Being agnostic in regards to the historicity of St. Paul is justifiable.

Cut out 3274 charactersActs of the ApostlesWhen one looks at St. Paul as portrayed in Acts of the Apostles(Acts from here on) and compares it to the Paul portrayed in the Pauline Epistles, we see major contradictions.From Britanica"That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable."With this alone we know that either the epistles or Acts (possibly both) is unreliable in how it portrays Paul.If one places Marcion priority over Luke, then Acts would probably be written in the mid to late 2nd century (when also considering an argument from silence from prominent early Christian figures like Justin Martyr).Good evidence for Marcion priority over Luke can be seen herehttp://www.marcionite-scripture.info... Furthermore, it is already believed by New Testament historians that Acts is fiction.This can be seen in chapter 9 of "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.Now, whether Acts is based off a fictitious character or a historical figure cannot be deduced from within Acts. One has to look at other sources for that.So, in conclusion, Acts is inconclusive in supporting St. Paul as a historical figure.The Pauline EpistlesThe first thing we have to recognize here is that the Pauline Corpus has different authors(only 6-7 are thought to be authentic).This means we can say, safely, that the prior probability of any epistle being authentic is lower than being a forgery.A1)It is more likely that an epistle is authentic than not authentic.P1)It is more likely that set 1 is authentic than not.P2)It is more likely that set 2 is authentic than not.ad infinitum...P3)Set 1 has a different (apparent) author than set 2, 3, 4...P4)Set 2 has a different (apparent) author than set 1, 3, 4...ad infinitum...C1)A1 entails a contradiction.C2)A1 is false.A2)It is more likely that an epistle is forged than authentic.P1)It is more likely that set 1 is forged than authentic.P2)It is more likely that set 2 is forged than authentic.ad infinitum...P3)Set 1 has a different (apparent) author than set 2, 3, 4...P4)Set 2 has a different (apparent) author than set 1, 3, 4...C1)A2 does not entail a contradiction.C2)A2 is not false.Now, a question we have to consider is if we can know (prior to testing) if we have an authentic set within the different sets of epistles we have. I would say that we cannot. What this means is that, via induction, the higher the number of forged sets that we have the higher the chance that all other sets are forged.The Problems with the EpistlesThere are three main reasons why the "authentic" epistles are thought to be authentic.1)All 6 have similar syntax while the others do not.2)What we have of them is stitched together of fragments and pieces of the originals (as if someone was trying to preserve them, at least the parts they liked)3)Internally, they appear as if they were written before the fall of the Jewish temple in 70CE.The 1st point, however, can only go as far as saying that they had a common author.It is usually combined with the point that no other set of epistles has that many different epistles (6-7) in the set, but does that really prove anything outside of a common author?The 2nd point only shows that someone was trying to preserve them, maybe even thought they were the originals. For a long time 1 Clement, 2 Peter, etc. were thought to be authentic and were preserved as well. Is it really evidence for this particular set being authentic just because of it being preserved like that?The 3rd point is the strongest, but even it can be contested.As said in chapter 2 of "The Fabricated Paul" by Hermann Detering:"As Tertullian said, the identification of the sender of a letter as “Paul” and the appearance of Paul’s name in the address of a letter is still not sufficient proof for the existence of such an apostle"Furthermore, again in chapter 2 it is stated:"According to Johnson, there had nevertheless been a Paul-legend, which Marcion could approptiate for the benefit of his theology. For Johnson, the inescapable and reasonable conclusion can only be that the Marcionites themselves produced ten apostolic letters of their own. And if they ascribed these to an apostle from early Christian times, [110] this would have been entirely in accord with the practices of Christian theologians at that time"A few Pauline ideas could very well be considered Marcionite. Marcion, or possible his followers, could have fabricated Paul and his letters.Now, there are 3 common objections to this idea.1)1 Clement attests to Paul's existence.2) Ignatius attests to Paul's existence.3)The "Authentic" Pauline Epistles internally appear to be from the 50's-60's.