jesus-jewish-teacher-paul-christianity

Purpose

This research examines the scholarly debate surrounding a provocative question: Did Jesus create a new religion called Christianity, or was he a Jewish reformer whose teachings were later transformed by Paul into something distinct?

The Core Theory

The theory can be summarized as:

Jesus was a Jewish teacher, healer, and prophet operating entirely within the framework of Second Temple Judaism
For Gentiles, Jesus (and the early apostles) may have intended the Noahide Laws as the path to righteousness
Paul developed theological innovations that transformed the Jesus movement into a new religion
Christianity as separate from Judaism emerged gradually, largely due to Pauline influence

Part 1: Jesus as a Jewish Figure

The “Third Quest” for the Historical Jesus

Modern scholarship, particularly since the 1970s, has emphasized Jesus’s thoroughly Jewish identity:

“Jesus of Nazareth lived and died as a Jew. He was Jewish. Jesus was not a Christian. Ironically he never encouraged someone to convert to Christianity, perhaps primarily because there was no such thing.” — Bart Ehrman

Geza Vermes (1924-2013), described as “the greatest Jesus scholar of his time,” pioneered this approach with his landmark work Jesus the Jew (1973):

Jesus was a Galilean charismatic healer and teacher, not the founder of a new religion
He was similar to other Jewish holy men (Hasidim) like Hanina ben Dosa
His disputes with Pharisees were intra-Jewish debates, not opposition to Judaism
He was not anti-Torah but offered a “radical interpretation rooted in mercy, inner purity, and prophetic critique”

Jesus’s Relationship to Jewish Law

According to the Gospels, Jesus:

Attended synagogue regularly
Observed Jewish festivals
Taught the importance of the Law (Matthew 5:17-19)
Debated interpretation, not abandonment, of Torah

As Vermes noted, conflicts with Pharisees “would merely have resembled the in-fighting of factions belonging to the same religious body.”

The Gospel of Thomas: A Window into Pre-Pauline Christianity?

The Gospel of Thomas is a crucial text for this debate. Discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, it contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus with no narrative framework.

Why it matters for the Jesus vs. Paul debate:

Aspect	Gospel of Thomas	Pauline Christianity
Focus	Jesus’s teachings/sayings	Death and resurrection
Salvation	Through understanding Jesus’s words	Through faith in Christ’s death
Kingdom of God	”Within you and all around you” - present, internal	Future apocalyptic event
Resurrection	Not mentioned	Central doctrine

Key saying (Gospel of Thomas, Saying 3):

“The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you. Those who come to know themselves will find it.”

This contrasts sharply with Paul’s apocalyptic expectations and with the canonical Gospels’ future Kingdom.

Dating controversy:

Most scholars date it to the 2nd century
Some argue portions may date to 50-60 AD - potentially before Paul’s letters
Several sayings overlap with the hypothetical “Q source” used by Matthew and Luke

Significance: If the Gospel of Thomas preserves early Jesus traditions, it suggests:

Jesus was primarily a wisdom teacher, not a savior through death
The death/resurrection theology was a later development
Early Christianity may have had diverse strands - some closer to Thomas, others to Paul

As one scholar notes:

“In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus imparts salvation through his teachings, not death and the resurrection.”

However, the text’s Gnostic elements lead many scholars to view it as a later theological development rather than authentic Jesus tradition.

Gospel of Thomas and Buddhist Parallels

Scholars have noted striking parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and Eastern religious thought:

Theme	Gospel of Thomas	Buddhism
Path to liberation	Self-knowledge, inner awakening	Enlightenment through self-realization
Divine presence	”Kingdom is within you and all around you”	Buddha-nature in all beings
Self and divine	Identical and one	True self is Buddha-nature
Teaching style	Paradoxical sayings (koan-like)	Zen koans, paradox

Scholarly observations:

Oxford scholar Burnett Hillman Streeter noted Buddha’s moral teaching has “remarkable resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount”
Many Thomas sayings “read like Zen koans” - paradoxical statements meant to provoke awakening
Edward Conze (1966) explored connections between Gnosticism and Buddhism at the Origins of Gnosticism colloquium

The question of influence:

Marcus Borg attributes parallels to “commonality of religious experiences” rather than direct cultural borrowing
If borrowing occurred, “the direction would have been from Buddha to Jesus” (Buddha lived ~500 years earlier)
Some scholars dismiss this as “Parallelomania” - seeing patterns without historical evidence

Implication: If Thomas preserves early Jesus traditions, it suggests his original message may have been a universal mystical teaching about inner awakening - closer to Eastern thought than to Paul’s death/resurrection theology. However, many scholars argue Thomas represents a later Gnostic reinterpretation.

Part 2: The Noahide Laws and Gentile Inclusion

What Are the Noahide Laws?

