BOYARIN’S BOOK leaves the reader irritated and sad. It has very little that is new to offer—and what appears to be new is wildly speculative and highly idiosyncratic. Even judged by its commendable intentions—to win over dogmatic defenders of the perfect uniqueness of Christianity or Judaism—it is disappointing. As the younger Talmud professor in the acclaimed Israeli movie Footnote says to his hapless student, “There are many correct and new aspects in your paper—only what is new isn’t correct and what is correct isn’t new.”Via Larry Hurtado, who concurs with Schäfer's judgment.
Earlier reviews and comments on Boyarin's work are here and links. Earlier PaleoJudaica posts on the Son of Man are here and here and links. Schäfer and I are more or less in agreement on the latter subject, although I think the Danielic "one like a son of man" may have been Enoch rather than an angel. I have not yet read Boyarin's book, so I can't comment on it.
