pharoah

It's curious that Paul never states that his name used to be Saul anywhere in his epistles. Is there reason to believe that the name Saul is a literary device by the author of Acts?

rhutchin

The transition by the historian (Luke) is done here.
Acts 13
9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,...

Paul Responded to the name Saul here--
Acts 9
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

He was addressed as Paul here--
Acts 26
24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

When Paul gave his testimony, he refers to himself as Saul--
Acts 26
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Saul could have been known as both Saul and Paul. Perhaps one was a Jewish designation and the other Roman. It does not appear to be a literary device.

Toto

The idea that Saul changed his name to Paul after seeing the light is part of Christian mythology with no Biblical support. Paul never lists his name as Saul, and Acts merely records that Saul was also known as Paul, and then abruptly refers to Paul instead of Saul.

The standard explanation is that Paul had two or three names, following the Roman custom, so he was Saulus Paulus, or perhaps Saulus Simon Paulus (if you think he can be identified with Simon Magus.)

I have thought that the name confusion might be an indication that the character Saul-Paul in Acts is in fact a combination of two (or more) people. Saul in Hebrew is translated as Silas in Aramaic and Silvanus in Latin, and there is a Silas/Silvanus who appears in Paul's letters and is a coauthor of the epistle to the Thessalonians.

rhutchin

When the historian (presumable Luke) records Paul giving his tetimony about the road to Damascus, he has Paul recalling that Jesus called him Saul. I don't think there was any real confusion on the part of the historian.

MortalWombat

One thing that has popped into my head is that it could be the Acts writer's way of connecting Jesus with David in a midrash type way (remember that according to the Jews, the messiah was supposed to be a descendant of David).

In the Old Testament, Saul tried to have David killed, and in Acts, the new Saul persecutes Christians. Here we hear Jesus' voice speaking to Saul, saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

In both cases, we see the protagonist offering some type of mercy or reprieve to the persecutor. In the case of David, he twice spared Saul's life even after Saul's attempt to have him killed, and in the case of Acts, Jesus offers forgiveness to Saul after his persecuting of Christians.

In the Old Testament story, Saul eventually dies. In the New Testament story, Saul "dies" in a way, and is now known as Paul.

That's just my two cents, for what it's worth.

Toto

The author of Luke was more of a story teller than a historian, concerned about putting together a good tale to keep the converts entertained and morally instructed. See Profit with Delight: Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles by Richard I. Pervo.

Diogenes the Cynic

The author of Luke-Acts was not a witness to anything nor was he a historian, The road to Damascus story does not appear in any of Paul's own letters and is most likely a product of the author's own imagination. At the very least, there is no reason to believe the story is historical and since it's unconfirmed by Paul it does not really provide evidence that Paul was ever called Saul by anyone but that author.

Ecrasez L'infame

If you read Acts 13 naturally, without any preconceptions, you get the impression that Saul became Paul immediately after, and as a consequence of, meeting Sergius Paulus in Cyprus. Indeed, this was widely accepted in the nineteenth century - Brewer, for example, says that (a) Saul converted Sergius, and (b) he then changed his name "in honour" of him. Well, (b) is unlikely, and (a) is dubious, but the coincidence of the names and the timing of the mention of the name change in Acts 13 strongly suggests that Saul was not "Paul" from birth. I repeat - this is the "natural" reading, the way you'd read it if you didn't know any dogma or history.

One possibility that occasionally gets mentioned is that Saul brought Roman citizenship on his visit to Cyprus. According to Dio, from Claudius on there was a fairly open market in citizenship (subject to knowledge of Latin and Greek - Suetonius), and we read in Acts 22.28 of how a centurion complains about how much it had cost HIM to get citizenship. Added to this we have that "... an enfranchised person ordinarily took the praenomen and nomen of his patron... [and] retained his original personal name as a cognomen" (from the mighty Sherwin-White). Saul's patron - the man he would have had to bribe to get citizenship - would have been Sergius Paulus, in the same way that Claudius Lysias's patron would have been the emperor himself. So wouldn't it be expected that after that point he was to be referred to as "Paul"?

Against this, we have Paul's own words that he was "born" a citizen - or rather Luke's quoting of Paul's words, Acts 22:28 - and Sherwin-White's argument that "Paulus" is Sergius's cognomen, not his nomen; so that if Saul did get his citizenship then, he should have had to change his name to X Sergius Saulus (where X is Sergius's praenomen).

Nevertheless, it seems to me that this natural reading seems to fit the "facts" (if that is ever an appropriate word to use when discussing the first half of Acts) as well as the standard Paul-from-birth, Roman-citizen-from-birth theory that is normally presented.

Regards

Robert

jakejonesiv

Yes.
The only connection between the names Paul and Saul is that they rhyme. There is no connection due to content.

Paul was a Roman name. The Ebionites (who opposed Paul as a false apostle) and other anti-Pauline groups said with some merit that the apostle was never a Jew at all.
The Hebrew name Saul was attached to the legendary Paul by the second century author of Acts for the purpose of tying Jewish roots to the presumed Paulus historicus.

Jake

Chili

After rebirth Saul becomes Paul just as Joseph became Jesus or Abram became Abraham. We see this name change often in Romantic literature as well.

Paul was not a Jew but Saul was. Paul was set free from Judaism and the conviction of sin in the same way that Jesus was set free when the sins of Joseph became the sins of his world 'as' the cross he carried to Calvary.

It just means that 'saved sinners' are in trouble because once saved from above it is impossible to sin = free from the law and without the convition of sin = no sin in Purgatory where the Gospels take place.

The Roman citizenship here is equal to Nazarite by rebirth (by nature) except that now we become citizen of Rome.