There is no evidence for the existence of an “Apostle” Paul outside the Christian New Testament, no records of him ever visiting the kings and other powerful authority figures he supposedly held audiences with. Josephus, Tacitus, Lucius etc, have nothing to say about an “Apostle” Paul. However, seven of the documents in the NT attributed to Paul do appear from textual analysis to be written by the same person. The author clearly identifies himself as Paul, yet, apart from highly contentious passing mentions by “Apostolic” Fathers, history is curiously silent about the man who is perhaps the greatest apostate from Judaism and inspired progenitor of doctrinal Christianity.

Acts of the Apostles informs us that Paul was previously known by his Jewish name Saul. Surprisingly, Saul of Tarsus is never mentioned outside Acts of the Apostles. Even Paul, in his own epistles, never suggests that he was once known by another name other than Paul. Did he try to bury his previous personae? And if so, why ? It is worth a closer look.

Acts of the Apostles is dated to around 80-90CE, the author drew on the works of the classical writers Dionysus of Halicarnacus who wrote the History of Rome and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews) in addition to his Septuagint sources (Gospel of Mark) and the Q-source. It has to be said that as historical data, Acts of the Apostles is unreliable, for instance; The quarrel of Paul who offends Ananias by calling him a “painted wall", and then retracts: "I didn't know that he was the High Priest” (Acts 23:5) - is placed in 58 CE, this is an invention. We know this because Ananias was deposed from the position of High Priest of the Temple in 52 CE, many such inconsistencies abound in the Acts of the Apostles.

Through careful consideration of the sources the author of Acts drew on, and drawing on the parallels writings of contemporary historians we can begin to draw a composite e-fit of the “Apostle” Paul.

History and not faith

New Testament Saul is one and the same as the Herodian Saulus described in contemporary history by Josephus. Witness Paul’s customary greetings to; “my kinsman Herodion” (Romans 16:11), (Little Herod) which immediately follows another greeting to the “household of Aristobulus” (Romans 16:10). At this time, Herodion would have been the son of Aristobulus (i.e., the same Aristobulus mentioned above) and the infamous Salome. This “Herodion” is therefore the grandnephew of one Saulos, identified by Josephus as a “kinsman of Agrippa”

This would also account for Paul’s claims to Roman citizenship, citizenship was a birth-right of all members of the Herodian family and their descendants granted to Herod (Antipas).

The characterization of Saulus is that of an agent- provocateur, but he is denounced for this by Josephus rather than idolized as in the Book of Acts. Josephus names and describes many of the same people and events found in Acts, interestingly the appearance of Saulus in Josephus dovetails with his departure at the close of Acts. The Book of Acts fills in the missing biography of Saul and was in fact motivated by the need to counterbalance the negative image of Saul (“Apostle Paul”) in Josephus’ writings.

The Parallels

We consider the following parallel accounts in the Acts of the Apostles and Josephus' writings;

Josephus describes a riot in Jerusalem instigated by a 'Saulus', after the stoning of James, (Brother of Jesus) whilst debating points at the temple steps. This parallels the story in Acts, of Saul being present at the martyrdom of Stephen, which is actually a fantasy, it was in fact the killing of James the head of the early Christian church.

Another document from this period, the Pseudo-clementine Recognitions covers much of the same material as Acts (likely working from the same underlying source), but in place of Stephen according to the Recognitions, it is James who is debating points from the Temple steps and who is attacked by political thugs. The leader of the gang is not identified in the text by name: he is simply referred to as the “enemy”. However, in the margins of some extant copies, this “enemy” is identified as Saul.

Another parallel is drawn in the NT following Paul’s final confrontation with James in Acts 21, he is attacked by a mob of Jews for bringing foreigners into the Temple. He is arrested and manages to avoid harsh treatment by identifying himself as a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:25). In Acts 23, Paul’s sister’s son is able to convince the prison commander to provide Paul with an escort of 470 troops, including 70 cavalry for the trip to Caesarea. Clearly the man had connections.

Similarly, according to Josephus, at least 10 people including Saulus connected with the riots over the Temple wall affair were bound over and sent to Rome to give account of their role in the situation in Jerusalem. This included the temple treasurer Helcias, who was the husband of Saulus’s sister Cypros, and thus Paul’s brother-in-law if he was indeed Saulus. [And, if this identification is correct, then Paul’s nephew, who arranged his huge armed escort, would be Cypros’s son, Julius Archelaus, who is known to have been interested enough in these events to have bought a copy of Josephus’s Jewish War.]

It appears that the Saulus mentioned by Josephus was an intermediary between the Chief Priests and the Pharisees, the Herodian king and the Romans. Therefore he would have been known to the Jews of the late first century as disreputable and untrustworthy.

The Book of Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial in Rome. Prior to this he had been arrested and detained at Jerusalem (circa 61-62CE) for causing a riot and then appealing to Caesar in his defence. For two years after this (circa 62-63CE), we are told that Paul lived under a nominal house arrest and continued to evangelize boldly,the book falls silent.

