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.

Was Paul the Apostle Influenced by Platonism? Reviewing Acts 17

The relationship between Paul the Apostle and Platonism has long been a subject of theological and philosophical intrigue. While Paul is traditionally seen as a Jewish thinker rooted in Hebraic traditions, his engagement with Greco-Roman intellectual currents, particularly in Acts 17, suggests a more complex philosophical landscape. Could it be that Paul was, in some way, influenced by Platonic thought? If so, what does this mean for our understanding of his theology and the early Christian movement?

Paul at the Areopagus

Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-31) is one of the most explicitly philosophical moments in the New Testament. Here, he engages with Stoics and Epicureans, quoting Greek poets and invoking the concept of an "unknown god." There is an academic debate of whether Paul’s speech aligns with Middle Platonic thought, particularly its interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus 28c, where the philosopher posits that the "maker and father" of the world is difficult to find and even harder to speak about.

Paul’s language in Acts 17 closely parallels Platonic discourse. The way he describes “God” as "maker" and "father" echoes later Middle Platonic exegesis of Timaeus 28c, which emphasized the dual role of the “Divine” as both creator and progenitor. Paul’s rhetoric places him within a Greco-Roman tradition of theological dialogue, where Platonic themes were commonly employed to discuss supposedly divine transcendence and human access to the supposedly divine.

Further evidence of Platonic influence in Paul’s address can be found in his reference to “God” as the one in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). This concept bears resemblance to the Middle Platonic interpretation of “divine” or supernatural immanence, where all existence derives from and participates in a transcendent source. Origen of Alexandria later expounded upon this idea, emphasizing the Platonic distinction between the material world and the higher, intelligible reality.

Additionally, Paul’s engagement with Greek philosophy at the Areopagus reflects a broader strategy used by early Christian apologists, a strategy that he no doubt had a hand in encouraging. Second-century Christian thinkers, including Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, appropriated Platonic terminology to articulate Christian doctrine. Paul’s speech, therefore, may represent an early example of this approach, demonstrating a willingness to frame Christian theology in categories familiar to his Hellenistic audience.

Paul’s engagement with the intellectual currents of his time does not suggest he was a Platonist in a strict sense. Yet his discourse at the Areopagus reveals an awareness of and engagement with Greek metaphysical thought. Similar to Origen’s later exegetical methods, Paul strategically employed philosophical language to communicate “theological truths,” making Christian theory intellectually accessible to a broader audience.

Platonism, Early Christian Thought, and Origen

The broader influence of Platonism on early Christian apologetics is well-documented. Early Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr were deeply influenced by Middle Platonic ideas. Philo of Alexandria had already synthesized Jewish theology with Platonic metaphysics, portraying “God” as the transcendent One and employing the concept of the Logos as an intermediary between the “divine” and the material world.

A particularly important figure in this discussion is Origen of Alexandria, who engaged deeply with Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas while maintaining a critical distance. Origen saw philosophy as a preparatory tool for understanding Scripture. He drew upon Plato’s concept of likeness to God (from Theaetetus 176b) to explain humanity’s journey toward divine transformation. However, Origen did not adopt Platonism wholesale; instead, he selectively integrated ideas that aligned with Christian theology, rejecting those that were incompatible.

Origen’s approach to biblical exegesis was influenced by Platonic structures of interpretation. He, like Paul, utilized allegorical methods similar to those found in Middle Platonism, seeing multiple layers of meaning in Scripture. This mirrors Plato’s theory of reality, where the visible world is a shadow of the higher, intelligible realm. Origen applied this framework to biblical texts, interpreting them in ways that transcended their literal meanings to uncover deeper spiritual truths.

Furthermore, Origen’s doctrine of the Logos has clear Platonic resonances. Drawing from both Timaeus and the Gospel of John, he identified the Logos as the divine mediator between God and creation, akin to the role of the Demiurge in Platonic cosmology. His views influenced later Christian theology, particularly in articulating the relationship between “God the Father” and “Christ the Logos.” While Origen’s theological system was ultimately distinct from Neoplatonism, elements of its hierarchical structure and emphasis on supernatural transcendence reflect an engagement with Platonic thought.

