Jesus Vs. Christ: Did the Historical Jesus Even Matter?

When reviewing Paul’s overall mythology, one begins to question whether the historical Jesus even mattered, and particularly when comparing the Christ of Paul’s theology with the Jesus of the Gospel narratives. This debate touches on the very foundation of Christianity, raising concerns about whether its movement is rooted in a real historical figure or a theological construct that evolved independently of any specific individual.

Paul’s Christ Without a Historical Jesus

Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings, present a Jesus who is overwhelmingly mythological and theological; a cosmic Christ, whose death and resurrection define Christian theory. Unlike the Gospel narratives, Paul rarely references the life and teachings of Jesus. Instead, his Christ is the sacrificial atonement, a divine mediator between God and humanity. The implications are significant: if Paul’s Jesus was primarily theological and not based on an earthly figure, does Christianity even need a historical Jesus?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul states:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."

This passage, one of the few instances where Paul presents an early Christian creed, does not focus on Jesus’ earthly life or teachings but on his death and resurrection. This emphasis suggests that for Paul, the significance of the Jesus character lay not in his historical actions, but in his theological function. Paul’s Jesus is universal, transcendent, and salvific—not a rabbi or social revolutionary, but a divine intermediary.

The Gospel Jesus: A Narrative Counterbalance?

In contrast, the Gospels somewhat anchor Jesus firmly in Jewish tradition. They depict him as a prophet, a teacher of ethics, and a proclaimer of the philosophy of the Kingdom of God. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John interacts with his disciples, debates with religious authorities, and preaches about justice and the inward work of God the Father. His teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, emphasize morality and social ethics in ways that Paul does not.

Given that the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters, were they attempting to correct his vision of the Jesus character? Some within the field argue that the Gospel writers sought to ground the theological Christ in history, providing a biographical framework that Paul had ignored. Others suggest that Paul’s vision was the original, and the Gospel narratives were a later mythologization, an effort to make a cosmic savior more relatable to a broader audience.

Paul’s Theology: A Jewish Evolution or a Radical Departure?

Pamela Eisenbaum, in Paul Was Not a Christian, argues that Paul remained fundamentally Jewish and was not “converting” to a new religion, but rather reinterpreting Jewish messianic expectations in light of his revelations. Paul’s Jesus was not a moral teacher but, according to Paul’s perception, a fulfillment of divine prophecy, a necessary sacrifice for the redemption of humanity.

This perspective further complicates the issue of the historical Jesus. If Paul’s vision was the earliest and most influential, then the Gospel Jesus might be a theological innovation rather than a corrective. That is, Jesus the rabbi and ethical teacher may have been a later narrative construct to appeal to Jewish and Greco-Roman audiences.

Christianity Without a Historical Jesus?

If Paul’s Jesus was primarily a theological concept, can Christianity function without a historical Jesus? Some in the field argue that it already does. Christian faith, as articulated by Paul, depends not on the deeds or words of an earthly Jesus but on belief in his death and resurrection. Paul himself claims that his Gospel was received “through revelation” rather than human tradition, suggesting that historical veracity was secondary to theological truth.

Yet, the absence of a historical Jesus would create existential challenges for Christianity. Without a tangible figure to ground its beliefs, Christianity risks being seen as a philosophical or mythical system rather than a historical faith. The tension between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s Jewish teacher reflects an ongoing struggle within Christian thought: is faith rooted in theological necessity or historical reality?

The Question

The question of whether the historical Jesus even mattered ultimately hinges on what one considers essential to Christian theory. If Christianity is about faith in a figure of salvation, then Paul’s theological Jesus is sufficient. If Christianity seeks historical legitimacy, then the imagined narrative of the Gospel Jesus becomes indispensable for a mythological historical framework (I realize that a “mythological historical framework might sound odd, but Greek epic writers, this was literary culture, namely, to make epic appear historical). The divergence between Paul’s letters and the Gospel narratives suggests that early Christianity was simply a lively and evolving belief system—one that continues to have a losing battle with the balance between history and theology.

 References:

Bedard, S. J., J. (n.d.). Paul And The Historical Jesus: A Case Study in First Corinthians. In McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry (Vol. 7, pp. 9–22).

Matthew, D. & Pamela Eisenbaum. (2009). PAUL WAS NOT a CHRISTIAN: the original message of a misunderstood apostle. In HarperCollins.

Taylor, N. (2003). Paul and the historical Jesus quest. Neotestamentica, 37(1), 105-126.

Paul Vs. Christianity

“Paul of Tarsus” stands as one of the pivotal architects of early Christian thought, yet his portrayal of Jesus starkly contrasts with the later developments in Christian theology. Paul’s Jesus, as depicted in texts like 1 Timothy 2:5 (“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”), emerges as a unique fusion of humanity with the Greek Logos, distinct from the more complex Trinitarian framework that later defined Christianity.

