You are on page 1of 19


fcm tbe scaoy 04: the ps&ao^p\gaap}aa
Vol 15.3 (2006): 211-228 © 2006 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi) DOI: 10.1177/0951820706066641

Firstborn Shor and Rent: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90.37-38 and Deuteronomy 33.17
DAVID C. MITCHELL Av. Maurice Cesar 62, 1970 Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium

Abstract 1 Enoch 90.37-38 feature a messianic white bull and a nagar. Following a discussion of interpretational cruces, this article concludes that the latter represents the aurochs. A comparison is made with Deut. 33.17 in which the same two oxen represent an anticipated Joseph-Joshua deliverer, who is on the one hand servile and destined to sacrificial death and on the other regnant and free. The coincidence of imagery in the two passages suggests that / En. 90.37-38 is dependent on Dcut. 33.17, leading to the conclusion that the oxen of 7 En. 90.37.38 depict a Joseph-Joshua Messiah destined to sacrificial death then resurgence in power. This has implications for the dating of beliefs about the Josephite Messiah, for the integrity of other second-century BCE texts, and for Christian origins. Keywords: 1 Enoch 90.37-38, Deuteronomy 33.17, Messiah ben Joseph, Josephite Messiah, sacrificial Messiah

The Animal Apocalypse of 7 Enoch, dating from about 165 BCE, is a theriomorphic depiction of the messianic age.' The central figures are a
1. E. Isaac dates the Animal Apocalypse from 165 BCE or earlier (' I Enoch', in OTP, I, pp. 5-89 [7]). P.A. Tiller {A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch [Atlanta: Scholars, 1993], pp. 78-79) dates it shortly after 165, and J.T. Milik to 164 BCE

77-90. A. 388. p. pp. p. 385). 1997). a Lamb and a Word: I Enoch xc. 90. JBL 66 (1947). 'The Fourth Deliverer: A Josephite Messiah in 4QTestimonia'. 505-12 [509]). 1893). pp. that is. 'A Bull. the passage has not yet been covered in the University of Michigan's Enoch Seminars. Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel. a mysterious entity called in Ethiopic nagar. VIII. Asereth Melakhim. word. 244). idem. Torrey suggested that it represents Messiah ben Joseph. TheApocryphalLiterature(\^tvj Haven: Yale University Press. the latter noting also his universal dominion (Tiller. pp. p. Therefore by a comparison of 7 En.212 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15. The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. Le Livre d'Henoch (Paris: Letouzey et Ane. it is perhaps time to revisit the proposal that this text features a Josephite Messiah. Buttenwieser ('Messiah'. Otot ha-Mashiah.C. Aramaic Studies 4. Milik. p. Targ. J6Z. For discussion of the content and dating of these traditions.p. Dalman. Isaac. 2. Lindars. I have also cited the Messiah ben Joseph traditions from the Midrash on Psalms in the third section of my article 'Les psaumes dans le Judaisme rabbinique'. RTL 36. 253-77 (267). Pirqei Mashiah. Deut. see Suk. Dillmann. Biblica 86.C. and since no satisfactory hypothesis for the passage's unique symbolism has yet been proposed. and Tiller. 253-77 (266). Commentary. 258 n.2 But what of the nagarl Some sixty years ago C.H. Commentary. Commentators agree that the white bull represents the Messiah. F. 235 n. in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Blaekwell. 52a. to Zech.3 (2006) white bull and its successor. 252. 3. 166-91.17. Martin. 1965 [1952])." At the time his view was largely dismissed. Mitchell.C.2 (forthcoming). 66 (1947). 33. pp.H. 12.C. NTS 22 (1976). '1 Enoch'. pp. pp. 'The Messiah Son of Ephraim'. Rowley's influential article. pp. 5. Books of Enoch. Among the older texts. C. p. Charles. 112.2 (2005). among midrashic literature see my translations of Aggadat Mashiah. since it seems to me that Torrey was looking in the right general direction. R.10.lor[ty. in D.37-38 with what I shall propose is its source text. Sefer Zerubbabel. 'The Messiah Son of Ephraim'. 545-53. See particularly H. 1945). Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend (BerVm: Reuthcr. 286. Tos. As far as I am aware. prefer the term 'eschatological patriarch' or 'second Adam'.' However. deed'. p. M.38'. pp. pp.p.1 hope in this article to confirm Torrey's {The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 44.' the mysterious slain Messiah of rabbinic literature. 1906).4 (2005). 304-50. 483-86 (485). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.C. An older classic work on the subject is G. 63-93. sec my articles 'Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud'. S.H. mJE. 1. and NistarotRav Shimon ben Yohai. 'Suffering Servant and Davidic Messiah'. pp. 244-45). 4. Books of Enoch. . There are references to Messiah ben Joseph in rabbinic literature of all periods and genres. The Message of the Psalter (JSOTSup. even if he did not quite secure his arguments. 2nd edn. Torrey. B. 1976]. Such a date is consistent with the Qumran fragment 4QEn'^of the Apocalypse dating from 150-125 BCE (Milik. 1853). 'Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums'. Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8 (2005). 45. 1888). 'thing. 41.

