Jedi Mind Trick

I don't remember the author, but I've read that Paul could have used the money he collected from his churches to purchase Roman citizenship in advance of his trip to Jerusalem where he knew he was in for some trouble and wanted all of the clout he could get.

Amaleq13

The implication being that both acts should be understood to obtain similar cleansing of the individual?

Doug Shaver

No, it doesn't. Acts itself says he had two names. That proves nothing until we establish whether Acts is historically reliable.

Clouseau

This verb could be employed in uses mundane and profane, such as putting a load on a mule, or a curse on an enemy. Healing does not seem to be a manic act; even a false claim to heal is not manic. The giving of nick-names was and is very common, and in the NT period was a particular habit of rabbis with their followers. Saul was not taught by Jesus, though he was taught by Gamaliel, but a rabbi of any sort would hardly have given him a Roman nick-name in Jerusalem. The name Paullus had been in use for centuries. A Roman general bearing this name fought at the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, and his son bore the same name.

Magdlyn

I think that was in Maccoby's The Mythmaker.

Amaleq13

How many have you witnessed? I've seen several alleged healings at tent revivals or during televised services and "manic" is certainly an accurate description of the frenzy the crowd gets whipped into prior to the magic.

In fact, getting the crowd worked up prior to performing "miraculous healings" is crucial to obtaining the appearance of success.

You may have a point with regard to the linguistics involved but not with regard to the notion of miraculous healings being "manic" in nature.

the_cave

Toto--interesting what you say about Saul/Silas--I had the same idea myself recently, and am intrigued that I'm not the only one. Also interesting about the connection to the Nag Hammadi Silvanus--it wouldn't be too far-fetched, as the writing there is not too far from the orthodox Christian mainstream, and is only slightly gnostic. It even does resemble Paul a bit...

But I think that Paul and Silas must be different people, even if there is some confusion as to which one was "Saul". Probably there has been some confusion between both (or among more than two...) personalities in Acts. I wonder if both Paul and Silas had similar revelation experiences, and the author of Acts gave them both to a single character (Saul/Paul) in order to emphasize the role of Paul. Or maybe he was just confused about who had what experience and when.

The incident with Sergius Paulus has been interesting to me for a while, since I'm not the only one to notice that this is where the name "Paul" makes its appearance. The role of "Elymas" is also intriguing, though I don't think there's anything definitive there. It is food for thought, though.

Clouseau

But was anyone actually healed? I doubt it very much. Manic behaviour seems to be associated with non-healing.

But was this true of the healing that 'Solo' referred to? There is nothing inherently manic about a healing. When Jesus healed, he often operated totally differently from the usual USA 'healer', dealing with the sick person in seclusion, and sometimes with a desire for secrecy.

Toto

I think that the character of Saul/Paul in Acts is likely a composite character (with a heavy dose of political correctness and an overlay of fictionalization).

Clouseau

Luke is mentioned in three of the letters attributed to Paul, and in one of them as a 'dear friend'. So if there was 'political correctness and an overlay of fictionalization' it was probably with the agreement of Paul himself.