Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 09-02-2012, 12:37 PM

I am still not satisfied with all the explanations for the mention of two names in Acts and only one in the Epistles. In fact, all we have in this regard in Acts is two parts of a story allegedly about the same person called extensively Saul before switching to Paul.

The transition from Saul to Paul is only in one single parenthetical phrase, after which "Saul" is no more appearing in chapter 13:

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

No reason is given at all for the second name or the elimination of the first name. This same sentence could have easily and clearly continued without that five-word phrase with the entirety of the book referring only to the name Paul.

By contrast, a similar phrase could have also been inserted SOMEWHERE in the epistles, i.e. Galatians. How about this:

“For you have heard of my former life in Judaism [when I was called Saul], how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.”

Something has clearly been overlooked, i.e. the possibility of a composite story involving two people, one named Saul and another named Paul.

:

Toto · 09-02-2012, 12:52 PM

It hasn't been overlooked. It is a possibility that I have noted before. But it remains a possibility, leading nowhere in particular, not providing any illumination.

The Hebrew Saul is supposed to be the same as the Aramaic Silas and the Latin Silvanus, and Paul does refer to a companion in his letters that he refers to as Silas or Silvanus.

There was a gnostic writer Silvanus in the Nag Hammadi cache. His work is classified as having "strong echos" of Valentinian heretical teachings.

But at this point the trail goes cold.

The only think I can add to my previous posts on this is a blog post noting that when you take the Jewish name Saul and render it in Greek it sounds like this: Saulos. And the word saulos in Greek means "the sultry walk of a prostitute." This supposedly provides a motive for Saul to use the name Paul in gentile communities.

Duvduv · 09-02-2012, 01:49 PM

Yes, I know, but I don't find those explanations satisfactory. Which is why I am looking at the idea that the Acts story represented a composite of the tale of two different people......

Toto · 09-02-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, I know, but I don't find those explanations satisfactory. Which is why I am looking at the idea that the Acts story represented a composite of the tale of two different people......

Look at the idea all you want - it won't get you anywhere once you accept the fact that Acts is a fictionalized story. What does it matter if it is a fiction referring to one person or two? It's still fiction.

And I guess it is worth adding that Robert Eisenman attempts to connect Saul/Paul to the hotheaded character Saulus in Josephus.

Quote:

FROM a different quarter, evidence emerges which concretizes and sums up, albeit unwittingly, all the tendencies we have been discussing, providing us with an example of just the kind of person we have been describing. As we have seen above, there are notices in Josephus about a member of the Herodian family named "Saulus," again not a very common name in this period. This Saulus plays a key role in events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Not only is Saulus the intermediary between "the men of Power [the Herodians], the principal of the Pharisees, the chief priests, and all those desirous for peace" (i.e., peace with the Romans), Josephus also describes him as "a kinsman of Agrippa." In what should be seen as perhaps as garbled notices relating his genealogy through Bernice I to Costobarus (an Idumean convert), he is grouped alongside individuals named "Antipas" and "Costobarus." Saulus leads the delegation to Agrippa (barred from the city and Temple by those Josephus refers to as "Innovators" — their patently anti-Herodian innovation being an unwillingness any longer to accept sacrifices or gifts on behalf of foreigners) that wishes to invite the Romans into the city to subdue the uprising before it could start. The note of Saulus' relation to "the chief priests" is interesting for its parallel with material in Acts relating to Saul's commission from the chief priest to arrest "Christians."

It is curious that in the Antiquities, following Josephus' description of the stoning of James and the plundering of the tithes of the poor priests by the rich chief priests, Josephus refers to Saulus as leading a riot in Jerusalem. For its part, the Book of Acts refers to the riotous behavior in Jerusalem of "Saulos," but it places this event after the conversion of a large group of priests, problems over the distribution of collection moneys, and the stoning of Stephen. H.-J. Schoeps has already remarked the resemblance of this stoning of Stephen to the stoning of James. It is curious that whereas Acts may have transposed the stoning of James in the sixties with the stoning of Stephen in the forties (when the Pseudoclementines claim Paul led a riot and an attack on James in the Temple), Josephus may have done just the opposite, i.e., transposed materials relating to Saul's riotous behavior in Jerusalem in the forties with its analogue, the riot led by Saulus in the sixties. In order to contend that Saulus and Paul are identical, one would have to assume either one or the other of the above transpositions took place or that Paul ultimately returned to Jerusalem, or both. However, this is not as implausible as it may seem on the surface, as our sources fall uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Paul's last years, and where Saulus is concerned, aside from his defection to the Romans, we know nothing about his ultimate fate.

Duvduv · 09-02-2012, 03:25 PM

Of course it's fiction. But that's not the point. The point is that the fact of Saul versus Paul is a discrepancy from what is not found in the epistles. That's all. And the church evidently never thought of it as a discrepancy. But the authors must have had reasons for what they did.

