The Historical Jesus vs. the Christ of Faith: Can They Be Separated?

The figure of Jesus stands at the heart of Christianity, yet his identity sparks endless debate: Is he the historical Hebrew minister who walked the dusty roads of first-century Palestine, or the cosmic Christ of Faith, exalted in the confessions of the Church? This tension; between a Jesus of history and a Christ of faith; has fueled centuries of scholarship, theological reflection, and spiritual inquiry. Can these two figures (for the sake of Christianity’s continuance and survival) be meaningfully separated, or are they inextricably intertwined? Drawing on some insights (Anderson, 2013; Collins, n.d.; Samuels, n.d.; Wright, 1996), this blog post explores this interesting question, inviting you to also ponder the historical, theological, and philosophical implications of the Jesus character’s dual identity.

The Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus seeks to uncover the possible man behind the myth—a figure grounded in the cultural, religious, and political realities of first-century Hellenistic Judaism. Scholars like E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright emphasize Jesus as an eschatological prophet proclaiming the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom (Sanders, 1995, as cited in Samuels, n.d.; Wright, 1996). Far from a timeless moral teacher, Jesus was a Galilean Hebrew (Galilee is in the land of Naphtali) who challenged the Roman occupation and Jewish religious establishment with a message of radical renewal. The actions of his ministry—calling disciples, enlightening people and doctrinally challenging the Sanhedrin, and overturning tables in the Temple—marked him as a charismatic leader, a “sage” with social and political implications (Borg, as cited in Samuels, n.d.).

Adela Yarbro Collins highlights Jesus’ distinctiveness even among other prophets like John the Baptist. Unlike John’s ascetic rigor, Jesus embraced table fellowship, symbolizing his God’s inclusive love and joy (Collins, n.d.). His teachings, rooted in Hebrew Scripture, carried an unprecedented authority, leading some to see him as the Messiah during his lifetime. Yet, his crucifixion—a brutal Roman execution—challenged messianic expectations, forcing followers to reinterpret his death as part of a divine plan (Collins, n.d.).

This historical Jesus is vivid, human, and deeply Hebrew. But can he be isolated from the Greek theological figure who emerged in the wake of his death?

The Christ of Faith

The Christ of Faith is the exalted figure of Christian confession, celebrated in the Pauline epistles, Johannine theology, and church doctrine. This Christ is not scripted as being merely a historical preacher but the cosmic savior, the “second name for Jesus” in Paul’s writings, embodying salvation for the church (Kärkkäinen, as cited in Samuels, n.d.). The Gospel of John, with its high Christology, presents the Jesus character as the manifested Greek Logos, the Word (Greek Logos) made flesh, distinct from the Synoptic Gospels’ focus on his humanity (Anderson, 2013).

For theologians like Pannenberg, Christology is about grounding the church’s confession in the historical activity of Jesus, yet it transcends history (Pannenberg, as cited in Samuels, n.d.). The Christ of Faith is confessed as risen, exalted, and returning—a figure woven into the nature of Christian worship, theory, and belief. This theological construct, shaped by post-resurrection experiences and Hellenistic influences, elevates the Jesus character beyond his Hebrew or Jewish context into a universal savior.

But does this elevation erase the historical Jesus, or does it depend on him?

The Tension: Can History and Faith Be Divided?

The debate over separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of Faith is not ultimately academic—it’s a philosophical and spiritual crossroads. Individuals like David Friedrich Strauss argued for a stark divide, dismissing miracles as mythological expressions of messianic belief rather than historical events (Collins, n.d.). Strauss’ naturalistic approach sought to strip away theology to reveal a purely human Jesus, a view echoed by John Dominic Crossan, who portrays Jesus as a non-apocalyptic sage akin to a Cynic philosopher (Wright, 1996).

