Messiah ben Joseph: A Sacrifice of Atonement for Israel

Does Messiah ben Joseph die as a sacrifice of atonement? Scholars say no. But I believe that is a misconception which we should challenge.

I have recently addressed common misunderstandings about Messiah ben Ephraim ben Joseph, the eschatological Ephraimite king who is slain before the coming of Messiah ben David.[1] In particular, I have proposed, contrary to current opinion, that his essential characteristics derive from Deut. 33:17 and so predate the turn of the era.[2]

I would now like to challenge another popular misconception: that is, the widespread claim that Messiah ben Joseph’s death has no atoning power.

Here, for instance, is Strack and Billerbeck:

However all the sources that we possess about Messiah ben Ephraim agree on this, that they ascribe no atoning power to his death. It is indicative in this respect that never a word from Isaiah 53 is applied to Messiah ben Ephraim.[3]

Here likewise is G.H. Dalman:

None of the passages concerned with him gives his death an atoning value, none speaks of suffering preceding it.[4]

And J. Klausner:

It is not necessary to speak at all of the view of those Christian theologians who wish to see in “Messiah ben Joseph” a Messiah who makes atonement for the sins of Israel or of all mankind (a theme found later in the Kabbalistic books, for example, “The Two Tables of the Covenant” by Isaiah Horowitz)…. Messiah ben Joseph, who is slain, affords no atonement by his blood and his sufferings are not vicarious.[5]

And D. Castelli:

In no stage of the tradition is it said that the Messiah son of Joseph must suffer as an expiator of sins; it is only said there that he will die in battle.[6]

And H.H. Rowley:

…there is nothing to suggest that the death of the Messiah ben Ephraim was vicarious… Still less is there any evidence that the suffering Servant of Is. 53 had anything to do with the Messiah ben Ephraim.[7]

All these writers therefore deny any atoning or expiating power to Messiah ben Joseph’s death. Moreover, Strack-Billerbeck and Rowley deny any connection between Messiah ben Joseph and the suffering servant of Hinneh avdi (Is. 52:13-53:12). Dalman suggests that there is no mention of Messiah ben Joseph’s suffering before his death. Klausner dismisses Messiah ben Joseph’s atoning death as a Christian idea (even as he cites, by way of example, a work of impeccable Jewish credentials).

Clearly, one does not wish lightly to disagree with such eminent authorities. However, since there is evidence for the very things they deny, it seems to me that the case should be reopened. I shall therefore present the textual evidence in reverse chronological order. This will require a fair amount of citation, since part of my purpose is to gather and compare these views in one place. I shall then look briefly at the wider conceptual underpinnings in favor of my case, before drawing conclusions.

1. THE RENAISSANCE

Klausner spoke of the view of Isaiah Horowitz (c. 1555-1630). The passage to which I assume he refers is the following from Shnei Luhot Ha-Berit:[8]

Then the house of Joseph, who sinned in separating from the kingdom of the house of David, will be restored. For Messiah ben Joseph will not come for his own sake, but he will come for the sake of Messiah ben David. For he will offer up his life and pour out his life to death (Is. 53.12) and his blood will atone for the people with the Lord. In this manner it will be afterwards that the kingdom of the house of David shall preside for ever among the people of Israel.

Clearly the views of Horowitz disagree with the authorities I first cited. He sees Ben Joseph’s blood as atoning for the people in order to make way for the kingdom of Messiah ben David. In this regard he is quite happy to quote Is. 53.12, with the last two words inverted to simplify Isaiah’s poetic diction.

Still, as Klausner says, Horowitz is relatively late. But a little earlier we find the same idea in Naphtali ben Asher Altschuler’s (d. after 1607) Ayyalah Sheluhah (Cracow, 1593-95) on Is. 53:4.

The sickness which ought to have fallen upon us was borne by him. This means, When Messiah ben Joseph shall die between the gates, and be a wonder in the eyes of creation, why must the penalty he bears be so severe? What is his sin, and what his transgression, except that he will bear the chastisements of Israel, according to the words smitten of God (Is. 53:4)?

Once again, Messiah ben Joseph bears punishment on Israel’s behalf, while it is implied that he himself is righteous and innocent. The penalty he bears is “severe,” implying pain and harsh humiliation.

Moving back a little further we find the following comment by Samuel b. Abraham Laniado ha-Darshan (d. 1605) in his Isaiah commentary, Keli Paz (Venice, 1657), on Is. 52:13. Laniado is responding to Isaac Abravanel’s commentary on Hinneh avdi, which denies that the passage refers to the Messiah. Laniado replies that the passages about humiliation pertain to Messiah ben Joseph and those about exaltation to Ben David. I give only a short portion of the lengthy passage:

After his advent, to use again the words of Rashi, Ben Ephraim, who for a while held sovereignty and executed judgment over Israel and the Gentiles, was taken away (Is. 53:8), because the Gentiles will resolve to slay him; and [then] who could tell of his generation (v. 8) and relate the troubles which befell him? For he was cut off from the land of the living (v. 8), and slain for the transgression of my people, the stroke intended for them being borne by him instead (v. 8). He made his grave with the wicked (v. 9), being buried amongst those who were slain in battle when the Gentiles gathered against him to kill him, and it says he was delivered into the hand of the rich (v. 9), i.e., of the kingdom of wickedness, for every death with which they could put him to death; he will not be put to death speedily, but tortured by every torture for producing a severe and painful end; and therefore the prophet says not ‘in his death’ but ‘in his deaths’ (v. 9).… And although he will not hold the same rank and position as Messiah ben David, by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and purify, and bear their iniquities (v. 11) by his sufferings. And therefore I shall divide him a portion among the many (v. 12), etc. —Such is the sense of these verses, according to the opinion of those of our sages who apply them to Messiah ben David, and to Messiah ben Joseph, who comes from Ephraim.