The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: Sheva Mitzvot B’nei Noach) are a set of universal moral laws in Jewish tradition:

Do not worship idols
Do not curse God
Do not murder
Do not commit adultery/sexual immorality
Do not steal
Do not eat flesh torn from a living animal
Establish courts of justice

Key principle: Non-Jews do not need to convert to Judaism or follow all 613 commandments of Torah. They need only follow these seven laws to be considered “Righteous Gentiles” (Chassidei Umot ha-Olam) with a share in the World to Come.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

Around 48-50 CE, the early church held a crucial council to decide: Must Gentile converts become Jews?

The decision (the “Apostolic Decree”) required Gentiles to abstain from:

Food sacrificed to idols
Blood
Meat from strangled animals
Sexual immorality

Scholarly connection to Noahide Laws: Many scholars see these requirements as derived from or parallel to the Noahide Laws:

“The decision reached at the Jerusalem Council had far-reaching ramifications… James affirmed that non-Jewish Christ followers did not have to become full Jewish proselytes.”

Rabbi Jacob Emden (18th century) proposed:

“The original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law.”

The “Paul Within Judaism” Perspective

Modern scholars Daniel Boyarin and Paula Fredriksen argue:

“Paul did not replace Torah or Halakha with Christ for Jewish believers, but simply taught Gentiles that observing the Noahide covenant as righteous among the nations was sufficient (along with faith in Christ) to merit a share in the world to come.”

This view suggests:

Paul was not anti-Jewish
He taught a two-track system: Torah for Jews, Noahide principles for Gentiles
The conflict was with “Judaizers” who wanted full conversion

Part 3: Paul as Transformer of the Jesus Movement

The “Paul Created Christianity” Theory

This perspective has been advanced by scholars, philosophers, and critics:

Geza Vermes wrote that Paul was:

“The true founder of Christianity… a poetic and mystical genius capable of construing a multifarious, impressive and exciting theological complex. Without any doubt, Paul was the most imaginative and creative writer among the authors of the New Testament, even though his ingenuity often resulted in twisting and sometimes undoing the genuine message of Jesus.”

Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell argued Paul distorted Jesus’s original teachings.

Leo Tolstoy (Christian anarchist) believed Paul corrupted Jesus’s message.

Key Differences: Jesus vs. Paul

Aspect	Jesus	Paul
Focus	The coming Kingdom of God	Death and resurrection of Christ
Salvation	Repentance, following the Law, love of God/neighbor	Faith in Christ’s atoning death
Jewish Law	Affirmed and interpreted	De-emphasized for Gentiles
Audience	”Lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24)	Gentile mission
Method	Parables, ethical teaching, healing	Theological letters, church organization

Bart Ehrman observes:

“Paul almost never mentions the earthly Jesus (whom he never met) and only rarely mentions his teachings… For Paul, Jesus’ earthly ministry seems to have little or no importance.”

When asked if Jesus would understand Paul’s letters, Ehrman responded:

“I’m sure he would have found them completely bizarre.”

Paul’s Letters as the Foundation of Orthodox Resurrection Belief

A critical point often overlooked: Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents we possess - written in the 50s CE, a full 15-20 years before the earliest gospel (Mark, ~70 CE). This means:

Source	Date	Content
Paul’s letters	~50-60 CE	Death/resurrection theology, no birth narrative, no miracles, few teachings
Mark	~70 CE	First narrative gospel, brief resurrection account
Matthew/Luke	~80-90 CE	Birth narratives, expanded teachings, resurrection appearances
John	~90-100 CE	Highest Christology, extended resurrection narratives

The 1 Corinthians 15 Creed

The earliest statement of resurrection faith appears in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…”

Key facts about this creed:

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians ~55 CE
He uses technical terms “delivered” (παρέδωκα) and “received” (παρέλαβον) - rabbinic language for passing oral tradition
Most scholars date the creed to 30-35 CE - within 3-5 years of Jesus’s death
Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann: “The elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion”

What Paul’s Letters Lack

Significantly, Paul’s letters contain almost nothing about:

Jesus’s birth or childhood
Jesus’s miracles or healings
Jesus’s parables or ethical teachings
The empty tomb narrative
Geographic details of resurrection appearances

Paul never mentions an empty tomb. He writes nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. He gives no location for resurrection appearances.

The Orthodox Doctrine Problem

This creates a historical paradox:

Orthodox Belief Source	Earliest Text	Date
Resurrection of Christ	1 Corinthians 15 (Paul)	~55 CE
Virgin birth	Matthew/Luke	~80-90 CE
Empty tomb	Mark (brief)	~70 CE
Resurrection appearances	Gospels	70-100 CE
Jesus’s teachings	Gospels + Thomas	70-200 CE

Orthodox Christian doctrine on resurrection is built primarily on Paul’s letters, not on Jesus’s own teachings. Jesus himself, in the synoptic gospels, says relatively little about his own resurrection before it happens.

