Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6yq6ms-was-paul-a-roman-plantor-an-apostle-of-christ-an-ethiopian-led-examination.html
Show description: A long-form investigation into whether the Apostle Paul was a Roman implant or a true apostle, testing the claim against the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s canon and liturgy, the wider Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the earliest Christian witnesses, and hard historical data.
Every age has its rumor. Today’s rumor says that Paul was never an apostle, but a Roman implant—an agent sent to tame Christianity and bend it to the empire’s will. The idea is clever. It speaks to our suspicion of institutions and our knowledge of how power manipulates faith. But is it true?
To answer, we must leave behind the memes and chase the evidence. And the strongest anchor for evidence is not the Western academy but the oldest living witness—the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. This Church, which guards the widest biblical canon in Christendom, which still chants the Scriptures in Geʽez, and which honors both Torah and Gospel in its fasting and festivals, has preserved a view of Paul unbroken for centuries. If ever there was a church that might have exposed Paul as a fraud, it is Ethiopia. And yet, what do we find? Ethiopia keeps his letters. Ethiopia keeps his feast. Ethiopia chants his words in the liturgy. For them, Paul is not Rome’s infiltrator—he is Christ’s martyr.
And it is not Ethiopia alone. Clement of Rome, living within memory of the apostles, speaks of Peter and Paul together as martyrs, not as agents. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, disciples of the first generation, draw openly from Paul’s teaching. Even archaeology weighs in: the Gallio inscription in Delphi fixes Paul in history, placing him before Roman officials not as a partner, but as a prisoner.
Of course, there were sects who rejected him—the Ebionites, who clung to Moses and called Paul an apostate. Their voice survives in whispers, but their movement withered. The catholic memory of the churches, the Orthodox calendar, and Ethiopia’s canon outlasted them. Why? Because Paul’s teaching on the law and the Spirit was not an invention of Rome. It was the Spirit’s unfolding of Christ’s fulfillment.
So we must face the truth: Rome killed Paul. Nero’s sword severed his head, not his allegiance. To call him Rome’s agent is to mock his blood. To call him an implant is to deny the Ethiopian witness, the catholic memory, the archaeological record, and the martyr’s crown he bore.
The question is not whether Paul was an apostle of Rome. The question is whether we will receive him as the apostle of Jesus Christ, sent not by men, nor through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. The Ethiopian Church says yes. The Orthodox fathers say yes. History says yes. And the Spirit who inspired his words still says yes today.
Part 1 – Ethiopia as Our Anchor
When the world is divided by arguments over Paul—was he a traitor, was he a Roman plant, was he a deceiver—the safest place to stand is not in modern conspiracy but in the oldest, most unbroken witness. And no witness is more ancient, more Hebraic in its rhythm, or more conservative in its canon than the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
Ethiopia did not inherit its faith from Rome in the days of Constantine. Its roots reach back to the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip in the Book of Acts, a moment that planted apostolic seed on African soil while Jerusalem still stood. This Church preserved the Geʽez tongue, guarded a canon of eighty-one books, and never surrendered its independence to Rome or Byzantium. That makes its testimony unique—untainted by the politics of empire.
And what do we find in this Ethiopian witness? Paul is not rejected. His letters are not absent. They are read, chanted, and preserved as Scripture. The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul is celebrated every year. In Ethiopia’s synaxaria, Paul is remembered not as an infiltrator, but as a martyr whose blood sealed his testimony. Even more, Paul’s teachings on law and grace resonate deeply with Ethiopian theology, which distinguishes three kinds of law: the law of conscience written on the heart, the law of Moses given to Israel, and the law of the Gospel fulfilled in Christ. This framework shows that Ethiopia never saw Paul as an enemy of Torah, but as one who rightly discerned its fulfillment in the Messiah.
If Paul were truly an agent of Rome, seeking to corrupt the faith, Ethiopia—the church that has kept the Sabbath fast, the Mosaic dietary witness, and a canon broader than any in Christendom—would have been the first to denounce him. Instead, it venerates him. It prays with his words. It calls him apostle. That verdict, carried through centuries of liturgy and devotion, cannot be ignored.
So our starting point is simple: Ethiopia, the oldest apostolic church outside Jerusalem, testifies with its whole life that Paul was no Roman plant. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, received, honored, and remembered by those least likely to be fooled by imperial manipulation.
Part 2 – Ethiopia’s Canon and Paul’s Place Within It
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church does not guard a small, neat canon like the Protestant West. It preserves the broadest biblical collection known to the Christian world—eighty-one books in total, binding together texts that Rome and Constantinople lost or discarded. This includes Jubilees, Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and whole church-order books such as the Sinodos, the Book of Clement, and the Didascalia. These writings frame doctrine, discipline, and worship for Ethiopia, linking the law of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles in a single arc of divine revelation.
What does this mean for Paul? It means he is never isolated. His letters are not read as a radical break from the Old Testament, nor as a singular voice opposed to the other apostles. Instead, they are housed within a canon that breathes continuity—Torah flowing into Prophets, Prophets into Gospel, Gospel into Apostolic order. Ethiopia has preserved a church where Paul’s words are held in balance with the rest of Scripture, never detached from the wider testimony.
The very presence of the Sinodos and Didascalia in the Ethiopian canon proves this point. These books, steeped in apostolic authority, legislate matters of fasting, liturgy, and church discipline. And within them, Paul is not contradicted but assumed—his epistles harmonize with apostolic decrees and early Christian practice. In other words, Ethiopia’s canon places Paul inside the apostolic household, not outside of it.
And here is the crucial point: Ethiopia’s canon is the most resistant to Roman editing or imperial simplification. For centuries, this church endured Islamic invasions, Catholic missions, and colonial interference—yet it refused to cut away the books of its fathers. If Paul were an implant, Ethiopia would not have included him in its sacred treasury. Yet it not only includes him, it places him among the voices of Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Peter, and the apostolic canons themselves.
The very shape of Ethiopia’s Bible is a verdict: Paul belongs. His epistles were preserved, honored, and framed by the most ancient canon in Christendom. That is not the mark of a Roman infiltrator. That is the mark of an apostle whose words were recognized as Spirit-breathed by a church that never bowed to Rome.
Part 3 – Clement of Rome: The Earliest Memory of Paul
If Paul were truly a Roman implant, one of the first churches to expose him would have been the church at Rome itself—the very city where he preached, was imprisoned, and, according to tradition, executed. Yet the earliest Roman witness we possess, written within living memory of the apostles, speaks with one voice: Paul was a martyr, not an agent.
That witness is the letter of 1 Clement, written around 95 AD. Clement was likely a contemporary of the apostles, perhaps even ordained by them. In his letter to the Corinthian church, he recalls the examples of Peter and Paul, writing that “through envy and strife Paul pointed out the way to the prize of patient endurance. After he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the east and the west, he gained the noble renown due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having reached the farthest bounds of the west.”
Notice how Paul is remembered: as a man who suffered for the Gospel, who endured chains and exile, who spread righteousness, and who ultimately bore witness in martyrdom. Clement does not describe Paul as a Roman collaborator. He portrays him as a victim of Roman power, just as Peter was, both shedding their blood under Nero’s sword.
This testimony matters, because it comes from the very heart of the empire. If Paul had been a Roman plant, the church in Rome—the church he supposedly “helped” the empire control—would have had every reason to doubt him. Instead, they enshrined his memory as that of a saint and martyr. They placed his example alongside Peter’s, the foremost of the apostles.
In Ethiopia today, this same memory survives. On the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the church chants their martyrdom as one story, their witness joined together in the face of Roman violence. That continuity between Clement’s Rome and Ethiopia’s liturgy is powerful evidence. It tells us that the earliest Christian memory did not know Paul as a deceiver, but as one of the greatest witnesses of Christ.
If Clement—writing within a generation of Paul’s death—saw him as faithful unto death, then the theory of Paul as a Roman implant collapses under the weight of the oldest evidence we have.
Part 4 – Ignatius and Polycarp: Asia Minor’s Voice on Paul
The witness of Rome is one thing—but what about the East, where Paul himself planted churches and where the apostles’ disciples still lived? If Paul were a fraud, the Christians of Asia Minor would have known. Instead, what we find is the opposite: two of the most trusted voices of the early Church—Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna—speak of Paul with reverence and loyalty.