that the white bull is simultaneously a nagar But this differs little from the first option since both involve dual states of being. Finally. which reads as follows: And 1 saw till all their generations were transformed. but a necessary deduction from it from earliest times. I hope also. which . First. There is theoretically a third option.1 Enoch 90. lest I be accused. (b) Thefirst among them was-became a nagar. of importing rabbinic interpretations into pre-rabbinic texts. particularly in v. No other understanding is really possible. vv. 76-77). to show that hoth the white bull and the nagar represent the Joseph Messiah in two different manifestations or avatars. This is harder. and parts of the Animal Apocalypse in Greek. has it been proposed. It occurs three times. to my knowledge. 37-38 are found only in the Ethiopic. Does the first bull become a nagarl Or is the nagar a new unrelated figure who appears at this point as 'first' or chief among the white bulls?^ 6. It is probably worthwhile to note at this point my policy on rabbinic literature in this article. Who Becomes What? The question of who is transformed into what hinges on the Ethiopic verb 'to be' (kona) which can be rendered either was or became. 38. a text showing some signs of corruption. Here the verb should clearly be taken as became rather than was. contra Torrey. It will be found that I employ rabbinic literature. 7. I cite rabbinic interpretations as supporting evidence that certain symbols were read as I suggest. what is the nagar? la. I hope to show that the Josephite Messiah was not a later idea read into Deut. one sacrificial. the nagar was-became a great beast and had great black horns on its head. The issues are two. 33. nor. who becomes what? Second. 'Suffering Servant'.37-38 Although sections of the Enoch compendium have been found in both Aramaic and Greek. only to confirm interpretations already reached from within the primary text.17. (a) They all were-became white bulls.** 1. not as primary evidence itself Similarly. or to show the persistence of certain biblical traditions into post-biblical times. as I do modern scholarship. and the first among them was-became a nagar. pp. and they all werebecame white bulls. for the issue is the transformation ofthe beasts and birds of v.MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 213 view that the nagar represents a Josephite Messiah. There are therefore interpretational issues to address before we proceed. the other sovereign. 37 into bulls. like Torrey (Rowley.

II.9. there are two serious objections to the white bull representing Messiah ben David. ^. Martin.\. the first representing Messiah ben David. Or that he rejoiced over his sheep (v.95. them may indicate the nagar and the sheep. 1. in line with such descriptions ofthe messianic age as Zech.' For the phrase may mean simply that the Lord ofthe sheep rejoiced over all his creatures.9. To my knowledge this interpretation has not been proposed. accepts that both one animal transformed or two separate animals are possible.1. A Commentary. \. 89.16.11. Torrey's objection is not sustained on textual grounds. Those who see the second beast as the first transformed include Dillmann. 14. p. The principle is always 'he [Joseph] came first in Egypt and he will come first in the age to come'. 9. JTS OS 27 (1926): 130-43 (132). The ass symbol. R. p. M. or even two manifestations ofthe one Messiah. Milik. 33. Torrey's view may derive fi-om the singular notion of G. he would rejoice in his transformed fiock being no longer prey. 4 Ezra 11. the great become greater. 8. of course. See too the midrashim in n.6. 388. Books of Enoch. the second Messiah ben Joseph. e.. Whichever way. perhaps Tiller.3 (2006) The majority of commentators endorse the first option. Gen. 'Messiah.Thelionandass were. that Gen. p. 38) is compelling evidence for two separate oxen. 2 Chron. 4 above.\6. (For it is not said that the sheep become bulls. prohibited for sacrifice . 1978).Num.18-19. 49." are perhaps more likely to be manifested serially than simultaneously. e. 267. Midr Tanh. M. it is consistent with the earlier transformation of the beasts and birds into white bulls. Son of Ephraim'. 9. 'The Messiah ben Joseph'. 9. This would be surprising. Sifre on Deut. Le livre d'Henoch. occurs at.g. Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 287. First. 49.1. Knibb. given the detailed description of him and his importance among the animals. 10.36-12. 12. Gen. R. The lesser become great. But if the nagar is the white bull transformed. as they were in 1 En. §353. p.g.'" Second. deriving from Zech.3.-iX-M. Here I diverge from Torrey who felt that 'the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over them and over all the oxen' (v.19-20. then the white bull simply drops from the narrative after one verse. and even if they do. it is unlikely that Ben David would be symbolized by an ox. 235 n. R. Das Buch Henoch.16. occurs at. 75. deriving fi"om Gen.8. his symbols are always the lion or ass. Yalk.3. who sees the transformation as signifying the bull's increased power.H.10 was evidence that Ben Joseph would displace Ben David. p.. Ben David never precedes Ben Joseph in Israelite tradition. on Deut.A.9. 1 Kgs 10. Dix. 45. Eccl. Torrey. Est. For if the nagar is a completely new creature who appears at this point. §959. 33.7.* Rightly so.214 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. 34) as well as the oxen. In addition. The lion symbol. 11.R. p. 11. Exod R. 216.) Or again.

a 'thing' nameless. asses. 19. p. foxes. Hinrichs. being inconsistent with the theriomorphism ofthe passage. appears to envisage three states with two intervening metamorphoses. hyenas.5. The Judahite Messiah is. . Das Buch Henoch (GCS. formless. wolves.20). 5. lb. vultures. lions. Now which beast could this be? An answer is found both in the likely derivation ofthe term nagar and in a process of zoological sleuthery. (Lev. p. and the bull cannot therefore be regarded as the proper symbol of Ben David in that place. who see the nagar as an animal. Exod. Dillmann. however. kites. 13.2. squirrels. 1. In that case. the Ethiopic translator wants to explain what the nagar is.MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 215 (c) The nagar was-became a great beast and had great black horns on its head. as noted above. generally signifies 'thing. However.^ Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse. for all other animals in the apocalypse are named by species (7 En. 85-90): bulls. an unexplained pupa of the white bull's frenetic metamorphoses into a great homed beast. Tiller. This would be surprising. 12. word. Is the nagar a great homed beast? Or alternatively. eagles. 288.^'^ Again rightly so. deed'. 1901). Let us start with the latter. camels. the great homed beast is itself nameless and unspecified. J. functionless. all makes sense if the nagar is itself the great homed beast. For if the nagar is transformed into a great homed beast.' 1 Enoch'. elephants. The Ethiopic translator recognized this. falcons. seeing the second phrase as a description ofthe nagar. 140. then the nagar itself would be an incomprehensible bird of passage. wild boars. Flemming. Das Buch Henoch. And in that case. 71. Jos. then. But 'great beast with great black homs on its head' is a vague description of what is clearly an important figure in the narrative. tigers. This leads to our next point. even 'birds ofthe air' and 'beasts ofthe field' are recognizable groups in the light of biblical usage. and ravens. and so he provided a gloss. swine. dogs. For he brought the nagar back to the theriomorphic realm by telling us that it is a great beast with great black homs on its head.13. does it become a great homed beast? Once again the majority of commentators endorse the first option. However Isaac. However such a reading is hardly satisfactory. appearing for a trice. is the nagar. The same view would appear to be implied by the majority of commentators. p. 389. symbolized by a bull on one occasion. But there the tribes of Israel are together symbolized by twelve bulls. Such a beast. Leipzig: J.34. p.C. What is the Nagarl The Ethiopic term nagar. at T.