Scholarly Assessment

James Tabor argues that Christianity as it emerged by the 2nd century “was shaped far more by the apostle Paul than by Jesus of Nazareth.”

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) effectively codified Pauline Christianity’s emphasis on the divinity of Christ and salvation through belief as orthodox doctrine.

Where Did Paul Get His Resurrection Belief?

Paul’s resurrection faith has three distinct sources - a critical point for understanding early Christianity:

1. Pharisaic Background (Pre-Conversion)

Paul was already a Pharisee who believed in resurrection before encountering Christianity:

“My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” — Acts 23:6

Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, unlike Sadducees who rejected it. This wasn’t a Christian invention:

Daniel 12:2: “Many who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life”
2 Maccabees: Describes resurrection through “recreation of the flesh”
Book of Enoch, 2 Esdras: Detailed resurrection expectations

Key insight: Paul didn’t need to invent resurrection theology - he already believed in it. What was new was applying it to one specific person (Jesus) before the general end-times resurrection.

2. Damascus Road Revelation (Personal Experience)

Paul claims direct encounter with the risen Christ:

“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” — Galatians 1:12

In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul lists himself among resurrection witnesses: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

This is a visionary experience, not a physical encounter like the gospel accounts describe for other disciples.

3. Jerusalem Tradition (Received Creed)

Despite claiming revelation, Paul also “received” traditional material:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received…” — 1 Corinthians 15:3

Geza Vermes writes that the creed is “a tradition he [Paul] has inherited from his seniors in the faith.”

The transmission chain:

Stage	Source	Timeframe
Original witnesses	Peter, James, the Twelve	30-33 CE
Jerusalem formulation	Early church creed	30-35 CE
Paul receives creed	Visit to Peter/James (Gal 1:18)	~36-37 CE
Paul writes 1 Corinthians	Letter to Corinth	~55 CE

Paul visited Peter and James in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18-19). The creed likely came from them.

The Critical Question

If the resurrection creed originated with the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James) who knew Jesus personally, we face two possibilities:

Orthodox view: They witnessed something (empty tomb, appearances) that generated genuine resurrection faith
Skeptical view: They had visionary experiences interpreted through Jewish resurrection categories
Mythicist view: The creed is legendary, developed over time

What’s undeniable: Paul did not invent resurrection faith from nothing. He combined:

Pre-existing Pharisaic belief in resurrection
A personal visionary experience
Tradition from the Jerusalem community

The question is whether the Jerusalem tradition reflects actual events or interpretive construction.

Who Developed “Believe in Resurrection = Salvation”?

This is the central question. The answer involves a crucial distinction:

What Jerusalem Believed (Peter, James)

The early creed says “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3). But what did this mean to the Jerusalem church?

According to scholars:

“In the Jerusalem ekklēsia, from which Paul received this creed, the phrase ‘died for our sins’ probably was an apologetic rationale for the death of Jesus as being part of God’s plan and purpose, as evidenced in the scriptures.”

For Jerusalem, “died for our sins” was an explanation - Jesus’s death wasn’t a defeat; it was God’s plan prophesied in Isaiah 53. It vindicated Jesus as Messiah despite the shameful crucifixion.

What Paul Developed

Paul took this phrase and gave it deeper soteriological significance:

“For Paul, it gained a deeper significance, providing a basis for the salvation of sinful Gentiles apart from the Torah.”

Paul’s theological innovation:

Jerusalem Understanding	Paul’s Development
Jesus died according to God’s plan	Jesus’s death atones for sin
Resurrection proves Jesus was Messiah	Faith in resurrection is the mechanism of salvation
Jewish believers still follow Torah	Gentiles saved by faith apart from Torah
Apologetic: explaining a shameful death	Soteriological: death/resurrection saves you

The Key Text: Romans 10:9

Paul explicitly formulates the doctrine:

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” — Romans 10:9

This specific formulation - believe in the resurrection → saved - is Paul’s articulation.

Why This Matters

Some scholars argue that before Paul, “salvation by faith alone did not exist” as a doctrine. The Jerusalem church (James, Peter) continued practicing Torah observance. James’s letter famously says:

“Faith without works is dead.” — James 2:17

This appears to contradict Paul’s “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

At the Jerusalem Council (~48 CE), they reached a compromise: Gentiles don’t need to follow Torah, but the theological frameworks remained different.

