I bought and read the Italian edition of the book “The Jewish Gospels.The story of the Jewish Christ”, written by Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of Berkeley. I was struck by the fact that Boyarin, while claiming to be an orthodox Jew, argues that the figure of "one like a son of man" mentioned in Daniel's book has been interpreted in ancient Jewish exegesis, or at least in a significant part of it, as proving the divine nature of the Messiah, who would be subordinate to HaShem, but would share his deity to some extent. Therefore, according to Boyarin, the idea of a celestial and divine Messiah incarnate in Jesus the Nazarene would not be out of the Jewish tradition, for many Jews believed in the Messiah as being divine and supernatural. Boyarin also argues that the "servant suffering" of Isaiah 53 represents the Messiah for an authoritative and ancient part of Jewish tradition.
I am a Noah's son and not a Christian, so I do not believe in Christian dogmas. The reading of this book has puzzled me, because, for what I know, the Jewish tradition interprets both Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53 as images of the people of Israel, and not as steps referring to the Messiah; moreover, in the teaching of the Masters of Israel, the Messiah is a human and not divine being, save my mistake. In support of his thesis, Boyarin cites a few textual sources, which, in my ignorance, seem to me to be dubious.
On Daniel 7 as the image of the Divine Messiah, in addition to generally arguing that coming with the clouds of heaven" is a constant characteristic of theophany throughout the Tanakh", Boyarin reports the following passage of the Babylonian Talmud Chagigah 14a:
One passage says: His throne was fiery flames, 16 and another passage says: "Till thrones were places, and one that was ancient of days did sit." 17 - There is no contradiction: one [throne] for Him, and one for David; This is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long will you treat the Divine Presence as profane? 18 Rather, [it must mean], one for justice and one for grace.19 Did he accept [this explanation from him, or Did not he accept it? - Come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; This is the view of R. Akiba.
Boyarin commented on the aforementioned passage: "Whatever is the precise interpretation of this Talmudic passage (which I have long discussed in my other publication), there is no doubt that both rabbis would see in Daniel a theophany. Rabbi Akiva sees you two divine figures in heaven, that of God the Father and that of the king David after his apotheosis. Rabbi Yose the Galilean disputes him. "
The only other Jewish sources reported by Boyarin on the son of man as the Divine Messiah are quotes from the apocrypha "Early Book of Enoch" and "Fourth Book of Ezra."
Regarding the "servant suffering" of Isaiah 53 interpreted as a step referring to the Messiah, Boyarin mentions the Talmud of Babylon Sanhedrin 98b, where, in relation to the name of the Messiah, it is written: "The Rabbis said: His name is' The leper scholar, 'as it is written, Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.'
Boyarin also speaks of Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, who would write "our rabbis, in unison, accept and affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) is talking about the King Messiah";and of Nachmanide, who claims, according to Boyarin, that according to the midrash and the rabbis of the Talmud, Isaiah 53 speaks from the beginning to the end of the Messiah, even though the great Spanish rabbi does not agree with this interpretation.
Are Boyarin's references correct? Is this a known author in Israel, and what rating does it give him? I am very puzzled about the quality of this publication, which seems to me in contrast to rabbinic teaching.