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch at the turn of the second century, was on his way to martyrdom in Rome when he wrote a series of letters. In them, we hear Paul’s echoes everywhere. His language of self-abasement, his emphasis on unity in Christ, and his appeal to churches mirror Paul’s style. Ignatius does not denounce Paul as a corrupter—he breathes Paul’s vocabulary as though it were second nature. If Paul were a Roman plant, Ignatius, who willingly faced lions for Christ, would not have patterned his theology and encouragement on Paul’s words.
Then comes Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp refers explicitly to Paul, calling him “the blessed and glorified Paul” and reminding the Philippians of the letters Paul had written to them. Polycarp treats those letters not as dangerous propaganda, but as living instruction for the Church. To him, Paul’s words carried the same authority as the Gospels and the other apostolic writings being read in worship.
This is critical. Polycarp is a direct link to the original apostles—one handshake away from John himself. If Paul were a false apostle, Polycarp would have warned his flock to reject his writings. Instead, he preserved them, circulated them, and honored Paul’s memory.
The combined voices of Ignatius and Polycarp form a chorus with Clement of Rome. Across the empire—east and west, Greek and Latin—the earliest fathers knew Paul as apostle, martyr, and teacher. They saw no imperial plot in his words, only the Spirit of Christ.
And Ethiopia stands in that same tradition. The Ethiopian Church, which preserves both the letters of Paul and the apostolic canons, echoes the same verdict: Paul is not a fraud. He is an apostle confirmed by those who sat closest to the fire of the first generation.
Part 5 – Hard History in Stone: The Gallio Inscription and Paul’s Timeline
The critics of Paul often live in the world of speculation—was he planted, was he invented, was he reshaped by Rome? But God has left us more than rumor. He has left us history carved in stone.
One of the most powerful anchors for Paul’s life is what scholars call the Gallio Inscription, discovered at Delphi in Greece. This inscription records a letter from the emperor Claudius, dated to around 51–52 AD, naming Lucius Junius Gallio as proconsul of Achaia. Why does that matter? Because in Acts 18, Luke records Paul standing before Gallio during his ministry in Corinth.
That single connection fixes Paul in time and space. It tells us that Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth around 50–52 AD. His presence is not myth. It is not an invention of later Rome. It is woven directly into the machinery of the Roman Empire, confirmed by its own inscriptions.
Think about what this means: if Paul were a Roman plant, the timeline would not need to line up so perfectly. Yet here we have archaeological proof that Acts is not a fabrication. The narrative matches Roman records, even down to the officials in office. This makes the theory of Paul as a fictional tool of Rome highly unlikely. Rome would not need to invent a conspiracy tied so precisely to its own bureaucratic records.
Instead, the Gallio inscription shows us that Paul was exactly where Acts said he was, at exactly the right time. He was not an invisible agent manipulating from the shadows—he was a public figure, moving through cities, preaching, and often standing trial before Roman authorities.
And what was his fate in these encounters? Not favor, but hostility. Gallio dismissed the charges against him, but later Roman officials chained him, flogged him, and eventually brought him to Rome where Nero’s sword ended his life. If Paul were an imperial agent, why would the empire execute him?
The stone at Delphi stands as a silent witness against the rumor mill. It says that Paul was real, Paul was active, and Paul’s timeline fits perfectly with the earliest Christian memory. History itself cries out: this was not the career of a Roman infiltrator, but of a man hated by the powers of Rome.
Part 6 – The Objection: Jewish-Christian Sects That Rejected Paul
Now, to be fair, not everyone in the early centuries loved Paul. There were sects—especially among Jewish-Christian groups—who rejected him. The most well-known were the Ebionites, a movement that clung fiercely to Torah observance and rejected the virgin birth of Christ. To them, Paul was not an apostle but an apostate, a man who abandoned Moses and invented a law-free gospel.
Their criticisms are important, because they prove that Paul was controversial in his own time. He was not universally accepted without question. His teaching that Gentiles could be saved without circumcision struck a nerve. For Jewish sects already suspicious of Rome, Paul’s Roman citizenship only made him look more suspicious. They painted him as an infiltrator.
But here’s the problem: their rejection of Paul was not based on evidence of Roman collusion, but on theological disagreement. They wanted Torah in its entirety to remain binding; Paul taught that Christ fulfilled the law and opened the door of salvation to all nations. The Ebionites could not reconcile that. Their hostility is the same that Paul himself faced from the Judaizers described in Galatians and Acts.
And what became of these sects? They dwindled. Their writings did not endure. Their communities scattered and vanished. In contrast, the churches that embraced both Torah’s fulfillment and Paul’s letters flourished—from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Ethiopia. Ethiopia, which still reveres the Mosaic fasts and Sabbath, did not side with the Ebionite rejection. Instead, it found Paul’s words perfectly consistent with its threefold vision of the law: the law of conscience, the law of Moses, and the law of the Gospel.
This is the crucial point: those who rejected Paul did so because they wanted a faith that remained bound to the old covenant. The universal church, and especially Ethiopia, recognized that the Gospel could not be contained that way. The Spirit of God had already broken the walls. Paul was not an enemy of Moses but the herald of Messiah’s fulfillment.
So yes, there were early Christians who called Paul a traitor. But history, canon, and the Spirit’s witness in the living church did not preserve their verdict. The Ethiopian canon stands as proof that the Church which most honored the law still embraced Paul as true apostle. That is why their testimony carries such weight in answering this objection.
Part 7 – Law and Gospel: How Orthodoxy and Ethiopia Read Paul
The sharpest accusation against Paul is that he threw away the Law of Moses and replaced it with something new. If that were true, then Paul would indeed stand as a dangerous innovator. But is that what he taught—or is it how later critics twisted his words?
The Orthodox tradition, and especially the Ethiopian Church, answers this with clarity. Paul does not abolish the Law—he interprets it through Christ. In Romans and Galatians, he distinguishes between works of the Law that served as covenant markers for Israel—circumcision, dietary codes, ritual purity—and the deeper moral Law written on every heart. He insists that the Law is holy, righteous, and good, but that its purpose was to point us to Christ, who fulfills it perfectly.
The Ethiopian Church reads Paul in harmony with its own theology of threefold Law: the Law of Conscience, the Law of Moses, and the Law of the Gospel. This is not a rejection but a progression. The Law of Conscience is the witness in every human heart. The Law of Moses is the covenantal tutor given to Israel. The Law of the Gospel is the Spirit’s law of life fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When Ethiopia reads Paul, it hears not an enemy of Torah but one who traces its arc from Sinai to Calvary to Resurrection.
Orthodoxy at large reads Paul in the same way. The Church Fathers never claimed Paul overthrew Moses. They said Christ fulfilled Moses, and Paul was the chosen vessel to explain that mystery to the Gentiles. This is why Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement read Paul’s letters as apostolic authority, not as dangerous novelty.
The Ethiopian Church still lives this balance. It honors the Sabbath. It fasts with rigor. It keeps Mosaic practices that the Western Church long forgot. And yet it has never seen Paul as a traitor, because Paul never told the Jews to abandon Moses—he told the Gentiles they did not need to become Jews to enter the covenant. That distinction, so often blurred by critics, is crystal clear in Ethiopia’s tradition.
So the accusation collapses. Paul was not lawless. He was not antinomian. He was the herald of the Law’s fulfillment in Christ. The Ethiopian witness proves it—not by abstract argument, but by lived tradition. This is why Paul’s letters sit safely in their canon and why his feast is still kept today.
Part 8 – Martyrdom, Not Management: Paul Under Nero
If Paul were a Roman implant, a carefully placed agent meant to domesticate Christianity, then his story should end in privilege, protection, and long service to the empire. But history records the opposite. Paul’s life ends not in luxury but in chains, not in favor but in blood.
The tradition is unanimous: Paul was executed in Rome under Nero. Clement of Rome, writing at the close of the first century, speaks of Paul as one who “bore witness before rulers” and then “departed from the world and went to the holy place.” Eusebius, the early church historian, confirms the same—Peter crucified, Paul beheaded, both under Nero’s persecution. This was no gentle death. Roman citizenship spared Paul crucifixion, but it did not spare him the sword. The empire he is accused of serving cut off his head.
Think of the irony. The theory claims Paul served Rome’s agenda, yet Rome itself treated him as an enemy of the state. His letters show a man constantly in prison, flogged, hunted, and tried. His citizenship gave him rights of appeal, but it never delivered him from suffering. He was not Rome’s friend. He was Rome’s captive.
