The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

Nestor, don't pretend that this idea has not been studied extensively.  Even nutty xtians, like James Tabor cited below, see the obvious problems with the paul story that the church has cobbled together.  As he notes, these questions have been asked for just about as long as people have been looking for ( and not finding ) a historical "jesus."  (Whatever the fuck that means.)

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url] As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[/i]

The church can no longer murder people who dispute their bullshit and, as a result, they have a serious problem keeping it together.