This post looks into how Paul’s vision diverges from the Christianity that followed, reflecting a profound philosophical and theological shift.

Paul’s Christology: The Logos-Infused Mediator

In Pauline theology, his Jesus is first and foremost a man infused with the Greek concept of the Logos. The Logos, understood as the divine rational principle underlying the cosmos, inhabits his Jesus through the Spirit, rendering him an adopted vessel of “divine” purpose. This perspective resonates with Colossians 2:2, where Paul speaks of “…the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ”—highlighting a distinction between God the Father and his Logos-imprinted Christ.

Paul’s Jesus bridges the supposedly divine and the mortal, not by innate divinity but by the transformative power of “the Spirit.” The emphasis lies on Jesus’ mediating role, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. This underscores a functional Christology—Jesus as the intermediary who reconciles humanity with God through his Spirit-infused humanity. This perspective preserves the monotheistic framework of Judaism while introducing a Hellenistic philosophical nuance.

Post-Pauline Christianity: The Emergence of a Divine Christ

As Christian theory evolved, so did its understanding of the Jesus charcter. By the time of the Nicene Creed (325 CE), the notion of Jesus as co-eternal and consubstantial with God the Father had crystallized. This Trinitarian doctrine presented Jesus not merely as a mediator, but as an inherent part of the Godhead (God the Logos and God the Father). Such a transformation marked a significant departure from Paul’s portrayal.

This evolution can be traced back to Christianity’s engagement with Greco-Roman philosophical traditions and its need to assert theological supremacy amidst competing religious systems. Early Christianity inevitably absorbed elements from its religious milieu, reinterpreting the Logos concept not as an infusion but as an eternal aspect of Jesus’ divine nature, thereby creating an entirely new Jesus from the one invented by Paul.

Key Differences Between Paul's Theology and Later Christianity

1.     Humanity vs. Divinity:

o   Paul: Jesus is a human mediator, adopted and empowered by the Logos.

o   Later Christianity: Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God.

2.     The Role of the Logos:

o   Paul: The Logos transforms Jesus (when an adult man) into the mediator.

o   Later Christianity: The Logos is fully embodied in Jesus (since birth) as a pre-existing divine entity.

3.     Focus on Functionality:

o   Paul: Emphasizes Jesus’ role as a bridge between God and humanity.

o   Later Christianity: Focuses on Jesus’ ontological nature as part of the Trinity.

Philosophical Implications of the Divide

Paul’s theology roots itself in the “mystery of God”—a dynamic interaction between the Greek Logos and the human. By contrast, later Christian orthodoxy emphasizes ontological sameness within the Trinity, reducing the functional distinction Paul highlights. This shift from a relational to a metaphysical understanding of Jesus reflects broader philosophical trends in late antiquity, where abstract metaphysics often overshadowed the experiential and existential.

Paul’s Jesus operates within a framework of “divine” adoption, reminiscent of the Stoic idea of living in harmony with the Logos. The later Christian Jesus, however, embodies the Platonic ideal—an unchanging and eternal “divine essence.” These differing Christologies reflect the theological and cultural priorities of their respective eras: Paul’s immediate and pragmatic vision versus the later church’s quest for universal doctrinal coherence and supremacy.

The Mystery

Paul’s emphasis on the “mystery” (“mysterion”) of Christ points to an experiential faith, one that invites believers into the personal unfolding of revelation and wisdom. The later institutionalization of Christianity moved away from this participatory “mystery” towards fixed dogmas. Paul’s vision is ultimately a reminder of a faith that sought to transcend rigid religious systems, inviting continuous dialogue with what was believed to be divine.

Case, S. J. (1914). Christianity and the mystery religions. The Biblical World, 43(1), 3-16.

Paul and Philo: The Hellenistic Foundations of Christian Theology

Early Christian theology stands at the crossroads of Jewish monotheism and Hellenistic philosophy. The writings of Paul, particularly in his epistles, reflect the influence of Hellenistic Judaism as articulated by Philo of Alexandria. Central to this synthesis is the concept of the Logos—the divine Word or Reason that acts as an intermediary between God and creation. Philo identifies the Logos as the Son of God, and Paul’s writings not only echo this understanding but also expand it through his Christology, assimilating the Logos into the person of Jesus Christ.

We will explore how Philo’s Logos theology informs Paul’s view of Jesus as a mediator, particularly in Colossians 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Philippians 2:5-7. By examining these parallels, we will see the philosophical framework behind Paul’s theology and its Hellenistic roots.

