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.

Did Adam’s Sin Bring Death? Rethinking Paul’s Theology vs. the Hebrew Bible

The Bible presents a deep and complex dialogue about sin, consequences, and spiritual death. Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death..." while Genesis 2:17 declares, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." A glaring philosophical issue emerges when we compare these verses: Adam and Eve did not physically die upon eating the fruit, challenging the straightforward notion that “sin” results in immediate physical death or “eternal death.” Instead, their "death" appears to be a death of understanding, aligning with Isaiah 44:18, "...he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand." The “opening of their eyes” was in fact the “closing of their eyes.”

The Nature of Death in Eden

If Adam and Eve’s death was not a physical cessation of life, then what kind of death did they suffer? The text suggests an intellectual and spiritual demise—a blindness of mind and heart. Their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7), but rather than gaining enlightenment, they perceived their own nakedness (figurative) and felt shame (philosophical). This aligns with Isaiah 44:18, which describes a condition where people are rendered incapable of understanding due to their spiritual impairment.

This interpretation raises a significant challenge to Paul’s assertion in Romans 6:23. If the wages of sin were strictly death, and especially the death of some aspect of self in some weird extraterrestrial “afterlife,” as Paul asserts, then the immediate consequence in Eden should have been death to all aspects of the pair in Eden, which “death” the text does not mention because that is not the mindset behind it. Yet, Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5). The logical dissonance between Paul’s assertion and the Bible’s narrative suggests that Paul was propagating a prospective theological theory that diverges from the Bible’s original philosophy and account.

Paul’s Theological Deviation from the Hebrew Bible

Ezekiel 18:20 states, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." This passage directly refutes the concept of inherited sin and collective guilt. If Adam and Eve's transgression resulted in spiritual blindness rather than immediate death, then Paul's doctrine of sin leading to universal death appears to be a theological extrapolation rather than a point stating or continuing the Bible’s philosophy.

Paul’s framing of sin and death seems to pivot towards a transactional model of atonement rather than the Hebrew Bible’s focus on personal accountability. Ezekiel makes it clear that one person’s sin does not transfer to another, yet Paul argues for a universal condemnation through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). This universal condemnation is nowhere found within the text from Genesis to Malachi. This raises the question: Was Paul redefining biblical justice to fit his theological framework?

The Implications of Paul’s Perspective

Paul’s teaching in Romans shapes much of Christian theory, particularly regarding its perspective on salvation and the necessity of its Christ’s sacrifice. However, if the Bible itself does not establish death as an automatic consequence of sin (whether immediately occurring in the here and now or occurring later beyond the here and now) in the way Paul presents it, then his argument may be built on a theological innovation rather than biblical continuity.

If sin led to intellectual death (and it only did) in Eden rather than physical death, Paul’s statement in Romans 6:23 must be understood either metaphorically or theoretically rather than actually or literally. This perspective fundamentally alters the way the Bible philosophically defines atonement and devotional justice. If the fate of Adam and Eve was a loss of spiritual clarity rather than biological termination (and it was), then Paul’s doctrine of inherited sin and universal condemnation, because it is contrary to the Bible’s narrative and philosophical scope, requires re-examination.

A Divergence

The juxtaposition of Genesis 2:17, Isaiah 44:18, and Ezekiel 18 with Paul’s Romans 6:23 highlights a significant philosophical divergence. While Genesis and Ezekiel emphasize personal responsibility and the consequences of error as a loss of understanding, Paul constructs a universalized doctrine of sin and death that deviates from the Hebrew Bible’s narrative. This raises serious questions: Was Paul reshaping theology to fit a new religious framework? And if so, what are the implications for contemporary Christian thought?

A logical inquiry into Paul’s belief shows that his theology presents a deviation from the biblical text rather than a direct continuation of its teachings. The philosophical issue, then, is whether modern Christian theology should align with Paul’s doctrine, or return to the original biblical perspective on sin and its consequences.

Paul and the Philosophy of Hellenistic Judaism

The story of the character Paul’s relationship with Hellenistic Judaism is one of complexity, adaptation, and continuity. Often misunderstood as a radical departure from his Jewish roots, Paul's theology and approach reflects a profound engagement with the philosophical and cultural framework of Hellenistic Judaism. This post will explore how Paul embraced and maintained the religious philosophy of Hellenistic Judaism while transforming it to suit his message.