Yet, this dichotomy is problematic. Paul N. Anderson challenges Strauss’ rigid separation, arguing that history and theology are “inextricably entwined” (Anderson, 2013, p. 81). The Gospel of John (despite its manuscript being heavily re-written by various authors), often dismissed as purely theological, contains more mundane and archaeologically verified details (not about the Jesus character) than the Synoptics, suggesting a historical core beneath its theological veneer (Anderson, 2013). Similarly, N.T. Wright rejects the divide, proposing that Jesus’ historical actions—his Temple critique, table fellowship, and self-understanding as a messianic figure—form the foundation for early Christian theology (Wright, 1996). For Wright, linking the resurrection to the Jesus character is the pivotal event: without it, Jesus’ movement would have fizzled like other failed messianic campaigns (Wright, 1996).

The Synoptic Gospels, too, blur the line. While they seek to emphasize Jesus’ humanity, their portrayal of him as a prophet and miracle-worker carries theological weight (Samuels, n.d.). Even the historical Jesus’ apocalyptic worldview, which modern academics downplay, was inherently theological, expressing hope in his God’s intervention (Collins, n.d.). As Anderson notes, “insignificant historicity is a contradiction of terms” (Anderson, 2013, p. 77). Events are remembered because they matter, and their significance is inherently subjective.

The Interplay of Memory and Meaning

Philosophically, the question of separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of Faith touches on the nature of memory, truth, and identity. History is not a sterile collection of facts but a narrative shaped by those who remember, and also by those that have the power to manipulate what others should remember. The early Christians’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection transformed their memory of him, not by erasing his historical reality but by infusing it with cosmic significance (Wright, 1996). As Borg suggests, the Gospels use metaphorical language to convey the Jesus character’s meaning, not just his actions (Samuels, n.d.).

This challenges us to consider: Can we know Jesus without faith, or does faith illuminate his history? For individuals like Vermes and Fredriksen, Jesus’ Jewishness is the key to his historical identity, grounding him in a specific cultural context (Samuels, n.d.). Yet, the Christ of Faith transcends this context, speaking to universal human longings for redemption and justice. The two are not mutually exclusive but dialectical, each informing the other.

Why It Matters

The debate over the historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith is more than an academic exercise—it’s a question of how we encounter “Jesus” today. For believers, the Christ of Faith offers a living presence, rooted in an embellishment of the historical Jesus’ life and death (there was no resurrection). For skeptics, the historical Jesus provides a tangible figure, free from dogmatic overlays. Both perspectives enrich our understanding, but neither fully captures the mystery of both the invented historical and mythological identity of the Jesus character identity.

As Wright argues, the historical Jesus’ radical vocation redefines our concept of “God” itself (Wright, 1996). This challenges comfortable orthodoxies and secular assumptions alike. Similarly, Collins’ call to interpret Jesus’ apocalyptic language metaphorically invites us to see his message as addressing timeless human desires for freedom and justice (Collins, n.d.). This was not a dying and rising demigod, but an individual that understood the Hebrew Scriptures in a way where his intellect was becoming counterintuitive to the Sanhedrin’s agenda.

An Inseparable Unity?

SO, can the historical Jesus and the cosmic Christ of Faith, for the sake of Christian theory’s survival, be separated? The evidence suggests not. The historical Jesus, a Hebrew prophet educating on the incoming presence of the “kingdom of God” (Rome) and the inward movement of the kingdom of God (a dispensation of understanding), is the foundation for the mythological Christ of Faith, whose cosmic significance Christian theologians have transformed over the centuries. While individuals like Strauss and Crossan seek to peel away theology, and others like Anderson and Wright insist on their unity, the truth lies in the tension. This is all for the sake of Christian theory, which needs an apparently concrete figure to make their belief appear credible. But seeing as how the historical minister was not a Christian walking around calling himself “Christ” or “Son of Man,” the man himself would not actually need his Greek myth to get his point across. Surely all of this encourages us to continue to wrestle with the paradox of history and faith.

References

Anderson, P. N. (2013). The Jesus of history, the Christ of faith, and the Gospel of John. In The Gospels: History and Christology: The Search of Joseph Ratzinger—Benedict XVI (Vol. 2, pp. 63–81). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Collins, A. Y. (n.d.). The historical Jesus: Then and now.

Samuels, P.-P. (n.d.). A critical analysis of the Jesus of history vs. the Christ of faith debate.

Wright, N. T. (1996). The historical Jesus and Christian theology. Sewanee Theological Review, 39.

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.

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.