aa5874

Your statement is just a load of BS.

Again, more BS. It is claimed Peter the Jew was in Rome and other parts of the Roman Empire.


Your statement is WITHOUT Source, and evidence.

Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Cassius Dio CONTRADICT you.

Toto

Well, go ahead and examine it. What do you conclude?

Huon

There is a book written by Hyam Maccoby :
The mythmaker Paul and the invention of christianity.

Toto

There are some excerpts here, but I don't recall that Maccoby has anything to say about the name change from Saul to Paul.

Duvduv

That the stories of Acts were put together as a composite referring to a guy named Saul with other stories that were ascribed to someone named Paul.
It would not be unlike the caes of the Quran, which is a clear composite of different sources having nothing to do with Muhammad (who is only mentioned 4 times in the whole book compared to Moses and Jesus, 136 and 25 respectively).

Toto

But the personality of Saul does not change when the name changes to Paul. Why assume that there were any preexisting stories?

Duvduv

The stories change. Leading to the sense that one story involved a fellow named Saul, while the other involved a widely travelling preacher named Paul.

Toto

The stories do not change character. Saul starts his travels, Paul continues. There is a consistent narrative, with no indication that there is an actual source for any of the scenes. There is the same vague relationship to the "Pauline" epistles.

:huh:

Duvduv

But there is still no sensible way to account for a quick transition to Paul without explanation, OR the fact that Acts and the epistles do not inform each other with regard to Paulist doctrines or the Paulist biography.

Toto

I don't know what you are looking for in the way of "sensible."

The relationship between Acts and the epistles is easy - they were written by competing factions of Christians to counter each other.

Perhaps Robert Price will clarify the matter in his upcoming book on the Colossal Apostle.