78.32; Job 1.22; 2,10; Neh. 10.1; and ובכל זה in Neh. 13.6. Usage of ובכל זה elsewhere in the Qumran literature is noted by Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 174.
[18] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 170.
[19] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 172; Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 369, 375-76.
[20] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 172; Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 369, 375-76.
[21] The writers of 4QpNah (4Q169) 2.1-2; 4QpPs37.ii.17-19; and 4Q167.ii. vilify their enemies (perhaps Pharisees and Sadduccees respectively [G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed., London: Penguin, 1987: 31-33; J. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1956: 148]) as “Ephraim and Manasseh”, which supposes a low view of those whose names were appropriated for the calumny. The Samaritans, on the other hand, are not named in the Qumran literature at all.
[22] I have dealt with the matter at length elsewhere. See Mitchell, Message, 15-89, which argues that the Psalter bears internal evidence of being redacted as an eschatologico-messianic document; cf. also D.C. Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter” VT 56 (2006).
[23] One may question whether any psalms are authorially eschatologico-messianic (category 2 above). Although some seem to be intrinsically eschatological and “ultimate”, they lack any messianic reference. However, E.S. Gerstenberger, Psalms I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 48-49, maintains that the royal psalms originated in post-exilic eschatological and messianic thought.
[24] This is the case which I argue at length in Mitchell, Message, passim. See too D.C. Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David: G.H. Wilson and The Message of the Psalter”, Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006) 526-48.
[25] Mitchell, Message, 15-40. See further S. Gillingham, Psalms Through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008) pp. 9-11; and, for early Christian use, M. Daly-Denton, Early Christian Writers as Jewish Readers: The New Testament Reception of the Psalms, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11.2 (2008) pp. 181-99.
[26] Surprisingly, in the five pages Schuller devotes to this phrase, she omits any reference to Psalm 89 (“The Psalm”, 75-79). Instead, quoting Jeremias, she says, ‘It is generally agreed that “one looks in vain for God to be addressed as Father anywhere in the Psalter or in any other prayer in the Old Testament”’ (ibid. 77).
[27] Shields, anointed with oil (2 Sam. 1.21), to protect the body, denote an anointed protector. The image is a favourite of the Korah psalms, of which Psalm 89 is an affiliate if not an actual member (D.C. Mitchell, “‘God Will Redeem My Soul From Sheol’: The Psalms of the Sons of Korah” JSOT 30 [2006] 365-384 [366]). Both our present text (Psalm 89.19 [18]) and Korah Psalm 84.10 [9] equate shield and mashiaḥ within the parallelismus membrorum, while at Korah Psalm 47.10 [9] shields denote the tributary kings of the earth. Cf. also 2 Sam. 1.21 where the shield of Saul, no longer anointed () with oil represents Saul’s loss of the messianic anointing of the spirit of Yhwh (1 Sam. 16.14).
[28] Psalm 2,7; 2 Sam. 7.12-14. It comes into its own as a messianic term in late temple times: see e.g., John 1.49; 4 Ezra 7.28-29.
[29] Tg on Psalm 89.52: “With which your enemies have scoffed, O Lord, with which they have scoffed at the delay of the footsteps of your Messiah (89.52 [51])”; Gen. R. §97 on 49.8: “On the fourth day the luminaries were created, while of the Messiah it is said, And his throne as the sun before me (Psalm 89.37[36])…also For ever I will maintain my love to him (Psalm 89.29 [28])”; Exod. R. 19.7 on 13.1-2: “I will make the King Messiah a firstborn, as it says: I also will appoint him firstborn (Psalm 89.28 [27])”; m.Sot. 9.15: “With the footsteps of the Messiah the kingdom will fall into heresy (Psalm 89.52 [51])”; see also Song R. 2.13.4: “If you see one generation after another cursing and blaspheming, look out for the coming of the Messiah, as it is said, Wherewith your enemies have taunted, O Lord, wherewith your enemies have taunted the footsteps of your Messiah (Psalm 89.52 [51])”; see the similar comments on v. 52 [51] at Sanh. 97a; Pes. de R. Kahana 5.9; Pes. R. 36.1; Midr. Pss 18.5; Ibn Ezra on Psalm 89.1, 52 [51]; Kimhi on Psalm 53.1.
