Elena

That is question. Can you help answer?
Thanks.

Ben C Smith

1 Clement 47.1-3 (generally dated to late century I):

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you first, in the beginning of the gospel? Of a truth he charged you spiritually concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, on account that even then you had made parties.

Ignatius to the Ephesians 12.2b (generally dated to early century II, before Marcion):

You are initiated into the mysteries of the gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found when I shall attain unto God, and who in all his epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.

Marcion himself, according to Tertullian in book 5 of Against Marcion:

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle.

....

So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as an apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge?

....

Let Christ, let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it except from the archives of the creator. Even Genesis long ago promised Paul to me.

....

I... have no fear of you [Marcion] when you ask: And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle?

....

But, you object, he [that is, Paul] censures Peter for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. Yes, he does censure him, yet not for anything more than inconsistency in his taking of food.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Thanks, Ben.

I've never doubted Paul's historicity myself, but it's been a while since I've done any relevant research and couldn't remember for sure about the early attestations.

Of course they won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but then nothing ever does.

spamandham

Before lumping those who question the official 2000 year old story in with area 52 aficionados, are you willing to step out on a limb and state that there is no substantial evidence of a later spin (oh I don't know, let's just pick mid 2nd century at random) being applied to earlier writings?

aa5874

Ben's post did not deal with or confirm the historicity of any of the "Pauls".

And by the way, Tertullian and Ignatius or the Church did not even realise that there were at least 3 persons named Paul.

Which "Paul" wrote what?

judge

Isn't this asking them to prove a negative?

How can any investigation proceed if one must first guarantee no contrary substantial evidence exists?

Derec

Ben, these quotations generally show only that an apostle named Paul was known at that time. But do these arly church fathers contain any specific quotations from the Paulines?

Ben C Smith

I intentionally gave quotations that specifically referenced the epistles of Paul. Read 1 Clement 47 again and tell me whether the author knows of the first epistle to the Corinthians.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

No, I'm not at all willing to assert such a claim. Paul's writings were obviously doctored. But how does that undermine the case for Paul's historicity?

Doug Shaver

I noticed that. But if someone denies that Paul wrote any of epistles attributed to him, I'll want to know (a) where they find any evidence that he existed, (b) what he did that made later Christians want to attribute some writings to him, and (c) how they know he did that.