The Foundations of Hellenistic Judaism

Hellenistic Judaism, a product of the interaction between Jewish traditions and Greek culture, offered a unique fusion of monotheistic faith and philosophical reasoning. Jewish thinkers like Philo of Alexandria sought to harmonize the Torah with the philosophical ethos of Greek intellectualism, particularly Platonism and Stoicism. This synthesis emphasized moral virtue, the allegorical interpretation of scripture, and the universality of wisdom as “divine.”

Unlike Palestinian Judaism, which remained closely tied to the traditional practices of Moses and national identity, Hellenistic Judaism did the opposite, engaging with Greek audiences through their own concepts like the Logos as the intermediary between God and the cosmos. This philosophical lens shaped Paul’s understanding of “divine purpose” and humanity’s place within it.

Paul as a Hellenistic Jew

Paul's identity as a Hellenistic Jew uniquely positioned him as a bridge between Jewish traditions and the Greco-Roman world. He was, in a sense, playing the role of the Greek Logos. If we are to believe “Paul” is born in Tarsus, a prominent city within the Roman Empire, he would have been someone immersed in a Hellenistic environment marked by philosophical schools, Greco-Roman civic life, and the cultural markers of the Diaspora. His upbringing would have combined deep Jewish roots with the influence of Greek language, rhetoric, and thought, reflecting the dual identity characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism. With Tarsus also being the most famous hub for one of the then main Roman gods Mithra, it is no surprise where Paul’s dying and rising, bread breaking and wine drinking Jesus came from. Add in Hellenistic Judaism, and we have the “Christ” of “Paul.”

The Dual Identity of Hellenistic Jews

Hellenistic Jews, like Paul, navigated through two worlds. They adhered to Jewish religious traditions while adopting elements of Greek culture, particularly language and intellectual frameworks. This blend is evident in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who harmonized Greek philosophy with Jewish theology. Paul similarly engaged Greek philosophical concepts, evident in his use of terms like stoicheia (elements) in Galatians 4:3 and Colossians 2:8, which reflects cosmological and spiritual concerns familiar to both Jewish and Greek audiences​​.

Paul’s use of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, further illustrates his Hellenistic identity. This version of the Torah was central to Diaspora Judaism, enabling Greek-speaking Jews to maintain their connection to sacred texts while engaging with their surrounding culture. Paul's writings are full of quotations from the Septuagint (and also the Apocrypha), showing his reliance on this Hellenized form of the scriptures to convey his message to Gentile and Jewish audiences alike​.

Education and Rhetoric

Paul's education likely included exposure to Hellenistic rhetorical techniques, evident in his epistolary style. His letters, such as Romans and 1 Corinthians, demonstrate the influence of Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, including structured arguments, appeals to ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason). For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul quotes a Greek poet, possibly Epimenides or Aratus, to connect with the Athenians’ philosophical worldview, showing his familiarity with their cultural texts​.

This rhetorical adaptability reflects the broader educational goals of Hellenistic Judaism, which sought to make Jewish teachings accessible and compelling within a Greco-Roman framework. Paul's ability to blend Jewish theology with philosophical discourse positioned him as a master communicator, capable of addressing both Jewish and Gentile audiences​.

Paul and the Philosophical Worldview

Paul's theological concepts also bear traces of Hellenistic Jewish philosophy. Hellenistic Judaism, particularly in its Alexandrian form, engaged deeply with Platonic and Stoic thought, emphasizing themes such as the Logos (divine reason) and the moral order of the universe. In his letters, Paul adopts and reframes these themes. For example, in Colossians 1:15-20, he both re-writes and advances Greek Hellenistic thought, presenting his Christ as being one or filled with the preeminent Logos, thereby assigning to his Christ the cosmological legacy of being that figure through whom all things were created, echoing the philosophical language of Philo but grounding it firmly in a newly developing Christocentric worldview​​.

Additionally, Paul's discussions of the flesh (sarx) and spirit (pneuma) in Romans 7-8 reveal an engagement with Hellenistic dualism. While he diverges from Platonic disdain for the physical world, he uses this framework to articulate the moral struggle between human weakness and divine empowerment​.

Bridging Jewish and Gentile Worlds

Paul’s identity as a Hellenistic Jew was instrumental in his mission to the Gentiles. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Paul did not view the Mosaic Law as a strict boundary marker separating Jews from Gentiles. Instead, he interpreted the law through the lens of Hellenistic Jewish universalism, emphasizing its moral and allegorical essence rather than its ritualistic requirements. This perspective resonated with Gentile audiences who were familiar with the ethical monotheism of the Diaspora synagogue but hesitant to adopt its particularistic practices, such as circumcision and dietary laws​​.

