Did Paul Found Christianity?

Contrary to a widely held belief, Paul did not create Christianity, even though he played a decisive role in its expansion. Jesus himself, as a historical figure, has no direct connection to this religion and would likely have rejected the form it took after his death. Christianity developed gradually over the centuries through a succession of complex stages. The mystery surrounding the figure of Jesus is also present in that of Paul. We do not know his exact date of birth, his full name, the names of his parents, or the circumstances, date, and precise location of his death. In his epistles, Paul provides very little information about himself, and the few details he does mention often contradict those found in the Acts of the Apostles.

Reading his epistles, Paul emerges as an intellectual, a skilled preacher, and a tireless traveler. However, he remains a controversial figure, often misunderstood by his contemporaries. His letters reveal a complex personality, oscillating between opportunism, intransigence, and fervor. His relationship with the Judeans is ambiguous: while he expresses respect for them, he also harshly criticizes them.

The Book of Acts of the Apostles, which my analysis situates before Paul’s presumed death between 61 and 64 CE, allows us to trace the circumstances of his integration into the community of Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem. According to this text, Paul was a Roman citizen from Cilicia, in Asia Minor, a status that granted him a certain notoriety among the Judeans. However, this detail is never mentioned in his epistles. The Book of Acts portrays Paul as a Hellenized Judean, initially a zealous persecutor of Jesus’ disciples. It even claims that he personally sought authorization from the high priest in Jerusalem to obtain arrest warrants against the adherents of this new sect in Syria, intending to bring them back in chains to Jerusalem for trial.

It was during this mission that the famous episode on the road to Damascus supposedly took place. According to the account, a dazzling light from the sky struck Paul to the ground. He then heard the voice of Jesus appearing to him and rebuking him for his actions. Blinded by this vision, Paul spent three days without eating or drinking before being healed by a certain Ananias in Damascus. He then transformed from a persecutor into a fervent follower of Jesus.

This spectacular scene clearly recalls biblical theophanies, particularly Yahweh’s appearance to Moses on Mount Horeb. The author of the text appears to be granting Paul an indisputable apostolic status, validated by a miracle. However, the supernatural nature of the account raises doubts. Strikingly, Paul himself never mentions this event in his epistles and does not use it to establish his authority.

A different version of Paul’s identity is provided by the Ebionites, a community that remained faithful to Jesus’ messianic role while continuing to observe the commandments of the Torah. This sect, which rejected Paul’s epistles and the divinity of Jesus, recounts a radically different story. According to them, Paul was a Hellenized Greek who converted to Judaism and underwent circumcision out of love for the daughter of the high priest. However, after being spurned, he was overcome with rage and began composing diatribes against Jewish law. This sect eventually split from the Nazarenes, who were later deemed heretical after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). The Ebionites’ account has been primarily preserved in the Panarion, a work by Epiphanius of Salamis (born in Beit Guvrin, 315–403 CE). According to this community, Paul was not a Judean but a Hellenized Greek:

“When he arrived in Jerusalem, where he lived for some time, he fell madly in love with the daughter of the high priest [Joseph son of Caiaphas]. This passion led him to convert to Judaism and undergo circumcision. But after being rejected by the high priest’s daughter, he flew into a great rage and wrote diatribes against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Torah.” (Panarion 30, 16, 8-9).

In contrast to this Ebionite version, the Book of Acts of the Apostles presents a miraculous account filled with fantastical details.

Faced with these divergences, the historian is confronted with an essential question: which version is the most credible? Should we believe in the miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, or in the hypothesis of a personal motivation, unmentioned in the New Testament? The version of the divine apparition raises several historical issues: did the high priest of Jerusalem truly have the authority to intervene in the lives of Judeans in the Syrian province of Damascus, which was under the rule of the Nabatean king Aretas IV Philopatris? Did a community of Jesus’ disciples already exist in Damascus around the year 45? Were the Jerusalem authorities genuinely concerned, at such an early stage after the crucifixion, about the presence of Jesus’ followers? Is it plausible that Paul, who identified himself as a Pharisee—”I am from the sect of the Pharisees” (Epistle to the Philippians 3:5)—could suddenly become the envoy of the high priest? This version seems to contradict the historical context of the time and calls into question the credibility of the event.