Origen’s synthesis of Christian doctrine with Platonic principles paved the way for later theological developments. His influence extended to figures like Augustine of Hippo who, while critical of some Platonic concepts, nevertheless integrated aspects of Neoplatonic metaphysics into his Christian theology. This enduring dialogue between Platonism and Christianity highlights the philosophical complexity of early Christian thought and Paul’s own exposure to such ideas.

Paul’s Relationship to Platonism: Imitation or Convergence?

Does this mean Paul was a Platonist? Not necessarily. Paul’s theological framework remains fundamentally Jewish, centered on a Hellenistic revelation of “God” through Paul’s Christ rather than philosophical speculation. However, his engagement with Greek philosophy suggests a degree of intellectual convergence. Like Philo and Origen, Paul may have drawn on Platonic themes as a means of articulating theological truths to a Hellenistic audience.

Moreover, Paul’s opposition to idolatry and his emphasis on a personal, knowable Deity distinguish his message from Platonic abstraction. Whereas Platonism often emphasized the ineffability of “the One,” Paul presents a Deity who, though transcendent, has made himself known through “Jesus Christ.”

A Philosophical Hybrid?

Ultimately, Paul’s engagement with Platonism reflects a broader pattern in early Christian theory, where Jewish monotheism intersected with Greco-Roman philosophy. While the character Paul was not a Platonist in the strict sense, his speech in Acts 17 suggests he was conversant with Platonic themes and used them strategically in dialogue with Greek or Hellenistic Jewish thinkers.

Rather than being a mere borrower of Greek philosophy, Paul can be seen as a sophisticated thinker who navigated multiple intellectual traditions to advance his theological vision. His interaction with Platonism is not one of wholesale adoption but of selective engagement—a philosophical hybridization that helped shape the trajectory of early Christian theory. The influence of thinkers like Origen further solidifies the notion that Christian theology was enriched not by the philosophy within the Hebrew scriptures, but by its dialogue with Greek philosophy.

 

 References

Artemi, E. (2023). The Platonism and Neo-Platonism influence on Origen’s exegesis of the Bible. Mirabilia: Electronic Journal of Antiquity, Middle & Modern Ages, (36), 9.

Gaston, T. E. (2009). The influence of Platonism on the early Apologists. The Heythrop Journal, 50(4), 573-580.

Hubbard, J. M. (2022). Paul the Middle Platonist? Exegetical Traditions on Timaeus 28c and the Characterization of Paul in Acts 17: 16–31. Harvard theological review, 115(4), 477-495.

How Platonism Led Christianity Away from the Hebrew Scriptures

Christian theology underwent profound changes as it encountered Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism. While this philosophical framework offered early theologians tools to articulate their faith within the intellectual climate of the Greco-Roman world, it also caused Christianity to diverge significantly from the character and philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Key biblical passages such as Psalm 51:10 (“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”), Proverbs 4:7 (“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding”), and Proverbs 1:23 (“I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you”) highlight a deeply personal and inward communion with the Bible, rooted in practical, devotional growth.

This blog examines how Christian theory’s reliance on Platonic thought reshaped its doctrines about “God,” the soul, and morality, moving away from the personal, practical philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Platonism and the Nature of God

The Hebrew Scriptures depict its God as being consciously relational and involved in the daily lives of its people. Passages like Psalm 51:10 reveal a God who works directly within the human heart and mind, creating renewal and fostering a deeply personal transformation. This reflects a God who is not distant but intimately connected to the inner lives of individuals, guiding them through their struggles and joys.

However, Platonism introduced a more abstract concept of God. Plato’s idea of the Forms—eternal, unchangeable ideals—reshaped Christian theology, presenting God as a distant, immaterial entity. Early Christian thinkers like Augustine embraced this framework, equating God with the ultimate Form of the Good, emphasizing God’s transcendence over God’s immanence.

This philosophical shift marked a departure from the Hebrew Scriptures’ portrayal of a God who walks with his people, interacts personally, and responds to their cries for renewal. Instead of the practical and relational connection seen in Psalm 51:10, “God” became an abstract object of contemplation. This shift minimized the personal, inward aspect of faith, replacing it with an intellectual pursuit of understanding God’s nature.

