Source: “The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ”, 2012 by Daniel Boyarin
The Suffering Christ as a Midrash on Daniel.wav
This podcast challenges the common belief that the Christian idea of a suffering Messiah was invented after Jesus' crucifixion to explain his unexpected death. Instead, it argues that the concept of a suffering and even divine Messiah, interpreted through a close Jewish method of biblical interpretation called midrash, was already a well-established expectation within Judaism long before Jesus. The author demonstrates this by showing how New Testament texts like Mark draw on Daniel and Isaiah 53 through midrash to portray Jesus as the suffering Son of Man, and by highlighting evidence from ancient and medieval Jewish sources that also interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to a suffering Messiah. Ultimately, the source proposes that Christianity is not a radical departure from Judaism but rather one path that emerged from its rich tradition of messianic thought and biblical interpretation.
The Suffering Christ as a Midrash on Daniel: A central theme is the argument that the concept of the suffering Christ, often seen as the defining image of Christianity, can be understood as a development rooted in Jewish tradition and interpretation, specifically a midrash on the Book of Daniel. It is suggested that this idea was not a scandalous departure from Judaism but rather arose from methods of close biblical reading similar to rabbinic midrash. The author contends that the suffering Messiah idea was already current within Judaism before Jesus' advent and remained so afterward, challenging the view that it was invented by Christians after Jesus' death.
The Common View of the Suffering Messiah as an After-the-Fact Apology: The source extensively discusses and ultimately rejects a widely held view, notably articulated by Joseph Klausner, that the idea of messianic suffering, death, and resurrection emerged only as an apologetic explanation after Jesus was crucified. This view sees Jesus' crucifixion as a scandal for early believers, necessitating the development of a theology of vicarious suffering and atoning death, often linked to reinterpreting Isaiah 53. This conventional perspective is presented as the dominant understanding among many Jewish and Christian scholars.
The Claim that Christianity Broke with Judaism over the Suffering Messiah: Linked to the previous point, the source tackles the common assumption that the belief in a suffering and dying Messiah marked the absolute breaking point between Judaism and early Christianity. The author argues strongly against this, providing evidence that the notion of a suffering Messiah was present and accepted within Jewish traditions, both before and long after the time of Jesus. Therefore, the assertion of a suffering Messiah in the Gospels is seen not as a break but as consistent with a complex and contested messianic idea shared by various Jewish groups.
Jesus' Self-Identification as Messiah and Son of Man in Mark: The Gospel of Mark is examined, particularly chapters 8, 9, and 14, to show how Jesus identifies himself. In Mark 8:29-31, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Christ, Jesus states that the Son of Man must suffer many things, linking the Christ and Son of Man identities and indicating his fate. In Mark 14:62, Jesus explicitly affirms his identity as "I Am," the Son of the Blessed One (Messiah/Son of God), and states that they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds, directly referencing Daniel 7. These passages are presented as key instances where Jesus understands and presents himself as the Messiah/Son of Man, whose role includes suffering and exaltation.
The Son of Man Figure in Daniel 7: The discussion frequently refers to the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7 as the source for Jesus' (or the Gospel's) understanding of his identity and fate. Daniel 7 describes "one like a Son of Man" coming with the clouds of heaven to receive dominion and a kingdom. The source notes that this figure was interpreted in various ways by Jews, including as a divine redeemer. It also mentions the end of Daniel 7, where the Son of Man symbol is interpreted as "the People of the Saints of the Most High," who will suffer before receiving the kingdom. The blending of these interpretations is seen as crucial for developing the idea of a suffering divine Messiah.
The Role of Midrash in Developing Suffering Christology: The source posits that the connection made between the Son of Man from Daniel 7 and prophetic texts like Isaiah 53 and the psalms of lament, particularly concerning suffering, was achieved through a method of biblical interpretation known as midrash. Midrash involves linking verses and passages from different parts of Scripture to create new understandings and narratives. The author argues that this method, common in ancient Judaism, was used by Jesus and his followers to interpret Jesus' life, death, and exaltation as the fulfillment of what was written about the Son of Man and the Messiah, including suffering.
Peter's Rebuke and Shame Regarding a Suffering Messiah: The passage in Mark 8:31-38 is highlighted, where Peter rebukes Jesus for saying the Son of Man must suffer. This reaction is interpreted as Peter being ashamed of the idea of a suffering Messiah, contrasting with the common expectation of a triumphalist Messiah. Jesus' sharp rebuke of Peter ("Get thee behind me Satan!") and subsequent teaching to the disciples about denying oneself and taking up the cross (following him in suffering and potential death) further emphasize the centrality and unexpected nature (to some) of suffering in Jesus' messianic self-understanding, derived from the Son of Man concept.
The Interpretation of Isaiah 53 as Referring to the Messiah in Jewish Tradition: The source provides evidence challenging the modern assumption that Jews have consistently interpreted Isaiah 53 (the Suffering Servant passage) as referring only to the People of Israel and that the Messianic interpretation was solely a Christian innovation. It argues that, contrary to this common view, many Jewish authorities until relatively recently, including figures in the Talmud and medieval commentators, interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about the Messiah and his vicarious suffering and atoning death. Examples from the Palestinian Talmud and Babylonian Talmud are cited as evidence of this ancient Jewish interpretation.
The "Jewishness" of the Suffering Messiah Idea: A core argument running through the source is that the concept of a suffering and dying Messiah was not alien to Jewish thought but deeply embedded within it. The use of midrash, the connection to Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53, and the presence of the suffering Messiah idea in rabbinic and later Jewish texts are all presented as evidence that this concept is authentically "Jewish." The author suggests that seeing Christianity as one path taken by Judaism, rather than a complete break, better explains the presence of these ideas.
10. The Gospels as Deeply Embedded in Second Temple Judaism: The source concludes by arguing that the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, is not a distortion or misappropriation of Jewish tradition but is deeply embedded within the life and thought of Second Temple Judaism. Ideas often considered uniquely Christian, such as a dual godhead (Father/Son), a divine-human Redeemer, and a suffering savior, are argued to have roots in ancient Jewish traditions and biblical interpretation. The author suggests that the Gospel narrative is best understood within the "Jewish textual and intertextual world" of the first century, seeing Jesus' life and death interpreted as a fulfillment of existing messianic expectations, including that of suffering, through midrashic reading.