For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

And yet...Justin writing c 160 AD never mentions "paul" in any of his writings...which are extensive.

I had a look for Justin Martyr's works and found -

Justin's first work seems to have been his treatise Against all Heresies [now lost]

His three works are known as the First Apology, the Second Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

The other documents attributed to Justin Martyr listed above - the Hortatory Address to the Greeks, On the Sole Government of God, and On the Resurrection - are of dubious authenticity. They may have been written instead by another Christian author, now unknown. It has been suggested that the Discourse to the Greeks was originally a Jewish treatise.

So, we can't really be sure that Paul not being mentioned is significant.

http://www.egodeath.com/TheFabricatedPaul.htm

BTW, if this happy horseshit did not start with the jews then the "gentiles" were the ones who already had it - and thus did not need any "paul."

I've just read it.

Christianity in its origin was nothing else than a Jewish-Messianic movement ... the figure of Jesus had never existed, but represented a symbolization and personification of thoughts that could only make full headway in the second century. A gnostic messianic community later appeared alongside the Jewish-Christian messianic community. In the period between 70 and 135 CE the two groups opposed one another with bitter animosity.

If it started as a Jewish-Messianic movement the Gentiles wouldn't have had it until somebody told them about it.

Paul was a reworked Simon the Magician. Simon/Paul had leprosy. Simon/Paul taught gnostic-type anti-cosmos transcendence of and freedom from 'the law' through grace -- such transcendence being 'lawlessness'.

Simon the Magician doesn't appear to have had leprosy other than figuratively speaking because Peter called him and his followers spiritual lepers. See Page 127 of Simon Magus In Patristic Medieval And Early Modern Traditions. Simon is supposed to have started Gnosticism but is there any real evidence for his existence? Anyway, on to the next bit.

John the Baptist's best follower was the historical Simon of Samaria. Cerdo (in Rome) was a follower of Simon, then Marcion was a follower of Simon after Cerdo. Marcion (from Pontus) doesn't write of Simon (from Samaria), but of Paul.

Is there any evidence that John the Baptist really existed? After all, he was sent by God to prepare the way for a kinsman who was a symbolization and personification of thoughts. Let's forget that for a moment and go to where we learn of him having Simon as a follower in the Pseudo-Clementine Literature.

The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies give an account of Simon Magus and some of his teachings in regards to the Simonians. They are of uncertain date and authorship, and seem to have been worked over by several hands in the interest of diverse forms of belief.
Simon was a Samaritan, and a native of Gitta. The name of his father was Antonius, that of his mother Rachel. He studied Greek literature in Alexandria, and, having in addition to this great power in magic, became so ambitious that he wished to be considered a highest power, higher even than the God who created the world. And sometimes he "darkly hinted" that he himself was Christ, calling himself the Standing One. Which name he used to indicate that he would stand for ever, and had no cause in him for bodily decay.

So how good was he at magic?

But on the death of John he was away in Egypt for the practice of magic, and one Dositheus, by spreading a false report of Simon's death, succeeded in installing himself as head of the sect. Simon on coming back thought it better to dissemble, and, pretending friendship for Dositheus, accepted the second place. Soon, however, he began to hint to the thirty that Dositheus was not as well acquainted as he might be with the doctrines of the school.[17]
Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as if it had been smoke.

How reliable is the Clementine Literature?

St Clement is also the hero of an early Christian romance or novel that has survived in at least two different versions, known as the Clementine literature, where he is identified with Emperor Domitian's cousin Titus Favius Clemens. Clementine Literature portrays Clement as the Apostles' means of disseminating their teachings to the Church.[1]

There's an idea concerning what this was all about. Simon Magus As A Cipher

The Pseudo-Clementine writings were used in the 4th century by members of the Ebionite sect, one characteristic of which was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle.[20] Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), founder of the Tübingen School, drew attention to the anti-Pauline characteristic in the Pseudo-Clementines, and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g. that of having seen the Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The enmity between Peter and Simon is clearly shown.

The anti-Pauline context of the Pseudo-Clementines is recognised, but the association with Simon Magus is surprising since they have little in common.[22] However the majority of scholars accept Baur's identification,[23]

I suppose it's possible because Yeshu ha Notzri was invented to mock Jesus later on.

Xtians ignore the ramifications of the Gabriel Revelation Stone like the plague.

If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.

This idea means accepting that Jesus really existed.

Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.

The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus."

Maybe the idea being explored could have led to Jesus as a symbolization and personification of thoughts.

[Minimalist]

So, we can't really be sure that Paul not being mentioned is significant.

Well, then you must ask yourself WHEN paul became significant to the story? Because if he brought the story to the Gentiles and the Gentiles know fuckall about it there is a hole in the story.

This idea means accepting that Jesus really existed.

Quite the opposite. It means that the idea of some jerkoff coming back to life 3 days after being killed pre-dates "jesus" by 30+ years at least and because no one wrote about them we have no idea how widespread this particular cult idea may have been.

It does not require a real "jesus" anymore than the Prometheus myth requires a real Prometheus. People willingly believe all sorts of stupid shit.

[Confused Ape]

And yet...Justin writing c 160 AD never mentions "paul" in any of his writings...which are extensive.

I've been having a look at Justin Martyrs Writings to see if there's any reason why he should have mentioned Paul. (The link is to an index page so I'm not giving links to individual works as well.) I found the Encyclopaedia Britanica article on Justin Martyr.

Justin serves, moreover, as a crucial witness to the status of the 2nd-century New Testament corpus, mentioning the first three Gospels and quoting and paraphrasing the letters of Paul and 1 Peter; he was the first known writer to quote from the Acts of the Apostles.

So, he obviously knew about Paul's writings even though he never mentioned the author by name.

Well, then you must ask yourself WHEN paul became significant to the story? Because if he brought the story to the Gentiles and the Gentiles know fuckall about it there is a hole in the story.

Paul is very significant to the story because Marcion based his theology on his own interpretation of Paul's teachings. Justin regarded Marcionism as a heresy. (See the First Apology)

Marcion affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as his chief apostle.

Marcion proposed his unique New Testament canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, being a version of the Gospel of Luke,[7] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings

Anyway, on to Justin's writings.

Discourse To The Greeks explains why he converted to Christianity. He regarded Greek mythology as drivel, including how they explain the birth of their gods.

Fragments Of The Lost Work Of Justin On The Resurrection gives his views on everyone being resurrected in the flesh.

But because the prince of wickedness could in no other way corrupt the truth, he sent forth his apostles (evil men who introduced pestilent doctrines), choosing them from among those who crucified our Saviour; and these men bore the name of the Saviour, but did the works of him that sent them, through whom the name itself has been spoken against.

These men could be Simon the Magician and his disciple, Menander, because Simon was from Samaria.

On The Sole Government Of God is about God.

Justin's Hortatory Address To The Greeks talks about Homer and Greek philosophers.

Dialogue With Trypho is Justin promoting his ideas in the form of conversations with an imaginary Trypho and an old man he met in a field. He used the word 'apostles' on numerous occasions but only mentioned Peter and John by name. There is also an interesting omission.

'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

Matthew wasn't mentioned by name even though the gospel attributed to him tells the Wise Men story. Justin did, however, mention Simon the Magician.

For I gave no thought to any of my people, that is, the Samaritans, when I had a communication in writing with Caesar, but stated that they were wrong in trusting to the magician Simon of their own nation, who, they say, is God above all power, and authority, and might."

The First Apology is addressed to the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar and various other people. Justin said a lot about Simon the Magician and Menander and Marcion is mentioned twice as someone preaching heresies in Justin's lifetime. Justin's not mentioning Paul suggests that he didn't think that Paul was a heretic even though Marcion regarded him as Jesus's chief apostle. The purpose of this Apology is stated in the first chapter.

I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

We then learn why Justin is telling the emperor about heretics - he had a grievance.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.

He then went on to say -

But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

This must refer to his Against All Heresies which has gone missing. Maybe he mentioned Paul by name here in relation to Marcion's interpretation of his teachings but we'll never know. The First Apology also has two references to Gentiles and the people who converted them but again, none of the apostles are mentioned by name.

But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem

We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe on Him

The Second Apology is addressed to the Senate. He's complaining about persecution and explaining what Christianity is about. He also makes another reference to Simon the Magician.

And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation.

The Fragments From Lost Works include quotations which appear to have been used in other writers' works on theology and philosophy.

He speaks not of the Gentiles in foreign lands, but concerning [the people] who agree with the Gentiles, according to that which is spoken by Jeremiah

I have no idea who He is because the fragment doesn't give any further information.