Laniado therefore applies all the descriptions of suffering in Hinneh Avdi to Messiah ben Joseph, telling, both here and throughout the wider context, how he suffers to atone for the sins of Israel. He speaks of the great suffering endured by Messiah ben Joseph, and concludes that these views are traditions handed down by Israel’s sages, citing Rashi in particular.[9]

Now moving back a little further again, here is the view of Moses Alshekh (1507-after 1593) in Marot ha-Zove’ot (Venice 1603-07) on Zech. 12:10.

I will do yet a third thing, and that is that they shall look to me (Zech. 12.10); for they shall lift up their eyes to me in perfect repentance, when they see him whom they have pierced, that is, Messiah ben Joseph. For our rabbis of blessed memory have said that he will take upon himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make an atonement, in such a manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced him. For on account of their sin he has died and therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the Blessed One, saying that there is none beside him to forgive those that mourn on account of him who died for their sin. And this is the meaning of And they shall look to me, etc.

Messiah ben Joseph is to take upon himself all the guilt of Israel and die for their sin as a perfect atonement. Thereupon Israel, seeing him pierced, shall repent and mourn for him. Alshekh regards this as a tradition handed down by the ancient rabbis. There is no explicit reference to Hinneh avdi, though the phrase “he will take upon himself all the guilt” looks like an allusion to Isaiah’s “make his soul guilt” (Is. 53:10). This accords with Alshekh’s commentary on Isaiah, where he interprets the parashah concerning Messiah.

Thus four prominent authorities of the renaissance period held that the death of Messiah ben Joseph would atone for the sins of Israel and so make way for the coming kingdom of the house of David. In this regard, they all allude to the suffering figure of Hinneh avdi. Of course, these teachers lived within a few generations of each other. Laniado and Alshekh were contemporaries and known to each other. (Alshekh, head of the academy in Safed, traveled in Syria where Laniado was head of the Aleppo community.) Their views would have influenced Altschuler, who traveled in the east in 1607, and Horowitz, who settled in Israel in 1621. However, this hardly detracts from their testimony. They evidently held, singly and together, that the atoning power of Messiah ben Joseph’s death was an ancient tradition.

2. THE ZOHAR

Now we turn to the puzzling witness of the Zohar, which is unique not only in speaking of Messiah ben Joseph’s not dying, but in speaking both of his dying[10] and not dying.[11] Now, since the entire work was collated, if not written, by the hand of Moses de Leon, this phenomenon cannot be explained simply by a multiplicity of sources.[12] A possible partial explanation may lie in Moses de Leon’s revising his public views during the period of the Zohar’s publication (1280-90), perhaps in response to Raymundus Martini’s Pugio Fidei (1280).[13] But, whatever the root of the phenomenon, those passages denying Messiah ben Joseph’s death cannot be set up to contradict those that affirm it. Both have to be taken together.

The passages that concern us here refer to Ben Joseph not dying. One tells how Tishri, the time of redemption, will be delayed so that Messiah ben Joseph will not die.[14] Another tells how the Faithful Shepherd, Moses ben Amram, suffers so that Messiah ben Ephraim need not die.[15] And a third extends the Faithful Shepherd’s redemptive suffering not only to Messiah ben Joseph but to the whole house of Joseph scattered among the nations, as follows:

Because they produced and wrought good things for you [the Faithful Shepherd], you have borne for their sake ever so many strokes in order that Messiah ben Joseph might not be slain—as it is written, And the face of an ox on the left hand side (Ezek. 1:10), from the seed of Joseph, as it is written, His firstborn bullock, majesty is his (Deut. 33:17)—and so that he and his seed shall not be pierced (cf. Zech. 12:10) among the idolatrous nations because of the sin of Jeroboam who worshipped idols, for which he and his seed were pierced among the idolatrous nations. For Jeroboam ben Nebat was of the seed of Joseph and it is because of him that it says of you, But he was pierced because of our transgressions, etc., and by his injuries we are healed (Is. 53:5).[16]

Thus the Zohar’s testimony to Messiah ben Joseph comes, as it were, in two hands. On the one hand, those passages that do speak of his death confirm that the tradition was known to Moses de Leon. But, on the other hand, those texts that speak of his not dying confirm indirectly his knowledge of the same tradition. For he would hardly need to deny it, if it were not known.

Likewise these same passages confirm the atoning power of Ben Joseph’s death. For if, as in Is. 53:5, the Faithful Shepherd suffers redemptively in Ben Joseph’s place, it follows that Ben Joseph’s place was one of redemptive suffering, as in Is. 53:5. Or, to put it another way, if the Faithful Shepherd suffers redemptively for Israel so that Messiah ben Joseph will not die, then it follows that, if the Shepherd did not suffer, Ben Joseph himself would have to die for their redemption. His death therefore has redeeming potential in those passages where he does not die, and presumably redeeming actuality in those passages where he does.

One further Zohar passage remains to be considered, the description of the Messiah in the Garden of Eden from Vayyaqhel.

§ 335. When they tell the Messiah about the sorrow of Israel in exile, and about the wicked ones among them, who do not care to know their Master; he raises his voice and weeps for the wicked among them, as is written: But he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed   for our iniquities (Is. 53:5). The souls return and rise in their places. §336. In the Garden of Eden there is one temple called the temple of the sons of sickness. The Messiah enters that temple, and calls upon all the diseases, all the pains and all the agonies of Israel to descend upon him. And they all descend upon him. If it were not for him, who relieves Israel’s pains and takes them upon himself, no-one would be able to bear Israel’s sufferings concerning the punishments of the Torah. This is the meaning of Surely he bore our sicknesses, etc. (Is. 53:4).

