xii. 10, "there are two different opinions as to the meaning of this passage; some suppose it to refer to the lamentation of the Messiah, others to lamentation on account of the existence of innate sinful desires." In the second passage (in the Tractate Succoth, fol. 52, col. 1, copied into Glaesener's de gem. Jud. Messia, p. 46) we find these remarks on Zech. xii. 12, "And the land will mourn, every family apart.

Why will this

mourning take place? R. Dusa and the doctors are not agreed on this point. According to one opinion, on account of Messiah ben Joseph, who is to be put to death. Peace be with him, who supposes the passage to refer to the death of Messiah ben Joseph. To him does Zech. xii. 10 refer, and they will mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son." In the first passage Zech. xii. 10 is interpreted without reserve, as relating to the dying Messiah; and yet there is a sign of perplexity and uncertainty in the opinion that the lamentation has reference, not to the Messiah himself, but to the sin which has caused his death. (For the meaning of the passage in the Talmud compare the remarks on Zech. xii. 10). In the second the knot is cut by the fiction of a Messiah ben Joseph. That the origin of this doctrine is to be traced to the passage, which we have quoted from Zechariah, is still further apparent from the fact that the Jewish writers constantly base it upon this, and mention it in connection with words taken from the verse in question. (Compare the passages in Glaesener l. c. p. 56, 57, 147, append. p. 9). Lastly, the doctrine of the Messiah ben Joseph has completely the character of a doctrine, invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of a difficult passage in the Bible, which is afterwards laid on one side, as being no longer needed. All that is done with the Messiah ben Joseph is that he is made to die, after the help of another prophecy (Ezek. xxxvii.) has been called in, and a possible occasion for his death discovered. Beyond that no further questions are asked, as Glaesener has correctly observed (p. 91: "Altum nunc est in scriptis Judæorum de Messia ben Joseph silentium. Postquam enim cum reliquis a Messia ben David et Elia a mortuis excitatus fuerit, nihil de eo ulterius deprehenditur. Nulla ei prærogativa præ reliquis Israelitis in regno Messiæ ben David conceditur, nullumque præmium pro

clade perpessa imoque ipsa morte pro illis suscepta propositum." We must now turn to the objections brought by De Wette (p. 79) against this explanation of the origin of the doctrine. "If this fable," he says, "was merely invented with a view to get rid of the idea, that the Messiah ben David would endure suffering, how is it that we find the doctrine of the Messiah ben Joseph referred to by writers, who have no hesitation in speaking of the Messiah ben David as suffering and atoning, such for example as the author of the book Sohar and the Babylonian Gemarists ?" This objection only applies to such as Schmidt, Stäudlin, and many earlier writers, who maintain that the doctrine of the Messiah ben Joseph was invented, simply for the purpose of having some one, to whom it would be possible to transfer all the passages, which speak of a suffering and atoning Messiah; but it does not affect us, who merely trace the doctrine to the difficulty, which was felt, of believing in the death of the Messiah ben David. The former assertion is certainly incorrect. There is not a single instance, in which suffering and deep humiliation are spoken of in connection with the Messiah ben Joseph previous to his dying, and so far as we know, except in one passage which is quoted by Eisenmenger i. p. 720, and De Wette, p. 76, atoning efficacy is never attributed to his death. But this passage is taken from the book Shne Luchoth Haberit, a work of R. Jeshaia Horwitz, who died 1610 (vid. Wolf Bibl. 1, p. 703). It cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration here, on account of its recent date. On the other hand, in the earliest writings, such as the Sohar and Talmud, suffering and atonement are always attributed to the Messiah ben David, most probably because the possibility of representation was supposed to be founded exclusively upon his higher, superhuman nature. But that it was just with this higher superhuman nature of the

1 It is true, Glaesener (append. p. 11) has revoked this statement, and quotes two passages, in which the Messiah ben Joseph is represented as a kind of under-king in the Messianic kingdom; but he is wrong in this, for the passages in question belong to two very recent authors, Rabbi Meier Aldabi, and Menasse ben Israel, and therefore hardly come into consideration at all. In this instance, as in fact throughout his work, Glaesener lays himself open to the charge, brought against him by Schöttgen (p. 366), of confounding together the doctrines of the ancient and modern Jews.

Messiah that his death was regarded as irreconcileable, and that it was this which led to the doctrine of a second Messiah of an inferior nature, is evident from a passage of the Sohar, in Sommer theol. Sohar, p. 91. "Illo ipso die proveniet Messias, proprietatibus vitalibus, perfectionibus et prærogativis convenientibus instructus. Quæ tamen natura non relinquetur sola, sed adjungetur ipsi Messias alter, filius Josephi. Quia vero iste erit collis inferior, destitutus proprietatibus vitalibus, morietur hic Messias et occisus in statu mortis permanebit ad tempus, donec recolliget iterum vitam hic collis et resurget." "On this assumption," continues De Wette, "it is impossible to explain why the lower Messiah is called Messiah ben Joseph or ben Ephraim, and yet the name cannot have been given without any reason." But we must make a distinction here between the source of the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph generally, and the origin of the name. When the doctrine of a second Messiah had been once invented for a totally different reason, the attempt was made to secure another end by the name which was given him. The opportunity was embraced of paying a compliment to the ten tribes, by allotting to them at least the lower Messiah, whilst the higher, being a descendant of David, was to spring from the tribe of Judah. That this is the correct explanation of the origin of the name, is evident from the fact, that the lower Messiah is called ben Joseph and ben Ephraim interchangeably, not merely in later writings, but also in numerous passages of the Sohar (see, for example, Schöttgen 1. c. p. 551), and that there is a passage in Schöttgen p. 360, in which he is assigned. to the tribe of Manasseh, whilst the Messiah ben David is also called Messiah ben Judah. (See Glaesener, p. 53). At the same time, that the wish to do honour to the ten tribes was not the principal motive for the selection of the name, but merely a subordinate one, is apparent from the fact that, as we have already shown, after the history of the Messiah ben Joseph has