Brill.22. on 22. thinking it a hill. shows them to be direct descendants ofthe ox which roamed Britain before Roman importation of bos taurus. their head. on Ps. R. . Then. In fact. on 92. but only its offspring. Midr. climbed upon it. another tells how King David found an aurochs asleep in the desert and. we are told that its homs are larger than all beasts' and it is called rem because its homs are ram ('high').216 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. Midr Pss.S(WeLan(*(Leiden: E. As for goat. It is the extinct wild ox or aurochs. in practice this is not so. most animals have grey-white medium-sized homs. was (like the tribes of Ephraim) rumoured to be alive in the mountain fastnesses of Kurdistan. whose blood group. where a picture ofthe aurochs shows its upright homs. rem. Its Hebrew name. again. §31.3 (2006) We seek a great beast with great black homs on its head. which rabbinic tales dwell on. Although one might think that many beasts could fit such a description. and accept side-projecting rising homs. for it was too large.Rashi on Ps.S. deriving from r'w. 22 (§688). and the unicom has only one hom. 14. More recently its demise has been confirmed. But our Ethiopic translator already had a word for that animal—he had just mentioned it in the same verse—and clearly intended another beast.1 l. bos taurus.''' None ofthe rew's competitors match these attributes or fit the Ethiopic translator's description half as neatly. Shim. 22. Bodenheimer. might be a passable candidate. promised to build a temple a hundred cubits high—like its homs—in retum for his safety. I960). the rhinoceros does not have homs on its head. but attempts to resurrect it by cloning are afoot.22. a large longhomed ox formerly inhabiting North Africa. ram and gazelle. bos primogenius. buffalo and ram have homs beside. SeeF. Bos primogenius (sometimes primogenitus) means of course 'firstbom bull'. then a large domestic bull.13. Yalq. and being then bome away. Gen. suggests its great size. with abnormally dark and large homs. Europe and South-West Asia. their homs grow upward on top ofthe head and ancestral skulls testify that they were formerly of great size." The aurochs was famed for its size and its great black homs which rose straight up from its head. p. The name may have arisen from the Linnaean classifier's confusion ofthe two animals in the Vulgate: Quasi primogeniti tauri pulchritudo eius cornua rinocerotis cornua illius.J. 108. He states that in his time the aurochs. in all zoology there is only one animal which fits the description. they are not 'great beasts'. not on. unique among European cattle. Northumberland. 13. although pronounced extinct. Its nearest living relative may be the ancient breed of white wild oxen in Chillingham Park. For a start. Pss. the extinct wisent or European bison had small homs. One tells how the aurochs did not enter the ark. If we make less ofthe homs being on the head./(«/mo/a«fi^M3/7(>. Like the aurochs.

484.). from a misreading of Hebrew rhv lamb as nVo word (R.'* As for why the Ethiopic translator did not correct the mistake. 4. in idem (ed. Dillman.H. p. Stone. The Book of Enoch [London: SPCK. Henoch.MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 217 The conclusion that the nagar is the aurochs is supported by Dillman's 'excellent conjecture'. 260. idem. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dillman's view has since been confirmed by Qumran evidence for an Aramaic original ofthe Apocalypse. and it is rare e\ienplene (only Targ. resulting in priya. 34. Then. LXX Ps. 24. 287-88. Isaac feels it is better to refrain from emendation and take nagar as 'word' ('1 Enoch'. 'A Bull. he would have had no option but to transliterate. Dillman.22.22 (= MT 22. following L. he provided a description. 17. pp. p. Das Buch Henoch (Berlin: R. a Lamb and a Word'. 214. but. suggested Aramaic "iss lamb was read as iw word. 267). Certainly 'word' is attested as a messianic term in later . Milik. 485. 1913]. p." He suggested that the Ethiopic translator was working from a Greek text which had been translated from an Aramaic original. 45. but reaches the conclusion by another route. 'unicom'. 19. M. 90. 1984). 1929]. 45. pp. 18. 128). rema. 395-406 (397).6). '1 Enoch'. Num. the Ethiopic translator gave his equivalent term.E.7. 16. LXX 91. The only exception is Isa. 28. 10]). p.11 [Eng. LXX Ps. Job 39. Books of Enoch. Knibb. Milik. Marge' or 'well-grown' (bovids). knowing what animal was intended." But there is in fact a very good reason why they should have done so. pp. such a spelling of I^'N is unattested. Heinrich. Lindars. Books of Enoch. a lamb is not a 'great beast' with 'great black homs on its head'. Milik. 'A Bull. Moreover. Charles. he admits. p. Seeing this in his Greek text. Num. Books of Enoch.9.15).'* Here Lindars objected that 'there seems no strong reason why the Greek translators should resort to transliteration at this point'. 235 n. 21. Ethiopic Book of Enoch. Henoch.3. had been simply transliterated into Greek. where it is rendered ocSpol. 71). p. pp. But a Hebrew text of Enoch is unattested and the argument does not hold in Aramaic.11 (= MT 92. 216. 24. p. a Lamb and a Word'. Martin. p. 21]). Lindars. If the Greek translator had no word for the aurochs in his own language. to nagar as 'lamb'. nagar. The Aramaic word for aurochs. This seems likely. 23." We may now render the passage as follows: 15.6 (= MT 29. Greek for 'word'. He too had no word for the aurochs. Charles later changed his view. pp. Le livre d Henoch.22 [Eng. Torrey also thinks the nagar is an aurochs. Jewish Writings ofthe Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. suggesting the Greek translator read Aramaic xn^Ki rema as SIDXD wore/('Messiah the Son of Ephraim'. that is also simple. p.17. 1892). Goldschmidt.8. 287-88. Charles. 258-59. Enoch. as the Septuagint consistently translates Hebrew rem as monokeros. It did not inhabit Ethiopia. p. Deut 33. II. p. that is. So we conclude with the widely accepted view that the nagar is an aurochs.

