capnkirk

When Saul had his Damascus Road experience, he changed his name to Paul. From his subsequent writings, we learn that he formerly identified himself as Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (a direct allusion to King Saul of the OT).

But what about his new name, Paul? In his native Greek, the name was Apollo (the Greek god who was the son of Zeus). What does this say about the roots of the theology he preached?

Now why would he pick that name, one that identifies himself as son of the Father God?

Eldarion Lathria

Paulus is a Roman name, a borne by many famous Romans. But why would a Pharisee (if Saul were in fact one) take a Roman name? It does not seem reasonable.

Eldarion Lathria

Toto

Bzzzt.

No, he didn't. This is an urban legend. Acts describes Saul's experiences on the Road to Damascus in three different versions, and in none of these does Saul change his name to Paul.

But around Acts 13, Saul is in the middle of his magical travels, and meets a ruler named Sergius Paulus, and the narrator notes that Saul was also named Paul - and refers to Paul ever after.

Nope, again. Paul never indicates that he ever called himself Saul, although he claimed to be of the tribe of Benjamin.

Apollo is Paul? Where do you get this? Just because they are pronounced similarly in modern English?

Paul meant short - Paul was the runt. Not so Apollo.

There are a variety of theories as to who Paul was, and what his name means. We can rule this one out.

Clouseau

The likelihood is that his parents gave him both names- one being a praenomen, the other a cognomen. Paul(l)us was a common proper name at the time. Saul was undoubtedly his circumcision name, his father being a Pharisee. Being a Roman citizen, he had in addition a middle name, nomen, unknown to us. So Paul's proper name was Paullus xxxxxx Sa'ul or Sa'ul xxxxx Paullus.

It is unknown why the general usage became just Paulos. It may have been because of its meaning of 'small', Paul wanting to emphasise his personal unimportance. It may have been that he wanted to use a Greek name among Greeks rather than a Jewish one, to emphasise the new dispensation. It may have been simply the name that his converts in the Greek-speaking churches called him.

Paul's Pharisaical training was not the inspiration for his theology, but it was undoubtedly his chief resource after the gospel lore, which was that inspiration. His many references to the OT are witness to that; rarely did Paul define a precept or issue a command without OT backing, believing Jesus to be the Christ, the consummation of the OT to which all the law and the prophets were directed from the very beginning. The OT was, for Paul, the historic and moral root for his faith, supported by practical results:

'Continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.' 2 Ti 3:14-17

aa5874

2nd Timothy is not considered to have been written by the Saul/Paul of Acts by some biblical scholars. And it would appear to me that the author of Luke is the fabricator of Saul or Paul or whatever their names were.

Clouseau

My post was written from the perspective of that of the OP. In any case, the quote is a convenient summary of what is found in the letters attributed to Paul.

capnkirk

I have a serious problem with the claim that his father was a Phariasee. Tarez (Tarsus), where Luke claims Saul was from was a pagan city, named after Ba'al Tarez. It is extremely unlikely that Saul's father was a Pharaisee in Tarez.
It is virtually impossible that Saul's father was both Pharaisee and a Roman citizen, and if your claims as to Saul's father's pedigree fail, so too do your ensuing arguments RE his name being Roman in origin. It is much more likely that it was Greek. (Here a little help from some of our esteemed colleagues concerning the etymology of "paulos" would be greatly appreciated).

Again, I believe your etymology of the name is latin-based and while it would apply to the Roman name Paulus, I will need to see some confirmation that the latin etymology is drawn from the Greek.

I have written at length both on IIDB and on other venues about Paul's self-acclaimed Pharaisaic training, which in light of the remoteness of Tarez from Jerusalem (recall his claim to have been a student of Ganaliel?), appear to be more wishful thinking (or perhaps part of his tactic of being all things to all people) than actual fact. I don't want to derail this thread into a general discussion of Paul, so please try not to take it there (if you are interested, then search IIDB around 2003-4 where there are several voluminous threads where the subject was exhaustively explored). Let's try to solve the issue of the etymology of 'paulos' first.

Clouseau

I won't do that. I will concentrate on 'the roots of the theology' that Paul preached, and if there is any evidence that the name 'Paul' is in any way related to Apollo, I would be both interested and surprised to see it.

Magdlyn

Link to Hyam Maccoby's thoughts on Paul's alleged Pharisaical status.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

Acts is a spurious gloss meant to bring together the warring camps of Peter and Paul, proto-orthodoxy and gnosticism/mystical xtianities. You won't find any true biography of Paul there, so I suggest you drop it.

"Paul's bungling attempts at sounding Pharisaic:"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm

I'd have to say I agree with Clouseau for once. Paulus/Saul had 2 names, as did many "Jews" of the day. It was a Greek world.

capnkirk

Thank you, Magdlyn, It was Maccoby's Mythmaker that introduced me to the need to study the NT from the viewpoint of scholars who were scholars first and theists second. And from about 1989 on I have done that. On this forum in 2003-4 I argued from Maccoby's viewpoint against Doherty's mythological Jesus...but have since come much closer to Doherty's position. But both have spent a lot of time studying Saul/Paul and his writings. My understanding of Saul's conversion still stems from Maccoby's analyses, as does my position concerning Paul's role in linking Xtianity to Judaism.
Your last statement has everything to do with why I fail to accept the etymology of the latin Paulus as necessarily applicable to a Paulos from a Greek-speaking, Greek-dominated culture. When we speak of Hellenized Jews, we aren't referring to their "Romanization". As I have responded earlier in this thread, I find Closeau's attempts to Romanize Saul's father unconvincing (as I find Maccoby's analyses much more likely), so Paul's name most probably is drawn from his Greek heritage, not his Roman heritage.

I am not intractable on this issue...I just need to know the etymology of the Greek usage. If the Greek etymology confirms the Roman, then I will graciously concede the point.