Toto

"Saul, who was also called Paul"

I have speculated (based on nothing concrete) that the Paul character in Acts is a composite, perhaps of Paul and Silas, Silas being the Aramaic form of Saul or Silvanus.

PhilosopherJay

Thanks Toto,

The note about Silas being the Aramaic form of Saul really helps.

There is a sharp break in the text at 13:13 where the author/editor starts suddenly referring to Saul as Paul. The key to understanding this is to look at the lines preceeding this break:

The proconsul is Sergius Paulus. Let us assume that the original author was continuing the story of Paulus. It is the newly converted proconsul Paulus and his Christian companions who make the trip to Perga.

The original author has Barnabus and Saul together going to Cyprus. Note that Cypress is Barnabus' homeland.

4:36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement)

The conversion of the proconsul of Cyprus Sergius Paulus would be a pretty big feather in Barnabas' cap. If he then went on to travel and preach with Barnabas, that would be even a greater thing.

Now note this oddity:
John is brought to Cyprus and does not do a damn thing and suddenly without explanation leaves to go back to Jerusalem. Why?

Let us suppose that John did not join Saul and Barnabus in Cypress. Let us suppose the original text told of Saul and Barnabus converting Paulus and then continued with the tales of Paulus and Barnabus. Saul was no longer needed or perhaps he got into a fight with Paulus. In any case, the original text read:

13From Paphos, Paulus and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where Saul left them to return to Jerusalem.

Such a text would prove that Saul was less important than Barnabas and more importantly that Paul and Saul were two different people. The editor wanted to build up the importance of Saul by incorporating the adventures of Paulus into the adventures of Saul. Since Saul cannot be Paul if he is in both Pamphylia and in Jerusalem at the same time, somebody else has to go home. The simplest thing for the editor to do is to add a line about how John went to Cyprus and then change the name Saul to John when he departs to Jerusalem.

The story now continues smoothly, but the editor soon runs into another problem, when "Judas and Silas" are sent to Paul/Paulus and Barnabas.
Let us assume that the original text read "Judas and Saul." We original text of the fight would have read this way.

This passage would again show that Paul/Paulus and Saul are not one person, so the editor has to change Saul into Silas and Judas, into "John also called Mark"

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

So is there a difference between John surnamed Mark, John son of Zebedee, John the Apostle/Evangelist (writer or editor of the gospel), and John the Elder (writer of 2 John)?

Apologists need to get their John's flushed out.

Ben C Smith

To the contrary, you communicated very eloquently a position that I see as unnecessary. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that you are a poor communicator. Buck up, little camper.

Ben.

spin

Sorry, Ben C. You're just providing more evidence for the fact!


spin