The question of whether Paul’s minimal information about Jesus is sufficient to confirm that Paul intended to refer to a real, flesh and blood, historical human being is a key point of disagreement between the historicist, agnostic and mythicist positions regarding Jesus’ historicity.
In addition to the references to Jesus’ birth and crucifixion, we ought to also note the reference to his blood (see e.g. Romans 3:25; 5:19; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:25) and death (e.g. Romans 4:25; 5:10; 6:3,5,10; 1 Corinthians 11:26; Philippians 2:8; 3:10)
I found myself wondering whether it was thought that gods or angels or celestial beings of the sort that some mythicists assert Jesus to have been were believed to be capable of dying or to have blood to shed.
A brief investigation turned up a couple of relevant pieces of information. In ancient Greek literature, Book 5 of Homer’s Iliad says that gods have ichor rather than blood in them (“Hence, they lack blood, and men call them immortal”). And in Judaism, I found a reference to Rashi denying that angels are composed of flesh and blood.
If these views were typical of Judaism, or of the Greco-Roman world more generally, in Paul’s time, then it will be clear that the notion of a purely celestial Jesus is incompatible with Paul’s letters.
Are there any readers more familiar with Greco-Roman discussions of divinity and/or early Jewish angelology who might have some additional input and relevant sources to share? I know that the inability of gods to die is one of the factors that is cited to explain the development of docetism: as Jesus was increasingly attributed a divine status, it became increasingly difficult to regard him as human. But I would welcome specific examples from texts early and clear enough to allow us to know what assumptions prevailed in the first century.
If it was assumed that celestial entities do not bleed or die, then Paul’s references to Jesus’ blood may indicate two things, likely to be controversial among conservative Christians and mythicists respectively. It suggests that he didn’t regard Jesus as divine or even angelic, but as a real flesh-and-blood human being.
This is not the only consideration that is relevant to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus. But it certainly seems to exclude some viewpoints, such as Earl Doherty’s interpretation of Paul’s letters.
What do others think?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In