Who are scholars doubting the Historicity of Paul, and are any of them non-mythicists?

[ABuddhist]

They can be alive or dead, despite my title.

[Peter Kirby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Detering is/was one of the most influential writers "sceptical of Paul's authorship of the Pauline epistles," but that isn't quite the same thing as "doubting the Historicity of Paul."

[Giuseppe]

Dubourg.

Lublinski.

Brodie.

Bruno Bauer.

[DCHindley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Detering is/was one of the most influential writers "sceptical of Paul's authorship of the Pauline epistles," but that isn't quite the same thing as "doubting the Historicity of Paul."

Schweitzer discusses Dutch Radicals who thought all the epistles were pseudepigrapha. That means Paul could, in theory, be considered a historical fiction to further the writer's agenda (good or bad). There are several online versions available of his book rendered "Paul & His Interpreters" in the English translation. He called them the "Ultra-Tübingen" school, although Detering preferred "Dutch Radicals."

I have revised an ABYY scan I had made back a few years ago, and reformatted it, corrected all the scanning errors I could find and replaced the gibberish from scans of Greek or Hebrew with UTF-8 text from BibleWorks 8 or Perseus.org. I also used the German scan option that picked up the umlauts and other accents. I'm sure it will prove useful if you want the cream of 19th century critical scholarship laid out predigested before you by a trained critic, along with his insightful and more or less neutral analysis of the good as well as the bad of their contributions. He thought of it as part of the necessary back & forth steps any progression in knowledge needs in order to advance. He had his quirks, sure, related to the ways of his age (turn of 20th century) but overall really good analysis.

(Schweitzer, Albert) Paul & His Interpreters, draft 2 (1912).pdf

(1.24 MiB) Downloaded 22 times

It was on page 120:

These theoretic considerations regarding the basis of the views of Baur and his successors are so obvious that they were bound to come up sooner or later. The fact was that in one particular point the Tübingen master had held back from unprejudiced criticism and had foisted upon critical science the traditional belief. In doing so he had obeyed an instinct of caution. Those who proceeded further along the path of questioning and investigation arrived, some with satisfaction and some with dismay, at the result of declaring all the epistles to be spurious.

DCH