Professor Peter Schäfer’s nose is out of joint.
Dr. Schäfer is the Perelman Professor of Jewish Studies at Princeton University. He has been reading Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels. His reading seems to have left the professor feeling “irritated and sad”.
In his recent review article titled “The Jew Who Would Be God”, at The New Republic http://www.tnr.com/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin, Schäfer goes to some lengths to articulate his antagonism to Boyarin’s book.
He offers a curious argument.
I am completely unqualified to judge the merits of Schäfer and Boyarin’s disagreement over the esoteric ancient manuscripts they sight in support of their arguments. But, it is curious that Schäfer finds Boyarin to be “wildly speculative and highly idiosyncrtaic.” As far as I can tell, from having read Schäfer’s review and Boyarin’s book, the two scholars seem to agree in most of their conclusions.
Schäfer sounds as if he is summing up the thesis of Professor Boyarin’s book when he states,
Second Temple Judaism offers a much more complex and multifaceted fabric of ideas and thoughts than many Christians and Jews today are prepared to acknowledge.
There can be no doubt that the Christianity that was emerging as one Jewish faction among others was part and parcel of this process, struggling to define itself within a highly complex power game of competing groups of thought….
we need to stay away from the dogmatic notion of two firmly established religions, the one defined by its ultimate triumph over Judaism after it became the religion of the Christian state—with all its horrible consequences for the Jews—and the other defined by the victory of the rabbis over their enemies from within and from without. In doing so, we will discover that there is no single line or single point in the first centuries of the Christian era that distinguished Judaism and Christianity once and forever. There are several lines and several points.
I am sure, both men would agree with Schäfer’s contention that,
Some clear-cut and neat distinctions between Judaism and Christianity are being destroyed by contemporary research into the New Testament and rabbinic Judaism.
So what is Schäfer’s problem with Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels?
Schäfer’s review of Boyarin’s book is 4,110 words long. Of those 4,000 plus words, 1,250 deal with chapter one of The Jewish Gospels where Boyarin offers his exegesis of Daniel Chapter Seven. Shafer is convinced that Boyarin’s interpretation will leave “the informed reader puzzled.”
I suppose we are to assume that Professor Schäfer is hoping to protect the rest of us who are less “informed” from the danger of falling prey to Boyarin’s seduction. But the ill-informed reader might be forgiven for finding Schäfer’s exegesis of Daniel 7 at least as puzzling as Boyarin’s.
Schäfer’s problem with Boyain’s reading of Daniel 7 rests on Boyarin’s assumption that there are only two thrones in Daniel 7:9. Boyarin uses this assumption to suggest that the “one like a human being” who comes in Daniel 7:12 with “the clouds of heaven”, is a second divine figure divine figure with whom Jesus will come to identify himself. But, the possibility of more than two thrones, does not negate Boyarin’s point that there may be a plurality of divine beings in Daniel’s heavenly vision.
The really curious thing in Schäfer’s argument is that, while rejecting Boyarin’s suggestion of a divine Messiah figure in Daniel, he goes on himself to suggest that “the Son of Man is the archangel Michael”. This is at least as “puzzling” as anything Boyarin suggests. In fact, the puzzle may not lie so much with either Boyarin or Schäfer as with the author of Daniel himself. The text is obscure and difficult. But, Boyarin’s suggestion that the text may allow for the possibility of some plurality in the ancient Jewish vision of God, does not seem at all an outrageous stretch of the text.
Regardless of Schäfer’s problems with the minutiae of Boyarin’s exegesis, it is hard to deny that Boyarin has helped generate an important discussion in popular Christian circles that has the potential to diminish the barriers that have long separated Jew and Christian. It is difficult to see how this could be a bad thing.
***********************
nb: anyone living in the Victoria area is welcome to attend a gathering this evening starting at 7:00 p.m. at St. Philip Anglican Church, 2928 Eastdowne Rd. where Old Testament scholar Dr. William Morrow and New Testament scholar Dr. Daniel Fraikin will host a discussion on Boyarin’s ideas.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 5, 2012 at 8:41 am
Tress
Jesus explained our relationship with God and each other in the simplest terms. This has only been complicated by differences in language and reporting.it is therefore useful to have scholars and devoted teachers who are able to clarify what was said , and also by his first great disciple St Paul.
Interpretation is a different kettle of fish. It is only as useful if it reinforces
great truths. Even the most learned , sometimes get caught up in opinion ,
Which may have value , but is tainted by its egoistic origin.( As is this!!!)
June 5, 2012 at 8:54 am
jaqueline
I am truly puzzled too…..if the son of man was an angel why would Jesus use it for himself…If Schafer acknowledges that Jesus did use that term.
And ought there to be a tradition for it being Michael, no? Is that what he is saying. Though Boyarim pointed to there being tradition for this being as a Messianic figure….
Oi Vay…
No wonder the world ends up coming up with it’s own versions of spirituality and religion if even the big guns who claim to know can’t make up their mind.
June 5, 2012 at 9:53 am
jaqueline
“13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and
sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” Daniel 7: 13 and 14.
Why would Shafer assert that this is Michael?! An Angel, is to have all dominion and be worshiped? Is this why his assertion is so puzzling?
June 5, 2012 at 11:43 am
jaqueline
Well, I decided to try and read the article myself,,,so I am very grateful that you did Christopher..
I get now, why he came to the Michael conclusion but it does seem as much, as you say, a stretch as he claims Boyarims’ assertion to be. ( I love how he says…Daniel the prophet CLEARLY understood the imagery according to Schafer’s analysis, especially when the prophet says himself that he was confused and troubled ).
The thing is Schafer keeps saying that this is not new, this connection and elucidation of the Jewishness of the gospels is common knowledge and written in lots of places..yes in scholarly writing sure…but he says it as though the whole world ought to know…it is as though
he does not understand how CLOSED the Christian world has been to Jewish wisdom, and as though he doesn’t understand how FAR OFF academia is from the person on the street. IT IS NEWS to us.
This article…I had to stop once my question about Michael was finished. It was too complicated and long.
No wonder there are still erroneous ideas of Christianity and Judaism and Islam that
populations act on, if those who know better can’t even be bothered to write in a way that is accessible for every day people.
June 5, 2012 at 9:58 am
jaqueline
“His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
It just occurred to me, that this verse might be one to comfort the church while it is in decline…that no matter what…what counts is the Kingdom, and whatever form it takes, it will not be destroyed…..