A quick note on this reference: Bruce uses footnotes for every page and for most areas when stating things like this: “Paul knows of the Lord's apostles (Gal 1:17 ff.)” Bruce does not have the scripture reference in parenthesis. He footnotes it and the reference is found on the bottom of the page. I have simply thrown his footnoted references into parenthesis in there relevant positions. Two longer footnotes from the chapter are not copied here as they were superfluous to my purpose.

F. F. Bruce, 'The New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable?

Chapter 6

The Importance of Paul's Evidence

The earliest of the New Testament writings, as they have come down to
us, are the letters written by the apostle Paul up to the time of his
detention in Rome (c. AD 60-62). The earliest of our Gospels in its
present form can certainly not be dated earlier than AS 60, but from
the hand of Paul we have ten Epistles written between 48 and 60.

This man Paul was a Roman citizen of Jewish birth (his Jewish name was
Saul), born somewhere about the commencement of the Christian era in
the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia Minor. His birthplace, 'no mean
city', as he said himself (Acts 21:39), was in those days an eminent
centre of Greek culture, which did not fail to leave its mark on
Paul, as may be seen in his speeches and letters. He received an
education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), the greatest rabbi
of his day and a leader of the party of the Pharisees. He rapidly
attained distinction among his contemporaries by the diligence of hi
studies and the fervor with which he upheld the ancestral traditions
of the Jewish nation (Gal 1:13 f.). He may even--though this is
uncertain--have been a member of the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of
the nation.

This zeal for the law brought him into conflict with the early
Jerusalem Christians, especially with those who belonged to the circle
of Stephen, whose teaching he must have heard in the synagogue where
the Cilician Jews met (Acts 6:9) and who early realized, with
exceptionally far-sighted comprehension, that the Gospel cut at the
roots of the traditional Jewish ceremonial law and cults. At the
stoning of Stephen, we find Paul playing a reasonable part and giving
his consent to his death, and thereafter proceeding to uproot the new
movement which, in his eyes, stood revealed by Stephen's activity as
a deadly threat to all that he counted dear in Judaism (Acts 7:58;
8:1 ff.; 9:1 ff.; 22:4; 26:9 ff.; 1 Cor 15:9 etc.). To use his own
words, 'Beyond all measure I persecuted the Church of God and harried
it' (see Gal. 1:13)--until his encounter with Jesus on the road to
Damascus convinced his mind and conscience of the reality of His
resurrection, and therewith of the validity of the Christians'
claims, whereupon he became the chief herald of the faith of which he
formerly made havoc.

It is reasonable to believe that the evidence which convinced such a
man of the out-and-out wrongness of his former course, and led him so
decisively to abandon previously cherished beliefs for a movement
which he had so vigorously opposed, must have been of a singularly
impressive quality. The conversion of Paul has for long been regarded
as a weighty evidence for the truth of Christianity. Many have
endorsed the conclusion of the eighteenth-century statesman George,
Lord Lyttelton, that 'the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul
alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to
prove Christianity to be a divine revelation'.

Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can
derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts
of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians,
who already knew the Gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient
material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching
about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus
(E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real
human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David
(Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was
betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal
of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty
of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23), although the responsibility
for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the
Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc); who was buried, rose the third
day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various
occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over
five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-
five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.). In this summary of the evidence
for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct
for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of
what might well appear an incredible assertion.

Paul knows of the Lord's apostles (Gal 1:17 ff.), of whom Peter and
John are mentioned by name as 'pillars' of the Jerusalem community
(Gal 2:9), and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned
(Gal. 1:19, 2:9). He knows that the Lord's brothers and apostles,
including Peter, were married (1 Cor. 9:5)--an incidental agreement
with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Mark
1:30). He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion--e.g., His teaching on
marriage and divorce (1 Cor 7:10 f.), and on the right of the Gospel
preachers to have their material needs supplied (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim.
5:18; cf. Lk 10:7); and the words He used at the institution of the
Lord’s Supper.

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus of Jesus, he
shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In
particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to
the Romans (12:1 - 15:7), where Paul summarizes the practical
implication of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the
Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the Apostle was
with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul's
chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ
Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in
perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels.
When Paul speaks of 'the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor.
10:1), we remember our Lord's own words, "I am meek and lowly in
heart' (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the gospels is the
one of whom Paul says, 'Even Christ pleased not himself' (Rom. 15:3);
and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny
themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the
example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty 'to bear the
infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). He
who said: 'I am among you as the servant' (Luke 22:27), and
performed the menial task of washing His disciples' feet (John 13:4
ff.), is He who, according to Paul, 'took the form of a slave' (Phil.
2:7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend his readers all those
moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in
language like this: 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom 13:14).

In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the
writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in
the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular. Paul
himself is at pains to point out that the gospel which he preached
was one and the same gospel as that preached by the other apostles (1
Cor. 15:11)--a striking claim, considering that Paul was neither a
companion of Christ in the days of His flesh nor of the original
apostles, and that he vigorously asserts his complete independence of
these.

You can purchase this book at amazon.com by simply typing in its title.

The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, Eerdmans, Reprinted 1997