Duvduv

That is one assumption and hypothesis. There are three references in the same book to his revelation with only one mentioning Hebrew, suggesting that Marcion was not breathing down the back of the author(s) of Acts.
In any event the anomaly about Paul and Saul remains even if the entire scenario involves the change of only one letter (Saulos versus Paulos - Σαῦλος δέ ὁ καὶ Παῦλος) which as I mentioned could have been introduced into Galatians in only 4 extra words to take care of a discrepancy with the use of the name Saul many times in Acts.

Furthermore, the idea of Galatians being written later to deal with other discrepancies as proposed by AA cannot be proven by AA since the entire set of epistles are only known to have been presented in the world of the ancient heresiologists as a complete set in which Galatians was included, and no other remains of a set without Galatians is mentioned in any source.

Toto

Suggests? Not to anyone who reads the entire document in its historical context.

Most Christians at that time just didn't see it as an anomaly. Saul never changed his name - that's part of the modern reworking of the story. According to Acts, his name was always Saul and also Paul.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite writings. The Pauline writer even claimed he WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings were composed AFTER Marcion based on the abundance of evidence.

Marcion claimed the Son of God had NO birth and NO Flesh based on Apologetic sources.

The Pauline writings to the supposed Seven Churches all claimed Jesus was Raised from the dead.

Romans 10:9 KJV---That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV---Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

Galatians 1:1 KJV---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Colossians 2:12 KJV---Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV---And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

Ephesians 1:20 KJV---Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Philippians 3:10 KJV---That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Duvduv

IF we ask why the second name of Saul was even important to Acts we realize that it makes no appreciable difference to anything in the story line UNLESS the tale originally involved two different individuals who needed to be the same person, or that Acts originally involved ONLY someone named SAUL and with the epistles the name PAUL had to be introduced.

SAUL had the revelation of Jesus in Acts, PAUL did not. In Galatians PAUL got the gospel directly from Jesus but in Acts SAUL received NO GOSPEL exclusively from his Jesus (although he gets to preach it). And Act's PAUL just went on his merry way to talk to folks (mostly Jews).

The author introduces the name change right in the middle of a story about the visit to Paphos with the name Saul never to be seen again:

6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”

Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.
In Pisidian Antioch
13 From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem.

outhouse

I think your off on a wild one and making this difficult to understand.

KISS applies

imagine that two different authors that are descibing a name, used by two different cultures, came up with exactly what we see.

we have multiple cultures
we have multiple languages
so we have multiple names.


the contradictions from Acts to Paul are not evidence as you place it.

aa5874

Please, Imagination is NOT a source of actual history. You seem to live in your own world of imagination.

To imagine one Must Invent.

Sheshbazzar

I believe the employment of the name 'Paul' was a Christian devised 'marker'.
A simple and convenient one that would immediately differentiate, and serve warn any Christian preacher/reader of a text, lest he were to accidentally read or to quote from any of those untampered with and genuine writings of the real Saul the Pharisee that were also still in circulation.

Duvduv

Either way you look at it, there are stark differences between the figure portrayed in Acts and the one portrayed in the epistles, especially Galatians.

In Acts SAUL is a student of R. Gamliel of Jerusalem, in the epistle PAUL is merely educated in Judaism.

In no epistle does the author ever mention that his name was also SAUL, whereas the name is used many times in Acts (one would expect at least one mention of the name in Galatians).

In Acts Jesus explicitly appears to SAUL and tells him he will know what to do. In Galatians PAUL says he learned the gospel directly from Jesus and not from any man, but in Acts there is no mention of the revelation teaching SAUL a gospel.

PAUL is author of the epistles, but in Acts there is no mention of SAUL/PAUL writing his communities. In fact in Acts there is no sense that PAUL is the exclusive teacher of any communities, whereas this is clearly the case in the epistles.

As I mentioned earlier, Saul is introduced in Acts, skipped over, then brought back again soon to become Paul. All these issues are what has led me to wonder whether in fact Acts is referring to the lives of two different individuals merged and morphed into one. However, even if the collectors of the texts weren't resolving all the discrepancies, it would be expected that they would have resolved the most glaring ones in just a few words here and there either in Galatians or in Acts.

aa5874

Your statement is FAITH based and without any evidence whatsoever.

Please, declare your sources that show that the character called Saul in Acts did actually exist and composed other writings that were in circulation.

What time, what century were writings of Saul circulated??

There is virtually NO mention of any character called Saul even in Apologetic sources for hundreds of years except in Acts.

outhouse

well that is a pretty unsubstanciated statement with no credibility at all.

Its obvious no Pharisee, would stray that far away from judaism, as well paul does not act or write like a pharisee.


Pauls judaism has long been debated with no end in sight