The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Peter Kirby »

In an interesting recent post at Vridar, the text of Sukkah 52a is quoted:

http://vridar.org/2017/04/20/continuing ... n-messiah/
Our rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be he, will say to Messiah ben David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), “Ask of me anything and I will give it to you,” as it is said, “I will tell of the decree [of the Lord],” etc. “This day I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Ps. 2). But when he will see that Messiah ben Joseph is slain, he will say to him, “Lord of the universe, I ask of you only life.”
Neil Godfrey interprets:
Interestingly the Messiah ben David in this passage has not till now made his mark in the end-time drama and his first act on his appearance is to forgo invitations to ask great things for himself and to request, instead, the resurrection of Messiah ben Joseph.
This seemed logical, even though the text wasn't very clear about the meaning of "I ask of you only life."

I wanted to look up this and other relevant passages, for my edification, and I was surprised to find how the quote continues:

http://dtorah.com/otzar/shas_soncino.ph ... kah&df=52a
Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!) , 'Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee', as it is said, I will tell of decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance.

But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him, 'Lord of the Universe, I ask of The only the gift of life'.'

'As to life', He would answer him, 'Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you', as it is said, He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him, [even length of days for ever and ever].
Wow.... uh.... wow.

The quote is from Psalm 21:5, which says, "He asked life of You, You gave it to him, Length of days forever and ever."

So the text says that "life" (there is no request for resurrection per se) is something that David "has already prophesied this concerning you" (clearly the Messiah ben David), and this prophecy read, "He asked life of You, You gave it to him, Length of days forever and ever."

So the Messiah ben David asked for "life" and was granted "length of days forever and ever." The request may have been humble or not (perhaps more humble because he asks "only" for life... an adjective that makes just as much sense when asking "only" to live), but the outcome sounds pretty "great" -- for the Messiah ben David. He gets to survive the battle at the end of days and is prophesied, anyway, to live on forever. Sweet deal.

The William Davidson Talmud translation (which expands the text, mind you) makes this translator's interpretation clear.

http://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.51a?lang=bi
The Sages taught: To Messiah ben David, who is destined to be revealed swiftly in our time, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Ask of Me anything and I will give you whatever you wish, as it is stated: “I will tell of the decree; the Lord said unto me: You are My son, this day have I begotten you, ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession” (Psalms 2:7-8). Once the Messiah ben David saw Messiah ben Yosef, who was killed, he says to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I ask of you only life; that I will not suffer the same fate. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to him: Life? Even before you stated this request, your father, David, already prophesied about you with regard to this matter precisely, as it is stated: “He asked life of You, You gave it to him; even length of days for ever and ever” (Psalms 21:5).
Still, I can almost see how one could try to turn this one around. Maybe we know somehow (I know not how) that the life asked for and given to Messiah ben David was indeed the life of Messiah ben Yosef. It does make a certain narrative sense, at least to my modern sensibilities; I was shocked to find out the interpretation did not really look to have been a request for the Messiah ben Yosef's resurrection at all.

So, getting the interpretation right or wrong--well, that's a gentleman's debate. I could have it all wrong right now. It's possible.

Leaving off the most damning part of the quotation, neglecting to note the alternative interpretation, and stating things that are not in the text (like "resurrection") so matter-of-factly is quite another. Has someone else misled? Was it sourced this way from some article?

I usually quite enjoy these blog posts and literature romps and have found them to be pretty fair-handed overall.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by neilgodfrey »

Just one correction: the interpretation is not mine. The post you are citing is a continuation of my outline of David C. Mitchell's argument: Mitchell, D. C. 2005. “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah Ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud” in Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 8, 1, 77-90. doi:10.1163/157007005774514016

In both posts covering his article I express some reservations about his methods and conclusion but gently (I hope) so as still try to allow his argument stand in its own right and for others to make up their own minds with as little interference from me as possible.

Elsewhere I have criticized the methods he uses to date traditions etc from the Talmudic literature. But writing up posts like this gives me an opportunity to grasp more thoroughly the arguments in question while at the same time sharing the resources with anyone else who is interested.

I was aware of the apparent flow of the narrative in which Messiah ben David is the one who is given eternal life, of course, but that's an interpretation I decided to shelve for another day until I do more reading. Firstly, I only have English translations and I don't know the original Aramaic (presumably) text. So for that reason alone I'd want to do some more background reading before jumping to any conclusions.

