I just finished reading The
Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyarin. I
was very impressed. Boyarin’s engaging
book succeeded in reinforcing some things I knew, in opening me up to accept
new possibilities and understandings of the early Jewish Church, and in getting
me to think critically about the context of the Gospels.
One thing that intrigued me from the start is that Boyarin
is an Orthodox “non-Christian Jew” (to use some of his terminology). I read
something a while back commenting on the high volume of books about Jesus
coming out recently by Jewish authors such as Amy Jill-Levine’s Jewish Annotated New Testament or Rabbi
Shmuley Boteach’s Kosher Jesus. It seems that the Jewishness of Jesus is
getting more exposure, which is encouraging.
Boyarin’s main point was that the Gospels are particularly
Jewish in their context, style, and content. He challenges the common view that
distinctively “Christian” doctrines such as the divinity of Messiah or the
suffering Redeemer led to an early split between Christianity and Judaism. Instead, he argues that all these ideas were
well developed in first century Jewish theology. The distinction and the controversy was that
Yeshua claimed to fulfill these Messianic and divine expectations.
One point he develops early on is that the distinction
between Christianity and Judaism was ambiguous for much longer than I had
originally thought. I have usually
pinned the Bar Kokhba Revolt (early second century) as one of the defining
points driving the wedge between Christianity and its Jewish roots. Boyarin points
out that as late as the council of Nicaea and afterwards, sources indicate that
the “problem” of Jewish Christians (or Christian Jews from the Rabbinic side of
things) was still very relevant. He
cites Jerome (347-420) who talked about a sect referred to by the Rabbis as “minei”
or “Nazarenes” who followed Jewish practices but whose beliefs were essentially
those of the Nicene Creed. Apparently,
this group of Jewish Christians didn’t fit in with either side of the
developing religions of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. Not too much has changed in the past 1600
years. The resurgence of the Messianic movement in the past century suffers
some of the same issues.
I really enjoyed the exposition of Daniel 7 about the “one
like a Son of Man”. It’s interesting to
see that the concept of a second divine person (eventually to be equated with
the Messiah) was present in Judaism well before Jesus. He dates the book of
Daniel like many scholars to be written in the second century BC. I prefer an earlier date for the book much
closer to the Babylonian captivity. If that is the case, these ideas were very
early players in Jewish theology. And there are other passages in the Prophets
that point to a divine Messiah as well. Boyarin
does an excellent job connecting these ideas from the Tanakh and Jewish
tradition prior and contemporary to the Gospels with Jesus’ claims in the
Gospels. He focuses mainly on the Gospel
of Mark which has challenged me to spend some more time studying that Gospel
this summer. He explains some of the scenes in Mark such as Yeshua’s words and
actions on Shabbat in light of the Messianic and divine overtones of describing
himself as the “Son of Man.” He argues that ironically the title “Son of God”
highlights the humanity of Yeshua as the Messiah while “Son of Man” makes his
claim to divinity. I hadn’t thought of
that before. He also offers good explanations of Yeshua’s views on ceremonial
washing, keeping kosher, and the necessary suffering of Messiah. He points out that even later Rabbis (into
the Middle Ages) held traditions of a suffering Messiah based on Isaiah 53 and
other similar passages. Since these Rabbis
admittedly had no great love or sympathy for Yeshua, these ideas must not have
originated with him. He just had the
audacity to apply these divine Messianic Redeemer identifications to himself.
A couple small criticisms that didn’t really take away much
from the overall point of the book: It
was harder for me to follow the discussion on 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra probably
because I’m not as familiar with these non-canonical books. That’s probably
something I should look into more though. In this discussion though he spent a
lot of time describing how theophany (God manifesting Himself as a man) and apotheosis
(a man becoming God) are doctrines that had been developing in the centuries
before Jesus and were merged in the Gospels.
I would argue that Christianity is more a story of theophany than
apotheosis. It’s almost as if he’s making a case for henotheism much like in
Mormon theology. An example of where I would disagree is Boyarin’s claim that
at his baptism, Yeshua became God (apotheosis).
Yeshua was pre-existent as the divine Messiah but chose to humble himself to
live as a man while never becoming any less than God. So there’s no need for
the human Messiah Yeshua to ascend to divinity. I know Boyarin is a scholar, so
that is the approach he takes, but his tone and discussion of early Canaanite
religion and the developing Jewish theology almost makes it sound like God, or
the concept of God, is a continually changing entity rather than the immutable
creator of all who chooses to reveal Himself to us.
Overall, this was great book. It was a quick read but there’s so much good
stuff in there that I will probably be skimming sections again for a while.
