One of the perplexing changes that occur in the Bible is the sudden switch from Saul of Tarsus being known as Paul. From his introduction in Acts 7:58 he was simply known as Saul, the once persecutor turned preacher of Christ. Seemingly out of nowhere in Acts 13:9 we read, "Then Saul, who was also called Paul..." and from then on he is always refered to as Paul. By the time of his earliest letter (which I take to be Galatians) he only refers to himself as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.
There have been a number of suggestions for this change. The one that most of us probably heard over the years is that Paul changed his name when he became a Christian, presumably because the association with Saul, the rejected king who disobeyed God and attempted to murder David, was no longer a favorable one (as if it would be any more favorable for a Jewish person). One book even states, "Jesus changes Saul's name to Paul" (137), which is a bewildering statement considering Jesus' role in the name change is never spelled out by any biblical writer (or even suggested).
Perhaps my prefered suggestion is that Paul, being a Roman citizen, actually would have had 3 names including his ethnic name (Saul, his Jewish name) and a more Romanized name, in this case, Paul. You can find this in a couple places, I always recommend Craig Keener's Biblical Background Commentary on the NT for this type of info. This would lend us to think that Paul strategically begins to go by his Roman name as he ministers more and more to Gentiles (and it might not be a coincidence that Sergius Paulus is mentioned in Acts 13 as well, perhaps Paul was hoping to garner some favor). Obviously one could go by two names, Peter is known as Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) in the NT (though he is not a Roman citizen, and these are nicknames anyway, remember his name is actually Simon); but it is understandable why Paul made this decision.
But today I ran across an article by one of my former professors, Sean McDonough, in the summer edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature. He makes another suggestion that I find intriguing, though perhaps not convincing. He notes how Paul, as he begins preaching in 13:16, gives a "history of Israel" in sermonic form (not unlike Stephen in Acts 7) and includes a reference to Saul in vv21-22, the only time he is mentioned in the entire NT (I believe). McDonough suggests that this is an odd thing to mention (there are more important characters left out of his sermon), but believes it gives us a clue to why Saul begins to go by "Paul."
King Saul was a man of great physical stature, one who commanded respect merely at the sight of him. But his character did not match his imposing size, making him a goat more than a hero in the biblical story. Saul of Tarsus had a different goal in mind (who wouldn't?), and opted not to be associated with one of great physical presence, so he adopted Paulus as his name. Paulus is a Latin name meaning "small." It was a fairly common name in the ancient world. In switching his name, Paul was declaring that he was not going to be a physically dominating man, but a "small" man (in the eyes of the world). Of course, if 2 Corinthians 10:10 ("in person he is unimpressive") refers to his small stature, he may not have had a choice.
At any rate, I'm not really convinced this is what Paul had in mind, I still think the second option mentioned is preferable. Both the latter 2 are better than the first, which has little biblical evidence to commend it. I guess I lean towards the second simply because the biblical writers, including Paul, don't make a big deal out of the name change, so we probably shouldn't either (unless Luke was being really subtle). Instead, if there is a reasonable suggestion based on solid (historical) evidence that would have made sense to the original readers, that's the one I'll choose. If anyone is still reading this blog, I'd love to hear what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You've got to give Sean some props. I have heard that theory before, actually. But isn't there some hermeneutical principle out there that the interpretation that adds the least new information is most likely to be correct? It's not necessarily as fun, but your second position has simplicity on its side. It may really be as simple as missional contextualization.
At least in the book of Acts, the switch is pretty clear. It happens in 13:9. Prior to this, he's called Saul, but only Paul thereafter. The name Saul comes up again only in the recounting of the Damascus road experience (22:7, 13; 26:14).
Interestingly (though probably inapplicably), the Hebrew name would have been Sha'ul, but Greek doesn't have an sh sound.
I hadn't really thought about this before I read this... so I probably just lost any credibility... but it's really interesting. I do like the gist of the third explanation. It seems to fit Paul and even if it wasn't the sole reason for choosing the name, it probably would help convince him to make the switch if his Romanized name was Paul. Also, if he did choose Paul because of its meaning, it makes sense to me that he wouldn't make a big deal about it, since that would serve to make him big not small.
It's pretty important that we figure this out because now I'm trying to decide if I should continue to be culturally relevant to my Hispanic friends calling myself Mateo, or if I should try to be more humble and use something like 'Mat' or even 'M' ;-)
I guess the one thing I would say commends the first theory, is, as Isaac notes, pre-Acts 13:9, Paul is called Saul, unless the narrator is retelling the Damascus conversion. Given that name changes are almost always a big deal in the Bible (e.g., Abram, Jacob, the new name promised in Rev. 2:17), part of me wants to hang on to the first option. While no explicit biblical evidence commends it (I can't believe I just started a sentence that way...), it's not entirely crazy to think of it as a covenant name, or a "new identity in Christ" kind of name.
I cringe to say it, really I do, but could we be dealing with some (gasp) "both/and" stuff here? (PLEASE forgive me for breaking that one out), or at least, lots of bleed-over from the other options mentioned? They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Mateo sounds cool, go with that.
I do think the second option given has the fewest problems. It makes historical sense, it makes strategic sense, and it doesn't require us to make something out of nothing.
B- you lose points for your both/and comment, this isn't seminary any more. I agree that the positions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and I think 2 & 3 could both have correct points. My problem with the 1st one is that it draws a conclusion that is never explicitly stated, or even implicitly. Also, name changes due to a promise/covenant are always given for obvious reasons (Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel to use your examples). I can tell you why Abram was changed to Abraham, but not why Saul was changed to Paul.
Also, I'd like to see someone demonstrate that "Saul" would have had negative connotations for someone in the 1st century. Obviously King Saul was not a hero, but it would have to be shown to me that the name was "taboo" for someone to decide to change it because he became a Christian. It's not like it's naming your kid "Adolf."
The bible says that all things are named by God. It also says that we are to be renewed through Christ. Saul is what he WAS and Paul is who he IS. It was discarding the old and putting on the new.
I think it is the same as a "former drug user.. or drug addict". If you are "born again" then you are not that. It is something you did but it is not who or what you are.
Your labeling yourself with a lie. Giving the enemy a foothold to use against you.
Clearly I think that the Bible teaches that we discard our old nature and put on a new one when we are saved. And I certainly have no problem with the "new name" concept, though I don't think the Bible goes into great detail about it.
What I'm saying, though, is that the switch from Saul to Paul has nothing to do with any of this. We have no biblical reason to assume so, but many simply do assume it (it preaches well, after all). Also, the link between "Saul" and Paul's old nature is tenuous. It is not the same thing as saying "I was a drug addict" because there is nothing evil about the name "Saul." Changing one's name from "Saul" to "Paul" is not moving from evil to good. Paul says plenty about being rescued from his old self (and about us being rescued from our old nature), I find it odd he never once uses the "name change" to illustrate this. He had plenty of opportunities to point this out, yet is silent on this. I think this is far better explained with the second option I pointed out.
interesting read. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did you guys learn that some chinese hacker had busted twitter yesterday again.
Post a Comment