graymouser

This is by no means a concrete, definite theory; I've got nothing other than a vague hunch that I'm interested in exploring further, and I'd like to see if anyone knows if there's any research / analysis that explores the question.

Basically, the assumption of Christian orthodoxy is that the person who Paul refers to as Jesus Christ, the person who the Synoptics refer to as Jesus Christ, and the person who the author of John refers to as Jesus Christ, were one and the same. And a lot of skeptical theories, both mythicist and historicist, seem to make this assumption.

Is there any research out there that lays out a case that they weren't the same? I think it's not outside of the realm of possibility that Christianity as we understand it today is a syncretism of several messianic / apocalyptic Jewish sects, and that the scriptures we have today are a combination of several different sources. It would do a lot to explain the differences between the Synoptics and John, the fact that Paul doesn't reference the Synoptics and seems to have a very different theology, and the proliferation of other, unaccepted Christian texts from the period. But I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have the evidence or the expertise to make a coherent theory about it. Has anyone seriously explored this?

Clouseau

His theology seems identical to me- and the lack of reference to the gospel material may be no more than indication that his readers were already familiar with it. One would not expect teaching of the gospel in letters to churches- that would be a little like teaching basic biology to a brain surgeon.

gurugeorge

I think that's an interesting idea, and it has occurred to me too. However, if you're going in that direction, you might as well go the whole hog down the Earl Doherty route - i.e. the early Christian materials we have now are an agglomeration of various understandings of a Hellenised Jewish version of a spiritual/mystical/philosophical idea that was "in the air" at that time (a divine intermediary/god-man of the mysteries type of thing, only based on the Messiah concept instead of a local godlet, as was common in paganism).

IOW they look different not because they're talking about different living people or prophets, but because they are different "visions" of a vague but uplifting idea, propounded by different "visionaries" in different communities, which, partly because of the Diaspora, partly because of resultant misunderstanding and error, and partly because of priestly "political" machinations, got glued together into being the story of a god-man who actually lived on Earth in the recent past, and was witnessed to do so by "apostles" and "evangelists".

Solo

G.A.Wells, who is the current Nestor of the "mythicist" school, has abandoned the MJ theory of Jesus in favour of two-Jesus'es theory. He argues, that Paul's is a Wisdom figure that has no connection to the actual historical Jesus. This is I believe is both true and false.

As far as I am concerned, the genuine Paul never speaks of the actual, historical Jesus, in what can be construed as biographical or historical data - except for one item - his death. Speaking about his revelation of Jesus (in his body) he received after Jesus died, Paul indeed speaks in mystical terms of Platonic and Judaic Wisdom, eschatology, spirituality and ethics which he receives through what he believes is a revelatory process.
But to my mind there is little doubt that the crucified Messiah which Paul preached (and likely invented) directly references the figure of Jesus which was later mythologized in the canonical gospels.

Paul says in 1 Cr 3:11 that no other foundation can be laid than JC. That qualifies his statement in 2 Cr 11:4 in which he directs not to react to someone who preaches "another Jesus" which can mean one of two things:

1) there were competing different Jesus'es (but only one to Paul), or
2) there was one Jesus, but different views of him.

The very fact that Paul goes to Jerusalem by revelation (Gal 2:1) seeking authority to preach Jesus, all but eliminates option #1. There was a common figure because otherwise Paul's visit would have been without object. Galatians tells us there was one Jesus but Paul's vision of him was not shared. Paul taunts his opponents on the subject of crucifixion (which he calls "the offense" in 5:11, and 1 Cr 1:23). A rational person, I mean one not in the clutches of some ideological vision, would have to conclude that a) for Paul to hope to have any effect at all in bringing up the fact of Jesus' execution, it had to be an event that happened on earth, and b) to shame his opponents, it had to be an event that happened quite recently, i.e. still having relevance in the lives of the protagonists.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

Have you read Doherty's Jesus Puzzle? That is exactly the case he makes, and it is based on a great deal of research. You might be of the opinion that he makes the case poorly and that his research was inadequate, but the research was done and the case was made.

Joan of Bark

Weren't the Synoptics written after Paul's epistles?