Couldn't Paul have simply believed Jesus was human?

[Secret Alias]

When you see the progression of thought from the original treatise (which was basically FROM a member of the 'two powers heresy' AGAINST some rabbinic authority or 'authorities') into that of a member of the new Christian orthodoxy against Marcion it suggests that Paul was used like John in Adversus Marcionem 3 - that is dishonestly. No one can look at the progression from 'A' to 'B' and think 'hey, this is probably what Paul believed' or 'Paul was being used faithfully.'

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
Only Clement of Alexandria, and Apollonius through Eusebius' writing, state of the disciples going "everywhere" after a number of years (12 in these cases).
That seems rather weak, compared to the statements in gMark interpolated ending, Aristides, Justin and (heavy weight) Irenaeus.
I observe that 12 years after 30 AD brings us to 42 AD to the rule of Agrippa I over Jerusalem.
That's "covered" in Acts 12, which also states a persecution against the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem. After that it's all about Paul & Barnabas, up to the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15, likely understood at several years after Agrippa 1's rule.
That would give the disciples several years to preach "everywhere", and the persecution a good incentive to go away from Palestine.
So I am not surprised someone started a tradition, taking in account the book of 'Acts', about when the disciples went preaching "everywhere".

For the record, I tend to see both scenarios as tendentious. Why have the disciples go out immediately and preach the gospel to the whole world? To emphasize that churches throughout the whole world started off as "orthodox", as it were, founded either by one of the apostles (Peter in Rome, for instance) or by an immediate follower (Mark in Alexandria, for instance). Why have the disciples remain in Jerusalem for a while first? To connect the early church to the Jerusalem temple, as its rightful heir, and to give the Jerusalem church a golden age, so to speak, of pure Christian fellowship to serve as an ideal model for Christian praxis.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

For the record, I tend to see both scenarios as tendentious. Why have the disciples go out immediately and preach the gospel to the whole world? To emphasize that churches throughout the whole world started off as "orthodox", as it were, founded either by one of the apostles (Peter in Rome, for instance) or by an immediate follower (Mark in Alexandria, for instance). Why have the disciples remain in Jerusalem for a while first? To connect the early church to the Jerusalem temple, as its rightful heir, and to give the Jerusalem church a golden age, so to speak, of pure Christian fellowship to serve as an ideal model for Christian praxis.

I also think that both scenarios are lies. And certainly both were imagined, for, as you said, to emphasize that churches throughout the whole world started off as "orthodox" (or better, according to the alleged preaching of Jesus as heard by his disciples). Even the 12 years delay would still put the disciples ahead of the other apostles in preaching outside Palestine in most part of the known world, according to Acts.
I have reasons to think that Peter was the only eyewitness to go outside Palestine, but only in Syria (above all Antioch) and Corinth (around 52 AD). The rest stayed in Galilee, some moved to Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

I also think that both scenarios are lies.

The more skeptical posts I read the greater the number gets for lying authors - so much so as to seem highly improbable.

Wasn't anybody actually telling the truth?

I may have to just become a believer!

[Secret Alias]

But once you factor in the 'bundling' effect (i.e. that the canon is a 'bundle' of texts 'adjusted' so as to speak in one voice) there aren't a lot of independent voices in that bundle. The Ignatius canon is filled with letters that were never ever sent to anyone in their current form. I have my doubts about the Pauline letters in their current form. If someone mailed me 1 Corinthians I'd seal it up and return to sender. Inappropriately long.

[MrMacSon]

.
I am intrigued by what Bernard says here (in conjunction with, and in reply to, Ben) -

to Ben,

Only Clement of Alexandria, and Apollonius1 through Eusebius' writing, state of the disciples going "everywhere" after a number of years (12 in these cases).

That seems rather weak, compared to the statements in gMark interpolated ending, Aristides, Justin, and (heavy weight) Irenaeus.

I observe that 12 years after 30 AD brings us to 42 AD - to the rule of Agrippa I over Jerusalem. That's "covered" in Acts 12, which also states a persecution against the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem. After that it's all about Paul & Barnabas, up to the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15, likely understood at several years after Agrippa 1's rule.

That would give the disciples several years to preach "everywhere", and the persecution a good incentive to go away from Palestine2.

So I am not surprised someone started a tradition, taking in account the book of 'Acts', about when the disciples went preaching "everywhere".

• 1 Which Apollonius are you referring to, Bernard?
  
  2 What do you mean by "give ... the persecution a good incentive to go away from Palestine" ??

For the record, I tend to see both scenarios as tendentious.

• Why have the disciples go out immediately and preach the gospel to the whole world? To emphasize that churches throughout the whole world started off as "orthodox", as it were; founded either by one of the apostles (Peter in Rome, for instance), or by an immediate follower (Mark in Alexandria, for instance).
• Why have the disciples remain in Jerusalem for a while first? To connect the early church to the Jerusalem temple, as its rightful heir, and to give the Jerusalem church a golden age, so to speak, of pure Christian fellowship to serve as an ideal model for Christian praxis.

I also think that both scenarios are lies. And certainly both were imagined, ..as you said, "to emphasize that churches throughout the whole world started off as 'orthodox' " (or better, according to the alleged preaching of Jesus as heard by his disciples)...

When do you think these narratives were laid down, gentlemen?

[TedM]

But once you factor in the 'bundling' effect (i.e. that the canon is a 'bundle' of texts 'adjusted' so as to speak in one voice) there aren't a lot of independent voices in that bundle. The Ignatius canon is filled with letters that were never ever sent to anyone in their current form. I have my doubts about the Pauline letters in their current form. If someone mailed me 1 Corinthians I'd seal it up and return to sender. Inappropriately long.

I wonder really how long the list of (claimed) KNOWING LIARS there would be, according to our skeptical group here. I bet it would be well over 50% of the writings and authors, dozens of people when you throw in the non-canon writings. By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

[Ben C. Smith]

By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

I have noticed that some of the more skeptical people who post on venues such as this forum do not make that mental distinction.

[MrMacSon]

But once you factor in the 'bundling' effect (i.e. that the canon is a 'bundle' of texts 'adjusted' so as to speak in one voice) there aren't a lot of independent voices in that bundle. The Ignatius canon is filled with letters that were never ever sent to anyone in their current form. I have my doubts about the Pauline letters in their current form. If someone mailed me 1 Corinthians I'd seal it up and return to sender. Inappropriately long.

I wonder really how long the list of KNOWING LIARS there would be, according to our skeptical group here. I bet it would be well over 50% of the writings, dozens of people. By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

A lot of these writings would have been written years later in a number of situation: some written b/c propositions had 'developed' into 'facts' with re-telling, say, over a generation or two (or maybe more in some cases); some probably were written as blatant fraud eg. it's like the Ignatian letters are 3rd or 4th century polemic rhetoric.

[Bernard Muller]

1 Which Apollonius are you referring to, Bernard?

2 What do you mean by "give ... the persecution a good incentive to go away from Palestine" ??

It seems to me it was Apollonius of Ephesus (180-210)
I think the persecution was thought by the originator of the tradition as motivation for the disciples to go away from Palestine.

When do you think these narratives were laid down, gentlemen?

At least no later than the 2nd century. For the immediate preaching of the disciples all over, early 2nd century at least, according to Aristides' apology (117-134): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_of_Athens. The interpolation in gMark ending might have been earlier, but still in the 2nd century.

Cordially, Bernard