rlogan

I still do not know enough to work out my idea on this. But I just want to suggest a different way of thinking about Paul.

I think that Paul is a creation. He may have created himself. But not necessarily. I don't mean he was fantasy.

I prefer to think of it as the creator(s) of Paul having a cunning insight. It has to incorporate the geopolitical dynamic in a manner that allows the creator to wedge himself in to power.

Let me put it this way: I do not believe that Paul had a vision from God that he carried to the people. This is reversing cause and effect. God -> Paul -> People

Rather, an intelligent mind or minds discerned what vision was necessary to accomplish an objective and Paul was the vehicle to engineer this God.

People (Geopolitical dynamic) -> Paul -> God

The people and geopolitical dynamic of the time act simultaneously as a constraint and a field of opportunity for the intelligent agent of my model. Paul cannot invent a God out of whole cloth. He must take advantage of existing momentum and potential energy.

The original motive, means, and opportunity could have been modest, and were commandeered by a more powerful agent. This is not a static concept.

That's it. Thinking at the strategic level.

NOGO

What seems obvious to me is that Paul is motivated by guilt and fear.

Basically it goes something like this.

Paul probably murdered people of a new sect.
Something may or may not have happened on the road to Damascus. Perhaps he heard a voice. He was not the first and not the last. Perhaps he got hungry and ate a mushroom on the side of the road. It was an hallucinogen. Who knows?

Whatever it was, fear of punishment from God suddenly became a hard reality. He needed to be forgiven ... he needed salvation. He sacrificed the rest of his life in order to obtain that forgiveness and salvation.

Fear and guilt created Paul.

Amaleq13

rlogan,


Do you think it is relevant that Paul claims the Judean churches only knew him by name and reputation?

"Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." (Gal 1:21-23)


By which name did they know him? Saul or Paul?

Did Saul truly have a drastic change of heart or is Paul an early identity thief?

rlogan

Amaleq13,

I beg forgiveness I'm so stupid I can't answer your question. Honestly.

Ask me how to correct for heteroskedasticity or something I actually know about.

Hmmm... Maybe I do understand. I'm too afraid to commit because my background is so shallow. OK, Paul was never Saul, right?



Nogo, motivation is one of the three key ingredients. Those are fine motives for human action. The full story needs the other two as well.

I don't have it figured out. But my instinct is that this was more a product of strategic planning than heavenly inspiration.

Amaleq13

That seems entirely possible given Paul's claim that the churches in Judea didn't know him except by name and reputation. This is especially interesting given the portrayal in Acts where Saul/Paul is directly persecuting folks in Jerusalem.

Is there any legitimate connection between the two names? If not, why the change?

Maybe I've seen that Don Knotts movie too many times where he is an old west dentist who gets mistaken for a gunfighter.

Toto

The name change has bothered me for a while. There is a common notion that Saul changed his name to Paul when he was converted, but this is like an urban legend, with no support anywhere. (And if you change your name after being converted, you probably change it to something inspirational like "Yahweh Lives" - but "Paul" translates as "the Runt."

Paul never uses the name Saul in his letters. The closest he gets is when he claims to be of the tribe of Benjamin; Saul was an early King from that tribe.

The Book of Acts talks about a certain "Saul" who persecutes Christians and was present at the stoning of Stephen. Later "Saul" has a vision and converts to Christianity, but is still Saul.

Then in chapter 13, "Saul" and Barnabas sail off to Cyprus.

From this point forward, "Saul" disappears and we read about "Paul." Paul then travels to Antioch and speaks in the synagogue, giving a quick recap of Jewish history and mentioning King Saul being replaced by David:

(There seems to be some theme here of descendent of David replacing descendent of Saul as David replaced Saul.)

So it appears that Paul was named Saul Paul, or if he were a Roman, he would have had three names, possibly Saul Simon Paul. But the whole thing is just murky.

As an added twist, "Saulus" is the Hebrew form of the name; in Aramaic it is "Silas" and in Latin "Silvanus". There is also a Silas or Silvanus mentioned in Paul's letters, as a co-author of the letter to the Thessalonians.

I thought that this was just going to be one of those mysteries with no solution. But I have recently read about a document from the Nag Hammadi Library The Teachings of Silvanus. There has been some speculation that Silvanus was an early Hellenistic Jewish leader who was coopted and turned into a minor assistant to Paul. (If you have access to the JM list, it is here.

Of course, there is also speculation that Paul was a Hellenistic Jewish missionary and leader who was coopted and turned into a Christian, and that the Christian elements were added to his letters by later Christians.

It's all speculation, of course.

rlogan

Thank you gentlemen.

Well, Amaleq13 the "former persecutor turns proselytizer" story is almost trite in its marketing appeal. On par with the manufactured martyrdome of the apostles.

So how did people know his reputation? Easy to invent one. Before you go to a town to have a political candidate speak, you have an advance team go to stir things up.

Toto - that piece sure fits the Doherty description for the MJ. See the context for every reference to Christ?

The last part of your post takes a crack at "means". A person can't just start on street corners with no background and become the cult leader of all time.

So training, experience, and an established set of contacts as a Hellenistic Jewish missionary provides candidacy for means. Just an example.

But in particular - there are scribes involved. Is Paul a scribe too? Or are scribes employed by tentmakers? Pretty fishy. How are scribes involved? That means money. Are these fledgling groups of impoverished waifs paying market salary to scribes for their conglomerate communications?

Opportunity is in part answered with these "spontaneous" movements erupting simultaneously in different locations. I don't view Paul as an instigator of these. Instead, someone is co-opting something already in motion.

Toto

I don't quite follow this.

Scribes were often slaves. I assume someone like Paul could have afforded a commercial scribe. It was how things were done then.

rlogan

Happy to clarify. You gave me this link to Silvanus:

Linky

As I read each reference to Christ, it seems a mythic figure as opposed to flesh and blood. It was in that way I thought it supported Doherty's view.

Quote:

Scribes were often slaves. I assume someone like Paul could have afforded a commercial scribe. It was how things were done then.

Well I'll be. The Spin-meister raised the issue of scribes at one time and I took what he said to mean that they were scarce. I do not want to misrepresent him though, and in retrospect it was an OT discussion topic.

I have to defer to your experience here.