The Book of Acts of the Apostles was not written in a single draft and contains multiple versions of Paul’s conversion. This practice of layering narratives is characteristic of New Testament historiography. Similarly, certain inconsistencies in Paul’s epistles cast doubt on his true identity and intentions. The account of Jesus’ revelation to Paul appears in three different versions. As in biblical writings, each scribe could add their own version without erasing the previous one. In one version, the author narrates the event as if he had witnessed it (Chapter IX). In another, Paul recounts it in the first person before a Jewish audience, emphasizing the role of Ananias, who healed his blindness (Chapter XXII). The third version further amplifies the protagonist’s exaltation by making him meet King Agrippa in person. A typical feature of this historiography can also be found, for instance, in the two distinct accounts of Jesus’ ascension (Chapter I) and in the two different versions of the meeting in Antioch (year 50) between Paul, Barnabas, James, and Peter to divide the mission territories (Chapter XV).

The Acts of the Apostles certainly emphasize Paul’s Jewish origins but raise questions: “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of a city that is not insignificant” (XXI, 39). Unlike the Acts of the Apostles, Paul himself never uses the term “Jew” in his epistles, instead repeatedly affirming his belonging to Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, the Hebrews, and the Pharisees: “Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee” (Philippians III, 5). He rarely highlights his Jewish rather than pagan identity: “We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Galatians II, 15).

Particularly surprising is his assertion regarding his relationship with the Hebrews and the Israelites: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (II Corinthians XI, 22). Here, Paul refers to the Hebrews, Israelites, and descendants of Abraham in the third person plural, as if he were on the margins of this group, rather than using the inclusive “we,” which would have been more natural. He thus appears to speak of this people as if seeking to affiliate himself with them. When addressing the Jews, he uses the term “your ancestors” instead of “our ancestors”: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestors” (Acts of the Apostles XXVIII, 25-16). Should we conclude that Paul was not Jewish? The repeated assertion “I am telling the truth” is also intriguing: during his lifetime, did he constantly need to justify his belonging to Israel?

Paul’s name and his city of birth also raise questions. He never mentions the city of Nazareth in his epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles describe him as the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes: “We have found this man (Paul) to be a plague; he stirs up trouble among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts XXIV, 5). Yet, neither the term “Nazarene” nor “Nazorean” appears in Paul’s epistles or in the Apocalypse, whereas they appear twenty-one times in the New Testament to refer to Jesus. However, the first attestation of Nazareth as a city is only documented in the third century, long after Jesus. It was only in the fourth century that Epiphanius established a link between the sect of the Nazoreans and the city of Nazareth.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s original name was Saul. This name is mentioned twenty-one times in the text, while the city of Tarsus appears four times. Apart from King Saul, who belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, this name is rare in the Bible and absent from contemporary historical and religious sources. It does not appear in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the texts from the Judean desert, or any Greco-Roman sources of the time. This makes it unlikely that the name was commonly used during that period. It is plausible that the author of the Acts of the Apostles attributed a symbolic Hebrew name to Paul in reference to King Saul, as known from the Greek translation of the Book of Samuel. Furthermore, it is not surprising that Paul himself never claims the name Saul in his epistles, nor does he mention his birth in Tarsus, Cilicia. It is also striking that neither Paul’s epistles nor the Acts of the Apostles refer to him using a conventional patronymic formula, such as “Paul, son of So-and-So” or “Saul, son of So-and-So.” The total absence of references to his father, relatives, or a possible spouse is intriguing and deepens the mystery surrounding his identity.

The Book of Revelation stands out for its evident sympathy toward the Judeans and its pronounced hostility toward Rome, a stark contrast to all other writings of the New Testament. Its presumed author, John of Patmos, launches an implicit yet virulent attack against Paul without ever naming him. If this hypothesis is correct, he openly accuses Paul of deceit when he claims the title of “apostle of Jesus”: “You have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be liars” (Revelation 2:2). John, remaining loyal to Jesus’ original Judean disciples, appears to vehemently oppose Paul’s writings, possibly drafting seven alternative letters in which he expresses his reservations about the evangelization of polytheists.

