Toto

Clever, but Saul in Hebrew becomes Silas in Aramaic (is it a mere coincidence that Paul travels with a Silas, who cowrites some of his letters?) and is translated to Silvanus in Latin (the name of one of those gnostics who left some writings at Nag Hammadi). Someone with the right credentials could probably put together a case that all of these refer to the same person and get it published.

Julian

The hellenization/romanization theory comes from Bart Ehrman, although I added the bit about 'waddling,' which he didn't mention but to my mind adds yet another reason. While the initial consonant is changed there is clear assonance. The Ehrman statement was from a lecture so I cannot cut-and-paste anything. I am not expert on this topic and I was hoping that someone would know more. I will keep my eyes open for additional info.

Julian

Julian

Do you have some background info on this? It is Σιλουανὸς in the NT (1 Thessalonians) so I am not sure about the relationship you specify here.

Julian

Gudjonsson

WOW Why did I not think about that before? One of the things that bugged me about Christianity is how it is so overwhelmingly greco-roman, when, considering its roots, it should be more Jewish IMO. I always wished there was one epistle in the N.T., written in aramic... and I hated the greek word games presumably coming out of the libs of Jesus debating Pharisees (in greek!)

spin

It seems you've probably got an untinctured Ehrman opinion, nothing more. If we work from Paul there is nothing about Saul. No Saul, no reason to romanize. It might be, but we can't really work with might-bes. The clear examples that I know of are fairly transparent, as I mentioned, Yeshua -> Jason and Shimeon -> Simon. Oh and Eliakim -> Alcimus.


spin

Toto

The Saul-Silas-Silvanus connection is something that I researched a few years ago. I was not aware that it was controversial.

There is some support for you Saul - Paul connection in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn , (which can be sampled on Google books) in an essay by Bauckam on "Paul and other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament."

Ecrasez L'infame

Here's a new spin - actually, an old one that seems to have been forgotten in the last hundred years.

We have:

1) In Acts, Paul is referred to as Saul before the meeting with Sergius, and Paul afterwards. The change is introduced with words to the effect of "Saul, who is also known as Paul...". (The "also" is ambiguous: it could mean either a) also with Sergius Paulus; or b) Saul himself is also known as Paul - that is, he has two names. To me, b) is the simple and correct reading. Moreover, Acts itself proves he did have two names, so b) is also the obvious reading. But the point is unimportant.)


Added to 1), we have that

2) Claudius greatly extended the opportunity for anyone in the empire to acquire Roman citizenship (for a hefty fee!); and that when becoming a citizen, it was normal for one to take one's patron's name as a nomen.

(For example, see Everett Ferguson, "Backgrounds of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)", p59-60; citing Sherwin-White, based on Seneca & Dio).


1) and 2) together point to a simple conclusion: Saul met Sergius to apply for citizenship, it was granted, and Saul took Sergius's name as his own in honour. (The idea that Paul named himself in honour of Sergius after the meeting used to be common in the C19th; for example, see Paul's entry in early editions of Brewer).


Ah, but we have Paul's own word (as quoted by Acts) that he was a Roman citizen "from birth". The trouble is, that episode feels planted. Why would the author of it (whether Paul, Luke, or some latter redactor) record some idle small-talk between Paul and a centurion? It seems to only be there is order to make the point that Paul was born a citizen - in other words, to refute a story going round that he wasn't. Of course, just because a story is a plant, doesn't mean to say it didn't happen, still less that the facts it quotes aren't true. Is there any positive evidence that either Paul was lying when he said he was free-born, or that Luke was lying when he recorded it? As it happens, yes, a little. Paul in 2 Cor 11 says he has been repeatedly beaten by Romans; but Roman citizens were exempt from that punishment (see Ferguson again, based on Acts itself and Cicero). Therefore Paul hadn't always been a citizen, and Acts 22:28 is doubtful.

The idea that Paul bought citizenship in the 40s from Sergius is still speculative; but I've read (in proper books!) speculations that Paul's family made tents for the Roman army and were rewarded with hereditary citizenship! No one knows (tho' many pretend to know) how likely it is that a Jewish family of Tarsus would have citizenship, so it seems to me that the above speculation is as good - or at least, not as bad - as anyone else's.

The only remaining questions are: where did Paul get the money to buy citizenship? and, why did he want it so much?

Robbie.

Clouseau

This was Luke letting his readers connect with the 'Paul' they knew. The name change reflects Saul/Paul's usage in two fairly distinct regions: Peter's Hebrew sphere of influence, and Paul's own Graeco-Roman 'patch'. So the Saul of Syrian Antioch became the Paul of Anatolian Antioch. John Mark left the other two in the wealthy, Roman-influenced port of Perga; perhaps the thought of unfamiliar, 'pagan' territory beyond was too much for him.

It was not idle talk, it was material to the narrative. The commander was alacritous to both release and protect Paul because he realised that Paul was of even greater status than he was.

Roman citizens had to have a) the chance to say that they were citizens (and the fury that Paul aroused may have reduced that chance), and b) the required documentation. Paul may on occasion may have lacked either or both. There were evidently many spurious claims for citizenship, and a mere oral claim could be totally useless.

Why the exclamation marks?

spin

In the case of Sergius Paulus, Sergius is the nomen and Paulus is the cognomen, yet our man is not Sergius as one would expect, but Paulus.


spin

Solo

It looks more probable to me that Paulos was an adopted name as it affirms the apostles' "humbleness", "smallness" before Christ. (That this was not a universal posture to Jesus (as spirit) is well attested,eg by GoT 13, 108) .
Saul would not have been the only one who would be dramatizing in this wise one's conversion and new life in Christ (or with Jesus). Jesus renames also Simon and the Zebedees, i.e. the Transfiguration witnesses. For my little theory, (ie that Xty originated as a cult of manics, w. Jesus as a guide through the experience of loss of the "euphoric high") it is significant that the verb that Mark uses in 3:16-17 for the (re)naming of his disciples, (επιτιθημι), is the same one used for the act of "laying of hands " by Jesus in acts of healing.

Jiri