Quite the opposite. It means that the idea of some jerkoff coming back to life 3 days after being killed pre-dates "jesus" by 30+ years at least and because no one wrote about them we have no idea how widespread this particular cult idea may have been.

I was talking about what was said in the article. The article writer and a language expert interpret the find as if Jesus actually existed.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...85,00.html

If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.

"But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story." (Israel Knohl , an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University)

Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.

My own suggestion was -

Maybe the idea being explored could have led to Jesus as a symbolization and personification of thoughts.

[Minimalist]

I've been having a look at Justin Martyrs Writings to see if there's any reason why he should have mentioned Paul.

You've never heard of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome, I see?

[Confused Ape]

I've been having a look at Justin Martyrs Writings to see if there's any reason why he should have mentioned Paul.

You've never heard of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome, I see?

What do you mean?

The key information I discovered about Justin by looking around was that -

1: Justin quoted and paraphrased the letters of Paul.

2: Marcion, who was alive in Justin's time, regarded Paul as Jesus's chief apostle whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings

3: Justin regarded Marcion as a heretic because he says so in the First Apology.

This indicates that Paul's writings were very important to the story even though Marcion doesn't mention Paul by name. The only people he did mention by name are Marcion, Simon the Magician, Menander, Peter and John. If we're going to take Justin's writings as the only proof that someone was known about we'll have to assume that only two of Jesus's disciples were known about because he doesn't refer to the other ten by their names.

Does any of this prove that Paul actually existed? No, but it appears to indicate that people of the time could have believed that he existed.

[Minimalist]

The Fallacy of the Pre-Determined outcome goes something like this...

There is a baseball game and late in the game one team is losing by a run. They get a runner on base who tries to steal second and is thrown out. On the next pitch, the batter hits a home run. One announcer notes that if the runner had not been caught stealing they would now be in the lead.

The problem here is that it assumes the result would have been the same.

If the runner had not tried to steal the pitcher may have thrown to first, he may have thrown a different pitch in that situation or he might have pitched out in an effort to anticipate the runner stealing. And what of the batter. With a runner on first the manager could have signaled him to sacrifice bunt? Or try to hit behind the runner to advance him to third? The batter may have even taken a pitch to give the runner a chance to steal. There simply is no way to know what would have happened next. However, with no one on base the entire situation changes and the batter is free to swing away and the pitcher is not distracted by the runner.

The is a guy over at FRDB who wrote this extensive list of ancient writers and came up with a reason why none of them mentioned Josephus' TF. Very impressive except all he showed is that none of them knew about it. You can always make up reasons why someone did not do something but Occam's Razor suggests that had the TF existed someone, particularly a xtian writer, would have mentioned it.

Similarly here. IF Paul was an actual person who lived a century before Justin and wrote these critical epistles it simply boggles the mind that Justin never heard of him and used the name. This is very close to the "Great Christian Paradox." Jesus was so fucking dangerous that the powers that be had to break every rule in their own book to deal with him YET at the same time he was so inconsequential that no one noticed him? If Paul was this towering figure in the first century bringing this semi-jewish shit loaf to gentiles then the Gentiles should have known all about him and revered him, shouldn't they? Instead, we find "his" epistles being trotted out by Marcion and, it would seem, only later being adopted into the growing xtian bullshit story of the day.

Call me suspicious.

[Confused Ape]

If Paul was this towering figure in the first century bringing this semi-jewish shit loaf to gentiles then the Gentiles should have known all about him and revered him, shouldn't they?

I had a look at what early Christian writers around Justin's time wrote about. There's only three of them in the wikipedia list because the earlier writers are Paul of Tarsus and the authors of the canonical gospels.

Ignatius of Antioch. Nobody is sure when he died because estimates range from Eusebius's report of 108 AD to 115 AD.

Ignatius modelled his writings after Paul, Peter, and John, and even quoted or paraphrased their own works freely, such as when he quoted 1 Cor 1:18, in his letter to the Ephesians[12]:

I found the Letter to the Ephesians - this version shows where Ignatius quoted and paraphrased from various texts, including 1 Corinthians. If Marcion forged it he must have said who wrote it otherwise it wouldn't have suited his idea that Paul was the real apostle. The letter starts and ends with

Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 1:2unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours:

The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.