From Josephus it appears the author of Acts knew that the disposition of Paul’s hearing was just as Paul expected, favorable. Acts could have ended on this particularly high note, but instead leads the ill-informed reader to assume that Paul in communion with other persecuted Christians was a victim of Nero in 64CE.

On the other hand, beginning in 63CE, Josephus makes Saulus the valet of Nero at Jerusalem, and again in 66CE when the Jewish Revolt breaks out the shocking presence of Saulus is at the epicenter of that unfolding drama he acts as an intermediary between various powerful people in Jerusalem and the Roman armies outside, with the aim of guiding the Romans into the city so they can drown the rebellion in blood. Saulos is later called to a debriefing with Nero in Corinth. The answers he gives may not have proved satisfactory to Nero because after this (the exact year Christian sources claim that Paul dies) Saulos also completely disappears from the scene.

I've always thought of "saint" Paul as a misogynistic, arrogant bloke, even when I was a Christian.

Apatheist: I've always thought of "saint" Paul as a misogynistic, arrogant bloke, even when I was a Christian.

That is putting it mildly.

It is not difficult to work out why Paul wished to bury his previous Personae of Saul. Indeed were it not for the writer of Luke (probably Lucius of Cyrene) we would have no idea of the previously named Saul, Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.1 §§ 197-203) reports that Saul was present at the Judicial murder of James, Hegesippus, (Christian Chronicler in concert with Clement and Eusebius’ reports) portrays James as ordered killed by the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus ( a Herodian) at the Temple.

Ananus and Herodian King Agrippa II (who appointed Ananus on an interim basis) conspired to kill James. This murder was seen by many people as leading to the Jewish War and the resulting destruction of Jerusalem. (Josephus states this and Origen and Eusebius confirm it) The role of Saul did not go un-noticed. The accounts of the death of James by Josephus and Hegesippus are matched precisely by the account contained in the “Habakkuk Pesher” labelled 1QpHab in the Qumran documents find (the dead sea scrolls) there are references to the “Teacher of righteousness” identified as James, there is mention of a “Wicked Priest” identified as Ananus and the “Spouter of Lies” who came to lead others astray and corrupt the laws, the identification is complete, it is of course none other than …Saul.

Historically it would be fairer to say that Saul wrote epistles and letters under the assumed name “Paul”. If an Apostle Paul had truly existed, then the “real” Apostles and evangelists would surely have reported him in their writings (as he was their “colleague” and author of marvellous acts carried out thanks to the impulse of Jesus: this fact, strangely enough, does not emerge). The only evangelist who speaks about Paul is Luke, who was neither an Apostle nor eyewitness of Jesus. Only Luke has Saul/ Paul interact with Simon Peter and John (in “Acts of the Apostles”) neither of whom mentions in their writings what would effectively be the miraculous workings of Apostle Paul.

The writings of Paul are pro-Gentile, pro-Roman documents which deliberately portray Jesus as a pacifistic, spiritual Messiah. Overall in the NT, to accommodate Pauline Doctrine, the original heirs of Jesus are played down for political reasons.

Significant in Paul's writings is what he does not say. Even though he wrote earlier than the Gospel writers he seems to be completely unaware of a recent, historical Jesus. He makes no mention of Jesus' Galilean ministry. He makes no references to Jesus' teachings as recorded in the gospels, even when it would clearly advance his argument to do so. This “Paul” the greatest ever Apostate from Judaism on the surface of it, knows next to nothing about a Jesus he claims to have met by divine revelation.

Kei144:

And you think that your vain philosophy is capable of overthrowing Christianity? You are too small!

No vain "philosophy" here, just an historical perspective. Do you actually have a point to make or did you just come on here to shout your insecurities from the rooftop?

As deceivers and yet true, as unknown and yet well known. (2 Corinthians 6:8,9)
Where the New English Bible has 'God...chose to reveal his Son to me and through me' (Galatians 1:16), what the Greek actually says is '...To reveal his son in me...' (ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί) Paul is saying quite clearly, that he is himself the incarnation of the Son of God. Paul is claiming to be the first person in whom this miraculous merging has taken place. His 'revelation' is thus more even than a revelation: it is a transformation and a deification of Paul himself as the supreme manifestation of the phenomenon of impregnation by God. Other Christians were able to partake of this state, having been shown the way by Paul, just as other Buddhists may find Nirvana, having been shown the way by the Buddha; but Paul, like the Buddha, remains pre-eminent and quasi-divine.

Even more important for an understanding of Paul's view of his own status is his claim to have special marks or stigmata on his body, showing the depth of his self- identification with the sufferings of Jesus on the cross. (Galatians 6:17)....Thus the stigmata of Paul, whether self-inflicted or psychosomatically produced, made him, in his own eyes, the supreme embodiment of Jesus Christ.
It is very easy to view Paul/Saul as a self-possessed and even self-hating Jewish charlatan, like Simon Magus, who found and employed any means possible to rise to the top of his religious class and to make a name for himself--indeed by any means possible to exact a kind of supressed vengeance on the Jewish leaders of his time because of their rejection of him.