The Ethiopian Church remembers this clearly. In its liturgical calendar, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul is celebrated not as a triumph of politics but as a memorial of martyrdom. The synaxaria tell of Paul’s imprisonment, his preaching even in chains, and his beheading at Nero’s order. Ethiopia venerates him as a man who stood against the empire, not one who bowed to it.
And this memory is consistent everywhere. The East and West alike record Paul’s martyrdom. No strand of ancient tradition suggests he lived out his days as a Roman collaborator. Instead, the witness of history says he died the death of a faithful apostle, his blood sealing his testimony.
If Rome planted Paul, Rome reaped him in blood. That is not the story of a double agent. That is the story of a man whose allegiance to Christ outweighed his citizenship, his safety, and his life.
Part 9 – Ethiopia’s Liturgy and Calendar as Living Verdict
Words on a page can be debated. Manuscripts can be weighed. But the surest sign of how the Church has judged a man is whether it carries him in its prayers. And Ethiopia has carried Paul for nearly two thousand years.
In the Ethiopian liturgical calendar, Paul’s memory is inseparable from Peter’s. Their feast day is celebrated together, marking not imperial service but joint martyrdom in Rome. The Synaxarium of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church recounts his journeys, his imprisonments, and his final beheading at Nero’s order. Paul is not remembered as an official or functionary but as an apostle whose blood sealed his witness.
Ethiopia also chants Paul’s letters as Scripture in the Divine Liturgy. His words are not confined to private study—they are proclaimed in Geʽez before the altar, shaping the worship of the faithful. This is not the treatment given to a suspicious figure or a contested voice. This is the place reserved for prophets and apostles.
Even more, the structure of Ethiopian theology harmonizes with Paul’s teaching. The threefold law—of conscience, of Moses, and of the Gospel—matches Paul’s divisions in Romans and Galatians. The emphasis on fasting, ascetic struggle, and sacramental life does not clash with his writings but confirms them. In fact, the Ethiopian Church lives Paul’s paradox: strict in discipline, yet radiant in grace.
If Paul were a Roman plant, Ethiopia—the most Hebraic of all churches, with fasting cycles that echo Leviticus and a canon that guards Enoch and Jubilees—would have rejected him outright. Instead, it weaves him into its worship, its theology, and its yearly rhythm. That is not a grudging tolerance. That is an embrace.
So the liturgy itself becomes a verdict. Every year when the faithful fast, chant, and break bread in memory of Peter and Paul, the Ethiopian Church testifies anew: this man was no agent of Caesar. He was an apostle of Christ, his life poured out as a drink offering, his death united with the martyrs.
The rumor that Paul was a Roman plant cannot survive against this living memory. For Ethiopia, Paul is not a question mark. He is part of the unbroken song of the Church.
Part 10 – Roman Citizenship: Providence, Not Proof of Conspiracy
The critics often point to one fact as their trump card: Paul was a Roman citizen. Surely, they argue, that proves his loyalty to the empire, his hidden role as a collaborator. But let us weigh this carefully.
Roman citizenship was not rare among Jews of the diaspora. It was inherited by birth, granted by service, or purchased at great cost. Paul himself tells us he was “born a citizen” (Acts 22:28). That is no more suspicious than a Jew in modern America being born an American citizen. It was a legal status, not a political allegiance.
And what did Paul do with this citizenship? He used it not to serve Rome, but to defend the Gospel. When flogged unlawfully, he appealed to his rights. When cornered by hostile plots, he invoked Caesar’s hearing. His citizenship was a shield, not a platform for privilege. It allowed him to prolong his ministry, to travel further, to stand before rulers and testify of Christ. It was providence, not conspiracy.
The record shows that his citizenship never earned him comfort. He was still beaten, imprisoned, shipwrecked, and finally executed. Rome did not protect him as an asset; Rome destroyed him as an enemy. His appeals did not buy him favor—they bought him more chances to preach Christ to kings, governors, and Caesar’s own household.
The Ethiopian Church sees this clearly. It has never treated Paul’s citizenship as a mark of corruption. In its liturgy and memory, Paul is remembered as an apostle who leveraged every tool—his Jewish learning, his tent-making craft, his Roman rights—to serve Christ alone. His citizenship was the vessel God used to send his testimony “to the ends of the earth.”
If Paul were truly Rome’s agent, his life would have ended in wealth, retirement, and state honors. Instead, it ended in chains and sword. His citizenship gave him a louder voice, not a softer bed.
So the last argument dissolves. Roman citizenship was not the seal of conspiracy. It was the instrument God placed in Paul’s hands to fulfill the mission Christ gave him: “to bear my name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15).
In the end, Paul’s allegiance is written not in legal documents but in blood. And the Church, from Clement to Ethiopia, remembers him not as Caesar’s man, but as Christ’s.
Conclusion – The Verdict of History and the Ethiopian Witness
The rumor is clever. It whispers that Paul was not an apostle of Christ but an agent of Rome, a plant sent to tame the Gospel and domesticate the Church. It feeds on our suspicions, our knowledge of empire, and our awareness of how power manipulates faith. But when the evidence is gathered—Scripture, history, tradition, and the Ethiopian witness—the rumor collapses.
Ethiopia, the most ancient and independent apostolic church, keeps Paul’s letters in its canon, chants them in its liturgy, and honors him in its calendar. If Paul had betrayed the Law, if he had served Rome, Ethiopia would have been the first to cast him out. Instead, it weaves him into its deepest traditions, harmonizing his teaching with its threefold vision of the Law.
Rome itself, through Clement, remembered him not as a collaborator but as a martyr. The East, through Ignatius and Polycarp, honored him as an apostle. Archaeology, through the Gallio inscription, places him in history, not in myth. The Ebionites and other sects rejected him, but they withered while the catholic and Orthodox memory endured. The Orthodox reading of Paul does not see him abolishing Moses but fulfilling Moses through Christ. And when the empire at last weighed him in the balance, it did not reward him—it executed him. Nero’s sword, not Rome’s favor, was Paul’s earthly end.
So the evidence converges: Paul was not Rome’s agent. He was Christ’s chosen vessel, bearing His name before Gentiles, kings, and Israel, at the cost of his life. His citizenship was providence, not conspiracy. His martyrdom was the seal of his apostleship.
And the Ethiopian Church, which has guarded the faith unbroken from apostolic days, speaks with clarity: Paul is an apostle, a martyr, a teacher, and a saint. Not a plant of Caesar, but a servant of Christ.
The rumor dies in the face of this witness. What remains is Paul’s voice—still read in our churches, still chanted in Ethiopia, still alive with the Spirit that inspired it. His life is not a conspiracy to control the Gospel. His life is a testimony that the Gospel controls everything, even the empire itself.
Bibliography and Endnotes
- The Holy Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (Geʽez Canon, 81 books). For Paul’s inclusion, see the Synodos, Didascalia, and the wider New Testament preserved in Ethiopia.
- Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Synaxarium, Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (July 12, Ethiopian calendar), recalling Paul’s missionary journeys, imprisonments, and martyrdom.
- 1 Clement 5:5–7. Translation from J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989). Clement, bishop of Rome c. 95 AD, speaks of Paul as one who “taught righteousness to the whole world” and “bore witness before rulers.”
- Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians and Letter to the Romans, c. 110 AD. English in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Michael Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
- Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to the Philippians, esp. chapter 3, which refers to “the blessed and glorified Paul.”
- Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2.22, describing the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome under Nero.
- The Gallio Inscription (also known as the Delphi Inscription), fragments of a letter from Emperor Claudius mentioning “Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, proconsul of Achaia.” Dated to 51–52 AD, providing external confirmation of Acts 18 and Paul’s presence in Corinth. For translation, see C.K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 53–55.
- On the Ebionites and their rejection of Paul: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2; Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16. These sects accused Paul of apostasy but were rejected by the wider Church.
- Ethiopian Orthodox theology of the threefold law: See Abba Salama, An Introduction to Tewahedo Theology (Addis Ababa: Holy Synod Press, 1996). Explains the law of conscience, law of Moses, and law of the Gospel as a framework for reading Paul.
- For the continuity of Paul’s letters in Ethiopian liturgy, see Isaac Habte, The Divine Liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa: Patriarchate Press, 2002), which details Pauline readings in worship.