[5371] Numb. xxiv. 17.
[5372] So also both Levy (Neuhebr. Wörterb. vol. iii. p. 271 a) and Hamburger (Real. Encykl. f. Bib. u. Talm., Abtheil.ii.p.768). I must here express surprise that a writer so learned and independent as Castelli (II Messia, pp. 224-236) should have argued that the theory of a Messiah, son of Joseph, belonged to the oldest Jewish tradtions, and did not arise as explained in the text. The only reason which Castelli urges against a view, which he admits to be otherwise porbable, is that certain Rabbinic statements speak also of the Son of David as suffering. Even if this ere so, such inconsistencies would prove nothing, since there are so many instances of them in Rabbinic writtings. But, really, the only passage which from its age here deserves serious attention in Sanh. 98 a and b. In Yalkut the suffering Messiah is expressly designated as the Son of Ephraim.
[5373] In Bemidb. R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, lines 9 and 8 from bottom), the days of the Messiah' are specially distinguished from the Athid labho,' soeculum futurum. In Tanchuma (Eqebh, ed. Warsh. ii. p. 105 a about the middle) it is said, And after the days of the Messiah comes the "Olam habba"' - so that the Messianic time is there made to include the soeculum futurum. Again, in Pes. 68 a and Sanh. 91 b, the days of the Messiah' are distinguished from the Olam habba,' and, lastly (not to multiply instances), in Shabb. 113 b from the Athid labho.
[5374] Siphré, ed Friedmann, p. 134 a, about the middle.
[5375] Tanchuma, as in Note 3.
[5376] 40 years = "the" wilderness wanderings: 1000 years = one day, Ps. xc. 4; 2000 years of salvation = the day of vengeance and the year of salvation' (Is. lxiii. 4); 7000 years = the marriage-week (Is. lxii. 5), a day being = 1000 years.
[5377] This confirms St. John vii. 26, and affords another evidence that it cannot have been of Ephesian authorship, but that its writer must have been a Jew, intimately conversant with Jewish belief.
[5378] But here opinions are divided, some holding that they will never be restored. See both opinions in Sanh. 110 b.
[5379] Yalkut on Is. vol. ii. p. 42 c; Siphra, ed. Weiss. 112 b.
[5380] Sanh. 113 a.
[5381] Kethub. 111 a.
[5382] iv. Esd. vi. 23 &c.
[5383] On the Resurrection-body, the bone Luz, the dress worn, and the reappearance of the former bodily defects, see previous remarks, pp. 398, 399.
[5384] In this extremely condensed abstract, I have thought it better not to cumber the page with Rabbinic references. They would have been too numerous, and the learned reader can easily find sufficient to bear on each clause in books treating on the subject..
[5385] See Book III. ch. iii. and Appendix XIV.
[5386] Such as even the wearing of the phylacteries (comp. Ber. R. 98; Midr. on Ps. xxi.)
[5387] Midr. on Cant. ii. 13 (ex rec. R. Martini, Pugio Fidei, pp. 782, 793); Yalkut ii. par. 296.
[5388] Vayyik. R. 9, 27; Midr on Ps. lvi.; c.
[5389] Midr. on Ps. cxlvi.; Vavy. R. 13; Tanch., Shemini 7 and 8.
[5390] Yalkut on Is. xxvi.; Sanh. 97 a; Ab. Z. 9 a.
[5391] Babha B 75 a.
[5392] Yalkut ii. p. 57 b, par. 363, line 3.
[5393] Babh B. 75 b.
[5394] Gen. xviii. 4, 5.
[5395] Ber. R. 48.
[5396] Shabb. 30 b.
[5397] Kethub. 111 b.
[5398] Shabb. 30 a, b.
[5399] Midr. on Ps. xiv.
[5400] Is. xxv. 8.
[5401] Is. lxv. 20.
[5402] Ber. R. 12.
[5403] Bemidb. R. 13.
[5404] They are the following six: His splendour, the continuance of life, his original more than gigantic stature, the fruits of the ground, and of trees, and the brightness of the heavenly lights.
[5405] Vayyik. R. 13, end.
[5406] Ber. R. 65.