Philo’s Theology: The Logos as the Son of God

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE), a prominent Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, viewed the Logos as the divine intermediary that bridges the infinite God and finite creation. In his writings, Philo plainly and clearly identifies the Logos as the Son of God:

“To his Word, his chief messenger, highest in age and honor, the Father of the universe has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery...” (Who is the Heir of Divine Things, Philo)

Here, Philo portrays the Logos as the Son of God, tasked with mediating between the transcendent Father and humanity. The Logos embodies divine wisdom, reason, and order, acting as the instrument of creation and the sustainer of all things.

Another statement reads: “To explain this definition, Philo specifies that God’s logos is the supreme genus of everything that was born. From a philosophical point of view, if somebody remains in the world of immanence, he can refer to the universal logos, and only to him. But to see the logos as the ultimate expression of the absolute is for Philo an absolute impiety. In fact, the logos is only God’s shadow, His image, the instrument by which He created the world, or in a more anthropomorphic way, His ‘first-born son’ or His deputy (Agr. 51). In Fug. 109, the logos is said to be ‘the Son of God and Sophia’. The Pythagorean-Platonic model of Creation acting on undefined matter is thus both preserved and richly transformed.”

If the reader still needs more evidence concerning the identity of the Logos: “The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: ‘For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns’ (Conf. 63).” 

Jesus was never that “Son” from time immemorial and that stood as “Creator” with the “Father.” Paul doesn’t teach that. The founding theology of Paul doesn’t step away from Hellenistic Judaism. “Logos” is Son and Mediator to the world and to humanity, in both Greek philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism. Paul perverts this ancient religious theory by erroneously amalgamating the “Logos” character into his Jesus.

Paul’s Theology: Jesus as the Logos in Human Form

Paul’s writings demonstrate a profound alignment with Philo’s Logos theology, particularly in passages such as Colossians 2:2:

"...to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ."

Paul separates God, the Father, and his Christ, much like Philo distinguishes between the transcendent Deity of Israel and the Logos. Paul’s triadic structure underscores the intermediary role of his Christ, akin to the Logos, as a distinct yet connected entity within the divine framework.

In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul reinforces this mediator role:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Here, Paul highlights Jesus’ humanity while preserving his role as the Logos manifested in human form. This mirrors Philo’s depiction of the Logos as a bridge between God and creation, emphasizing the Logos’ function rather than its nature.

Philippians 2:5-7: The Mind of the Logos

Paul’s Christology reaches its philosophical pinnacle in Philippians 2:5-7:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

This passage provides critical insight into Paul’s understanding of Jesus. It was not the person of Jesus who descended into humanity but the mind—the divine Logos—that took on the form of a servant. In Hellenistic terms, this "mind" represents the rational principle of “God,” the Son or Logos, which humbly manifests within human limitations.

Philo similarly describes the Logos as the divine mind or wisdom that brings order to creation:

“For the Logos is the image of God, through which the whole universe was created.” (On the Creation, Philo)

By identifying this "mind" as the Logos, Paul harmonizes the philosophical concept of divine mediation with the figure of Jesus, presenting him as the embodiment of the Logos’ humility and purpose.

Logos Theology: The Bridge Between God and Humanity

Philo’s Logos serves as a cosmic intermediary, a divine force that connects the infinite and finite:

1. Mediator Role: Philo’s Logos is a suppliant on behalf of humanity, standing between God and creation. Paul mirrors this in 1 Timothy 2:5, presenting Christ as the mediator.

2. Divine Wisdom: For Philo, the Logos embodies divine wisdom and reason. Paul reflects this in Philippians 2:5-7, emphasizing the divine "mind" that condescends to human form.

3. Instrument of Creation: Philo describes the Logos as the agent of creation, which aligns with Paul’s depiction of Jesus as central to God’s creative and redemptive work.

Paul’s Expansion of Philo’s Logos

While Philo’s Logos remains an abstract principle, Paul personalizes it within his Jesus. This innovation makes the concept accessible to both Jewish and Gentile audiences, blending the metaphysical with the tangible. Paul retains the Hellenistic Jewish framework of the Logos as a mediator but forcefully extends its scope to emphasize the transformative potential of the Logos’ embodiment in Jesus.

Bridging Philosophy and Faith

Paul’s Christology reveals a forced theological framework rooted in Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. By aligning Jesus with the Logos, Paul preserves Jewish monotheism while embracing the philosophical depth of the Logos as the Son of God. Philippians 2:5-7 epitomizes this synthesis, showing how the "mind"—the divine Logos—manifested in the human Jesus, which allowed him to be that mediator between “God” and humanity. Paul’s machination of integrating Greek philosophy and Hellenistic Jewish faith shaped Christian theory, bridging the gap between a then world that stood divided between the Jews and the Romans.

References:

Philo. (1993). The works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Hendrickson Publishers.

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). https://iep.utm.edu/philo/

Philo of Alexandria (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2022, August 16). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo/