The Evolution of Jesus: Did the Gospels Alter Paul’s Original Christ?

Paul’s writings were the first to introduce Jesus to the mainstream, predating the Gospels by decades. His letters present a cosmic Christ, emphasizing salvation through faith in his death and resurrection. In contrast, the Gospel Jesus is depicted as a Jewish teacher proclaiming the Kingdom of God. This raises the critical question: Did the Gospel writers reshape Paul’s Jesus, or did they seek to reclaim a more authentic version of the historical figure?

Who Was the Real Jesus?

Paul’s letters, written between 50-60 CE, present a Jesus as a divine figure whose crucifixion and resurrection define the Christian faith. Paul speaks little of Jesus' earthly ministry or ethical teachings, focusing instead on his role as a risen Lord. The Gospels, appearing later, ground Jesus in Jewish tradition, portraying him as a prophet and moral teacher. The shift in emphasis suggests that either the Gospel writers were correcting Paul’s theological vision, or that Paul’s Jesus was already a theological innovation distinct from a historical figure.

Paul’s Jesus is fundamentally theological. He emphasizes justification by faith and salvation through grace, a departure from the Gospel Jesus, who calls for repentance and righteousness in preparation for the Kingdom of God. While Jesus in the Gospels preaches ethical living and social justice, Paul frames faith in his Christ’s death as the sole path to salvation. This distinction highlights the possibility that the Gospels sought to counterbalance or reinterpret Paul’s influence.

Theological vs. Narrative Jesus: A Major Shift

Ethical teachings play a significant role in the Gospels but are largely absent from Paul’s letters. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount advocates love, humility, and nonviolence, while Paul constructs a Christ-centered theology with little reference to these teachings. Scholars like N.T. Wright argue that Paul’s vision of Jesus shaped early Christian doctrine, setting the foundation upon which Gospel writers later built. The work of Oropeza further emphasizes that Paul’s use of the term “gospel” (euangelion) was influenced by Roman imperial and Jewish traditions, reinforcing the idea that Paul’s portrayal was already a reinterpretation of either an already familiar Jesus character or figure.

Despite these differences, both Paul and the Gospels emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s writings insist that without the resurrection, faith is meaningless, making it the cornerstone of Christian belief. The Gospels also build toward this climax, portraying the crucifixion as a fulfillment of prophecy. However, because Paul’s letters predate the Gospel accounts, it is possible that the Gospel writers adapted their narratives to align with the theology Paul had already established.

Did the Gospel Writers Correct Paul’s Theology?

If Paul’s letters represent the earliest theological reflections on Jesus, the Gospels may have been an attempt to reshape or refine his vision. It is academically suggest that Paul’s Jesus came first as a cosmic savior, and the Gospel writers later grounded him in history. Others propose that the Gospels intentionally corrected Paul’s theology, reestablishing the Jesus character as a Jewish messiah rather than the universal figure Paul preached. Paul himself claims in Galatians that his gospel was received through revelation, rather than human tradition, reinforcing the idea that his Jesus was the first “official” Jesus, later modified by Gospel writers. This would actually mean that no actual “Jesus” existed, as Paul only refers to his Jesus in theological terms.

Rather than Paul deviating from Jesus, it may be that the Gospel Jesus deviated from Paul’s theological framework. If Paul’s Jesus was the first to dominate Christian thought, then the Gospel narratives represent an evolution—whether to align with Jewish traditions, expand Christian theory’s appeal, or clarify aspects of Jesus’ life that Paul had not defined. The contrast between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s moral teacher reflects either a dynamic or divergent development of early Christian belief.

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

The question of whether Paul invented Christianity remains a topic of debate. His letters set the foundation for Christian theology, and the Gospel writers may have responded by creating a narrative to go along with it. Yet, the apparent deviation in the Gospel Jesus from Paul’s Jesus might also show a shift in understanding. The gospels don’t really portray the Jesus character as a cosmic figure; such perceptions exist due to a carrying over of Paul’s insights into those narrative. If Paul’s Jesus never existed, and if letters of more anonymous writers surfaced, breaking own to gospel Jesus as Paul breaks down his cosmic Christ, would we even think of the Jesus character in the way that Paul does? Whether Paul’s Jesus was the first true version or the Gospel Jesus was a necessary re-write, their relationship remains one of the most intriguing aspects of early Christian history.

References:

Oropeza, B. J. (2024). The Gospel according to Paul: over a hundred years of interpretation. Religions, 15(12), 1566. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121566

Wright, N. T. (1978). The Tyndale New Testament Lecture, 1978. TYNDALE BULLETIN, 29, 62–64. https://tyndalebulletin.org

The Revelation of Adam: Awakening the Devotional Conversation to Itself

The Apocalypse of Adam, a text from the Nag Hammadi Codex V, presents an interesting alternative to the traditional narrative within the Bible. Here, Adam is not merely the first man of Genesis, but a figure of cosmic awareness, speaking to his son Seth in the seven hundredth year of his life (NHC V,5 64:1-4). Unlike the patriarchal blessing of the Old Testament, Adam’s revelation is an esoteric transmission of lost knowledge—gnosis—that transcends the Creator Deity known to the Hebrew tradition.

The Eternal God and the Primordial Glory

Adam recalls a time before “the fall,” when he and Eve existed in unity with the eternal god, a transcendent deity distinct from the creator. Adam recounts:

"When the god had created me of the earth with Eve your mother, I lived with her in a glory that she had seen in the aeon from which we had become. She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal god" (64:6-13).

This description presents a stark contrast to the Genesis narrative, where Adam and Eve were fashioned from dust and placed under the rule of a singular deity. In The Apocalypse of Adam, their true origin is tied to a seemingly divine reality beyond the material realm, revealing an essential Gnostic theme: the distinction between the eternal God of Light and the Creator, who is but a lesser, flawed Being or Deity.

The Fall as a Consequence of Knowledge

The fall, as Adam describes it, was not a punishment for disobedience, but an act of suppression by the Demiurge (the Creator Deity). He states:

"Then the god, the sovereign of the aeons together with the powers, decided (against) us in wrath. Then we became two aeons, and the glory in our heart left us" (64:20-25).

This "god"—the Demiurge—acts in jealousy and fear, recognizing that Adam and Eve possess a supernatural spark that makes them superior to him and his powers. Adam continues:

"We resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the god who had created us and the powers who were with him, whom we did not know" (64:14-19).

This statement upends the traditional theological theory of Genesis. Here, Adam’s awakening is not a sin but a realization of divine origin. The demiurge, identified with the God of the Old Testament, becomes a cosmic tyrant, seeking to obscure humanity’s true nature.

Noah, Sakla, and the Suppression of Gnosis

As the revelation unfolds, Adam recounts the coming of three mysterious figures—Abrasax, Sablo, and Gamaliel—who unveil the truth about humanity’s origins (76:1-7). Yet, the demiurge, now called Sakla, attempts to erase this knowledge through the flood (69:1-71:26). However, Seth’s lineage preserves the gnosis, escaping Sakla’s wrath through the intervention of higher powers.

This is definitely a reinterpretation of the flood narrative. The Old Testament flood is supposed to be (on the surface) a “divine” cleansing of “corruption,” but here, it is an attempt to annihilate those who bear the knowledge of the Eternal God.

The Illuminator

The text reaches its climax in the hymnic section (77:27-83:4), where an "Illuminator" is prophesied to come, performing signs and wonders to expose the demiurge and his powers:

"The Illuminator will come... and he will perform signs and wonders to scorn the powers and their sovereign" (77:7-18).

This figure, most likely the Gnostic Christ, leads souls out of the Demiurge’s domain and restores them to the light of the Eternal God. Ritual participants, through this knowledge, undergo a spiritual rebirth, breaking free from the false divinity that binds them. One may understand the difference between the Gnostic Christ and the Christian Christ, as the Christian Christ, still employing the tactics of the Demiurge, yet binds individuals to flawed philosophy of the Creator Deity, while the Gnostic Christ spiritually liberates from the chains of such a Christ and flawed Deity.

The Escape from Religious Law

The Apocalypse of Adam is not merely an inversion of the Genesis story; it is a radical philosophical revelation on the fact of the devotional experience. The "God" of the Old Testament is not a Deity per se, but (in reality as you weigh the philosophy from Genesis to Malachi) represents a philosophy centered on righteousness through religious law. The Garden of Eden becomes the first scene of devotional struggle to escape legalistic devotion in favor of direct, experiential understanding.

This idea finds echoes in Psalm 51:10: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

Here, "cleansing" is not about adhering to external commandments, but about inner transformation, awakening the conscious spark within the devotional conversation’s conscience and recognizing the point of the Bible’s wisdom beyond the rule of the Figure calling for enslavement by religious law.

A Call to Awakening

The Apocalypse of Adam encourages its readers to recognize the chains of false religious authority and embrace wisdom that transcends the realm of the religious world, wisdom that, in all actuality, is found at the core of the Bible. Through the figure of Adam, it presents a stark warning: the god of this world (religious world) is not the true source of life, and salvation lies in reclaiming the lost wisdom of the “Eternal God.” In reality, the wisdom that has been lost is that the devotional conversation does well to break its bond to religious law and tradition for the cultivation of self-regulating wisdom, and that “Eternal God” is but the revelation of an understanding of personal and devotional growth eclipsing that false religious experience. This Gnostic text therefore, when coupling it with the Bible, offers a powerful critique of legalistic religion, inviting minds to escape the tyranny of religious law into the liberty of devotional illumination.

 

Linder, P.-A. & Lunds Universitet. (1991). THE APOCALYPSE OF ADAM NAG HAMMADI CODEX V,5 CONSIDERED FROM ITS EGYPTIAN BACKGROUND. In T. Olsson (Ed.), LUND STUDIES IN AFRICAN AND ASIAN RELIGIONS (Vol. 7, p. 165) [Thesis].

Did Paul Teach a Different Doctrine From Jesus?

The question of whether the Paul character, the supposed apostle of the Gentiles, preached a doctrine distinct from that of the Jesus character is intriguing. Did Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith in his Christ’s blood, death, and resurrection diverge from Jesus’ kingdom-centered message? And why does Jesus speak of the “Son of Man” in the third person, while Paul boldly proclaims the return of his Christ? This blog post looks into the philosophical and textual evidence to unravel this mystery.

Jesus’ Call to Action, Not Atonement

We begin with the Jesus character in Matthew 4:17, which says, “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” His message is clear: the kingdom of God—a sort of (on the surface) contextual experience—is imminent. Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), emphasize ethical living, philosophical Torah observance, and preparation for this “experience.” Jesus positions himself as a revolutionary teacher of Jews’ religion, philosophically approaching it from an angle geared more towards an inward experience above ultimately obedience to religious law.

The “kingdom of heaven” was the main philosophical point of the Jesus character. His parables—like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) or the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)—illustrate a relational ethic rooted in love and justice, not a theology of atonement through his death. Interestingly enough, Jesus never speaks of salvation through his blood or resurrection. Instead, he calls his hearers to observe the path his philosophy has carved out for him: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me,” (Luke 9:23).

Additionally, a curious detail emerges in the language of the Jesus character: he frequently refers to the “Son of Man” in the third person. In Matthew 24:30, he declares, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” This figure, ultimately drawn from Daniel 7:13,14 and inspired from the book of Enoch, is a figurative agent of their Deity’s judgment, yet Jesus never explicitly claims, “I will return.” It is very evident that the focus of the Jesus character wasn’t on himself, but on a message transcending himself, which is why he is scripted as saying, “…the kingdom of God is within you,” (Luke 17:21).

Paul’s Christ-Centered Gospel

Contrast this with Paul, whose letters form the backbone of Christian theory. In 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, Paul defines his gospel: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Here, salvation hinges on faith in his Christ’s death and resurrection—a doctrine absent from Jesus’ “recorded teachings.”

Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith is unmistakable. In Romans 3:25 he writes, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” This concept—atonement through his Christ’s sacrifice—marks a seismic shift from the Jesus character’s kingdom philosophy. Paul seems to have a more intimate connection to the Jesus character’s death and resurrection than the Jesus character himself. For Paul, his Jesus’ death and resurrection are not mere events, but the entirety of salvation.

Moreover, Paul personalizes his Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he states, “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout… and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Unlike Jesus’ detached “Son of Man,” Paul’s Christ is the Lord who returns to rescue believers. Wilson (2014) argues, “Paul conceived of the Christ as a cosmic dying-rising savior, not as a political messiah come to reestablish the Davidic throne” (p. 5). This theological leap—from earthly kingdom to cosmic redemption—suggests a doctrine fundamentally distinct from the gospel’s vision of the Jesus character.

The Son of Man vs. The Returning Christ

The divergence in how Jesus and Paul frame the future is profound. The Jesus character’s “Son of Man” is a mysterious, third-person figure ushering in the “kingdom of Israel’s Deity.” In Mark 13:26 he says, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” There is, in this text, a suggestion that these words align with Jewish eschatology, where the figurative Son of Man acts as their God’s agent, not necessarily being Jesus himself. Philosophically, there is no question that the Jesus character understood that he was not scheduled to return ever again, and yet, Paul’s Christ tells a different story.

Paul, however, collapses this ambiguity. His Christ is unequivocally a Jesus, returning personally to redeem the faithful and to kill the wicked. In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul writes, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” This personalization—his Christ as the returning savior—contrasts sharply with Jesus’ reticence. Wilson (2014) contends, “Paul’s focus was solely on a ‘post-death Jesus’ whom he typically calls ‘Christ’” (p. 35), highlighting a shift from Jesus’ kingdom-now to Paul’s salvation-later.

Justification by Faith: Paul’s Innovation, Not Jesus’ Teaching

Perhaps the greatest difference between the character Paul and the Jesus character lies in the theory of justification by faith. Paul’s doctrine—salvation through belief in his Christ’s atoning death—dominates his letters. In Galatians 2:16, he asserts, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” This rejection of Torah observance for salvation is radical, especially given the supposed affirmation of the law by one of the versions of the Jesus characters (Matthew 5:17-18).

Jesus, conversely, ties righteousness to action within the “kingdom” framework. In Matthew 7:21, he declares, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Beare (1959) notes, “The ethic of Jesus is fundamentally a religious ethic, wholly based upon a right relationship with God” (p. 83)—a relationship forged through the cultivation of wisdom and obedience to that wisdom, not faith in a sacrificial death. Wilson (2014) drives this home: “If we only had Paul, we’d know nothing of the great parables of the Kingdom, the Lord’s Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount” (p. 3). Jesus’ silence on atonement suggests either Paul crafted a new lens, one absent from the Galilean’s message, or that the gospels, which came after Paul, greatly deviated from the original concept of the Jesus character.

Reconciling the Divide

Can these differences be harmonized? McKnight (2010) proposes a unifying thread: the gospel as the story of Jesus. He argues, “The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus… Both ‘gospeled’ the same gospel because both told the story of Jesus” (p. 5). For McKnight, Jesus’ kingdom and Paul’s justification converge in a theoretical Christology—the person of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story.

Yet, this synthesis does not hold under strict philosophical scrutiny. Beare (1959) cautions, “Paul’s gospel is different… It is in fact a gospel about Jesus” (p. 82), distinct from the Jesus character’s own preaching. Wilson (2014) goes further, positing two religions: “Paul’s Christ Movement does not originate in the message of Jesus, nor does it represent an offshoot of the early Jesus Movement. It was, in its time, a separate religious enterprise” (p. 16). The philosophical tension is clear: the Jesus character offers a mental experience rooted in the underlying philosophy of the scriptures, while Paul constructs a future salvation anchored in a Greco-Roman savior archetype.

A Tale of Two Gospels?

So, did Paul teach a doctrine separate from the Jesus character? The evidence—textual, historical, and philosophical—leans toward yes. Jesus’ “kingdom of God,” with its ethical urgency and third-person Son of Man, contrasts with Paul’s justification by faith through a returning “Christ” whose blood and resurrection supernaturally does something phenomenal. While the Jesus character never hints at personal atonement or a second coming, Paul strangely builds his theology around these pillars. And so as readers, we’re left to ponder: Why is there such a divide between the gospel Jesus and the Paul Jesus? Are these complementary visions or irreconcilable theories? It may do us well to remember that the gospels were written 20+ years after the Paul character’s doctrine. Bearing this in mind, is it that Paul’s conception is different from the gospel Jesus, or that the Jesus character of the gospels ultimately diverges from Paul’s Christ?

 

References

Beare, F. W. (1959). Jesus and Paul. Canadian Journal of Theology, 5, 79-86.

McKnight, S. (2010). Jesus vs. Paul. Christianity today, 54(12), 24-29.

Wilson, B. (2014). Paul vs. Jesus.