Through his theological writings, Paul integrated the inclusivity and moral focus of Hellenistic Judaism with the redemptive narrative that he invented of his Christ. His letters consistently reflect his belief that the Deity of Israel was the God of all nations, a conviction rooted in the universalistic tendencies of Hellenistic Jewish thought.

Paul’s Radical Redefinition of Redemption

In traditional Jewish thought, redemption was often tied to national restoration, with Israel’s Deity delivering Israel from its enemies and restoring it as a holy nation. Paul, however, redefined redemption in a universal and allegorical sense, emphasizing freedom from sin, death, and the stoicheia (elemental forces) that dominated the cosmos​​. This redefinition resonated with Hellenistic audiences, who were familiar with the philosophical concept of liberation from fate and the controlling powers of the universe, as seen in Stoic and Platonic thought.

The Cosmic Scope of Redemption

Paul’s epistles, particularly Galatians and Colossians, reflect his engagement with Hellenistic cosmology. He described the stoicheia as spiritual entities that enslave humanity, linking them to both Jewish legalism and Gentile astral worship (Galatians 4:3-9; Colossians 2:8-20). By portraying these forces as part of a corrupted cosmic order, Paul framed redemption as a cosmic event achieved through his Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

In Colossians 2:15, Paul states that his Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities” and triumphed over them through the cross, an image that aligns with Hellenistic mystery religions' emphasis on defeating malevolent powers. This cosmic victory not only liberated individuals from the spiritual tyranny of the stoicheia but also signaled the inauguration of a new divine order​​.

Redemption and the Mystery-Religion Framework

Paul’s use of mystery-religion terminology further illustrates the philosophical depth of his redemption narrative. Hellenistic mystery cults often emphasized initiation rites, spiritual enlightenment, and liberation from the constraints of fate. Paul adapted these ideas to present baptism as a rite of initiation into the death and resurrection of his Christ, where believers symbolically died to their old lives and rose to newness in spirit through his Christ (Romans 6:3-5)​.

This alignment with Hellenistic themes allowed Paul to communicate the sure implications of redemption to a Greco-Roman audience. Redemption was not merely an abstract theological concept; it was a deeply personal and transformative experience that resonated with the Hellenistic yearning for spiritual freedom and divine union.

Redemption and the Law

One of Paul’s most striking innovations was his reinterpretation of the Jews’ religious law. Drawing from Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, Paul presented the religious law as a temporary guardian (paidagogos) designed to prepare humanity for the coming of his Christ (Galatians 3:24-25). This view emphasized the limitations of the Law in providing true redemption, contrasting it with the liberating power of faith in his Christ.

Paul’s critique of the Law’s inability to bring life (Galatians 3:21) reflected a broader Hellenistic skepticism about rigid legalism and materialism. By presenting redemption as a transformative spiritual event, Paul challenged both Jewish and Gentile audiences to embrace a higher, universal moral calling​​.

Paul’s revolutionary concept of redemption merged the best of Jewish eschatology and Hellenistic philosophy. By framing redemption as liberation from cosmic forces and initiation into a new divine order, Paul provided a theological framework that transcended cultural boundaries. This philosophical depth and universality made Paul’s message compelling to diverse audiences, solidifying his role as a transformative figure in early Christian theory.

Maintaining Continuity Amid Change

Despite his innovations, Paul remained rooted in his Hellenistic Jewish identity. His use of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, underscored his commitment to the Jews’ narrative while making it accessible to a wider pagan and Hellenistic audience. His emphasis on the moral and ethical dimensions of the Torah reflected the Hellenistic Jewish tendency to universalize Jewish teachings.

Paul’s vision was not a rejection of Judaism, but a reimagining of it in light of his Christ. By adopting the tools of Hellenistic Judaism, Paul created a new theological framework that could resonate with diverse audiences without (on the surface) forsaking its Hellenistic Jewish foundation.

 References:

Easton, B. S. (1917). The Pauline Theology and Hellenism. The American Journal of Theology, 21(3), 358-382.

Irons, L. (2006). The use of “Hellenistic Judaism” in Pauline studies. Fuller Theological Seminary Center for Advanced Theological Studies.