Toto · 09-02-2012, 03:46 PM

A church that can swallow two contradictory genealogies for Jesus, two inconsistent birth years and two inconsistent days of his death is not going to be fazed by Paul vs. Saul whose name was also Paul.

The Pauline epistles do claim that Paul was "of the tribe of Benjamin" which is a link to Saul, the Israelite king who preceded King David. You could probably find some symbolic connections there.

What is it that you are looking for in this thread?

Eldarion Lathria · 09-02-2012, 03:59 PM

My thought about the whole Saul Tarseos story is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, that is a nationalistic Jew, take a Roman name, a name from the occupiers, the enemy?

Eldarion Lathria

Duvduv · 09-02-2012, 05:30 PM

In terms of the reality of what the church was promoting you are correct. But in terms of textual and contextual analysis it is worth examining the Saul/Paul contrast especially as it doesn't find a single place in a single epistle, and the question is why not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A church that can swallow two contradictory genealogies for Jesus, two inconsistent birth years and two inconsistent days of his death is not going to be fazed by Paul vs. Saul whose name was also Paul.

The Pauline epistles do claim that Paul was "of the tribe of Benjamin" which is a link to Saul, the Israelite king who preceded King David. You could probably find some symbolic connections there.

What is it that you are looking for in this thread?

MrMacSon · 09-02-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldarion Lathria

My thought about the whole Saul Tarseos story is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, that is a nationalistic Jew, take a Roman name, a name from the occupiers, the enemy?

Eldarion Lathria

A fictional character to be used to manipulate others might ...

outhouse · 09-02-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldarion Lathria

My thought about the whole Saul Tarseos story is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, that is a nationalistic Jew, take a Roman name, a name from the occupiers, the enemy?

Eldarion Lathria

because he was always a roman first and his jewishness has alwys been in question.

why would a jew take his theology to the roman empire if he wasnt already a roman?

fact is, god-fearers, romans who worshipped judaism but did not convert, is who created christianity

there is no reason to think that paul/saul would not want to identify with the roots of the theology and claim himself to be a jew of jews

09-02-2012, 12:37 PM	#1
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Saul and Paul I am still not satisfied with all the explanations for the mention of two names in Acts and only one in the Epistles. In fact, all we have in this regard in Acts is two parts of a story allegedly about the same person called extensively Saul before switching to Paul. The transition from Saul to Paul is only in one single parenthetical phrase, after which "Saul" is no more appearing in chapter 13: Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, No reason is given at all for the second name or the elimination of the first name. This same sentence could have easily and clearly continued without that five-word phrase with the entirety of the book referring only to the name Paul. By contrast, a similar phrase could have also been inserted SOMEWHERE in the epistles, i.e. Galatians. How about this: “*For you have heard of my former life in Judaism [when I was called Saul],* how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.”** Something has clearly been overlooked, i.e. the possibility of a composite story involving two people, one named Saul and another named Paul. :

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2012, 12:52 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It hasn't been overlooked. It is a possibility that I have noted before. But it remains a possibility, leading nowhere in particular, not providing any illumination. The Hebrew Saul is supposed to be the same as the Aramaic Silas and the Latin Silvanus, and Paul does refer to a companion in his letters that he refers to as Silas or Silvanus. There was a gnostic writer Silvanus in the Nag Hammadi cache. His work is classified as having "strong echos" of Valentinian heretical teachings. But at this point the trail goes cold. The only think I can add to my previous posts on this is a blog post noting that when you take the Jewish name Saul and render it in Greek it sounds like this: Saulos. And the word saulos in Greek means "the sultry walk of a prostitute." This supposedly provides a motive for Saul to use the name Paul in gentile communities.

09-02-2012, 01:49 PM	#3
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Yes, I know, but I don't find those explanations satisfactory. Which is why I am looking at the idea that the Acts story represented a composite of the tale of two different people......

09-02-2012, 03:25 PM	#5
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Of course it's fiction. But that's not the point. The point is that the fact of Saul versus Paul is a discrepancy from what is not found in the epistles. That's all. And the church evidently never thought of it as a discrepancy. But the authors must have had reasons for what they did.

09-02-2012, 03:46 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A church that can swallow two contradictory genealogies for Jesus, two inconsistent birth years and two inconsistent days of his death is not going to be fazed by Paul vs. Saul whose name was also Paul. The Pauline epistles do claim that Paul was "of the tribe of Benjamin" which is a link to Saul, the Israelite king who preceded King David. You could probably find some symbolic connections there. What is it that you are looking for in this thread?

09-02-2012, 03:59 PM	#7
Eldarion Lathria Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Atlantis Posts: 2,449	My thought about the whole Saul Tarseos story is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, that is a nationalistic Jew, take a Roman name, a name from the occupiers, the enemy? Eldarion Lathria

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.