Still no evidence?   

Crowbot,

You are obviously ignorant of the professional standards by which historians analyse and interpret history.

The fragnment you posted is profoundly significant, ( for PROVING the EXISTENCE of SAINT PAUL. ) The extant written records of PLATO, for example, only date back to the 15th or 16th century. (He lived  420-348 BC). This is common of all ancient figures. Biblical figures by contrast arte the most well documented today, for many reasons acceptable to secular and religious scjhpolars alike.

Caligula ( Emperor of Rome ) has only TWO written texts extant today that  speak of his reign. ( written by a third party about him no less, like the writer of ACTS wrote about Paul.)

Later texts are well recorded for Caligula, and even PLATO but NONE dont date that far back to within 100 years of their lifetimes ....Yet no serious scholar would question Caligula, Plato, or Paul's EXISTENCE.

If a written fragment dated to within the living memory of those who knew Paul personally isnt evidence of his EXISTENCE, I dont know what is!

Lets pretend we are in a courtroom. You are the ex parte prosecuter of a THEORY that Paul never existed. You pull out you fragment above and say

"Exhibit A" -- Anyone coulda wrote this!...PAUL could have been a literary invention.. or if he DID exist, anyone coulda written some shite, putting words in the mouth of this guy! He's a figment not a historical person.

The judge asks if this is the summation of your argument, er "historical theory."

You say:

" I need say nothing more. There is no direct evidencer PAUL ever existed."

"The judge asks:

"Do you want to call any professional or credentialed scholars who support your theory?"

You say: "Nope. I need no further evidence."   Logic and SCIENCE are all I need, all the rest is unprovable FAITH.'

The judge smirks and says:

"Your witness, Mr Shark."

I, Shooting Shark, attorney for the defense of Saint Paul ( God rest his soul) , put YOU on the stand.

ME: "Mr Crowbot, do you have any recognized credentials as a schoilar of ancient history?"

YOU: "No, you silly Garbage Eater! I drink and blog on Netfriction all day, and I MAKE my own history! 

ME: "I see.  Do you have any recognized credentials as an attorney at law? 

YOU: No, Im an autodidact. I post and repost articles I find on the internet that desparace TRUMP!

ME:  Why do your spend you time this way?

YOU: Objection your Honor! The defense is asking questions irrelevent to the issue at hand!

ME: Probative discovery, yourt Honor. The witnesses state of mind and motives are  very gewrmain to this inquiry.

Judge: Objection Overulled. But be quick about your discovery Mr Shark.

ME Thank you. your Honor.

Now Mr Crowbot. is it true that I  began this tread on Netfriction with you a while back, quoting the Apostle Pauls spiritual objections to modern and ancient  sexual confusion and debauchery ( Romans 1)   in response you your assertion that all humans are animals, and higher mamals in particular are in some cases homosexual?  

You : Thats correct.

Me> And in that thread You asserted, if I understood you correctly, that animals are considered natural and not immoral in their homosexual behavior. So by extension human homosexual behavior should be likewise considered Natural and not immoral in ' human animals?"

You: Correctamundo. Youre not a stupid as you look, sparky!

Judge: You will refrain from making such adhominem attacks to anyone in this courtroom, Mr Crowbot, or I will hold you in contempt!"    

You: ( sheepishly, looking a lot like Eddie Haskel  ) "Yes, Your Honor."

Me: So was your assertion that St Paul never existed an attempt to make a political, historical or theological assertion?

You: All the above, I suppose. You white Nationalist extreemist Neo Facists and Trumpist morons blindly follow the writings and unknown motives of a guy who, as far as known facts are concernded, may never have evbenm existed. What could be more appaling that that, especially when you wnat to limit human FREEDOM in the mane of what you ( and the fictional Paul) woukld label "sin"

Judge: You have been warned, Mr Crowbot. This is your last warning.

YOU: " Yes, Your Honor"     

Me: Well I could spend a lot of time documenting methods and rules of evidence for historical scholarship. The point is, such methods should and are applied in an even handed mannar, if one is seeking the TRUTH-- which prersumably is the altruistic goal of historical scholarship. But no such analysis is exempt from human perspective. Do you find it compelling that no recognized scholar, wgeither an atheist or a theologian would find your theory acceptable?

YOU; No, not at all. Just because no one agfees with me, doesnt mean I'm wrong!

ME: Well you see,. Mr Crowbot, in matters of law, language, the actual meaning of words, working theories of Guilt and Innocence, truth and falsehood, "acceptable evidence" apeals to the concept of the judgement of a "reasonable man."

Is it reasonable to assume you are correct, when you have declined to offer even one professional and recognized historian or scholar of ancirent texts who would seriously DOUBT or has expounded the NON-EXISTENCE OF SAINT PAUL?

YOU: No. I dont need anyone elses opinion. your "reasonable man" doesnt excist either, its all a matter of personal opinion, and FAITH.. its not SCIENCE!! its not PROOF!!

Me: I rest my case.

Judge:

Mr Crowbot, the Court finds your self-referent assertions about the NON EXISTENCE of SAINT PAUL to be ill conceived. You seem to be oblivious to a body of thought and scholarship concerning the man (St Paul) which has been throughly examinded during the past two thousand years, by a wide variety of sources and perspectives.

It appears your personal motives in this case are alternately  personal, political, or both, and not specifically relevent to aserious and dispationate inquiry into the facts of history itself. 

In this case, it appears you make an a priori judgementn that Paul did not exist, and attempt to reason from that basis, with no respect for circumstancial of factual historical influences and sources, which the figure Paul cleraly inspired, which impies his excistence to a reasonable man.

This attempt on your part is itself a non-reasonable application of reason, itself.

In short, this COURT RULES in favor of the actual EXISTENCE ofd Saint Paul/Saul of Tarsus. 

It also finds you to be a leftist

USEFUL IDIOT.

Case dismissed.