[30] I previously tended toward the view that the historical Sitz of Psalm 89 was the death of Josiah (cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen. Neukirchen-Vleyn 1978: II, 203; A. Bentzen, King and Messiah. London: Lutterworth, 1955: 30), and proposed that the Psalms-redactor reinterpreted it of the death of an eschatological Messiah (D.C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter. Sheffield 1997: 255-57). Although my view about the redactional interpretation is unchanged, I now incline more to the view that the psalm’s historical context was the humiliation of Rehoboam and Judah at the hand of Shishak (cf. Delitzsch, Psalmen, 582), and that its deliberately-ambiguous mortification imagery represents shattered Rehoboam as good as dead.
[31] Even given the well-attested secondary sense of חלל as “defile” or “profane”, the paronomasia is evident. The sense “pierce”is attested in both qal and piel (Ezek. 28.9), whereas the less common “defile” is attested in piel only. The latter sense may be derived from the former by the idea of defilement by piercing (cf. Lev. 19.29; 21.7) (BDB: 319-20).
[32] The psalm is applied to Ben Joseph-Ephraim at Pes. R. 36-37 (three times) and Pirkey Hekhalot Rabbati §38 (Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot, I, 128). For application of the psalm to the sufferings of the Messiah non-specifically, see n. 29 above.
[33] See particularly the view of J.H. Eaton, who maintains that the royal psalms far exceed Gunkel’s ten, and should include many individual psalms, particularly those with a l’dawid heading (Kingship and the Psalms [London: SCM, 1976] 1-26).
[34] Delitzsch, Psalmen (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1894) 205; Eaton, Kingship, 23-24.
[35] See particularly Pes. R. 36-37, which will be discussed below. Early Nazarene citation of the psalm as a proof-text also suggests it was recognized as such in the wider community (Mt. 27.35 [some MSS]; 27.46; Mk 15.34; Jn 19.24). J. Magonet comments on this psalm that “the possibility of such an [messianic] interpretation was there within various different Jewish modes of understanding of biblical texts” (A Rabbi Reads the Psalms. London: SCM, 1994: 110-11).
[36] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 176.
[37] This may not be the only Qumran text to feature a dying messianic figure. As T.H. Lim points out, “What 11QMelch does is to link the dying prince/messiah of Dan. 9 to the herald of Isa. 52.7, who moreover is identified with him who comforts the mourners of Zion (Isa. 61.2-3) in 11QMelch i.20.” [“Appendix 1” in G. Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research: Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” JJS 43 (1992) 85-94, 92].
[38] See e.g., 1 Kgs 17.17-23; 2 Kgs 4.20-37; 13.21; In Israel, the idea was particularly cherished by the Korahites, who lived in the kingdom of Ephraim. Among the Canaanites to the north, the idea of resurrection for the royal dead is attested in the late second millennium BCE. See further D.C. Mitchell, “God Will Redeem My Soul From Sheol”, 371-74; The Message of the Psalter, 262.
[39] See particularly J.F.A. Sawyer, “Hebrew Words For the Resurrection of the Dead”, VT 23 (1973) 218, 230-34, who proposes that קום signifies resurrection in such biblical passages as Isa. 26.14.19; Hos. 6.2; Psalm 1.5; 88.11[10]; Job 14.12.
[40] The only possible contender for a perfect verb is וכבדו (l. 3). However (1) it is more likely to be a noun with suffix, given the proximity of הכמרים in the same line, and the resulting allusion to Hos. 10.5; (2) the reading is uncertain anyway.
[41] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 173.
[42] A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, (tr.) J. Elwolde (Cambridge: CUP, 1993) 120-29, 144.
[43] A. Steudel, “אחרית הימים in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 62 (1993) 225-46: 231.
[44] See the two fragments 9.2 and 10.2 of 4Q372. The plural יובלים occurs elsewhere at 11QMelch 7; 6Q12 3 (ואחר היובלים); Second Ezekiel 4Q390 1.7-8. It occurs also at 4QPsJosha (4Q378) which is cited in the messianic dossier 4QTestimonia (4Q175) ll. 23b-27. The singular יובל occurs in eschatological contexts at 11QMelch 2,7; 4QM 7.14; and CD 16.4 with its eschatologically oriented view of history. The only other occurrences of יובל are at 1QH 8.7, 10 where it denotes watercourses. The word frequently occurs transliterated in other eschatological literature of the second temple period, such as T. Levi 17.2-3, 5 and throughout the Book of Jubilees.
[45] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 168; Qimron, “Observations”, 604.
[46] Schuller, “4Q372 1”, 352
[47] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 174.
[48] Schuller and Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative”, 174.
