zog

I only have a rather sketchy knowledge of the current thinking but it occured to me and perhaps someone could tell me if this could be possible; that perhaps the theology of Jesus existed before Jesus. I do not buy the idea of the Jesus Myth as it is only 40 years and it takes a long time for that sort of bizarre theology to arise, unless this type of thing already exists. Now let us suppose that there is a bizarre Hellenised proto-Pauline group existing in the early 1st century ad which has similar spiritual ideas, couldnt they have just latched onto Jesus after his death and fitted him into their own worldview?

Of course the problem of the HJ still remains but i think that if it could be correct it is an adequete explaination for me, especially of the shadows of a historical figure existing in the narratives rather than a simply Gnostic document (backward nature of minastry in Mark, Matt and Luke, crucifixtion, definite historical setting, statements that woud not be things that would really be made up). The ideas of the mystery cult in a hellenised cult would have been attractive to many hellenised Jews (and Greek Jews) and Gentiles so a historical figure with a miraclious reputation would have attracted these trappings like a magnet among a desk full of iron fillings!

The real question is what are you left with once you have taken away the JM elements really just anmolies....

Llyricist

Don't forget that the "40 years is too soon" argument presupposes that Jesus existed. Noone is saying that Christianity didn't grow from something that actually predated the supposed life of Jesus. The proper way to phrase the argument would be "to place a fictional character so recently would be too risky". However the fact that Jerusalem was routed in the meantime would most likely mitigate any risk of anyone claiming with any authority..."hey that DIDN'T Happen!!".

Just a little logic reality check... I'm an HJ-JM agnostic myself.

GakuseiDon

That's not so bizarre. It's believed that there were such groups - Philo's Therapeutaes (sp?) for example. Much of the writings of Philo himself, of course.

I'm a HJ believer, but I think Christianity was greatly influenced by Hellenised thought in the first 4 centuries. So to a certain extent I would agree with you.

zog

Thanks for all of the positive feedback, i feel that this idea of mine helps (me at least) to come to a view that does not ignore the claims of the HJs and the JMs because to take on one view entirely is generally an over simplification and much evidence has to be more or less ignored or disregarded.

Llyricist i do see what you mean but despite the dramatic events in Jerusalem 40 years is simply too soon, and Jesus does not feel in some ways like a complete fabrication there really does seem to be the shadows of the Galiean in the Gospels; how could there not be?; even if Jesus was simply a theological construct the character of Jesus created would still reflect the events and personalites of the day, so even if the JM theory is true there still is a justifiable quest for the HJ; as the Mythical Jesus still reflects real people even if simply a composite

Llyricist

Well I'm not sure what YOU mean. Are you saying that 40 years is too soon after the events for the events to made up?? Think carefully about that, that line of thought presupposes that the events happened. On the other hand, if you are claiming that 40 years is to RECENT in the past to place a fictional character. You have to show why that would be, bearing in mind the fact that most of the people would already have a belief in the mythical Christ, and probably already are historicizing the myth, and are out of touch with the events in Palestine in the first half of the first century, etc etc....

Whether there is some historical kernel for the gospels can't be seriously disputed. Nearly ALL fictional characters have some real life person or people as "models" for the author to create from. In the case of Jesus There were, I understand, a plethora of itinerate Rabbi's, preachers, miracle workers, would be Messiahs etc. to choose from, and I believe that they WERE chosen from here and there (it would explain many of the contradictions in his supposed teachings, the pacifism vs the not peace but a sword quote etc etc). but the idea that you could draw an actual Jesus out of the accretion of different people, myths, dogmas, etc. that went into the writing of the gospels seems to me unlikely.