Secondly, the post you have addressed is not just part of a pair, but that pair of posts is part of a larger series that began, if I recall correctly, with a post on the Book of Zerubbabel and the narratives in Jewish literature that unambiguously state that the Messiah ben David emerges on the scene in order to enable the resurrection of Messiah ben Joseph who had just been slain in battle.

The posts I have been doing have been to some extent a part-record of some of the reading I have been doing as a result of Martha Himmelfarb's book on the Book of Zerubbabel, following up endnotes, casting wider nets, etc. (Fwiw, Himmelfarb is critical of Mitchell's approach and I do side with her criticisms. But I am only part way through and want to present various arguments as neutrally as I can at this stage in particular.)

If I had only read the one tractate I would of course never have any reason to think that Messiah ben David was saying some magic lines to resurrect ben Joseph, but that tractate leaves many gaps. It is cryptic. Things are described but not explained. So it assumes certain reader background knowledge -- and other passages as I mention are what lead to the view that Messiah ben David is there to see Messiah ben Joseph is raised up again. My impression at this stage is that this is an uncontroversial point.

I seem to recall reading somewhere (I might be wrong) that someone interpreted the passage subsequent to ben Joseph's revival as a reward then given to Messiah ben David -- that he, too, then gains eternal life: but I would need to find where that idea comes from, because other passages indicate Messiah ben David is immortal to begin with anyway. He's been hanging around Rome/Constantinople, a figure of destitution, just waiting, waiting, forever or at least generations, it is inferred, for his day to come.

As for "resurrection" of ben Joseph, Mitchell's footnote is:
57. Some texts speak specifically of his resurrection: Otot 9.1; Sef. Zer. 49-50;
Saadia, Kitab al-Amanat 8.6 (Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, p. 309);
Pir. Mash. 5.49 (BHM VI, 115); Per. R. Yosh.; Zohar, Shlakh Lekha 136; Balaq 342.
Others imply that he will rise among others at the resurrection: Agg. Mash. 2.22;
Aser. Mel. 4; NRSY 35; Midr. Way. 15.18.
Your interpretation might be right, but I simply have not read widely or deeply enough to know if it is the whole story or if it is based on misleading English translations or what the history of the different parts of the narrative might be.

My point was to write only what I had read in some detail and where I felt I was on safest ground. As I learn more I'll post more. I've changed my mind and revised my views several times on different points over the years. I am sure (at least I hope) I will continue to do so as I learn more.

A "gentleman's debate"? Something I have very rarely encountered anywhere on the web. But I'm more interested in learning, not debating. Debating too often seems to me to be a wasted diversion from learning and serious discussions.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Peter Kirby wrote:In an interesting recent post at Vridar, the text of Sukkah 52a is quoted:

http://vridar.org/2017/04/20/continuing ... n-messiah/
Our rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be he, will say to Messiah ben David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), “Ask of me anything and I will give it to you,” as it is said, “I will tell of the decree [of the Lord],” etc. “This day I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Ps. 2). But when he will see that Messiah ben Joseph is slain, he will say to him, “Lord of the universe, I ask of you only life.”
just as an interesting aside

Esther Mark
5:3 “What is it, Queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you ..."
7:2 “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request?
9:12 Now what is your wish? It shall be granted you. And what further is your request? It shall be fulfilled.”
6:23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, ..."
10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.”
10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 51 And Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
it's all there

EstherMark
7:3 Then Queen Esther answered, “If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be granted me for my wish, and my people for my request. 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Secret Alias »

Might it not have been more appropriate then to have cited Matthew's version of this incident KK? I strongly suspect so.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Nathan
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Nathan »

It's the Messiah ben David who receives eternal life in the targum on Psalm 21.
O Lord, in your strength the King Messiah reigns ... You have given him the desire of his soul ... He asked of you everlasting life; you gave him length of days, for ever and ever.
(The designation "King Messiah" is reserved for Messiah ben David in rabbinic literature.)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Secret Alias »

It is interesting to note that if the gospel was originally written in Hebrew 'this is my beloved' = 'this is my David.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by neilgodfrey »

Context of the post in question:

First part of the doublet began:
I don’t know the answer to the question in the title (in part because much depends upon how we define and understand the origins of “Christianity”) but I can present here one argument for the possibility that there was a belief among various Judeans prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE that a future messiah was destined to be killed. (This post goes beyond previous posts addressing messianic-like interpretations of the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 53 that we find in Daniel and the Enoch literature and builds upon other earlier posts addressing the evidence in later rabbinic and other Jewish writings.)