*My primary source for the next 2 sections is Detering's "1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism"*1 Clement1 Clement is usually dated to the 90's, but I believe it can be dated to the 2nd century.Certain ideas that are presupposed in 1 Clement were not prevalent in the first century, but in the 2nd century. These ideas include:1)Conflict between the priests and the common peopleChapter 40 verse 52) Some parts appear to be anti-GnosticismChapter 20 verse 11Chapter 33 verse 2Chapter 59 verse 2As Detering says it“the Creator God (Demiurg) is – against dualism – declared to be identical with the „Lord of the universe“, respectively in one passage with the Father of Jesus Christ.”Also, the passage about the resurrection (chapter 24 verse 1 through chapter 28 verse 4) seems to be induced by gnostics rejecting the resurrection.3)It depicts Paul and Peter as being side by side peacefully4)It talks about persecution but not a specific event (making it so it must have been more commonplace/unexpected)Furthermore, certain issues in the letter do not make sense if it is authentic, such as the depicted conflict makes no sense. As Detering put it, " How could the ancient, firmly settled community oppose its Presbyters just because of a few ringleaders?"Ignatian CorpusI also think that one could argue that the Ignatian Corpus is not authentic and has a later date.The letter to Polycarp (on which the Corpus has strong ties) does not appear to be genuine. It has the appearance of design instead of being a hasty letter (which it is supposed to be) and can quite easily be seen as a companion piece to the Pastoral Epistles.Furthermore, Ignatius called himself Theophoros or Christophoros in preparation for his martyrdom, but those terms were only used for a martyr after their death (thus making it unlikely that Ignatius used that terminology). What is more likely is that someone, after his death, wrote under his name after his death(which was something decently commonplace).The letters themselves do not even make sense with a blatant contradiction. Ignatius is condemned to death and is in chains, but is still somehow able to travel to churches and even writes letters to them.Sometimes the author even seems to indicate he is a separate entity from Ignatius.It also seems to have been a mid to late 2nd century writing based on these ideas:1)It is even implied that Marcion was one of the false teachers that Ignatius argued against.2)It indicates knowledge of Valentinian Gnosticism.3)It includes, and promotes, monarchical episcopate.Arguments from SilenceFurthermore, I believe that we can make some decent arguments from silence for the Pauline Corpus being written at a later date.RevelationsThe Apocalypse of John is a good example. This book is said to be written about 20 years after Paul, but does not indicate any knowledge of the existence of Paul.The author of Revelations seemed obsessed with Christian martyrdom and so we would expect to see reference to Paul’s martyrdom, but we end up disappointed.Furthermore, the author of Revelations seems to presuppose a different type of Christianity then what is in the Pauline Corpus.The author of Revelations seems to be under the idea that Christianity is still a national-Jewish thing, but the Pauline Corpus has Christianity emancipated from Judaism.JustinEven Justin Martyr can be used for an argument from silence. He was a great theologian, but he never mentions Paul or the Pauline epistles. He did have writings that seemed to be influenced by Pauline theology (like in his First Apology). He speaks with Pauline influence without mentioning Paul. How can we explain that? When considering Marcion as the “rediscoverer” of Paul, we come up with these answers:1)Reject that anything from Justin sounds Pauline.2)Justin knew about Paul but ignored him (as Paul supported the “heretic” Marcion).3)Justin didn’t mention Paul out of respect for his Jewish dialog partner.4)Digress what is found in text and say Justin was a follower of Paul.1 is unlikely due to the importance of Paul during the time Justin wrote.2 also seems unlikely as the author of Luke-Acts would have the same issue of embarrassment of the Paul portrayed in the Pauline Corpus.3 is unlikely as there are many parts in the Pauline Epistles where one can converse with a Jewish dialog partner.4 is laughable as Justin never mentions Paul.We do get 2 more options if we allow for there to be no authentic Pauline Epistles.5)The Pauline Epistles do not yet exist.6)The Pauline Epistles were not being circulated as letters of Paul, but became known as such at a later time.5 is laughable because of the sheer amount of evidence that these letters existed at the time of Justin.6 explains why Justin did not mention Paul but still had “Pauline” influence. Furthermore, even if those Epistles were said to be Pauline by the time Justin was writing, it would make sense for him not to mention them if he knew they were forged.AristidesAristides defended Christianity in Athens but, like Justin, never mentions Paul while seemingly having Pauline influence in his writings.