Again we find the Messiah suffering to atone for the sins of Israel in terms of Is. 53. It is not stated, however, that the Messiah here is Ben Joseph. Yet such an identification can probably be made on the basis of the description of the Messiah at Zohar Shemot. For there, as here, he enters a concealed place in the garden of Eden and lifts up his voice and weeps (Shemot §106-109; cf. §121-129). Now, since the Messiah in Shemot bears unmistakable Josephite characteristics – he is revealed in the Josephite territory of Galilee (§99-100, 129), and his appearance consoles previously-inconsolable Rachel (§109, 127)[17] – it rather looks like the Messiah of Vayyaqhel, who bears Israel’s punishments, is likewise Ben Joseph.

3. THE GEONIC PERIOD

Now, passing back through the rishonim,[18]  we come to the tenth century. The midrash Nistarot Rav Shimon ben Yohai dates probably from some time late in the century.[19] Its writer says—quite without explanation, as if stating a familiar maxim—“If they are not pure, Messiah ben Ephraim will come; and if they are pure, Messiah ben David will come.”[20] Therefore the coming of Ben Joseph is connected with Israel’s impurity, though what he is to do about Israel’s impurity, and how he will do it, is not said. Certainly, the subsequent citation of Is. 53:3 implies atonement, but it is referred to Messiah ben David rather than Messiah ben Joseph.[21]

However, if we go back perhaps fifty years to Saadia Gaon’s Kitab al-’amanat wal-i‘tiqadat (933 C.E.), we find another version of the tradition cited in Nistarot.[22] Saadia comments that “it is inconceivable that the redemption come about while we are still steeped in the sins for the sake of which God had exiled us.”[23] Therefore, he says, Israel has two options. If they repent and are righteous then Messiah ben Joseph will not come; but if they are unrighteous and unrepentant, then he will appear to prepare Israel for the coming of Messiah ben David.[24] He then says about Messiah ben Joseph:

…he might be compared to one who purges with fire those members of the nation who have committed grave sins, or to one who washes with lye those of its constituents who have been guilty of slight infractions, as Scripture remarks immediately thereafter: For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap (Mal. 3:12).[25]

So there are similarities between Saadia’s views and those of the writer of Nistarot. Both state that the coming of Ben Joseph is connected with Israel’s impurity, while Saadia says that he comes to purge Israel of sin-guilt. Neither writer, of course, states how Messiah ben Joseph will purify Israel. But both speak of his death. And if his death is not linked with the atonement, then both the atonement and the death are in themselves inexplicable.

4. SEFER ZERUBBABEL

Sefer Zerubbabel, normally thought to date from some time before 638 C.E., presents a complex messianic cast.[26] But the Messiah of the Lord, bound in Rome (as in B. San. 98a), who appears to Zerubbabel, should be identified with Messiah ben Joseph. For he is destined to fight with Armilus, who, later in Sefer Zerubbabel, slays Messiah ben Joseph. This Messiah figure is described as ish nibzeh, a phrase recalling Is. 53:3’s nibzeh…ish…nibzeh. Thus Ben Joseph seems to be identified once again with the Bible’s locus classicus for atoning death.

5. PESIKTA RABBATI

Going back another hundred years or so we come to Pesikta Rabbati.[27] The central figure in §36-37 is “Ephraim Messiah, my righteousness.”[28] Braude is surely over-cautious in saying, “In no other work is the Messiah designated as Ephraim.”[29] For there seems no good reason to distinguish “Ephraim Messiah” from “Messiah ben-bar Ephraim”—a figure familiar enough from the Targums and elsewhere—especially when both share the same career of suffering.[30] Of course, both can also be identified with Messiah ben Joseph, since any son of Ephraim is ipso facto a son of Joseph, Ephraim’s father.[31] Here then is Ephraim Messiah’s appearance in pisqa 36.1:

And when he saw him, Satan was shaken, and he fell upon his face and said: Surely this is the Messiah who will cause me and all the angels of the nations to be swallowed up in Gehenna, as it is said, He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces (Is. 25:8). In that hour the angels of the nations, in agitation, will say to him: Master of the Universe, who is this through whose power we are to be swallowed up? What is his name? What kind of a being is he? The Holy One, blessed be he, will reply: He is the Messiah, and his name is Ephraim Messiah, my righteousness.

Here Ephraim Messiah’s sufferings effect the destruction of cosmic evil. By his sufferings Satan and the fallen angels who mislead the nations are consigned to Gehenna. By his sufferings death is swallowed up for ever, and, from the wider context of the Isaiah citation, all nations are released from its fearful grip. The text then proceeds to tell us how Messiah Ephraim will achieve these things, and how they will benefit Israel.

The Holy One, blessed be he, made an agreement with him [Messiah Ephraim]. He said: Those whose sins are stored up with you will bring you into an iron yoke and make you like this calf whose eyes are dimmed [with pain]. They will force your spirit into a yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to your jaws (Ps. 22:15[16]). Are you willing for this?… He replied in his presence: Lord of the Worlds, with gladness of soul and rejoicing of heart I take it upon me, on the condition that not one will perish from Israel.

