Should we accept the existence of Paul?

[Tcg]

.

There is a great deal of discussion about the historic Jesus. Many suggest he truly existed. Perhaps a fewer number consider him a mythological figure. What about Paul? It seems that even more both skeptic and believer alike are convinced of his existence. What is the evidence of his existence? I ask not because I doubt he existed, but rather because I don't know why so many are convinced he did.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

There is a great deal of discussion about the historic Jesus. Many suggest he truly existed. Perhaps a fewer number consider him a mythological figure. What about Paul? It seems that even more both skeptic and believer alike are convinced of his existence. What is the evidence of his existence? I ask not because I doubt he existed, but rather because I don't know why so many are convinced he did.

In a nutshell, in order for Paul to be fictitious, the Pauline epistles must be either attributed to a legendary figure or a literary invention and Acts must be based on either those legends or entirely on the epistles themselves. We have some legendary stories of Paul (The Acts of Paul, for example), but those seem to be later than the canonical epistles. The earliest information we have about Paul is the epistles.

Some people have claimed that Marcion wrote the epistles and used the name "Paul" as a sort of nom de plume, but there's no specific evidence for that. Since we have epistles claiming to have been written by a guy named Paul, the simplest explanation is that there was a guy named Paul. The majority of the epistles (seven of thirteen) seem to have been written by the same person and that majority also includes the earliest attested. Accordingly, those were probably written by the real Paul.

The case for Paul's existence is immeasurably stronger if one considers, as most scholars do, the descriptions of Paul's missionary journeys in Acts are based at least in part on sources independent of the Pauline epistles.

[Tcg]

There is a great deal of discussion about the historic Jesus. Many suggest he truly existed. Perhaps a fewer number consider him a mythological figure. What about Paul? It seems that even more both skeptic and believer alike are convinced of his existence. What is the evidence of his existence? I ask not because I doubt he existed, but rather because I don't know why so many are convinced he did.

In a nutshell, in order for Paul to be fictitious, the Pauline epistles must be either attributed to a legendary figure or a literary invention and Acts must be based on either those legends or entirely on the epistles themselves. We have some legendary stories of Paul (The Acts of Paul, for example), but those seem to be later than the canonical epistles. The earliest information we have about Paul is the epistles.

Some people have claimed that Marcion wrote the epistles and used the name "Paul" as a sort of nom de plume, but there's no specific evidence for that. Since we have epistles claiming to have been written by a guy named Paul, the simplest explanation is that there was a guy named Paul. The majority of the epistles (seven of thirteen) seem to have been written by the same person and that majority also includes the earliest attested. Accordingly, those were probably written by the real Paul.

The case for Paul's existence is immeasurably stronger if one considers, as most scholars do, the descriptions of Paul's missionary journeys in Acts are based at least in part on sources independent of the Pauline epistles.

Thank-you for that. Do we have any idea what the sources may be? If they predate Pauline epistles, they'd be earlier than anything we have in the N.T.?


Tcg

[Goose]

What is the evidence of [Paul’s] existence?

Off the top of my head some early sources that mention Paul:

The letters attributed to Paul
The book of Acts
The first letter of Clement (late first century)
Ignatius (early second century)
Polycarp (early second century)

I ask not because I doubt he existed, but rather because I don't know why so many are convinced he did.

The historical evidence for Paul’s existence is comparatively so strong that to deny his existence would lead to the absurd position of having to likewise deny the existence of so many historical figures.

[Goose]

Accordingly, those were probably written by the real Paul.

I agree here but we must be careful not to argue in a circle. We can't claim the letters written by Paul are evidence that Paul existed. To do so would Beg the Question.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I have heard that some claimed that Marcion wrote Paul's letters in order to rid Christianity of Judaism, just as Paul tried to. I don't see that Marcion would have referred to the OT as a basis in that case. I would like to hear what Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp have to say on Paul to see whether it amounts to independent confirmation of Paul's reality. Rather like 'Extra Biblical historical evidence for Christ', just later writers referring back to the Epistles and Acts wouldn't validate anything.

As to the epistles and Acts, I do credit the epistles as I detect someone not written as though a Christian was inventing it. As to Acts, that is just what I do perceive. A literary fabrication by the Luke -writer in order to explain how the Disciples took over the 'Church' after Jesus' removal from the scene, and how it got handed over to Paul with the approval of Peter and James, just as Paul liked to present it in the Epistles.

I have heard that the letters after about Philemon, say, are open to doubt about being genuine. I'll leave that to the Bible experts.