[49] Ezek. 6.8; 11.16 (bis); 12,15; 20.23; 22,15; 29.12; 30.23.26; 36.19; Psalm 106.27. At Ezek. 29.12; 30.23.26 it is Egypt who are scattered. An exception to the lands of the nations is בארצות החיים at Psalm 116.9.
[50] For Deut. 33.17; Zech. 12.10; 1 Enoch 90.37-38; Tes. Naph. 5.6-8, see D.C. Mitchell, “Firstborn Shor and Rem”; “Rabbi Dosa” and “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”. On Test. Ben. 3.8; Sib. Or. 5.256-259; and Joseph and Aseneth, seeJ.C. O’Neill, “The Lamb of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, JSNT 2 (1979) 2-30; “The Man from Heaven: SibOr 5.256-259.” JSP 9 (1991) 87-102; “Joseph and Aseneth”. The dating of Tes. Naph. is a vexed issue. But since the Hebrew T. Naph. from Qumran (4Q215) ‘shares some points with the Greek work of the same name’ (J.C. Vanderkam, Introduction to Early Judaism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001] 101), it is clear that some form of the work existed early.
[51] Ancient near eastern prisons were underground dungeons, and so there developed a widespread association between imprisonment and death (see O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World [London: SPCK, 1978] 62-72). See too Isa. 24.22; 42.7, 22; Jer. 37.16; 38.6; Zech. 9.11.
[52] The idea that the captive ten tribes would return in future was widespread. The longest treatment of the theme is Jer. 31.1-20, but it features throughout the prophets: Isa. 9.1; 27.13; Jer. 23.1-8; 30.3; 50.18-20; Ezk 16.53-55; 37.19-22; Amos 9.14-15; Mic. 5.2[3]; Zech. 9.11 (cf. Gen. 37.24); 10.6-12; and in post-biblical literature: Tob. 13.13; 1 En. 57.1-2; 90.33; Sib. Or. 2,170-173; Apoc. Bar. 78.1-7; 84.2-10; 4 Ezra 13.12, 39-47; Otot ha-Mashiaḥ (Mitchell, Message, 308-314, 336-340; A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash [BHM] 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1853-77; Photog. repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1967) II, 58-63) §10. Apparently the only dissenter was Akiva (m. Sanh. 10.3), whose view was censured by his colleagues (Sanh. 110b). For a broader discussion, see Mitchell, Message, 160-62.
[53] Messiah ben Joseph gathers Israel in all the sources, either explicitly (Aggadat Mashiaḥ [Mitchell, Message, 304-307, 335-336] 17, 20; Otot 6.6; Midrash Aleph Beth 11b.2; Sefer Zerubbabel [Mitchell, Message, 314-20, 340-43; BHM II, 54-57] 38; Saadia Gaon, Kitab al-Amanat 8.5 [editio princeps, p. 239-245; tr. S. Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. New Haven 1948: 301]; Tefillat R. Shimon ben Yoḥai [= TRSY] [BHM IV,117-26, 125]) or implicitly, by exercising rule in Jerusalem (cf. n. 54 below), and so bringing to an end the exile of rabbinic times. In general he gathers the Ephraimites first (Otot 6.5; cf. also those texts where Ephraim gathers first in the age to come: Sifrê on Deut. 33.16 (§353); b. BB 123b; Gen. R. 73.7; 75.5; 97 [NV in Soncino edn]; 99.2; PRE 19b.ii). But some texts explicitly state that he will gather all Israel (Agg. Mash. 20; Sef. Zer. 38), which is also implied in his ruling in the Judahite capital, Jerusalem.
[54] For his rebuilding of the temple, see Aggadat Mashiaḥ. 21; Asereth Melakhim 4.13 (J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim. 2 vols [New York 1915] II, 461-66; Mitchell, Message, 320-22; 343-44); Nistarot R. Shimon ben Yoḥai (= NRSY) (BHM III, 78-82; Mitchell, Message, 329-34; 347-50) 22. At Pirqei Mashiaḥ 5.42-44 (BHM III, 70-74; Mitchell, Message, 322-29, 344-47) he offers sacrifice in the temple, and at Sef. Zer. 38 in Jerusalem, implying at least a partial rebuilding of the temple. At Otot 6.7-8 he takes the temple vessels from Rome to Jerusalem, implying a restitution of the cult. In Midrash Wayyosha 15.18 (BHM I, 55-57); TRSY; Saadia, Kitab al-amanat 8.5 (Rosenblatt, ibid., 1948: 301)he takes Jerusalem, or rules there, with no mention of the temple.