So Ephraim Messiah agrees to bear the sins of others, which are to bring him into dreadful affliction, so that none will perish from Israel. Those who are to force him into this affliction are, in fact, those whose sins he bears. It therefore seems that he is afflicted by Israel, just as Joseph was afflicted by Judah and his brothers, and as Zechariah’s eschatological Josephite king is afflicted by royal Judah and Jerusalem (Zech. 12:10).[32]Here the ancient sibling rivalry of Judah and Joseph-Ephraim has reached its climax. His sufferings are further elaborated in 37.1:

The Eternal Fathers will arise in the month of Nisan and say to him: ‘Ephraim Messiah, our righteousness, although we are your ancestors, yet you are greater than we, for you bore sins on our behalf and awful sufferings, by means of which the earliest and latest [generations] are atoned for. Among the peoples of the earth you became a derision and a scorn for Israel’s sake; you sat in darkness and gloom, your eyes saw no light; your skin cleaved to your bones (cf. Ps. 22:17) and your body was dry as wood; your eyes were darkened from fasting and your strength was dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:15). All this happened because of our sins’.

Once again, the Ephraim Messiah resembles Joseph, a derision among the nations, sitting in darkness, gloom, and affliction, as a result of the sins of Israel, yet all for their ultimate good.

But how does the Messiah of Pesikta Rabbati 36-37 suffer? Does he die or is he simply imprisoned and tortured? While his death is not stated, it would seem to be implied both in the extremity of his sufferings and in the repeated citation of Psalms 22 and 89, applied to the Ephraim Messiah seven and three times respectively in these two chapters. For the sufferer of Psalm 22 is represented as laid by God in the dust of death, his bones dislocated (vv. 15-16 [14-15]). Likewise, Psalm 89 is a lament for a mashiah whose crown, by the divine will, has been pierced to the earth,[33] whose youth has been cut off (vv. 40, 46 [39, 45]), who seems to be the figure of Psalm 88, fallen among those pierced-through in Sheol (vv. 4-6 [3-5]).[34] Such citations, together with wider Ben Joseph-Ephraim tradition, suggest that it is the subterranean gloom of Sheol in which Messiah Ephraim sits, rather than of any earthly prison.

The explicit presentation of Messiah Ephraim’s vicarious suffering in these passages has led some commentators to suspect Christian influence.[35] However, direct Christian influence on Jewish writings of this period was small, and later hands would not have preserved patently un-Jewish ideas. This is particularly the case with Pesikta Rabbati, which, as Braude notes, is characterised throughout by anti-Christian polemic. Rather, as Braude also notes, there is no reason why these chapters should not be Jewish, for their proof-texts derive from the Psalms and there are references elsewhere in rabbinic literature to the Messiah’s suffering.[36]

6. THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD

The three Talmudic traditions about Messiah ben Joseph (B. Suk. 52) appear to date from before 200 C.E.[37] The first, which concerns us here, is attributed to Dosa ben Harkinas, and can be dated to the last ten years or so of full-scale temple worship, before the Roman incursions in 66 CE.

Dosa debates with unnamed rabbis why Israel mourn in the messianic age depicted in the pericope Zech. 12:10-13:1 (B. Suk. 52a). The rabbis say that the mourning is for the death of the evil inclination, while Dosa says it is for the death of Messiah ben Joseph. The Babylonian redactor agrees with Dosa against the rabbis that the mourning is for the death of Ben Joseph. Yet neither the redactor, nor Dosa, nor anyone else, ever challenges the assumptions that the evil inclination is relevant to the discussion, and that it is indeed slain. The implication is that in Zech. 12:10 and its context the disputants saw two deaths, namely, those of Messiah ben Joseph and of the evil inclination. And they saw those two deaths as linked. Now it is not said that the death of Messiah ben Joseph effects the death of the evil inclination. But, as I noted above in regard to Saadia’s teaching, if the death and atonement are not linked, then both are inexplicable in themselves.

Yet we can go further. If we turn to the Zecharian text underlying the Talmud debate, the cause-and-effect link assumed by the Talmud becomes still clearer. Ben Joseph’s death leads to the “house of David and the inhabitant of Jerusalem” mourning their complicity in it (12:10). Upon recognizing their guilt, a fountain is opened to cleanse and absolve them (13:1). Yet what sacrifice has provided this absolution? None is mentioned, except the death of innocent Ben Joseph. Therefore his death is the sacrifice which opens the cleansing fountain, which in turn breaks the dominion of the evil inclination. Thus, since the Talmud debate presumes some such understanding of Zechariah, it is fair to say that in B. Suk. 52a Messiah ben Joseph’s death slays the evil inclination.

We have now traced the theme of Messiah ben Joseph’s atoning death from the late renaissance back to the temple period. We could continue back through T. Ben. 3:8, whose Josephite Lamb of God destroys Beliar by dying, through Zech. 12:10-13:1 to Deut. 33:17, whose coming Josephite hero is likened to “the firstborn of a shor,” a creature destined to sacrificial death. But these points have been made elsewhere and need not be restated.[38] Enough has been said to make our case that rabbinic literature of all periods accords atoning power to the death of Messiah ben Joseph.

7. THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Finally, textual evidence aside, it is worth noting, before we conclude, that the idea of atoning death is not at odds with the general current of Israelite thought. Schürer notes,

It was an idea relating to the Messiah quite familiar to rabbinic Judaism, namely that the perfectly just man not only fulfils all the commandments, but also atones through suffering for past sins, and that the excessive suffering of the just is for the benefit of others.[39]

If we were to cite examples, we might first note that, in the broader background of the near east, life-giving death was a fundamental religious concept. Sacrifice and, particularly among the Canaanites, human sacrifice, was seen as obtaining manifold benefits for the offerer.[40] Sacrifices of atonement were offered for the city of Ugarit and the death of Ba‘al was regarded as conferring fertility and possibly atonement for sin to the city.[41] The deaths of Baal-Hadad, Osiris, Dumuzi, and Marduk were all thought to bestow benefits on their people and their lands.