Ignatius quoting from this letter which probably had Paul's name in it, suggests that he didn't wonder who Paul was supposed to have been. What could have given Ignatius the idea that Paul had existed?

The First Epistle Of Clement appears to be around the right date.

The First Epistle of Clement, (literally, Clement to Corinth; Greek, Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους, Klēmentos pros Korinthious) is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. The letter dates from the late 1st or early 2nd century, and ranks with Didache as one of the earliest — if not the earliest — of extant Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament.

Many scholars believe 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation, c. 95-97 AD.

The epistle mentions Paul twice.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

This suggests that there could have been a tradition about Paul writing to the Corinthians and suffering for his faith. If the epistle has been dated correctly, Marcion would have been 10 or 12 at the time because he lived c.85 – c.160. Any tradition about Paul doesn't automatically mean he really existed, of course, but, if he didn't exist, the tradition must have got started some time.

The next writer near the time was Melito of Sardis who died in 180 AD but only fragments of his work survived.

Instead, we find "his" epistles being trotted out by Marcion and, it would seem, only later being adopted into the growing xtian bullshit story of the day.

Call me suspicious.

If there was a tradition about Paul writing a letter to the Corinthians, Marcion might have forged it and then got carried away by forging some more letters. Justin Martyr knew enough about Marcionism to regard it as a heresy so he must have been aware of Marcion promoting Paul as the only true apostle. Justin still quoted and paraphrased Paul's letters, though, so even if he'd been taken in my Marcion's forgeries he couldn't have been wondering who Paul was.

On the other hand, Marcion might have collected letters which were attributed to Paul and then edited them to suit his own purpose. The only other explanation is that Marcion forged Ignatius's and Clement's letters as well. Somebody then forged Justin's work so he quoted and paraphrased Paul.

Anyway, I've done enough for now. If you think there were dozens of early Christian writers around Justin's time or before who should have mentioned Paul, I'll leave you to find them. Try looking at all the writings that didn't make it into the Bible along with the Gnostic texts. The object of the exercise isn't to do with whether Paul actually existed but when a tradition about Paul existing could have got started.

[EGross]

Now, there is a censored section of the Talmud (well a couple of words that make all of the difference), where Rabbi Eliezer is recalling to Rabbi Akiva a time where he (Rabbi Eliezer) had sinned by enjoying a conversation with a min, who was mocking the High Priest in the Temple for being a Pharisee, while this person was a Jew who had converted to Christianity. (The joke was the chutzpah of the one mocking the other).

Now, in the pre-censored form, the term min had replaced talmid Yeshu, meaning a student of importance who was not just a person who accepted Jesus as his master, but was a teacher of his teachings, a representative of his. This was, based on the context, prior to 70CE. Now there has been debate as to who this person could have been. But being that the story has no real date, nor is the person actually named, it just makes for a lot of conjecture. One thought was a traveling preacher who was trying to get followers and was leading the movement. Another was the man who would have created the cult (who we refer to as Paul, which is an odd name. While it sounds like "Saul" there is no real connection between the two). There are other conjectures as well. But if you look up Rabbi Eliezer on Wikipedia, you see that the lack ofscholarship causes Christians to believe that Rabbi Eliezer was a secret Christian, while ignoring that he openly disputed and denounced them in other places.

So was there a real Paul? Was his name "Paul", or was that the Greek name he took or was born with.

Oh, one more fun Jewish tradition: Paul was really a Greek, a convert, who converted to marry a Jewish woman he was in love with from afar. After converting, he asked for her hand, but she said that since she was the daughter of a Kohen, she was not allowed to marry a convert. And so he got pissed, cursed the Jews, and went on his evil rampaging quest.

It's probably a polemic, but it's a fun one!

[tokutter]

The Fallacy of the Pre-Determined outcome goes something like this...

There is a baseball game and late in the game one team is losing by a run. They get a runner on base who tries to steal second and is thrown out. On the next pitch, the batter hits a home run. One announcer notes that if the runner had not been caught stealing they would now be in the lead.

The problem here is that it assumes the result would have been the same.

If the runner had not tried to steal the pitcher may have thrown to first, he may have thrown a different pitch in that situation or he might have pitched out in an effort to anticipate the runner stealing. And what of the batter. With a runner on first the manager could have signaled him to sacrifice bunt? Or try to hit behind the runner to advance him to third? The batter may have even taken a pitch to give the runner a chance to steal. There simply is no way to know what would have happened next. However, with no one on base the entire situation changes and the batter is free to swing away and the pitcher is not distracted by the runner.