1 The fact that the Messiah is called ben Joseph and ben Ephraim interchangeably, is a proof that the patriarch Joseph must be intended. This is a sufficient objection to the hypothesis suggested in Cölln's bibl. Theol. i. p. 497, that the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph originated in a misunderstanding of certain New Testament expressions, especially in the fact that, in the New Testament, Jesus is not merely called the Son of David, but also the Son of Joseph, Luke iii. 23, and iv. 22.

been continued to his death, and even his resurrection has been mentioned, he is forgotten altogether.

De Wette (p. 81), who follows Glaesener, accounts for the origin of the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph, on the ground that the Jews desired thereby to indicate the fact, that the ten tribes would be gathered together out of all the countries of the earth by the Messiah, and introduced by him into the land of Canaan. But, even apart from the positive grounds, which may be adduced in favour of the explanation given by us, the improbability of this hypothesis is at once apparent. And, with the exception of two passages from the book Mikveh Israel, written by R. Manasseh ben Israel, which cannot be taken into account at all, both on account of its recent date (it appeared for the first time in 1650, Wolf Bibl. i., p. 783), and also because of the untraditional character of its contents, in not one of the passages quoted by Glaesener (p. 202, sqq.) and De Wette (p. 81), is the task assigned to the Messiah ben Joseph of gathering the Israelites together out of the different countries of the earth, and bringing them to the holy land. On the contrary, the Israelites themselves assemble together out of the different lands, and come to him after his resurrection.. But what inducement could this hold out to the invention of such a doctrine, seeing that they might just as well have come together at the very first to the Messiah ben David, under whom, even according to the doctrine of the Jews, the most important gathering together would first take place (Vid Glaesener, p. 69). We have already seen, that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph forms the central point of the whole doctrine. But if we adopt De Wette's explanation, it is impossible to see what reason there was for making him die at all. It is very evident that the reasons assigned by De Wette (p. 82) are not satisfactory,-viz., that "only one Messiah could reign, and therefore it seemed advisable to remove the other out of the way." He completely overlooks the fact that the Messiah ben Joseph is to be raised, along with the rest of the dead, by the Messiah ben David and Elias. If, then, the difficulty actually existed, which it does not, since it was quite possible to assign to the Messiah ben Joseph a subordinate position in the kingdom of the Messiah, it would not be removed by his death." The need of an atonement might furnish an

opportunity for inventing the account of his death." But we have already seen that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph was not supposed to possess an atoning efficacy; on the contrary it was from the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah ben David that an atonement was expected." The sin of Jeroboam appeared to demand his death." This is proved by one single passage from the book Jalkut Chadash, which is of very recent date, and was not held in much respect by the Jews themselves (see Wolf Bibl. ii., p. 1308). That this was not the inducement in the case of the earlier Jews, is evident from the simple fact, that they did not regard the death of the Messiah ben Joseph as possessing any atoning virtue. Moreover, the guilt of Jeroboam is washed away along with all the rest by the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah ben David.

(2.) The second hypothesis, invented for the purpose of reconciling the passages which treat of a suffering Messiah, and those which represent him as coming in glory, was the doctrine that, previous to his appearance upon earth, he atoned in Paradise for the sins of men by indescribable sufferings. This explanation is found in the book Sohar, and is very rarely met with elsewhere. (Compare the passages quoted by Eisenmenger ii., p. 320); Glaesener, p. 28, sqq.; Bertholdt, Christologia § 25; and De Wette, p. 65. See also the leading passages from the Sohar in vol. ii., p. 313). How could so romantic an idea have ever entered any one's mind, if the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah had been borrowed from the Christians, who connect together the sufferings and glory of the Messiah in so perfectly natural a way?

(3.) To the same end another opinion, which was quite as widely spread, was first adopted,-namely, that the Messiah was already born, but that up to the time of his manifestation he would be engaged in atoning for the sins of the Israelitish nation, an opinion, the antiquity of which is evident from the fact, that it occurs in the dialogue with the Jew Trypho. The existence of two hypotheses, so different in their character as these, shews clearly enough how difficult it was, to know what to do with a suffering and atoning Messiah. That the latter of the two owes its origin solely to the difficulty caused by the doctrine of a suffering Messiah, is apparent from the fact, that the birth of the