Platonism and the Soul

The Hebrew Scriptures offer a holistic view of being human. The soul, or nephesh, is not a separate, immaterial entity but a unified representation of the person, encompassing and influencing their mind, body, and personality. Passages like Proverbs 1:23 emphasize this integrated approach, where “God’s Spirit” is poured out onto the mind to bring wisdom, understanding, and regeneration to the individual’s entire being. The focus is on a personal communion with the Bible’s words through the character of “God’s Mind” within those words, leading to practical, inward transformation.

Platonism, however, introduced a dualistic understanding of human nature, where the soul is distinct from and superior to the body. Plato described the soul as eternal and pure, trapped within the corrupt material world. This perspective heavily influenced early Christian theology, particularly through Augustine, who viewed salvation as the liberation of the soul from the physical body.

This dualistic framework diverged from the Hebrew Scriptures’ holistic philosophy, where renewal and wisdom are experienced in both the spiritual and physical realms. The Platonized emphasis on the soul’s escape from the material world shifted the focus of Christianity, leading to an undervaluation of the physical body and earthly existence, both of which are celebrated in the Hebrew worldview.

Platonism and Morality

Morality in the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply practical, rooted in personal resurrection and the pursuit of wisdom through the Bible’s words. Proverbs 4:7 states, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding,” emphasizing the importance of actionable wisdom that shapes daily life. Similarly, Proverbs 1:23 highlights the inward communion that the devotional conversation’s conscience is to have with the Bible’s words, where the character of those words is to be digested for practical and devotional growth.

Platonism, however, shifted morality toward the pursuit of abstract ideals. Plato’s concept of the Good—an eternal, unchanging standard of virtue—redefined Christian ethics, aligning it with intellectual contemplation rather than practical, lived wisdom. Early theologians equated the Platonic Good with God, turning morality into a rational endeavor focused on aligning with philosophical ideals rather than engaging in personal, transformative communion with the Bible’s words.

This departure minimized the relational and practical approach seen in the Hebrew Scriptures. Where the Bible calls for a personal relationship with its words to guide moral decisions, Platonism encouraged Christians to seek virtue through intellectual abstraction, often disconnecting morality from the lived realities of daily life.

How Platonism Departed from the Hebrew Scriptures’ Philosophy

The Hebrew Scriptures, beneath its allegory, emphasize a life of practical mental and philosophical devotion and inward renewal, as seen in passages like Psalm 51:10 and Proverbs 4:7. These verses reveal an experience of words working within the hearts of individuals, providing wisdom and guidance for real-life joys and challenges. The philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply relational, focused on personal growth and the maturity of the whole person.

Platonism, however, introduced a framework that prioritized the immaterial over the material, the intellectual over the practical, and the abstract over the relational. By adopting Platonic ideals, Christian theory distanced itself from the Bible’s worldview, which values inward communion with its words for practical wisdom as the foundation for personal and communal life.

Early Christian theologians, influenced by Platonism, sought to make their faith intellectually respectable in the Greco-Roman world. However, this intellectual synthesis often came at the expense of the deeply personal and practical philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures. The result was a religion (Christianity) that emphasized philosophical abstraction over the actionable wisdom and renewal found in the Bible’s words.

The Lasting Impact of Platonism on Christianity

The integration of Platonism into Christian theology fundamentally altered its trajectory, leading to doctrines that were often at odds with the Hebrew Scriptures. While Platonism provided a framework for engaging with the intellectual culture of the Greco-Roman world, it also caused Christianity to lose touch with its supposed biblical roots.

The Hebrew Scriptures call its student to seek wisdom, pursue inward renewal, and commune with the living God through the Bible’s words. These practical and relational principles stand in stark contrast to the abstract, intellectualized morality and theology introduced by Platonism.

Recognizing this departure is essential for understanding how Christianity evolved and for reclaiming the Bible’s emphasis on personal, devotional growth. By returning to the underlying wisdom of the Hebrew Scriptures, we can reconnect with an experience that is practical, transformative, and deeply relational.

 

References:

Boone, M. J. (2015). The Role of Platonism in Augustine's 386 Conversion to Christianity. Religion compass, 9(5), 151-161.

Mosheim, J. L. (1852). Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern. Edward Howell.