Not op, but Paul was on his way to persecute Christians when he was confronted by a vision of the risen Jesus.
Acts 9:15 – The Lord said to Ananias about Paul:
“This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
His mission to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles makes him a good choice for this work.
(Also not OP, so this is not speaking for them but speaking to the documentation.)
The more accurate answer is that Paul wrote (or was supposed to have written) a bunch of letters documenting his travels. The book of Acts (christian bible) also documents his travels. Note that multiple of the Pauline epistles are widely recognized to be forgeries written in his name.
The time of the other apostles post-New Testament is mostly accounted as tradition rather than written record. I'm not saying all, I'm saying most. I do not pretend to be an expert. There's no map to be made of the travels of Thomas, for example. Only the idea that he reached India (and maybe some other details that I'm leaving out). Or Jame-the-Just, who, as far as I can tell, might have gone to Rome but didn't travel the Mediterranean. The reason for his conversion has little to nothing why this is interesting (to me, to scholars, to people who aren't of the faith).
I've been reading a ton about the first two centuries of christianity for a couple of years and this is my current understanding. It's an exciting topic if you're a history nerd. Especially if you're an atheist who wants to better understand the formation of the dogma that you might have been taught as a child.
Apologies for stomping on your reply / reasoning. I don't agree with your answer. No harm intended.
There's a wide body of scholarship on who wrote each Epistle and when, no point trying to debate that here imo. I agree they weren't all written by him, but the seven that were are enough for decades of individual study and reflection.
In the ancient world, writing in the name of a respected teacher wasn’t always seen as fraud the way we think today. It could be seen as honoring a tradition — like continuing a school of thought under a founder’s name.
I don't think our replies negate each other, they seem complimentary to me.
Another aspect that's interesting is that his path covers most of the territory that was conquered by Alexander the Great, see Daniel 8-11. This Hellenistization and Paul's strength in Greek rhetoric, and 'dual' citizenship made him well suited for quickly spreading the gospel to these areas.
Jewish by birth and religion — giving him authority in synagogues, knowledge of Scripture, and credibility among Jews.
Roman by law and politics — granting him rights that protected him and enabled his mission across the empire.
This combination was rare and made Paul uniquely suited to bridge cultures: he could preach to Jews in their synagogues, debate philosophers in Greek forums, and stand trial before Roman governors.
I’ve been fascinated by the Roman Empire and their road network that was unprecedented at this time in history.
Paul was able to traverse thousands of miles along these networks and what he did really changed the course of history. He confronted the Roman Empire at its absolute height, and despite being shipwrecked twice, imprisoned at least three times, beaten and stoned many times… he still carried on. I thought it would be cool to visualize what he accomplished in a unique way.