In Israel, the animal sacrifices of Leviticus conferred such benefits as purification from defilement and sin, propitiation of the deity, blessing, and atonement. But there was an inexorable logic: the bigger the sacrifice, the bigger the benefit. And so, although human sacrifice was excluded from the cult (Exod. 13:13), Israel recognized its fearsome power (Gen. 22:12-18; 2 Kgs 3:26-27; Mic. 6:6-7). It was then a natural step for a people aware of its failings before the ultimate law to imagine the ultimate sacrifice: a righteous divinely-appointed king. The result was the biblical locus classicus for atoning death, Is. 52:13-53:12 and its probable derivative, Zech. 12:10-13:2, both of which are so frequently referred to Messiah ben Joseph.[42]

In post-biblical times, the books of Maccabees depict seven martyred brothers and their mother as a redemptive sacrifice: “Let the Almighty’s wrath, justly fallen on the whole of our nation, end in me and in my brothers” (2 Macc. 7:37). Their death is “a ransom for the sin of our nation; through the blood of these righteous ones and through the propitiation of their death the divine providence rescued Israel” (4 Macc. 17:21-22; cf. 18:3-5). Aqedah traditions present the binding and offering-up of Isaac in Gen. 22 as a sacrifice conferring merit and forgiveness on Israel: “When Israel’s children sin against you and enter into sorrow, remember on their behalf the binding of their father Isaac. Forgive them and redeem them from their sorrows.”[43] In the Talmud, Moses’ sufferings and death are presented as redemptive: B. Sot 14a, citing Is. 53:12, says he was buried near Beth-Peor to atone for the incident there.

Similarly, the sages are said to have suffered for Israel’s sake. Genesis Rabbah §96.5 tells how Rabbi’s suffering from toothache for thirteen years spared the women of Israel from death in childbirth and miscarriage throughout that time, and how, when he was healed by Elijah, Hiyya exclaimed, “Woe to you, you women in childbirth and pregnant women in Israel.” Similarly, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana §9.24 has Eleazar b. Simeon’s widow say of her husband that, “When he would work in Torah-study, having completed all that he could do, he would go to lie down, and say, ‘May all the sorrows of Israel come upon me,’ and they would come upon him.”

Further examples might be given. But once again enough has been said to make our case: the atoning nature of Messiah ben Joseph’s death is consistent with the broad tenor of historical Israelite belief.

8. MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH: A SACRIFICE OF ATONEMENT

Having gone from the seventeenth century to the early tannaitic period, we have found evidence in every period that the death of Messiah ben Joseph was regarded as having power to atone for the sins of Israel and purify the nation. Some authorities—Horowitz, Saadia, and the author of Nistarot—say that this atonement is a necessary precondition to the inauguration of Ben David’s kingdom.

It is not the case, as Strack-Billerbeck and Rowley would have it, that Messiah ben Joseph is never connected with the suffering figure of Hinneh avdi. On the contrary, the Isaiah passage is frequently referred to him. Nor is it the case, as Dalman would have it, that there is no talk of Ben Joseph’s suffering. It is a major theme of Pesikta Rabbati and Laniado, and is noted by Altschuler. Nor is it the case, as Klausner says, that these views derive from Christian sources. Rather, Laniado, Alshekh, Saadia, and the Talmud all state that they are the views of Israel’s sages. Such a claim is supported by the evidence that the teaching preserved in B. Suk. 52a was known in Israel in the early first century C.E., and derived from Zech. 12:10.[44]

Finally, lest I be suspected of claiming originality for this view, it is worth noting that it has been shared by others. Here is F. Weber:

Evidently, following Is. 53, the servant of God or the Messiah must suffer and die for his people. One cannot believe that of the son of David, or only in a limited measure, therefore a Messiah of lesser worth must precede him, who will atone for the sins of Israel by his death and open to the King Messiah and his people the way to the establishment of the glorious kingdom. This is Messiah ben Joseph, also called Ben Ephraim.[45]

However, I would diverge from Weber’s view that Is. 53 is the source of Messiah ben Joseph. Rather, his origin seems to be Deut. 33:17, where all his characteristics, including his atoning death, are found in embryo.[46] Of course, it all depends on dating of texts. For my part, I feel that the Blessing on Joseph (Deut. 33:13-17) almost certainly predates the Isaiah passage. The Blessing would appear to date from at least the days of the amphictyony, when the Ephraimites were a power in pre-Davidic united Israel, and perhaps from the days of Moses himself.

Finally, I am not sure whether Weber is right to call Ben Joseph “a Messiah of lesser worth.” I have noted elsewhere how the two Messiahs work together in the redemption.[47] In Tg. Song §4.5 and §7.4, they stand shoulder to shoulder like Moses and Aaron, the one providing leadership (Ben David) and the other atonement (Ben Joseph). Since Ben David cannot come without Ben Joseph’s atonement, the latter is crucial to the whole plan of redemption. In fact, he is to Ben David, as Ephraim to Judah. One slain and buried to rise again, one preserved in life, but both to rejoice together in the Messianic time, when their rivalry will depart.[48]

---

NOTES

[1]    See D.C. Mitchell, “Firstborn Shor and Rem: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90.37-38 & Deuteronomy 33.17”, JSP 15.3 (2006) 211-28; see too my “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, Aramaic Studies 4.2 (2006); “The Fourth Deliverer: A Josephite Messiah in 4Q175”, Bib 86.4 (2005) 545-553; “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud”, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8(2005) 77-90; “A Josephite Messiah in 4Q372”, JSP 17.1 (2007). As for texts, I cite six apocalyptic midrashim about Ben Joseph in Hebrew with ET in my The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTSupp. 252; Sheffield: JSOT, 1997), 304-50, and traditions which apply the Psalms to him in my “Les psaumes dans le judaïsme rabbinique”, RTL 36.2 (2005) 166-91 (187-89).

