Review of Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ

Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New Press, 2012, ISBN 9781595584687.

Daniel Boyarin’s newest book argues that Jesus was fully Jewish and that the gospels are equally fully Jewish. He argues that there were sects of Judaism that were expecting the Messiah to be both human and divine. He further argues that Jesus’ activities can be understood from the framework of second temple Judaism. He considers the Jewish background of the terms “son of man” and “son of God” and explains what these terms meant to some in the late second temple period. Further, he considers Mark 7 considering kosher law as an example to consider as it is often used to show discontinuity between Jesus and Judaism. Boyarin argues that Jesus’ argument in Mark 7, while being a critique of the Pharisee’s interpretation of Torah, was not in fact challenging the Torah (or food laws specifically) at all.  Boyarin’s work is a helpful book for all of those who are unclear about the Jewish background to the Son of Man and Son of God language in Daniel, or those who do not understand the difference between purity and morality in Judaism. The strength of the book is that his thesis is quite convincing – Jesus was surely Jewish and the Jesus movement, as expressed in the New Testament, was in the Jewish framework for the most part. The weakness of the book is that while the thesis is convincing, it is also mundane – most people who are careful readers of the New Testament are quite clear that Jesus was Jewish and this book only affirms what they already knew. However, some of the specific points that Boyarin discusses are quite interesting and the book ought to be read if only for these elements.

Brief Summary

Boyarin begins by arguing that not only was there not a “Christianity” during Jesus’ lifetime, there was not even a “Judaism.” Speaking of the terms as “world religions,” Boyarin is surely correct. Further, there is no evidence in the New Testament, save th[1]e book of 1 Peter, that the Jesus movement is seen as something distinct from Judaism. The authors of the New Testament are not imaging a new world religion – they believe they are expressing the truth in continuity with the truth they have always known – that of Israel. This aspect is not surprising. What might be more surprising is his argument that at this time there was no “Judaism.” He points out properly that “Iudaismos” – the Greek word meaning “Judaism” is not attested at this time period. The term Iudaioi (Jews) certainly was, but the “philosophy of Jews” (Judaism) did not yet exist. Boyarin’s point is that not only was there not a monolithic group of Jews (as most everyone knows about the sectarian differences in the first century – e.g. the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.), but there was not even a concept of a monolithic Judaism as a world religion. There were many Jews who believed many things with a mostly common tradition – but they were not necessarily part of a monolithic “religion.” They tended to identify with one another in meaningful ways, but this was due to ethnicity in practice rather than a formal “religion.”[2]

After developing this theoretical framework, then Boyarin shows what the titles “Son of Man” and “Son of God” meant in the first century. The Son of God language, he argues, is the language attributed to David and his descendents, showing the messiah to be a true king of Israel in the line of David. The Son of Man language, he argues is developed from Daniel as a divine being who acts alongside the “Ancient of Days.” This “one  like a son of man” is presented in Daniel’s apocalyptic section as the one who will come on earth, conquer, and rule it. He then shows how the idea of God having a plurality (both the son and the father being God) is not a problem in Judaism and that there was a longstanding tradition developed from the Canaanite idea of God as two (El and Ba’al) being expressed as one in the Hebrew Bible. The most famous example of this is probably the scene at the “burning bush” in Exodus 4, half the time the figure speaking is YHVH whereas the other half the time it is the “angel of the Lord.” Notwithstanding the origins of this text (as it might well have been a compilation), the final form of the text as it stands presents the idea well – what the Canaanites considered as two gods, Israel considers one. There is the idea of plurality and unity between these figures (this would be developed in the Logos, Sophia, Wisdom concept as seen in Proverbs 8:22).

Boyarin then argues that the concept of a Son of Man and Son of God being the same person was even understood in the late second temple period. He considers the similitudes in 1 Enoch 14 as evidence that the son of Man was messiah and a son of David. This is then corroborated by considering 4 Ezra which presented a new type of Messiah that would encapsulate both this son of Man and son of David motif.

After the discussion of the titles son of man and son of God, he discusses Jesus’ view about food laws in the Gospels. He argues that Mark 7, if understood correctly, actually is supporting rather than challenging kosher observation. He points out, as many have noted, that there is some evidence that the Pharisees believed that the special purity laws which the priests practiced ought to be practiced by everyone (though to be fair, evidence for what the Pharisees believed is amazingly scant). Jesus then was arguing against this interpretation rather than against food laws a whole. He points out that there are certain prohibited foods that all Jews are not to eat (pork, shellfish, etc.). There are also certain practices of eating that could make someone “impure.” However, this “impurity” is not the same as the forbidden foods. This impurity is that which keeps one from being able to enter the temple and worship before one goes through a proper ritual. Purity, definitionally, is a ritual rather than ethical category. The ritual washing discussed in Mark 7 is argued as to be relevant for one before they enter the temple to worship – it is not something that is simply forbidden at all times for all Jews. Jesus then is arguing that this understanding of food laws is problematic. He does not want to inadvertently make religion so hard for people that it becomes elitist (Jesus’ main critique is less “what is the kingdom of God” as much as “who can be included in the kingdom of God”).

Finally, Boyarin argues that the idea that the messiah would suffer can be found as a midrash (interpretation) of Daniel. The one like the “son of Man” is depicted as being crushed by the fourth beast before they rise up and conquer him on high. This has traditionally been interpreted to mean all of Israel rather than just the son of Man, but Boyarin shows that at least some people could interpret it this way in Judaism.

Merits and Critiques of the Book

Boyarin’s essential thesis is sound – of course Jesus’s message is rooted in and understood in a Jewish context. Further, his analysis of sources in the Hebrew Bible which inspired the theology of the New Testament is well done. He looks at one key text – the book of Daniel – in order to understand the apocalyptic role of Jesus, which is especially pronounced in the Gospel of Mark.

A further good discussion is his essential argument philosophically that readers must cease from thinking about the early Jesus movement as “Christianity” – meaning it had its own system as its own world religion. While Jesus was alive, there of course was no system – there was only a man. Even during the lifetime of Paul, there is no concept of a true “Christianity” separate from Judaism (see my earlier review of J. Albert Harrill’s book on Paul to see this issue and how it functioned in his life). Boyarin’s reminder that there was also no “Judaism” at this time is a helpful comment made for readers of the New Testament who at times forget that what they are characterizing is more than one thing.

The greatest merit of the book, however, is in the details. Boyarin’s discussion of Mark 7, the Son of Man, and the Son of God theologies is well done. As will be detailed below, I disagree with some elements of what he posited concerning the theology of “Son of God,” but the details are worth consideration. His interpretative priority of Daniel (rather than Ezekiel) for understanding Son of Man is well done (if into slightly reductive).

The detail about Mark 7 is incredibly well done, particularly for a modern American audience for whom “purity” is not a term that is understood well. Boyarin provides a perfect corrective by explaining what purity is and is not. Purity is a ritual category that prepares one for worship – it is not ethical. A women is not immoral for menstruating; however, she is impure, she must go through a cleansing ritual in order to prepare for worship. Morality is a separate issue that (possibly surprisingly) has nothing to do with worship. If someone is acting immorally, no ritual cleansing is going to help them – they need an ethical change (I am aware that atonement for immorality is a ritual, but essentially, they are separate if not connected). The challenge of this dichotomy that is probably most surprising to the modern reader is that if someone was immoral, not only did they not have to deal with purity rituals, that person would not necessarily be barred from worship. The idea is that it did not matter what one had done morally, if they were taking worship seriously and going through the proper rituals. Boyarin does an excellent job explaining this dichotomy as it pertains to food laws. Jesus is challenging the theology that it is better to remain ritually pure at all times (whether one is preparing for worship or not) in addition to the standard moral procedures.

The biggest challenge to the book is its scope. Boyarin argues that this book will show that both Jesus and the Gospels are Jewish. The challenge is that he does not show how he is reconstructing the historical Jesus. Further, he does not show how all of the gospels present the Jewish Jesus (he has little discussion of the Gospel of John, for instance, which is the one most involved in Greek philosophy).

His argument depends upon the “apocalyptic prophet” reconstruction of the historical Jesus. He views messiah through the lens of Daniel to create an apocalyptic figure who reveals his identity through a variety of means. I tend to agree with Boyarin on this point; however, his lack of discussion of it makes this work incomplete.

Secondly, the apocalyptic Jesus is not necessarily present in all four Gospels. In the Gospel of Luke/Book of Acts, the kingdom of God apocalyptic message means a radically different thing and 9in the Gospel of John it is absent. His argument is very good if relegated to the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is a type of gospel with an apocalyptic message which makes most sense when understood through the lens of the Son of Man in Daniel. Had Boyarin made this claim, it would have been far stronger.

The next critiques are less in scope than in details. The first is his dependence upon the “son of Man” theology in Daniel that forgets the same theology in Ezekiel (where it simply means “human”). I would not at all be surprised for the Gospel of Mark to realize the term means both things and use both in tension. Jesus is both the “one like a son of man” and very much a human.

The second challenge is his argument about the “son of God” theology. He is not wrong in the least that the language of son of God depicts the kingly Messiah in David’s lineage. This is in keeping with the relationship of David to God as depicted by father to son in 2 Samuel 7. However, Boyarin tries to suggest that this makes some type of convoluted familial relation with God in the divine. If that were true, then David would also be divine – something that is not held by any Jewish group with which I am familiar. It seems that his interest to show that the concept of a divine messiah has influenced his reading of the data.

Finally, the chapter on the Jewish expectation that the messiah would suffer is relatively weak. He does point out that there were some interpretations of Daniel that could be understood as a suffering figure. He then hypothesizes that being crucified and dying would qualify. However, he does not discuss (as Paul does) that being crucified is a curse of the law. Serious question can be asked if crucifixion would fit so neatly into his “Jewish gospels.” Further, he does not have real evidence that the messiah was ever to die. Suffering is distinctly different than death and the gospels are quite clear that Jesus really died. This also challenges this basic argument.

As a whole, the book is valuable for Christians to read – it reminds them of some basic elements of the study of the New Testament. Further the precise arguments about the son of man, son of God, and Food laws are well worth the read. The book is written for a mass audience and as such is written in a highly entertaining and enjoyable style.

---

[2] For more on the nature of Jewishness in the first century, see Shaye Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).