![](\"https:\/\/fc02.deviantart.net\/fs10\/i\/2006\/160\/0\/4\/Bleeding_Angel_by_Nishka.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nA brief investigation turned up a couple of relevant pieces of information. In ancient Greek literature, Book 5 of Homer\u2019s Iliad<\/i> says that gods have ichor<\/i> rather than blood in them (\u201cHence, they lack blood, and men call them immortal\u201d). And in Judaism, I found a reference<\/a> to Rashi denying that angels are composed of flesh and blood.<\/span>
<\/span>
If these views were typical of Judaism, or of the Greco-Roman world more generally, in Paul\u2019s time, then it will be clear that the notion of a purely celestial Jesus is incompatible with Paul\u2019s letters.<\/span>
<\/span>
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.<\/span>
<\/span>
If it was assumed that celestial entities do not bleed or die, then Paul\u2019s references to Jesus\u2019 blood may indicate two things, likely to be controversial among conservative Christians and mythicists respectively. It suggests that he didn\u2019t regard Jesus as divine or even angelic, but as a real flesh-and-blood human being.<\/span>
<\/span>
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\u2019s interpretation of Paul\u2019s letters.<\/span>
<\/span>
What do others think?<\/span><\/p>\n