[2]    The view that Messiah ben Joseph derives from Deut. 33:17 is, of course, not new. It is found throughout rabbinic literature and in a number of eighteenth and nineteenth century commentators. But, in the last hundred years, it has been marginalized by the idea that Messiah ben Joseph arose from the downfall of Bar Kokhba. (For the proponents of the different views, see the final pages of “Messiah bar Ephraim”). Part of my task has been to present in detail the case for the biblical origins of Ben Joseph.

[3]    Alle Angaben aber die wir über den Messias b. Ephraim besitzen, stimmen darin überein, daß sie seinem Tode keine Sühnkraft zuschreiben. Bezeichnend ist in dieser Hinsicht, daß auf den Messias b. Ephraim nirgends ein Wort aus Jesaja 53 gedeutet wird. (H.L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 2 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1924/28] II, 297).

[4]    Keine der mit ihm sich beschäftigenden Stellen gibt seinem Tode einem Sühnwert, keine [Stelle] redet von einem demselben vorangehenden Leiden. (G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend [Berlin: Reuther, 1888] 22).

[5]    J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (London: Allen & Unwin, 1956)     483, 530.

[6]    D. Castelli, Il Messia Secondo Gli Ebrei (Florence: Successori le Monier, 1874) 228.

[7]    “The Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Blackwell; 2nd rev. ed. 1965 [1952]) 63-93 (76, 74).

[8]    Isaiah b. Abraham Horowitz, Sepher Shnei Luhot Ha-Berit (Amsterdam 1649). My translation follows the Fürth edition of 1724, p. 299b (bot.).

[9] Laniado was probably thinking of Rashi’s commentary on B. Suk 52a, which endorses the Talmudic redactor’s view that the mourning of Zech. 12:12 is for the death of Ben Joseph. Since the implication of the Talmud passage, as we shall see below, is that Ben Joseph’s death has atoning power, Rashi’s endorsement of it suggests his agreement with this idea. Yet Laniado seems to be thinking of more than one passage. The idea of Messiah ben Joseph’s sovereignty and judgment over the nations would seem to allude to Rashi’s commentary on Is. 24:18.

[10] Mishpatim §477; Beha‘alotcha §92; Ki Tetze §21.

[11] Shlach Lecha §174; Balak §342; Ki Tetze §62.

[12] The Zohar appeared in Spain between 1280 and 1290, the work, apparently, of Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon (G. Scholem, “Zohar” [EJ XVI:1191-1215] 1208-10). Its origins have been a matter of dispute ever since. Although Moses claimed to have taken the work from ancient manuscripts in his possession, his wife, upon his death, insisted that no such manuscripts had ever existed, and that he had authored the contents of the book himself. While we may doubt those who would trace the Zohar’s originsback to the early first millennium, there is reason to believe that some of it was based on existing material. For a start, its uniqueness might suggest it is the product of an entire interpretive tradition, rather than the work of one man. Moreover, elements of Persian thought have been traced in the work, and it is possible that its underlying ideas originated in the eastern diaspora.

[13]   The explanation is partial because earlier and later volumes of the work show no particular bias to one view or the other. While the first reference to his dying appears in the Exodus parashah Mishpatim, other references to his dying/not dying appear commingled in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

[14] “In the month of Tishri will be the redemption. It will be delayed in order that Messiah ben Ephraim will not die, delayed from on high, which is the left hand, until the right hand draws near, [that is] Passover, which is designated the right hand.” Mishpatim §477 (ed. Margaliot, II:120a [p. 239]).

[15] “Thus…you would have been arid and dry in everything because of Messiah ben Ephraim; in your Torah and your prophecy and your body, in which you have suffered so many agonies in order that he should not die. You pleaded for mercy on his behalf.” Beha‘alotcha §92 (ed. Margaliot, III:153b [p. 306]).

[16] Ki Tetze, §21 (ed. Margaliot, III:276b [p. 552]).

[17] Apart from Galilee being part of the possession of Joseph, it is specifically mentioned as the place of Ben Joseph’s appearing in Aggadat Mashiah (S. Buber, ed., Leqah Tob. Jerusalem, 1959 [Vilnius, 1880] f. 129, pp. 258-59; Mitchell, Message, 306, 335); Asereth Melakhim (Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim. 2 vols. [New York, 1915] II:461-66; Mitchell, Message, 321, 343); Saadia, Kitab al-Amanat VIII.5 (S. Rosenblatt, ed., The Book of Beliefs and Opinions by Saadia Gaon [Yale Judaica Series 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948] 301). Zohar,Vayyera, § 478 also tells of “the King Messiah” being revealed in the land of Galilee, but again the reference would seem to be to Ben Joseph, who takes Jerusalem from the Romans  (cf. § 479-480). Rachel’s consolation is due, of course, to the fact that the appearance of Ben Joseph with the tribes of Joseph comforts her weeping for her children (Jer. 31:14; Zohar Shemot § 109). Compare Shlah Lekha § 136, where resurected Rachel and Ben Joseph rejoice together outside Jerusalem.