[55] Messiah ben Joseph is slain in the context of a foreign invasion of Israel at Tg tos. to Zech. 12,10; Pir. de R. Eliez. 22a.ii; Agg. Mash. 26-27; Otot 7.12; Sef. Zer.38-41; Aser. Mel. 4.14; Pir. Mash. 5.43-45; Midr. Way. 15.18; NRSY 25; TRSY; Saadia, Kitab 8.5 (Rosenblatt, ibid., 301-302); Rashi on Suk. 52a and Zech. 12,10; Ibn Ezra on Zech. 12,10; 13.7; Abravanel on Zech. 12,10; Alshekh, Marot ha-Zov’ot on Zech 12,10; Naphtali b. Asher Altschuler, Ayyalah Sheluhah on Isa. 53.4; Samuel b. Abraham Laniado, Keli Paz on Isa. 53. Pereq Rav Yoshiyyahu (BHM VI, 112-116: 115) tells of his resurrection after the battle. B. Suk. 52a.speaks of his death but not about invasion. Pes. R. 36.1 refers to Ephraim Messiah’s great suffering rather than his death, but applies to him Psalm 22,16[15], whose sufferer is laid in the dust of death. Other texts speak of him fighting on Israel’s behalf, but do not mention his death: Tg Ps.-J. to Exod. 40.11; Midr. Al. B. 11b.
[56] Agg. Mash. 30-32; Otot 7.13-20; Sef. Zer. 43-44; Aser. Mel. 4.14; Pir. Mash. 5.45; Midr. Way. 15 (BHM I,56); NRSY 25; Per. R. Yosh.; TRSY; Saadia, Kitab ’al-’Amanat 8.5 (Rosenblatt, ibid., 303). The proof-texts given for the exile are Ezek. 20.35-38 (Otot; Saadia); Hos. 2,16 [14] (Otot); Zech. 13.9 (Otot; NRSY); 14.2 (Aser. Mel.); Dan. 12,1 (Otot; Saadia).
[57] Some texts speak specifically of his resurrection: Otot 9.1; Sef. Zer. 49-50; Saadia, Kitab 8.6 (Rosenblatt, ibid., 309); Pir. Mash. 5.49 (BHM VI, 115); Per. R. Yosh.; Zohar,Shlakh Lekha 136; Balaq 342. Others imply that he will rise among others at the resurrection: Agg. Mash. 2.22; Aser. Mel. 4; NRSY 35; Midr. Way. 15.18.
[58] Pesikta Rabbati is generally regarded as a sixth or seventh century Palestinian redaction of Palestinian material dating mostly from Talmudic times (Braude, Pesikta Rabbati. 2 vols. [Yale Judaica Series 18; New Haven 1968] I,1-3, 26; D. Sperber, “Pesikta Rabbati”, EJ XIII.335; G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch [8th ed.; Münich 1992] 297). Friedmann however believes it was redacted in the mid-4th century ce, with parts, such as §34-37, being of tannaitic origin (Braude, Pesikta Rabbati. I, 22-23).
[59] Perhaps 1 in 22,350; that is, 1/150´149 is the probability of two pre-arranged items being chosen by chance out of 150.
[60] It may derive from Zech. 9-14, whose suffering king shows both Josephite and Davidic aspects. On the one hand he is, like David, the shepherd of Israel (See Mitchell, Message, 200-209). But he is pierced, mourned like a firstborn, and priced for silver like Joseph (Zech. 12,10; 11.12. Pierced: Gen. 49.23; mourned: 37.34-35; firstborn: 1 Chr. 5.1-2; Gen. 48.13-20, 22; Deut. 33.17; priced for silver: Gen. 37.28. See further, Mitchell, “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, pp. 223-27).
[61] In “Messiah bar Ephraim” I have suggested that this targum predates the turn of the era. For the text see A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. in 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1962) III, 495. For an English translation, see K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; Wilmington, Delaware 1989) 218-220.
[62] Pir. Mash. 5.41; Pirqey Mashiaḥ is one of many 7th-century midrashim which identify Messiah ben Joseph to a greater or lesser extent with the Exilarch Nehemiah ben Hushiel, slain in Jerusalem in 614 ce.
[63] SER §18, pp. 97-98 (ed. M. Friedmann [Jerusalem 1969]).