The is a guy over at FRDB who wrote this extensive list of ancient writers and came up with a reason why none of them mentioned Josephus' TF. Very impressive except all he showed is that none of them knew about it. You can always make up reasons why someone did not do something but Occam's Razor suggests that had the TF existed someone, particularly a xtian writer, would have mentioned it.

Similarly here. IF Paul was an actual person who lived a century before Justin and wrote these critical epistles it simply boggles the mind that Justin never heard of him and used the name. This is very close to the "Great Christian Paradox." Jesus was so fucking dangerous that the powers that be had to break every rule in their own book to deal with him YET at the same time he was so inconsequential that no one noticed him? If Paul was this towering figure in the first century bringing this semi-jewish shit loaf to gentiles then the Gentiles should have known all about him and revered him, shouldn't they? Instead, we find "his" epistles being trotted out by Marcion and, it would seem, only later being adopted into the growing xtian bullshit story of the day.

Call me suspicious.

Well my day has not been a waste. Another lesson well learned from Min. Thank you sir.

[Confused Ape]

One thought was a traveling preacher who was trying to get followers and was leading the movement. Another was the man who would have created the cult (who we refer to as Paul, which is an odd name. While it sounds like "Saul" there is no real connection between the two).

Paul's names are a bit mysterious.

Mark Powell concludes that "Saul/Paul seems to have had two names: his given Hebrew name ('Saul') and a more Roman-sounding name ('Paul') for use in the Gentile world (similarly, Silus was called 'Silvanus')".[6]

According to baby names, Paul is derived from the Roman family name Paulus, which meant "small" or "humble" in Latin.

There are other conjectures as well. But if you look up Rabbi Eliezer on Wikipedia, you see that the lack ofscholarship causes Christians to believe that Rabbi Eliezer was a secret Christian, while ignoring that he openly disputed and denounced them in other places.

Is this Eliezer ben Hurcanos? The only mention of Christianity I could find is in the section about him being charged for heresy.

At last he remembered that once, while at Sepphoris, he had met a Christian who communicated to him a singular halakhah in the name of Ben Pandera, (Jesus) that he had approved of the halakhah and had really enjoyed hearing it, and, he added, "Thereby I transgressed the injunction,[33] 'Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house,' which the Rabbis apply to sectarianism as well as to heresy".[34][35]

Oh, one more fun Jewish tradition: Paul was really a Greek, a convert, who converted to marry a Jewish woman he was in love with from afar. After converting, he asked for her hand, but she said that since she was the daughter of a Kohen, she was not allowed to marry a convert. And so he got pissed, cursed the Jews, and went on his evil rampaging quest.

It's probably a polemic, but it's a fun one!

I remembered something about the Ebionites. The Early Christian Writings site has this to say about the Gospel Of The Hebrews

Irenaeus Against Heresies, i.26.2. But the Ebionites use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law.

Irenaeus lived (2nd century – c. 202 CE) so Paul traditions appear to have been well established by then. In the wikipedia article about Ebionites, reference 84 says -

"[The Ebionites] declare that he was a Greek [...] He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law " - Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30.16.6-9

I haven't been able to track down an online version of the Panarion to check it out for myself. If Epiphanius really did say this it indicates that this story was known in his lifetime (inter 310–320 – 403) and his biography reveals where he could have heard it.

Epiphanius was born into a Christian family in the small settlement of Besanduk, near Eleutheropolis (modern-day Beit Guvrin, Israel),[2] and lived as a monk in Egypt, where he was educated and came into contact with Valentinian groups. He returned to Palestine around 333, when he was still a young man, and he founded a monastery at Ad nearby [3] which is often mentioned in the polemics of Jerome with Rufinus and John, Bishop of Jerusalem. He was ordained a priest, and lived and studied as superior of the monastery in Ad that he founded for thirty years and gained much skill and knowledge in that position.

So, maybe people who were anti-Paul decided that he actually started out as Paul then told everyone his name was Saul so they'd believe he'd been born a Jew. When he didn't get what he wanted he reverted to his real name because it was useful outside Judea. Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen in Acts 16.

37 But Paul said to the officers: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”

38 The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed.

None of this proves that Paul really existed, of course, but stories about him definitely existed.