[18] Rashi’s recognition of Ben Joseph’s atoning death is implicit in his commentary on B. Suk 52a (cf. n. 9 above). Elsewhere, however, he is more cautious, citing the Ben Joseph tradition simply as an opinion of “many” (Comm. on Zech. 12:12). Ibn Ezra affirms the traditional view of Ben Joseph but does not speak explicitly about the atoning power of his death. However, such a view may be implied in his identifying Ben Joseph with the pierced figure of Zech. 12:10, who, as we shall see below, makes atonement for the sins of those who slew him (Comm. on Zech. 12:10). Radak disavows Messiah ben Joseph altogether (Comm. on Zech. 12:10).

[19] For the text, see A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1967 [Leipzig 1853-77]) III: 78-82 or Mitchell, Message, 347-50. There is an English translation in Mitchell, Message, pp. 329-34. The midrash dates from some time well into the Islamic period. Jellinek thinks that its war between the sons of the East and the sons of the West is a reference to the early Crusades. In that case, the final form of the work dates from the end of the first millennium.

[20] Jellinek, BHM, III: 80; Mitchell, Message, 331, 348.

[21] Jellinek, BHM, III: 80; Mitchell, Message, 332, 349.

[22] The Arabic Kitab al-amanat is known in Hebrew as Sefer emunot we-de’ot.A full English translation is that of Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions by Saadia Gaon, cited above; there is an abridged version by A. Altmann, The Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (Philosophia Judaica Series; Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1946).

[23] Saadia, Kitab VIII.5 (Rosenblatt, 301); cf. VIII.2 (Rosenblatt,294-95).

[24] Saadia, Kitab VIII.6 (Rosenblatt, 301, 304). The idea that the time of trouble comes upon Israel only if they are unrepentant goes back to talmudic times at least: cf. B. Sanh. 97b (“If the Israelites repent, they will be redeemed. If not, the Holy One, blessed be he, will raise up a king whose decrees will be even more severe than those of Haman, then they will repent and be redeemed.”); 98a (“Ben David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked…I [the Lord] will hasten it. If they are worthy I will hasten it; if not, [he will come] at the due time.”); Y. Ta‘an. 1.1(63d) (“If you are worthy, I will hasten it; if not, it will come in its own time.”)

[25] Saadia, Kitab VIII.6 (Rosenblatt, 304).

[26] S.W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 18 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957-83); H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash,tr. M. Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992 [1982]) 363-64, also indicate an early seventh century date for the work.

[27] The critical edition is R. Ulmer, Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition. 2 vols. (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 155; Scholars Press: Atlanta, Georgia, 1997). Most commentators regard the bulk of the material in Pesikta Rabbati as dating from Talmudic times with a redaction in Israel in the fifth to sixth centuries (Ulmer, I:xv-xxvii; G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Misrash [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] pp. 296ff.; W.G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati. 2 vols. [Yale Judaica Series 18; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968] I:2-3, 22-23). M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati: Midrasch für den Fest-Cyclus und die ausgezeichnete Sabbathe (Vienna 1880), regarded §34-37 as the earliest part of the collection, dating from tannaitic times (p. 24).

[28] I recognize the difficulty in translating ephraim mashiah tsidqi. Given the repetition of the phrase in PesR 34-37, and its frequency elsewhere (Pirqei Mashiah  §6.1; Midrash Aleph Beth §11b.15; Pirkei Hekhalot Rabbati §38 [ed. S.A. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot, I: 130. Jerusalem 1952-55]), it is clear that all three words together form a recognized title or name. Other possible translations would include “Ephraim, Messiah of my justice” or “Ephraim, my just-legitimate Messiah”. However, I have chosen the above form to keep the first two words together and not obscure the link with Messiah ben Ephraim.

[29] Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 678, n. 3.

[30] “Messiah bar Ephraim” is exclusive to the Targums: Targ. Tos. to Zech. 12:10 (Codex Reuchlinianus); Tg Ps.-Jon. to Exod. 40:11; Tg Song §4:5 and §7:4. Elsewhere, including the Aramaic Zohar, he is “Messiah ben Ephraim”: Midr. Pss. §60.3; 87.6; Sefer Zerubbabel (Heb. and ET in Mitchell, Message, 341, 317); Nistarot Rav Shimon ben Yohai 22-26 (Mitchell, Message, 348, 331); Ibn Ezra on Ps. 80.18; Zohar Mishpatim, 477, 478; Beha‘alotcha, 92; Pinhas, 565, 582.

[31] Sometimes the identification is explicit, with the two patronymics occurring together, as at Pirkei Hekhalot Rabbati, §39: “a man of Ephraim ben Joseph” (Wertheimer, I: 130); Targum to Lam. 4:21-22: “the King Messiah of the House of Joseph of the House of Ephraim” (R. Kasher, “On the Portrayal of Messiahs in Light of an Unknown Targum to Lam. 4:21-22”, JSQ 7:22-41 [23]). Or the figure may bear the two patronymics successively: Nistarot 22-26; Zohar Mishpatim, 477-83.

[32] For the implicit Josephite characteristics of the Zecharian figure, note his being pierced, mourned as a firstborn, and exchanged for silver, see “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, 223-27.

[33] In biblical usage, while the qal of hll means only “pierce”, the piel can mean both “pierce” (e.g., Ezek. 28,9) and, less commonly, “defile” (BDB: 319-20). The verb hillalta can therefore be taken as either “pierced” or “defiled” in this case of apparently deliberate paronomasia.

[34] See my comments on the relation of Pss. 88 and 89 in D.C. Mitchell, “‘God Will Redeem My Soul From Sheol’: The Psalms of the Sons of Korah”, JSOT 30 (2006) 365-84 (366, 382).

