Today we are interviewing Daniel Boyarin, whose new book, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, was published by New Press this April. In The Jewish Gospels,
Daniel presents an astonishing argument that the concept of the
Trinity was not original to Christianity at all but came out ideas
that were commonplace in the Jewish tradition long before the birth of
Jesus. Daniel is one of the world’s most renowned, original, and
admired scholars of ancient Judaism. He is the Taubman Professor of
Talmudic Culture in the departments of Rhetoric and of Near Eastern
Studies at UC Berkeley. Daniel is not shy of taking provocative and
controversial positions. His work was recently alluded to in the
Oscar-nominated Israeli film, Footnote, where it was the
subject of an argument. He has described himself as a Trotskyist,
anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew, a set of positions and commitments that has
excited both exaggerated interest in his work as well as scurrilous
public attacks (mostly by pro-Zionist Jewish professors). Let’s hope
today’s interview will engender both.
Andy: Daniel, everybody knows that Jesus was a Jew. But in The Jewish Gospels you are saying something quite different and original, even revolutionary. Can you explain your argument?
Boyarin: When people say that Jesus was a Jew, they usually mean that he came out of a Jewish milieu. Some
think he completely revolutionized that environment, while others think
it was the Gospels that produced that overturn, making a Jewish
teacher into a god. I am arguing that the portrait of Jesus we find in
the Gospels (especially in Mark) is one that could completely fit into
the context of Second-Temple Judaism in which a Messiah who would be
divine and human at the same time is not a foreign notion. I argue,
moreover, that there is nothing in Mark or Matthew (or probably in Luke
as well – but this is a harder argument to make) that suggests that
Jesus was setting aside or abrogating the law of the Torah. So it’s not
only Jesus who was a Jew but the Christ (and Christ is not Jesus’ last
name but his title!)
Andy: So let me get this straight. In the early
years of Christianity there was no real distinction between Jews and
Christians. There just happened to be some Jews who thought that a
particular guy, Jesus, was the messiah. And these Jesus Jews weren’t
really all that distinctive within the world of Jews at the time. Is
that correct?
Boyarin: Yes. Fairly frequently I’m
asked by Christian folk why the Jews “rejected” Jesus. I answer this (as
Jews stereotypically are wont to) with another question: Who do you
think accepted Jesus, the Zulus; the Goths? Jews were expecting a
Messiah—this is one of the central arguments of the book—and many of
them, moreover, had come to expect him to be a divine being in human
form or even embodied in a human. Some Jews who came to know Jesus were
so impressed with him that they accepted the claim (if he made it) or
made the claim themselves that this Jew from Nazareth was the one that
they and all of the Jews were expecting. Not altogether surprisingly a
fair number, probably most, of the Jews around at the time were more
skeptical. Today we call the first group of Jews Christians, the second
Jews, but then and for a long time, they were all Jews.
Andy: When I studied The New Testament, I was always
taught that St. Paul was the person who really made Christianity
distinct from Judaism. And that happened early on. Apparently you see
it differently. When did Christianity have its irrevocable break with
Judaism? And why?
Boyarin: In some ways it was Paul who
effected the revolution with respect to the Torah that we don’t find in
the Gospels. But it needs to be remembered that Paul was an embattled
figure, marginalized and considered a heretic by most followers of Jesus
for decades if not longer. I would tentatively suggest that it was the
entry of myriads of Gentiles into the Jesus movement, folks who had no
interest in or attraction toward the traditional ways of the Jews that
ultimately precipitated a gradual and finally total separation of the
communities. One of the important arguments of the book is that the
Gospels are misread as portraying Jesus as rejecting the Torah and
Jewish religious practice; it was Paul who did that, and even with Paul,
a plausible argument could be made that he intended this rejection only
for the “believers” from the Nations (the so-called Gentiles) and not
the Jewish followers of Christ. Jesus, I argue, defended the Torah
against the reforms and traditions of the Pharisees whom he saw as
substituting their own traditions for what was clearly written by Moses!
Andy: A lot of your book is a close look at the
language of the Gospels, particularly The Gospel of Mark. I always
thought that the Gospels tried to distinguish Jesus’ ideas from the
Jewish thinkers of his time, particularly the Pharisees.
Boyarin: Yes, but precisely the argument is that the Pharisees were not “the Jewish thinkers of the time;” they were some Jewish
thinkers of the time. Jesus, I argue, was much more conservative in his
approach to Torah than the Pharisees who were descended from Jews who
had returned from the Babylonian Exile with some quite new ideas about
the way the Torah ought to be practiced, especially their notion of a
“Tradition of the Fathers”—later on called Oral Torah—that dictated some
practices that certainly seemed different from the literal meaning of
the Torah itself. So Jesus was portrayed as being in conflict with those
Pharisees but that hardly marked him off as in any way not Jewish in
his religious thought, any more than the attacks on the Pharisees in the
Dead Sea Scrolls make those texts not Jewish or less Jewish than the
Talmud!
Andy: When you think about this, it seems pretty
provocative. How do you think Jewish and Christian theologians are going
to respond to it?