1. slaughtered. Bull indicates gender rather than species. 14). such are the thousands of Manasseh. . in Israel. From here on I shall refer to these animals by the Hebrew terms shor and rem to avoid the ambiguities inherent in English. English has no singular non-gendered word for one beast ofthe domestic cattle. the end of Moses' blessing on Joseph and his tribes (vv. Hebrew shor is a domestic bovid of either sex. like a lamb. they are very different beasts.37-38 as follows. The shor is a slave. and all the beasts of the field and all the birds ofthe air feared him and made petition to him all the time. the phrase 'firstbom of a shof denotes an animal destined to Israelite literature (Jn 1. With them he shall gore the peoples. Ox is too broad. Moreover a word. even to the ends ofthe earth. 16-17: Let it [the blessing] come upon the head of Joseph. its great strength bent to servitude.37-38) On this basis we can now decode the imagery of 1 En. Above all. is not a great black-homed beast.^" Here are vv. with large homs. is bom. a puller of loads. Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim. what does the shor and rem imagery represent? Second. and applies to animals other than cattle. Deut. since it can be applied also to the wild ox. and the homs of a rem are his homs. Thereafter the nations—the beasts and birds—are transformed into his likeness. and upon the crown ofthe prince among his brothers.3 (2006) And I saw that a white bull was bom. 90. represented by an aurochs. and the first among them became an aurochs (the aurochs was a great beast and had great black homs on its head).17 Only one biblical verse features bos taurus and bos primogenius together—namely.17. First. and tumed to beef and hide. 2. 20. to whom does it apply? 2a. Then all dwell together in the favour of God. And I saw till all their generations were transformed.218 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. where every firstbom male belonged to YHWH who smote thefirstbomof Egypt. There are two issues to address here. A bearer of burdens. 33. and the Lord ofthe sheep rejoiced over them and over all the oxen. (7 En. symbolized by a white bull. The firstbom ofhis shor. Then the Messiah is transformed into a more splendid state. majesty is his. it lives captive among human dwellings. 90. But the Johannine term is invariably translated with Ethiopic qal. it is milked. all as one. and they all became white bulls. such as elephants and antelope. The Messiah. not nagar. Imagery Although the shor and the rem are both oxen. 13-17). Deuteronomy 33.

at Est. revered. A bull [shor]. 7.17). So the Lord was with Joshua and his fame was in all the land (Josh.\\: There were four whose coinage became current in the world: (i) Abraham. 6. and also the merit ofthe offering. share the aurochs' extreme ferocity and are quite unapproachable. as it says. and the horns of a rem are his horns (Deut. Thefirstborn of his shor. 14. as it is said. 13.17. 4. And the fame of David went out into all the lands (1 Chr. burdened. is not a servant but a king. 23. And I will make of you.17. . or a sheep. Lest I be suspected of reading too much into two beasts. There is then a total contrast between the 'firstborn of a shor' and a rem.2.15).MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 219 violent sacrificial death. 8. Bodenheimer. Deut. as it is said. free. 1. 33. 12.13.2. (ii) Joshua. also notes the ferocity ofthe aurochs. sovereign. as it is said. as it says. Lev. the other. despised and destined to sacrificial death. majesty is his (Deut. for instance. on the other hand. noted above. or a goat when it is born {shall be seven days with its mother. 22. 33.2). (iv) Mordecai. majesty is his. 33. its proverbial ferocity inspiring fear and awe among beholders (Num.^' Any Israelite living within the sphere ofthe cult knew phrase and its costly implications. Num.9-12).9. but it had no place as a sacrifice in Israel's cult (Lev. 15. 3. The oxen of Chillingham Park. which means that his coinage was current in the world.27)].17. 18. p. And what was its effigy? Sackcloth and ashes on one side and a golden crown on the other (cf Est. 22. and his fame went forth throughout all the provinces (Est.23. And what effigy did his coinage bear? An old man and an old woman on one side.4). and destined to life. which means that his coinage was current.22. On hearing Deut.17). corresponding to Your neck is like the tower of David. 21. And what was its effigy? A [shepherd's] staff and bag on one side. 12. And what was its effigy? A shor on one side and a rem on the other." It has no fear of being delivered up as a sacrifice.26. corresponding to Thefirstborn of his shor. Num. etc. and from the eighth day on it shall be accepted as an ojfering made to YHWH byfire (Lev. it roams unyoked in virgin forest and steppe. 14. this too means that his coinage was current. The rem. 12.1. For Mordecai was great in the king's house. (Gen.2). built with turrets (Song 4. Animal and Man. 18.27). 9. 108. (iii) David. and a youth and a maiden on the other. and a tower on the other. R. Job 39. 22.17). A majestic wild beast. the same contrast is noted at Gen. Not only would none dare meddle with it.17.11. as it is said.R.27. One is servile. In [the Zodiacal sign of] Taurus was found the merit of Joseph who was called ox. 27.4). they could hardly have avoided making the connection between Joseph's 5/zor and the sacrifice. just as is done. cf Exod.