[35] Azariah dei Rossi, following Abraham Farissol, suggested that Pes. R. 36.1 was added under Chrisian influence (Me’or ‘enayim [Vilnius: Cassel, 1866], chap. 19, p. 250). Eppenstein (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 55 [1911] 626-28) and Bamberger (HUCA 15 [1940] 429) later endorsed the same view.

[36] Braude (1968: 678n.) notes references to the Messiah’s sufferings at Pes. R. 31.10 and Midr. Pss. 2.9 (cf. Midr. Pss. 16.4): “Behold, my servant shall prosper, etc. (Is. 52.13)…All these goodly promises are in the decree of the King, the King of kings, who will fulfil them for the Lord Messiah”; “R. Levi taught in the name of R. Idi: Suffering is divided into three portions: One, the Patriarchs and all the generations of men took; one the generation that lived in the time of [Hadrian’s] persecution took; and one the Lord Messiah [variant reading: the generation of the Lord Messiah] will take.”

[37] I have discussed at length the dating and the interpretation of these references in “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud”, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8 (2005) 77-90. What I have shown there is assumed here, and I refer the reader there for the detail.

[38] On T. Ben. 3:8 see J.C. O’Neill, ‘The Lamb of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,’ JSNT 2 (1979) 2-30. On Zech. 12:10-13:1 see my comments in “Rabbi Dosa”, and “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, 222-230. On Deut. 33:17, see my comments in “Firstborn Shor and Rem”, in which I propose that all the characteristics of Messiah ben Joseph were implicit in Deut. 33:17 from earliest times. For (1) the text clearly speaks of a Josephite hero like Joshua; (2) the imagery of the firstborn shor and rem shows that he must suffer sacrificially before being exalted; (3) since Joshua did not fulfil the predicted conquest of all nations, nor was it his remit (Josh. 3.10), this hero was bound to be looked for in the future.

[39] E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135),(eds. & tr.) G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, in collaboration with P. Vermes and M. Black. 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87) II.549; from Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs; 4th ed. 1907).

[40] Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son and Mosca, “Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion”.

[41] N. Wyatt suggests that KTU 1.40 is a liturgy for an atonement rite for the people of Ugarit (Religious Texts from Ugarit [Sheffield Academic Press, 1998] 342-347). Elsewhere, he suggests that there is evidence in texts such as CTA 12 that “Ba‘al is the blameless one who suffers for the sins of the world, to effect its salvation” (“Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel”, UF 8 [1976] 415-30 [420]).

[42] A number of commentators note that the suffering king of Zech. 9-14 seems to be based on Isaiah’s servant of the Lord. Cf. M.C. Black, The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who is Coming with his Angels (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1991)66-68; 83-88; R. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Cambridge: University Press, 1977)88, 119; W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976)213, 224; P.R. Ackroyd, “Zechariah” in M. Black & H.H. Rowley (eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1962) 646-55 (654); P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure, Litteraire, et Messianisme (Paris: Gabalda, 1961)124-30; H.W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 in Urchristentum (Berlin: Evangelische Verlag, 1942)40; H.G. Mitchell, J.M.P. Smith & J.A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 331. P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) argues that the visionary tradition which produced Zech. 9-14 and Trito-Isaiah descended from the author of Deutero-Isaiah (404-407).

[43] Midr. Tan. Wayyera 46. The Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti on Gen 22.14 and Rashi on the same passage also note the atoning power of Isaac’s virtual death. See also Philo, De Abrahamo, 177-207; Josephus, Ant. I.xiii.1-4; Gen. R. 56.9-10; Pes. R. 31.2 (143b); PRE 38a.i-39b.i. P.R. Davies (“Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah,” JJS 30 [1979] 59-67) and P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton (“The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” CBQ 40 [1978] 514-46) argue that earlier tradition saw Isaac only as an exemplary martyr and that the idea of atonement and redemption in the aqedah arose from Christian doctrines. However O’Neill (“Did Jesus teach that his death would be vicarious?” pp. 9-27 in W. Horbury and B. McNeil, Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament [Cambridge: University Press, 1981] 13-14) responds that 4 Maccabees “is saturated with the image of Isaac’s sacrifice” which is presented as an expiation (4 Macc. 16.19ff; 18.11).

[44] Cf. “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis”, 77-83.

[45] F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie (2^nd edn, 1897) p. 362: Offenbar muss nach Jes. c. 53 der Knecht Gottes oder der Messias für sein Volk leiden und sterben. Kann man das von dem Sohne Davids nicht oder nur in beschränktem Masse glauben, so muss ein Messias von geringerem Würde ihm vorausgehen, welcher durch sein Tod die Sünden Israels büssen und sühnen und dem Könige Messias samt seinem Volke den Weg zur Errichtung des Reiches der Herrlichkeit eröffnen werde. Das ist Messias der Sohn Josephs, auch Sohn Ephraims genannt.

[46]   Cf. “Firstborn Shor and Rem”, 224-28.

[47] “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums”, 239.

[48] Aggadat Bereshit § 64 (ed. S. Buber [Cracow 1903] p. 129; ed. princ. [Menachem de Lonzano, Shtei Yadot. Venice, 1618] §63): You might think also that the War Messiah who will arise from Joseph, and the Messiah of Judah, will be opponents. God forbid! There is no jealousy between them, as it is stated: The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile towards Ephraim (Is. 11.13). Cf. likewise § 79 (Buber, p. 152; ed. princ. §78); Pirkei Hekhalot Rabbati (ed. S. Wertheimer [Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1952-55]) § 40.

---