He condemns Rome for its repression of the Judeans and denounces those who “say they are Judeans and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9). This passage constitutes an extremely virulent attack against an adversary. But whom exactly is he targeting? Who are these individuals claiming to be Judeans without actually being so? It is likely that the author is referring to Paul, accusing him of not being a true Judean and challenging his legitimacy as an apostle. He condemns Rome for oppressing the Judeans and also criticizes those who “say they are Jews but are not; they are rather a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9). This statement represents one of the most severe attacks on an adversary. The question arises: who are these people claiming to be Judeans without truly being so? And what is this “synagogue of Satan” that purports to be a community of Jesus’ disciples? It is highly probable that the author is alluding to Paul, accusing him of not being an authentic Judean and questioning his apostolic status. Shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, a struggle emerged among his disciples over the legacy of his image and the leadership of the messianic community. This conflict pitted the Judean disciples who remained in the Land of Israel against new proselytes of both pagan and Judean origins across the Roman Empire.

Paul is primarily known for his travels among Judean communities in the major cultural centers of the Empire. Contrary to popular belief, he did not seek to convince Greek philosophers but rather strove to win over followers among the Judeans. Most of the time, he failed and was humiliatingly expelled after preaching in synagogues. Besides his stays in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Damascus, and the Nabataean kingdom, Paul traveled to numerous Hellenic cities, primarily in Cyprus and Asia Minor, including Antioch, Cilicia, Philippi, Ephesus, Miletus, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, as well as Malta and several Macedonian cities. According to Christian tradition, he eventually reached Rome. It is striking that major centers of Hellenistic Judaism, such as Alexandria and Cyrene, are never mentioned among his destinations.

The author of the Acts of the Apostles devoted more than half of his work to Paul’s biography and his relationships with Barnabas, Peter, James, and other minor figures. In this narrative, Paul occupies a more prominent place than Jesus himself. Consequently, some scholars consider him the true founder of Christianity, while others accuse him of betraying the Judeans. However, if the author of Acts possessed so much knowledge about Paul’s life, it is surprising that he makes no mention of Paul’s extensive epistolary work. The thirteen epistles attributed to Paul appear to have been unknown to him. Was he unaware of their existence? And if he knew of them, why did he not reference them in his account of Paul’s travels among the very communities to which they were addressed? This silence raises a fundamental historical question: Were these letters already in circulation at the time Acts was written? The answer might be linked to the rivalries that divided Jesus’ disciples after his crucifixion.

The theologian Marcion (85–160), a native of Sinope in Asia Minor, played a crucial role in disseminating Paul’s epistles. His work Antitheses has not survived, but fragments have been preserved in Against Marcion, written by the theologian Tertullian (150–230) from Carthage. For Marcion, Jesus’ disciples should completely sever ties with the Old Testament. In his view, Jesus came to reveal a God of love and grace, in stark contrast to the cruel God of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, Jesus was not Israel’s Messiah but a divine figure incarnate, who came to abolish the Judean Law. He was not crucified as the “King of the Judeans,” contrary to the titulus (inscription) placed on the cross, but was executed as the Messiah.

For Marcion, Paul was the sole authentic interpreter of Jesus’ message. He therefore sought to redefine the New Testament canon by retaining only a single Gospel, purged of all Judean influence, along with a limited apostolic corpus. Although his vision attracted numerous adherents, Christianity ultimately did not dare to sever ties with the rich heritage of Hebrew culture and tradition. Additionally, since Judean worship was recognized as legitimate by Roman authorities due to its antiquity, a complete break with Judean literature would have jeopardized the early Christians’ potential legal status.

Paul’s thought prevailed in the generation following the crucifixion. Yet paradoxically, his name remains absent from the writings of contemporary historians, philosophers, and authors. The historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus once and recounts the stoning of his brother James but makes no reference to Paul. He appears entirely unaware of Paul’s role, his travels to major cultural centers, and his epistolary work.

This silence in ancient sources raises a troubling question: Was Paul a historically authentic figure, or the product of a later construction? If no contemporary author mentions him, could Paul have been an invention of the author of the Acts of the Apostles, or even of Marcion? The lack of historical references to Jesus can be explained, but how can such an omission be justified for a figure as influential as Paul? Contemporary historical research should further investigate this issue.