If all the Jews – or even a substantial number – expected that the Messiah would be divine as well as human, then the belief in Jesus as God is not the point of departure on which some new religion came into being but simply another variant (and not a deviant one) of Judaism.
Fascinating: the Son of Man references made by our Lord directly attest to an existing belief in the traditions of the Old Law. The rejection of the Lord by distinctly opposed parties within Judaism, on the basis of the author's thesis seems to me to be explained. In Matthew 26:64, Jesus refers to His identification with the Son of Man to answer the High Priest's question of whether He thinks Himself to be the Son of God. Presumably a Sadducee, the High Priest rejects any claims for a multitude of persons within the divinity. Pharisees, on the other hand, such as Nicodemus, could be receptive to His claims to divinity since some appeared to accept the dual person implication of a non-Torah Scripture: Daniel. For Nicodemus, the only question is whether Jesus is indeed the Son of Man. Does the author go into any of the arguments that the dual persons in the divinity adherents might have given for their thesis apart from the reference to Daniel, since Judaism is popularly thought to be ultra monotheistic, in the sense of "the Lord thy God is one"?
William, to your question: there will be another 5-6 posts on this book, so let's see what Boyarin presents. I have seen him offer some non-Biblical sources from Jewish rabbis, etc., that support this view of dual persons in the divinity.
They rejected him because "men loved darkness rather than light". It is completely dark in the grave.
Fascinating: the Son of Man references made by our Lord directly attest to an existing belief in the traditions of the Old Law. The rejection of the Lord by distinctly opposed parties within Judaism, on the basis of the author's thesis seems to me to be explained. In Matthew 26:64, Jesus refers to His identification with the Son of Man to answer the High Priest's question of whether He thinks Himself to be the Son of God. Presumably a Sadducee, the High Priest rejects any claims for a multitude of persons within the divinity. Pharisees, on the other hand, such as Nicodemus, could be receptive to His claims to divinity since some appeared to accept the dual person implication of a non-Torah Scripture: Daniel. For Nicodemus, the only question is whether Jesus is indeed the Son of Man. Does the author go into any of the arguments that the dual persons in the divinity adherents might have given for their thesis apart from the reference to Daniel, since Judaism is popularly thought to be ultra monotheistic, in the sense of "the Lord thy God is one"?
William, to your question: there will be another 5-6 posts on this book, so let's see what Boyarin presents. I have seen him offer some non-Biblical sources from Jewish rabbis, etc., that support this view of dual persons in the divinity.