We focus here on a 2005 article by David C. Mitchell in Review of Rabbinic Judaism, “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah Ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud“. I find a number of aspects of the article questionable, but nonetheless Mitchell does present a somewhat technical argument in support of the possibility of a pre-Christian belief in a slain messiah.
I copy the first of these passages, Sukkoth 52a, as Mitchell himself sets it out. . .
In that first post I did keep the reader reminded that what was being discussed was Mitchell's article:
I understand from Mitchell’s discussion that . . . .

Mitchell argues that the Aramaic script is the work of Amoraic (post 200 CE) rabbis commenting on a tradition from the Tannaitic era (prior to 200 CE). He disagrees with another scholar . . . .

Let’s back up a little. Let’s see what light the broader context might be able to shed on the question of dating. . . .

As Mitchell puts it, the rabbinic discussion here represents what must have been a great debate before such a change to the Temple. . . .

On Mitchell’s interpretation, therefore, the belief that Zechariah 12:10 applied to a future Messiah ben Joseph to come in the last days and be slain at the dawn of the messianic age was extant in 65 CE. . . . .

In support of the possibility that some Jews interpreted Zechariah 12 as a pointer to an end-time slain messiah even in the decades preceding 65 CE, Mitchell writes. . . .
I concluded with a note that I would continue Mitchell's argument a later post ....
I will ... reserve Mitchell’s discussions of the remaining two earliest records of Messiah ben Joseph for a future post.
I introduced that second post as "a case" -- which seemed appropriate given that I was discussing only Mitchell's paper.

Continuing a case for an early Jewish belief in a slain messiah

Unfortunately I got slack and did not make the point as explicit as often in the opening paragraphs of the post that I was discussing Mitchell's article -- but I did just dive straight into the argument without a normal introduction, assuming that that was enough of a signal to readers that the post was a direct continuation from the previous one.

But before the end of the post I did make it clear whose ideas were being discussed:
Mitchell finds three key issues for dating the origin of the above third Messiah son of Joseph reference”: the Righteous Priest, the names in which the tradition is transmitted and the Qumran text 4Q175. . . .
In my conclusion, as in my intro in the first post, I distanced myself from a personal commitment to the arguments discussed:
So there you have it (if you don’t have the original article). These are arguments for the circulation as early as the mid first century CE of a belief in an end-time messiah destined to be killed, whose death had some sort of atoning power (his death being associated with a removal of evil from the land), who was associated with Zechariah 12:10 — and who was a point of dispute among rabbis. Make of them what you will.

Mitchell, D. C. 2005. “Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis Differ: Messiah Ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud” in Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 8, 1, 77-90. doi:10.1163/157007005774514016
Lesson learned: don't miss micro-opportunities to remind readers whose arguments one is presenting. :geek:
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by neilgodfrey »

I must apologise. In trying to track down one point of Mitchell's interpretation I see that I have in my notes conflated two different Mitchell articles. The second article is "A Dying and Rising Josephite Messiah in 4Q372" (2009, JSP) and it is from there that I took the footnote above.

Mitchell does not state in reference to Suk 52a that Messiah ben David asked for the resurrection of Messiah ben Joseph and I need to correct that in my original post. I regrettably conflated two different articles of Mitchell when presenting that point.

On the more general point about Messiah ben David's request for life in Suk 52a, Himmelfarb interprets this request as a dig against Christianity's claim for the messiahship of Jesus: Jesus had to be granted eternal life, whereas Messiah ben David was told by God in reply that, in effect, he had no need to ask for eternal life because he already had it. (This is where English translations can sometimes lead us to gloss over important nuances.) Recall that Messiah ben David had been living "forever" in "Rome", unrecognised, before the last days when he is given rulership over the nations.

I am still trying to track down additional interpretations -- I did not keep track of these because my focus at the time was on the arguments of the dating of the concept of a dying messiah. I see now that that focus also led to a confusion of two different articles by the same author.

I have corrected the original post.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Interpretation of Sukkah 52a

Post by Peter Kirby »

Cool, thanks for all this additional detail and explanation on this topic. Very helpful.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply