Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ Free Shipping
The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ Paperback – August 6, 2013
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
—Karen L. King, Harvard Divinity School
"Raises profound questions . . . this provocative book will change the way we think of the Gospels in their Jewish context."
—John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School
"It’s certainly noteworthy when one of the world’s leading Jewish scholars publishes a book about Jesus . . . extremely stimulating."
—Daniel C. Peterson, The Deseret News
"[A] fascinating recasting of the story of Jesus."
—Elliot Wolfson, New York University
About the Author
Browse award-winning titles. See more
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
Chapter One: Daniel 7 as a Jewish Gospel
The first "Jewish Gospel" is Daniel 7, taken as the origin of the Messiah as Son of Man later found in the New Testament. With special emphasis on Mark, Boyarin shows that "Son of God" is just a kingly title, while "Son of Man" is a divine redeemer. It's an inversion of the way we usually take those terms, and Boyarin not only proves his thesis, but uses it to open up the rest of an incredible journey. The first Jewish Gospel is Daniel 7.
Chapter Two:1 Enoch and 4 Ezra as Jewish Gospels
Boyarin shows that the New Testament is not alone in having a divine-human Messiah, and that 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, two Jewish works, also use the Son of Man concept from Daniel 7 in the same way as the New Testament. We now see three Jewish sources with what is generally known as a high Christology.
Chapter Three: Mark as a Jewish Gospel
Boyarin now goes into great detail on a little known and poorly translated passage in Mark concerning kosher foods. Only two other publications in general use translate the hand washing passage correctly: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary and The Comprehensive New Testament, and Boyarin astutely shows that Jesus was not throwing out Jewish kosher laws, but rather arguing that the Pharisaic rules of cleanness and purity incorrectly compressed two separate concepts into one. It seems a fine point to those not raised Jewish, and the argument is subtle, but Boyarin takes just enough time to help the reader "get it": Mark is also a Jewish Gospel!
Chapter Four: Isaiah 53 as a Jewish Gospel
The conclusion comes from a conundrum. How can a human Messiah come from the clouds? How can a divine being be the Messiah? The grand tour of Boyarin's trek from Daniel 7 (and earlier Canaanite sources), through its children (1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Mark), finds a pre-existent divine descent and an earthly ascent for a single divine-human redeemer, who is both from above and from below. These two cannot occur without a divine precedent to an earthly man AND ALSO a human precedent to a divine redeemer. This can only involve two comings -- an exaltation and then a redemption. Here Boyarin takes the lid off of a well kept secret that most polemicists and laity don't know: Isaiah 53's suffering servant was almost universally taken as Messianic until a few hundred years ago. But this is only possible if the Messiah:
1) Comes as a man
3) Is exalted
4) Returns in redemption
These standard Christian ideas are all shown to be Jewish.
The Book as a Whole: Boyarin as a Jewish Writer!
That's right -- Boyarin is neither Christian nor Messianic. He's Jewish and fully comfortable in his skin writing about Jewish concepts that are inherent in Judaism itself, with a suffering Messiah described not just in the Jewish Bible but in the Talmud as well. The separation of Judaism and Christianity did not happen because of Jesus, but rather because the church was later filled by so many Gentiles that the two religions deliberately parted ways, even unconsciously conspiring together to reject those who considered themselves as both Jewish and Christian (called by both Jerome and Jews as Minim and Nazarenes).
To Boyarin, Judaism and Christianity are half parent to child, half sibling, and there is no reason to be at war with each other.
The book, then, takes us from Canaanite pre-Judaism, through pre-Rabbinic Judaism, to Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity -- deliberately separate, but originally taken from the same womb. This grand tour of the past, if taken seriously by scholars on both sides, could silence the shouting about unnecessary disagreements and lead them to understand each other's actual differences: namely, they are both looking for a final redemption, and just disagree about who will bring that to pass. In other words, first century Jews didn't reject the IDEA of a suffering divine-human redeemer, but merely didn't see Jesus to be that person.
Think about this - the conventional view of pre-Christian Judaism is that it was rigorously monotheist, and, yet, by the middle to end of the First Christian Century, we see the formula of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is being used as the baptismal formula in Matthew. I often think that it is strange that Jews - who only knew of one God - accepting two other divine characters without wondering where they came from and why God hadn't bothered to mention them previously.
Boyarin's answer is simple, straightforward and logical; the Jewish tradition included a germ or type of the incarnation and "trinitarianism" long before the First Century C.E., and, in a way, the answer is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the Bible.
Boyarin argues that there was a "binitarian" tradition in ancient Judaism that can be found in Daniel 7, notwithstanding the effort of the author to obscure its binitarian implications, which introduces the "Son of man" and the "Ancient of Days." Under Boyarin's guidance, it seems clear that Daniel 7 can be understood as introducing two divine beings, an older divine being who invests the younger with suzerainty over the world. Boyarin explains that there were several ways in which Israel's messiah was understood. One tradition was that the Messiah who was to be an heir of David who would institute a reign under which all nations would bow to Israel and Israel's God. This tradition - the very traditional contemporary understanding of "messiah" - was fused with that of Daniel, in which the person to whom all nations would bow was a divine being who had the form of a human being.
There was another tradition, moreover, in which a real human being became "exalted" to divine status. Boyarin points to the books of Enoch, which treat the mysterious biblical patriarch Enoch, who it was said was taken by God and was no more. Boyarin uses the books of Enoch, which are part of the Ethiopian canon, to good effect in showing that there was a Judaism that didn't hermetically seal off the spheres of humanity and the divine.
The conclusion of this slim and accessible book is that the Christian idea of the Incarnation and the Trinity was gestured at, or foreshadowed, or contained in germ form, in the Jewish writings and therefore were available for development as Jewish concepts within a Jewish framework. This conclusion answers my question; Jewish followers of Jesus accepted his incarnational and "Trinitarian" - perhaps only "binitarian" - claims because they were within the permissible options of orthodox First Century Judaism.
This insight neatly resolves other conundrums. For example, although there is tendency among most people to view the development of Christian theology from a "low Christology" to a "high Christology," there is the conundrum of the Kenosis Hymn of Philippians, which, as A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship documents in rigorous detail, is indisputably early, and is equally indisputably a "high Christology." A lot of scholars, such as Bart Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, seem eager to ignore or explain away the Kenosis Hymn because they think that the idea that Jesus was divine has to be a "myth" or post hoc belief that could only develop over an extended period. Yet, if Boyarin is right, then the idea of the incarnation was already a part of the intellectual background of the followers of Jesus, and, so, it is not surprising that a High Christology is an early development.
Boyarin's insight is consistent with that of other authors who agree that the idea of the Incarnation is not a pagan idea, no matter how many times mythicists, the History Channel or Bart Ehrman say it is. Oscar Skarsaune's excellent In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity also supports the argument that whereas pagans found the idea of a god becoming human "disgusting," Jewish Wisdom literature long carried a germ of an incarnational theology.
Boyarin also tackles the issue of whether Jesus kept kosher. This question is used as an opportunity to examine the issue Jesus' dialogue with the Pharisees about keeping purity regulations from the perspective of Jews which existed prior to the destruction of the Temple. More important, than the particular resolution of this issue, I think the real value of Boyarin's approach is that it illustrates how essential it is to read the New Testament as if it was written by Jews and for Jews, rather than as treating the New Testament as a kind of intentional rupture with Judaism.
In Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, Donald H. Akenson makes the point that the destruction of the Temple put an end to the wild diversity that existed in Israel. Boyarin's book indicates how wildly diverse Judaism could have been prior to the destruction of the Temple, in that it could have accommodated a Trinitarian and incarnational strain that would have been as Jewish as the rabbinical Judaism we are familiar with today.
This is a slim book. It really only tackles a few cases. I think it is worth reading as one brick in the wall of our knowledge. At this point, though, I am interested in N.T. Wright's writings, including , which I understand treat Christian themes as "mutations" which did not exist within Judaism.
I'd also point out that Boyarin's book is a challenge to Michael O. Wise's The First Messiah, who argues that the idea of "messiah" didn't exist until the late First Century B.C.E. Boyarin's book, in contrast, shows a development of several strains of idea of "messiah" over the Second and Third centuries B.C.E.