Summary: Who Created What

Element	Creator	Evidence
Jesus rose from the dead	Jerusalem witnesses (Peter, James)	1 Cor 15 creed, pre-Pauline
”Died for our sins” phrase	Jerusalem church	Early creed Paul “received”
Faith in resurrection = salvation	Paul developed this	Romans 10:9, Galatians, Romans
Salvation for Gentiles without Torah	Paul’s innovation	Galatians, Romans, Jerusalem Council debate
Jesus as wisdom teacher (no resurrection emphasis)	Gospel of Thomas tradition	Thomas lacks death/resurrection theology

The doctrine that believing in the resurrection is the pathway to salvation was articulated and developed by Paul, though he built on Jerusalem’s basic claim that Jesus rose.

Ehrman’s Qualified Position

However, Ehrman argues against the “Paul founded Christianity” claim:

“It is way too much to say that Paul is the ‘Founder of Christianity’: that assumes that he is the one who personally came up with the idea of the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus for salvation, whereas almost certainly this view had been around for a couple of years before he came onto the scene.”

Part 4: The “Parting of the Ways”

When Did Christianity Become Separate?

The separation was a process, not an event:

“The separation of Christianity from Judaism was a process, not an event… the church became more and more Gentile, and less and less Jewish.” — Shaye J.D. Cohen

Timeline of separation:

1st century: Jesus movement operates as a Jewish sect
48-50 CE: Council of Jerusalem addresses Gentile inclusion
70 CE: Destruction of the Temple changes Jewish landscape
96 CE: Emperor Nerva redefines Judaism; Christianity seen as “not-Judaism”
2nd-4th centuries: Gradual formalization of separation
4th century: Constantine makes Christianity state religion; separation complete

Key Factors in Separation

Gentile majority: When more Gentiles than Jews joined, the character changed fundamentally
Abandonment of Jewish practice: Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision
Theological developments: High Christology, Trinity doctrine
Political recognition: Roman distinction between Judaism and Christianity

Modern Scholarly Nuance

Contemporary scholars reject simple “parent-child” models:

“Scholars no longer think in simple parent-child terms. They see Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity as emerging at the same time, both claiming to be the rightful heirs of biblical Israel.”

Part 5: Evaluating the Theory

Arguments Supporting “Jesus = Judaism, Paul = Christianity”

Jesus operated entirely within Jewish framework
The Apostolic Decree mirrors Noahide principles
Paul’s theology differs significantly from Jesus’s teachings
Christianity became predominantly Gentile after Paul
Separation occurred gradually, not at Jesus’s death
The Gospel of Thomas preserves Jesus as wisdom teacher without death/resurrection theology

Arguments Against

Paul inherited resurrection faith, didn’t invent it
Other apostles (Peter, James) also shaped early Christianity
Jesus’s apocalyptic message was already distinct within Judaism
Noahide connection to Acts 15 is disputed by some scholars
Christianity’s development was multi-causal, not solely Pauline
The Gospel of Thomas may be a later Gnostic text, not authentic early tradition

Scholarly Consensus

The mainstream scholarly position holds:

Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and did not intend to found a new religion
Paul was instrumental in shaping Gentile Christianity
The separation from Judaism was gradual and complex
Both Jesus and Paul contribute to what became Christianity
The “founder” question may be the wrong question—religions evolve

Summary

Question	Scholarly Answer
Was Jesus Jewish?	Yes, completely
Did Jesus start Christianity?	No, not in the institutional sense
Did Paul create Christianity?	Contributed significantly, but didn’t create alone
Is there a Noahide connection?	Plausibly, especially in Acts 15
When did Christianity separate?	Gradually, 1st-4th centuries

The most accurate statement might be: Jesus was a Jewish reformer whose message was transformed by Paul and others into a movement that gradually became a distinct religion as its Gentile membership grew and its Jewish practices faded.

Conclusion: Without Paul, No Christianity As We Know It

The research leads to a clear conclusion:

What Would Exist Without Paul

A Jewish messianic sect believing Jesus was the Messiah
Possibly a wisdom tradition like the Gospel of Thomas preserves
Continued Torah observance for all believers
A movement that might have merged back into Judaism or faded

What Would NOT Exist Without Paul

Universal salvation open to all nations by faith
Separation from Torah for Gentile believers
The “believe and be saved” formula (Romans 10:9)
The theological framework that shaped Western civilization
Christianity as a distinct world religion

The Final Verdict

Statement	Assessment
Paul founded the Jesus movement	False - it existed before him
Paul invented resurrection belief	False - Peter/James had it first
Paul is the founder of Christianity as we know it	True
Orthodox Christianity is Pauline Christianity	True
Without Paul, Christianity wouldn’t exist in its current form	True

Paul transformed a Jewish sect into a world religion. The Christianity that won—that became orthodox, that shaped history—is Pauline Christianity. The alternative strands (Jewish Christianity, Thomas-style wisdom tradition) were marginalized or lost.

Whether this transformation was faithful to Jesus’s original message or a departure from it remains the central question of Christian origins—and depends largely on whether one trusts the Gospel of Thomas or the Pauline letters as better representing the earliest traditions.