[64] He dies at the gate of Jerusalem in Tg tos. on Zech 12.10; Aggadat Mashiaḥ 21-27; Otot ha-mashiaḥ 9.1; ‘Asereth otot (M. Higger, Halakhot va-aggadot [New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1933], pp. 125-30; Y. Eben-Shmuel, Midreshey ge’ullah [2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1954], pp. 315-17); Sef. Zerub. 40; Otot Rav Shimon ben Yoḥai (Higger, Halakhot va-aggadot, pp. 115-23; Even-Shmuel, Midreshey ge’ullah, pp. 311-14); Pirqey hekhalot rabbati (Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot, I:125-136.); Pirqey Mashiaḥ (BHM III:70-74; between the Ephraim and Corner Gates); Nistarot R. Shimon ben Yoḥai 25-26 (BHM III.78-82; East Gate);Naphtali b. Asher Altschuler, Ayyalah Sheluḥah on Isa. 53.4. Elsewhere he simply dies at Jerusalem: ‘Asereth melakhim (Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim, II:461-66) 4.14; Saadia Gaon, Kitab al-Amanat 8.5; Midrash wayyosha; The responsum of R. Ḥai b. Sherira Gaon on the redemption(in Ṭa‘am zeḳenim of Eliezer Ashkenazi of Tunis, pp. 59-61); Zohar,Shlakh Lekha, 136.
[65] For the bull as the symbol of Joseph, Joshua, and the Josephite Messiah, see Mitchell, “Firstborn Shor”, 220-23.
[66] Cf. n. 56 above.
[67] Cf. J.E. Goldingay, Daniel (Word Biblical Commentary 30; Dallas 1989) 167-172. For messianic interpretation of the Daniel figure (Dan. 7.13-14), but see Sanh. 98a; Pir. Mash. 5.1; Midr. Pss. 2§9; Pir. Hekh. Rab. §38.2; NRSY 27.
[68] Early Israelite messianic interpretation of the Isaianic servant of Yhwh is well-attested; cf. e.g. Targ. Jon. on Isa. 52,13; the musaf prayer for Yom Kippur; Sanh. 98b; Ruth. R. §5.6 on Ruth 2,14; Midr. Pss. 2§9; NRSY 23. The figure is frequently identified with Messiah ben Joseph in particular (see D.C. Mitchell, “Messiah ben Joseph: A Sacifice of Atonement for Israel”, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007) 77-94.
[69] Pes. R. 37.1; Pir. Mash. 6:3-4.
[70] There is a view that Messiah ben Joseph developed out to the defeat of Bar Kokhba in 135 ce. See e.g., J. Hamburger, Realenzyklopädie des Judentums (Strelitz i. M. 1874) II, 768; J. Levy, “Mashiaḥ”, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch (Leipzig 1876/1889) III, 270-272; A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (s.l. 1883) 79, n. 1, 434-435; H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 2 vols. (Munich 1924-28) II, 294; J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (London 1956) 487-492; S. Hurwitz, Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias (Zürich-Stuttgart 1958) 178-80; Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London 1973) 139-140. Similarly J. Heinemann has suggested that an existing militant Ephraim Messiah became a dying messiah by analogy with Bar Kokhba (“The Messiah of Ephraim”, HTR 68 [1975] 1-15).
[71] Early authorities who detect Ben Joseph’s origins in Deut. 33.17 include Midr. Tan. 11.3; Gen. R. 75.6; 99.2; Pes. R. Eliez. 22a.ii; Num. R. 14.1; Zohar, Pinhas, 565, 745; Ki Tetze, 21, 62. Those who see him in Zech. 12.10 include Suk 52a; Tg Tos. to Zech 12.10; Aser. Mel. 4.14; Midr. Way. 18.15 (BHM 1.56); Nistarot R. Shimon b. Yoḥai 25; Saadia, Kitab 8.5 (Rosenblatt 1948: 303); Rashi on Suk. 52a; Ibn Ezra on Zech. 12.10; Abravanel on Zech. 12.10; Alshekh Marot ha-Zove’ot on Zech. 12.10. Among more recent writers who see the origins of the figure in these biblical passages, see A. Wünsche: Jisure ha-masiah oder Die Leiden des Messias (Leipzig 1870) 110; D. Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei (Florence 1874) 227–28; J. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (London 1877) 357; E.G. King, The Yalkut on Zechariah (Cambridge 1882) 107; G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend (Berlin 1888) 3; F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie (2nd edn, 1897) 362; G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass. 1927-30) II, 370; C.C. Torrey, “The Messiah Son of Ephraim”, JBL 66 (1947) 255–73.
[72] See n. 50 above.
[73] The core of each of these passages is seen as essentially pre-Christian by J.C. O’Neill, “The Lamb of God”; “The Man from Heaven”.