"Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" ~ John 8:48

Even during the time of Christ it was understood that Jesus was of the house of Joseph and many Jewish leaders of the Rabbinical class so taught that the Messiah would be the Son of Joseph of Egypt. When charged of being of the Samaritan order, a descendant of Ephraim mixed with other nations, Christ DID NOT deny the fact that he could well be stated to be a Samaritan. And though the Jewish made the statement is a slanderous manner adding that he had a devil within him, making their slander blasphemous as well, it was only the charge of being possessed of the devil that the Lord did call them on in the blaspheme against him. This is an important concept to understand as we begin a more concerted analysis of the Rabbinical teaching concerning the Messiah though it has been referenced before in this work. And the reason that it is important to first re-establish that the Jews of Jesus day did also consider that Jesus was to be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt is to more fully understand that the teachings of the Rabbis did not just happen to fall out of the sky from nowhere. Their teachings though of a corrupted nature due to personal interpretations, was will founded in Jewish fact and not fiction.

Until the second century A.D., the Jewish concept of the Messiah was still that there was but one Messiah and NOT TWO. Yet almost out of necessity the Rabbinical Jews of the second century began to divide the Messiah into two Messiah figures. And that corrupt Jewish division assigned those scriptures which referred to the suffering and dying Messiah to of course NOT the presumed Jewish Messiah of David, but the 'lesser' Messiah of Joseph. And the understanding that the house of David was legally and rightfully of the house of Joseph through Ephraim became covered and discarded by most. Yet in some sectors of the Rabbinical teachings various simblances did remain and they did span the spectrum from Messiah ben David being truly of Ephraimite descent to proclaiming that the Ephraimite Messiah was the one true Messiah. But most 'mainstream' Jewish Rabbis took to the division of the Messiah into two, assigning the esteemed lesser consideration to be that of Messiah ben Joseph and the more glorious asspects of the Messiah they preferably bestowed upon who they considered to be their own Messiah, the Jewish Messiah; Messiah ben David.

In imparting the blessing Jacob said to Ephraim: "Ephraim, the heads of the tribes, the chiefs of the yeshibot, and the best
and most prominent of my children shall be called after thy name" (Lev. R. ii.); Joshua, Deborah, Barak, Samuel, Messiah
ben Joseph, and Messiah ben David were Ephraimites (Pesik, R. 37 [ed. Friedmann, p. 164a]).

This comes from the Jewish Encylopedia under the topic of Ephraim as Rabbinical literature concerning Ephraim. Now true to the 'Two Messiah' creation of the Rabbis, both Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are listed. But not according to the pride of the Jews, in truth Messiah ben David is stated to be an Ephraimite. Now of course Samuel was only referred to as being an Ephrathite as being that line of Levi who was assigned to live in the lands of Ephraim. But the concept that the promised Messiah was to be a descendant of Joseph of Egypt and more specifically was to be a descendant of Ephraim was NOT totally lost among the traditions of the Jews. It was so when Philip anounced to Nathanael that, 'We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' (John 1:45). Now again, Philip knew not the man Jesus well enough to know of his immediate parentage, but he did clearly and plaining state as recorded by John, that Moses and the Prophets had so written that Jesus would be of Nazareth (Matthew 2:23) and that Jesus would be the son of Joseph, even that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, the son of Jacob.