But how does the shor become the rem? How does a creature destined to sacrifice become triumphant? Clearly not by avoiding its destiny. 16. If.17 are then one entity in two contrasting states of lowliness and exaltation. This is seen principally from their symbolizing one entity.3 (2006) In each case the two sides ofthe coin present contrasting states of affliction and exaltation. But it is seen also from the 'majesty' which befits him to possess the rew's fearsome homs. 33. domestic. In the Kingdom of Ephraim. being part ofthe blessing on Joseph. namely Joseph (Deut. But whom do they represent? Three possibilities exist. That a transformation of shor to rem is envisaged is seen from the options. rem. First.^^ And with such homs. such a crown. the rem were to become a shor. Mordecai is lifted from the ashheap to power and dignity. Abraham is elevated from the disgrace of childless old age to the blessing of married progeny—Isaac and Rebekah—and a future. Its way to resurgence and transformation must be in some way through sacrifice and death. 2b. 33. .13-16) as the representative head of his tribes (v. Finally the shor and the rem of Deut. or generic—and its homs become in Israelite literature the proper symbol of the Josephites forever. a 23. For if the two were simultaneously one. As with Latin cornus and corona.1) and radiance (Exod. the shor becomes the rem. anointing (1 Sam. so Hebrew qrn supports a complex imagecluster symbolizing kingship (Ps. In their sword-songs they sport iron homs to gore (ngh) the nations. they represent Joseph and his tribes. That would be a mediocre fate altogether compared to the suggested alternative. on the basis of this text. 17). its .220 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. By implication Joshua's shor and rem represent contrasting states of lowliness and exaltation. if the shor becomes the rem. That would make nonsense of the imagery. 34.17 are one. In fact. however.14). the ox—firstborn. ascent from humiliation to lasting triumph. military have a punning brag about acquiring by their strength homs for themselves in reconquering the Transjordanian town of Kamaim (Amos 6. it would be a hybrid without the distinctive characteristics of either. 33. in defiance of their order of appearance in the text.13).29-35). Referent The oxen of Deut. 148. David is raised from shepherd to royal builder of fortifications. they would depict a hero who briefiy triumphs and is then consigned to humiliation.

Ge«. In the Testament of Naphtali 5. Zech. 42. but not Jacob's. Elsewhere in rabbinic literature. The term firstborn has a particular resonance with Ephraim who. by which his sons Ephraim and Manasseh each become tribes of Israel in their own right with their own inheritance (Josh. The verse is routinely applied to Joseph in rabbinic literature.12. 37. having become the exalted rem. 2 Chron.«. there are scores of instances where the oxen of Deut. the first his pronoun of V.24.3 §6.6. Ancient Near Eastern prisons were underground dungeons. 22.10).13-20).1. Joseph was Rachel's firstbom. then the 'firstbom of his shof would be some 24.14). 24. 17. The Symbolism of the Biblical World [London: SPCK. Mount Hermon-Sirion on the northem horizon ofthe Kingdom ofEphraim is likened to a frisky young rem.16. though not a natural firstbom. freedom and life (41. 30. 25.20). Ephraim. 75.95 (MSv[VaticanMS. 9. 27).1-2 says Joseph was granted the rights of Jacob's firstbom in place of disgraced Reuben.6-7.6. 16. 39. becomes an honorary firstbom when his grandfather Jacob again bestows pre-eminence on a lesser son (Gen. 38.3 (Buber 102b/204). Keel. §11. the blameless youth compelled into servitude and delivered to the virtual death of pit and dungeon (Gen. like his father. the homs ofthe wild oxen and the mouth ofthe lion surely represent Ephraim and Judah—signifying by merismus all Israel—united under Saul against David.3.7. obtained. but receives the firstbom's double portion (48.^* And if.95. Wayyigash (Gen. adopts his grandson as his direct heir (50. 26. where Joseph is not only honoured above his brothers (Gen.17-18). 1978]). Jer.Codex30]).2. In Ps. However. In Numbers Rabbah the camp of Ephraim are said to have marched through the Sinai under a banner adomed with a bull-emblem (2.16. the Chronicler draws on what is implicit in Genesis.22).20).^' However a second interpretation is possible.23). 22. 48. like three generations of his progenitors.11.7.3.^" Like the sacrificial victim. cf. Joseph. R. .4.£'xoJ.R. Then.U. In Ps. as we shall see below. 37.11.l. 18. 44. like his father.39-45). In this. Ephraim and Manasseh. 37. his affliction ultimately gave life to Israel (50.MITCHELL Firstborn ShoT and Rem 221 clear allusion to Deut. 1..22 (21).99. titular primogeniture. One can see in the 'firstbom' a reference to a descendant of Joseph through Ephraim. Such shor-rem symbolism surely befits Joseph. Isaac's acquisition of primogeniture is well-known (Gen. 17 refers to Joseph. Lam.2. 2. 86. and so there developed a widespread association between imprisonment and death (see O. 1 Chron. 33. The identification continues in post-biblical literature.18). Cf Isa. on the basis of v.17 represent Joseph or his descendants. 14.17 (1 Kgs 22. Midr Tan.7. 29. 5. 33. but later raised to sovereignty. Est R. Joseph seizes a great black bull with two great homs and eagle' s wings and ascends into the heavens. his homs would represent his vigorous offspring.18).22. on 2.

19-20. 281-84(282).20-27. 24. R." For Joshua did not gore the peoples. 18. 32. 282-83) and advanced by Strack and Billerbeek {Kommentar. §§12-13). 39. E. According to E. Cf Exod. wise man' .28. 33. 29.18.17. Bible verses such as Prov. Josh. 4. p.p. he did not rebel in the desert.-Jon.222 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. 20. R. delivering Israel from the desert and bringing them into the Promised Land. 11. in rabbinic literature 'Joshua is regarded as the type ofthe faithful.C. Mitchell. Hirsch. two beasts. mentioned by Hirsch ('Joshua'. 40. 31. Similar usages elsewhere support this conclusion.13. '"God Will Redeem My Soul fTom Sheol": The Psalms ofthe Sons of Korah'. as did others. his shor. p. 296) against Messiah ben Ephraim's Joshuanic descent. knew both lowliness and exaltation. H.L.4 {shor.11 {shor. 33. 'Joshua'. VIl. At Num. 30. itsfirstbom—andwould represent a hero to arise from Joseph through Ephraim." The obvious candidate for the reference is Joshua. 293. to Exod. like Joseph. deserving. Num. rem: Israel under Joshua's command).^' Instead. rem). Rabbinic literature frequently refers Deut. 7. ft. to Exod. 'the firstbom of a shor' is the offspring ofthe 5/ior. The discrepancy between prediction and event would have led naturally to the conception of a future Joshua who would fulfil the prophecy entirely. 365-84 (368-69).11. 75. 40. The homs of the aurochs would again represent the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh who followed him and gored the nations of Canaan.Num. At Targ.KommentarzumNeuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck. to the ends ofthe earth. Gen. Strack and P.3 (2006) generations down from Joseph—Joseph. 33.12 (firstbom shor). At Deut.11. 27. 1. 'the firstbom of your shor' is the offspring ofthe shor ofthe owner. 2. as here in Deut. 8. see D.750730 (2006). 33.G. humble. but only the seven nations of Canaan.17.17. such an idea was bound to be inferred from Joshua's merely partial fialfilment ofthe words ofthe blessing.9 {shor. as Strack and Billerbeck note.15. He too. inJ£. his voluntary humiliation was ultimately life-giving.11 he is'the head ofthe sanhedrin of his people'. pp. R. rem).48). he humbly served Moses until he was eventually appointed commander of Israel in preference even to Moses' own Like Joseph." is frequently associated with Deut. II. 28.-J. The meturgeman clearly did not hold the belief. 2. Eor the biblical and rabbinic traditions on Korah's rebellion. that Joshua .'' Finally the passage can be taken as referring to afiaturedescendant of Joseph and Joshua. Num. 27.16-18.^'' Like Joshua. Targ. 15. Such a figure. Hirsch.18-23. II. all as one.18.23 are applied to him {Num. and ofthe tribal leader Elishama ben Ammihud (1 Chron. he 27.7 {shor).17 to Joshua also. 29. Ps.'^^ Though an Ephraimite prince. In fact. 33. 7. Joshua was a descendant ofthe only princely line ofEphraim. 1924/1928). three individuals. known in rabbinic literature as Messiah ben Joseph or ben Ephraim. 6. pp. B'i\\erheck.G.14.

Gen. 483 {shor). Nist. . Aggadat Ber. Zurich/Stuttgart: Rascher. 52. Message.17.3). while Yalq.ii: (firstbom shor.Balaq342. R. Kitab 8. 567 {shor). 62 {shor). 49-50. 1948]. 53. 116b. 17.2. firstbom shor). 34. Zohar. Wayyigash (Gen. R.22. Jellinek. Pereq Rav Yoshiyyahu {BHMVl 112-16 [ 115]). A coming Josephite hero. cited in German in S. Meg. As. 1724. he is raised from sacrificial humiliation to triumph. Venice 1601). Pes. 14.]. dying for the sins of IsraeP* and being raised to honour in the messianic kingdom. p. appears to be implicit in it.5. 4. 10. Bat 123b. But the proof-texts cited in JE for this idea {Zeb. 33. R. Jung-Institut. Kitab al amanat.7. 13. Midr Tan.21.\. 745 (firstbom shor). Rosenblatt.16 (Pisqa 353). M. Kitab VIII. See too the latterday ingathering led by the children of Rachel at Sifre on Deut. 299b). one perhaps like Joshua (referred to either prospectively or retrospectively depending on one's view of dating). Josh. rem). 33. Zohar. 5. 4. Otot 9. 1593) on Isa. Samuel b. Texts which see Messiah ben Joseph's death as an atonement include Suk 52a. a Messiah ben Joseph.10.6 (Rosenblatt [ed. M. Bet haMidrash [= BHM] (Jerusalem: Wahrmann. Pir M. Otot 6. R. rather than being a later idea read into Deut. 12.18). Saadia. R.G. 1853-77]. It is applied to Messiah in general at Pes. R. 20. 8. Nist. Midrash Wayyosha 15. 36-37. see. p.c\\\x\t'[. Num. Hai Gaon.g.35-57). Ki Tetze 21 {shor.. 1. Josh. where the filling ofthe nations by Ephraim's seed (Gen. Mishpatim 479. b.13. 36. 34. 95 (MSV). Shim." At this stage we therefore reach an important conclusion.6 (firstbom shor). 301).5. b. Yalq.'' Like Joseph and Joshua. e.Sef Z. 99.1 (firstbom shor). Keli Paz (Venice. 75. 331). M. For his resurrection. 4. There are three reasons why this is so: (1) the text speaks clearly of a Josephite hero.6. 75. 44. Shney Luhot ha-Berit (Furth. 304). 162-63. 2. B. Saadia. Pinhas 565 (firstbom shor).2 (firstbom shor. (2) the imagery ofthe firstbom shor and rem shows that he must suffer sacrificially before being exalted. §9 makes Rahab the ancestress ofthe Judahites of 1 Chron. Saadia. R. Hurwitz. Yok 23 (Mitchell. (3) since Joshua did married Rahab and died without male issue. § 11. 35. 1. Aser Mel.3 (Buber.Ayyalah Sheluhah (Cracow. and trans. 99. Shiakh Lekha 136. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions [Yale Judaica Series. AZ 25a.47-49. §9) do not support the claim. Alshekh. from mci30 "DStoa of R. b. Ag.4. at Ag. 103) (firstbom shor). Gen. Abraham Lanyado. 48.MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 223 Stands at the head of Ephraim and Manasseh to fight the wars of the Lord. 97 (New Version [NV] in Soncino edn.13. Naphtali ben /Ks\\tr K\\s. he appears in Galilee.19) is said to have taken place at Joshua's conquest ofthe land (Josh. 481. Zohar.18 (A. Yoh. 1958).5 (ed. S. 1967 [Leipzig: Vollrath. and trans. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. rem). rem). 14a. 37. 8. p. Marot ha-Zove 'o/(Venice. 1603-1607) on Zech. 1557) on Isa. Gen. Joshua's male issue seem also to be implied at b. R. the territory ofEphraim. PRE 22a. pp. Shim. p. 53. 79 (firstbom shor. New Haven: Yale University Press. Vayyera 478-80.2. Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias: Religionspsychologische Aspekte der jUdischenApokalyptik {Studien aus dem C.

Isa. 10.10). Deut. 7]). represented by the aurochs. but its results are. and the firstbom bull was inevitably destined to sacrificial death.3. nor even the first one bom—the righteous line from Adam are represented by white bulls {1 En. 90. 3." After his suffering and death he will be transformed into a majestic state. For his birth ultimately brings about the transformation of the wild creatures into his likeness. whose whiteness represents his ethical perfection (cf.17 seems to be the source-text for the imagery of 7 En. 51. 89.17 and seems perhaps to be drawing 38. but because it changes into a rem. The death is not described. his whiteness shows his faultless rectitude. Le livre d'Henoch. Moreover. to die as a sacrifice. In the light of Deut. 33.1. Therefore 1 En.9 [Eng. Both are theriomorphic representations of hero-figures. like the hero of Deut.37-38 can be interpreted as follows. he seems to be a firstbom bull. the bull was a sacrificial animal in general. He is therefore the first of a new transforming species.37-38 There is therefore a clear resemblance between 1 En.224 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. 85.17. the homage of the beasts and birds represents his acclamation among the nations. or even of their families. his great homs represent his majesty and power. 33. The Messiah is bom. A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90.17. Joseph and Ephraim the first of their species. and is called the 'first' among those he transforms (v.38 This white bull also represents a sacrificial Messiah. This unblemished creature is destined. Ephraim and Joshua. p. nor was it even his remit (Josh. Here the writer has moved beyond Deut. messianic white bull represents a Messiah from Joseph-Joshua.17. 90. 3.18. He is a perfect sacrifice. This can hardly be coincidental. His representation as an ox shows his lineage from Joseph. like every firstbom male ox in Israel. But neither were the titular firstboms Jacob.37-38 and Deut. For. 1.37-38. 235 n. 90. . it seems like 1 Enoch'?. 39. Ps. 33. 11). Of course he is not the first white bull. We are therefore justified in appealing to the former to interpret the latter. 37). 33. both feature the same two bovids in the same order.3 (2006) not fiilfil the conquest of all nations. as we have noted. This is not simply because of the symbol ofthe bull or ox. So too Martin. Rather. 33. 33.17. as in Deut. 9. The first result is that the human race is transformed into white bulls in the Messiah's image. Their primogeniture was one of pre-eminence. this hero was bound to be looked for in the future.

But insofar as they are all white bulls. 'Why should the Messiah change from being a domestic animal into a wild animal of the same species?''"' The answer is now clear. the sheep.17 and innocent Joseph— from his former servile state into a new one of sovereignty and power. resurrection. Final Observations We are now in a position to respond to some final objections. and that the Messiah. not simply a continuation of Israel. which repeatedly identify Messiah ben Joseph-Ephraim with this 40. For the patriarchs do not become aurochses.38] is generally regarded as an allusion to Deut.38 is surely due to his failure in reading Deut. Likewise Rowley's failure to connect Messiah ben Ephraim with the War Messiah or mashuah milhamah appears to be due to his lack of awareness of rabbinic traditions on the subject.16f. Lindars. as does the Messiah. 33. pp. Since both these animals are a biblical symbol for a hero from Joseph-Ephraim."" Rowley's inability to see Messiah ben Ephraim in 1 En. 41. The second result is that the Messiah himself is transformed—as with the shor of Deut. .17. then it cannot refer to anyone other than a coming Josephite deliverer for the reasons given above. Lindars remarked. one may respond that they are not altogether the same. is the head ofa new race. 33. like the patriarchs. 4. 'Suffering Servant'. Rowley.12). Rowley objected to Torrey's identification ofthe nagar with Messiah ben Joseph-Ephraim as follows: The fact that this [J En.16-17. 76-77. is not very clear evidence that the writer of 1 Enoch was thinking ofthe Messiah ben Ephraim.MnCHELL Firstborn ShoT and Rem 225 on texts such as Isa. If it is an allusion to Deut. 'A Bull. were patient bearers ofthe yoke of Torah. as he allows.3-89.. 53. and that later speculation interpreted that Biblical passage ofthe warrior Messiah. Such a figure may justly be called Messiah ben Ephraim. the God of Israel. like the Messiah. If it be objected that bulls represent the line from Adam to Isaac throughout the Apocalypse (85. This surely implies his retum from death to life—whether by reincamation. Then the exalted Messiah and all redeemed humankind live in the favour ofthe Lord ofthe Sheep. p. or some other reappearance—as surely as the firstbom bull was destined to die. the writer chose them to represent just such a figure.11. 90. 90. 33. 485. a Lamb and a Word'. 33. the writer may wish to suggest that the patriarchs.

L 103a (§ 11. 53 with Messiah ben Ephraim (pp. pp. on the basis of these premises. . the same transformation appears in Deut.2: 'the War Messiah. R. 698 n.17) to the War Messiah."*^The same shortcoming is unfortunately evident in his other remarks on Messiah ben Joseph. There can be no ground for objection to such a conclusionjoer^e. since a dying and resurrected Joseph-Joshua Messiah is a familiar figure in rabbinic literature. Kommentar. Gen. Aggadat Bereshit §63 {BHMW. J. 74-77)."" The only objection can be to the dating ofthe idea. Freedman and M. Strack and Billerbeck. The Midrash (London: Soncino. p. in 1 En. 33. 2. II. 75. M. and the nagar-rem represents his post-mortem resurgence in sovereignty and power.226 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. 1939). 'Eine unbekannte judische Sekte'. 90.37-38 the messianic white bull becomes an aurochs. 90. L. A^uw. 292. For Rowley's views that there is no evidence linking Zech. 1950). p.3): 'in the age to come a War Messiah is going to arise from Joseph'. p. and 'Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums' where I present the genealogical and textual evidence for his Joshuanic descent. 43. 14.37-38 portrays an anticipated Joseph-Joshua Messiah destined to sacrificial death. H. and the Midrashic Literature (New York.17.3 (2006) veryfigure.1. p. A Dictionary ofthe Targumim. see also n. 90. 216). 6. p. Ginzberg. pp. 33.6. Therefore. For the necessity of Messiah ben Joseph's descent from Joshua as well as fi-om Joseph. Sot 8. ihe Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi. Mo'r. 552. But in eschatological contexts the reference is always to Messiah ben Joseph. First. The same conclusion is made by many commentators: Dalman. Strangely enough Knibb thinks the nagar is a War Messiah. whom he regards as a priestly figure (The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. 1-15 (7). Tan. Gen. we may conclude that the white bull of 7 En. 12.37-38 is dependent on Deut. see my 'The Fourth Deliverer'. HTR 68 (1975)."' 5. R. 395-429 (421).1: 'the War Messiah who eomes from Ephraim'. Simon. where the two oxen represent sacrificial and triumphant aspects ofa coming Joseph-Joshua hero.17. p. 99. Jastrow. 76). 73-74). I. 'a War Messiah will arise fi^om Joseph'. 125 n. nor any linking the suffering servant of Isa.2 applies Moses' blessing on Joseph (Deut. pp. 33. 'The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus ofthe Tribe of Ephraim'. 99. Second. 42. Yoma 72b). the unique coincidence of imagery in these two passages strongly suggests that 1 En. There are two passages where the mashuah milhamah is apparently a priest (m. nor any that the death of Messiah ben Ephraim was ever thought of as vicarious (p. 3. Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 58 (Breslau 1914). 852 ('Mashiah'). Conciusion I have reasoned as follows. IX.10 with Messiah ben Ephraim in pre-Christian times ('Suffering Servant'. see my 'Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums' where the allegedly non-existent evidence is cited at length. p. Heinemann. who will be descended from Joseph'. 44. Der leidende. Third. Kuntres Acharon §20 to Yalkut Shimoni on the Pentateuch (S//A/VL79-90 [81]): 'a War Messiah is going to arise fi-om Joseph'. 37 above.

1973).. p. There is a widespread view that Messiah ben Joseph developed out to the defeat of Bar Kokhba in 135 CE. 1-15). 1874). 293. II. 357. Kommentar. Its Josephite ox-hero who will subdue all nations must have elicited early speculation about an eschatological suffering and rising Joshua. pp. J.13-53. D. 'Rabbi Dosa'. III. 109-15. 37-71)ofatranscendent heavenly figure with features of the mashiah of Ps. 434-35. p.. Strack and Billerbeck.13. Castelli. p. pp. The Messianicldea in Israel (London: Allen & Unwin. J. . Edersheim. 139-40.''^ 1 Enoch 90.. Kommentar.g.24 may be another source ofthe idea. See. Benj. J. 1876/1889). Der leidende und sterbende Messias der Synagoge (Berlin: Ruether. 768. Dalman. 'Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums'.H. 7. 46. 47. 1870). 294. 1971 [s. e. 553. 89-90."^ It has implications for the authenticity of other second century BCE texts which are regarded on ideological grounds as Christian interpolations. G. pp. pp. 46-48. and the servant of Yhwh of Isa. 110. 69-71) is equated with Isaiah's servant and is exalted through death. the son of man of Dan. M. pp.g. This may in fact be the true source ofthe Messiah ben Joseph idea. more ofthe relevant literature is cited in Rowley. e. and not from any doubt that Deut. p. Drummond. Realenzyklopddie des Judentums (Strelitz i. who argues that 1 Enoch's Son of Man (chs. 1877). Strack and Billerbeck.12. Klausner. 487-92.17 is itself a source. 33. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hurwitz.p. 62-63. The literature on the subject is vast.8. It adds its witness to the case for the idea existing in all essentials centuries before the first rabbinic references. 2. The Jewish Messiah (London: Longmans. A. 49. Die Leiden des Messias (Leipzig. pp... J. I have made the same point in Mitchell. pp. It has implications in turn for the history of interpretation of Deut. // Messia secondo gli Ebrei (Florenz: Fues.MITCHELL Firstborn Shor and Rem 227 for it has long been maintained that the suffering Josephite Messiah dates from long after the Animal Apocalypse. 270-72. G. Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias. II. Jeremias. 'The Fourth Deliverer'."'Indeed. 1956). Green & Co. p. II. 178-80. p.l 1883]). Neuhebrdisches und chalddisches Worterbuch (Leipzig: n. 79 n. My caution comes from recognizing the possibility that Gen.: n. 33. 'Suffering Servant'. 1888). 1874). Jesus the Jew (London: Collins. pp. 49. Hamburger. Wunsche. 76-83. Similar views are found in J.37-3 8 therefore has implications for the dating ofthe Josephite Messiah. Deutsche Theologie (1929). One thinks particularly of T. 45. but see. 'Erioser und Erlosung in Spatjudentum'. A. 3. 'Mashiah'. Vermes. 52. the idea and its symbolism must have been already well established when the Animal Apocalypse appeared for its theriomorphic code to have been comprehensible. Levy.p. whose spotless Josephite It is worth noting at this point that the case has long been made for the existence in the Book of Similitudes (7 En.17. Similarly Heinemann has suggested that an existing militant Ephraim Messiah became a dying messiah by analogy with Bar Kokhba ('The Messiah of Ephraim'. p. 1.

5.256-59 whose sun-stopping (Joshua) pre-eminent man shall come again from heaven to where he spread on the fruitful wood his hands. there are implications for Christian origins. O'Neill regards both these passages as essentially pre-Christian. J. and suggests that they originated in closely related circles ('The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time ofthe Second Commonwealth'. pp. and oiSib. 2-30. 48.C. HTR 52 [1959].3 (2006) Lamb of God shall die for the ungodly. The Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs and the Qumran literature. 149-85 [149]). JSNT2 (1979). Liver notes the considerable similarity in ideas. pp. 'The Man from Heaven: SibOr 5. the Book ofJubWees. . Perhaps the New Testament writers were not the first Israelites to believe that a second Joshua ben Joseph would die as a sacrifice for the transformation ofthe human race and then rise to power.228 Journal for the Study ofthe Pseudepigrapha 15. pp. see 'The Lamb of God in the Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs'."^ Finally. concepts and terminology between / Enoch. 87-102.256-59'. Or. J5P9 (1991). J.