So Dr. Detering:
Moreover, that the name Paul could already be conceived in a figurative sense by the writer of the Pauline letters can be clearly seen in 1 Cor 15:9, where “Paul” speaks of himself as the last and the smallest, like a “miscarriage” as it were. B. Bauer correctly commented about this: “He is the last, the unexpected, the conclusion, the dear nestling. Even his Latin name, Paul, expresses smallness, which stands in contrast to the majesty to which he is elevated by grace in the preceding passages of the letter.”
(The Falsified Paul, p. 145)
At any case, what I was talking about in this thread before your intrusion is that Drews noted implicitly the following discontinuity:
1) in the Pagan culture, a criminal or an animal or an effigy was crucified in the role of the god, without being really the god,
2) for Paul the victim is God himself in human form,
3) in Mark there is evidence of separationism.
Hence the first Gospel represents a regress to a view of the expiatory sacrifice that is pre-pauline. This is clearly a betrayal of Paul.