The Historical Paul

Paul the apostle was a first-century Pharisee, missionary, evangelist, and Christian apologist. More than any other man after Christ’s ascension, Paul shaped the history of early Christianity. Paul’s epistles make up nearly half of the New Testament.

In recent years, it has become fashionable among popular writers to deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Very few scholars hold such a position as the historical evidence for Jesus the Man is quite strong. Nevertheless, a few far-left scholars, such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price have denied that there is sufficient evidence to believe Jesus ever lived. One key element historians and Christian apologists have used to argue against this notion is the letters of the apostle Paul. These are, after all, our earliest sources about Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, if what Paul says is accurate, we can be historically certain that Jesus existed.

As a consequence of this defense of the historical Jesus, critics have begun to question Paul. Dr. Robert Price has taken the next step and denied the existence of a historical Paul. In his book, The Amazing, Colossal, Apostle, he argues that there is not sufficient historical evidence to warrant belief that Paul ever existed. Christ-myth theorists represent fewer than one percent of New Testament scholarship. While claiming Jesus never existed is a marginal position, even fewer people would deny the existence of a historical Paul. Yet, this question is relevant to studying the life Paul. It is is impossible to study the life of a nonexistent person. Therefore the evidence for his existence should be examined.

The first piece of evidence is Paul’s own letters. While scholars have questioned the authorship of some of the letters typically attributed to Paul, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are generally undisputed. Even if one accepts that the other Pauline epistles are forgeries, a point deserves to be made. In order people to be forging letters, there had to be someone to be forging. In other words, if there was no original Paul, it is nonsensical to think that people would write letters in the name of a nonexistent man. To say nothing of believing that early Christians would accept these letters as authoritative if there were no real apostle Paul. Indeed it is hard to image how much better evidence for Paul one could expect than his own writings. The very fact that a minimum of eight authentic letter from Paul shows beyond all reasonable doubt that Paul existed.

A further line of evidence is the book of Acts. Acts was written by Luke who was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Therefore much of the book of Acts is eyewitness testimony to the existence of a historical Paul. Luke has also been shown to be an exceptionally reliable historian as noted by Sir William Ramsey. Therefore, the book of Acts is further confirmation of the existence of a historical Paul.

Finally, the writing of the early church leaders confirm Paul’s existence. Paul’s martyrdom is recorded by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen. Obviously, if Paul was martyred he must have existed. A man who does not exist cannot be killed. It is nearly impossible to deny that Paul was executed in the light of so many different, independent, testimonies all saying the same thing. Paul’s execution under the emperor Nero is an established historical fact. Ignatius of Antioch also mentions the apostle Paul in a letter to Rome. All of this demonstrates the existence of a real Paul. In light of the above stated reasons for accepting Paul’s existence, critics who deny that this man ever lived do so in spite of the evidence - not because of it.