the name "Paul"
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Paulus is not a real name, just like Cephas is not a real name; both are common nouns unattested as actual names before Christianity. The Pauline epistles themselves don't contain the name Saul. I don't know why you accept at face value the interpretation of Acts that the real name of Paul is Saul. Saul is a homophonic name that calls to mind King Saul, who himself persecuted David in 1 Samuel 19, a fact of which Tertullian is aware and considers to be prefiguring of Paul in the scriptures and one of the reasons he accepts Paul at all.
I don't know what the author(s) of the letters thought Paul's real name was, but it could not be Paul, and it most likely wasn't Saul either. It might not have been anything at all until later speculation, given how pseudepigrapha works.
I don't know what the author(s) of the letters thought Paul's real name was, but it could not be Paul, and it most likely wasn't Saul either. It might not have been anything at all until later speculation, given how pseudepigrapha works.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Your statement that Paulus is not a real name is very significant.Peter Kirby wrote:Paulus is not a real name, just like Cephas is not a real name; both are common nouns unattested as actual names before Christianity. The Pauline epistles themselves don't contain the name Saul. I don't know why you accept at face value the interpretation of Acts that the real name of Paul is Saul. Saul is a homophonic name that calls to mind King Saul, who himself persecuted David in 1 Samuel 19, a fact of which Tertullian is aware and considers to be prefiguring of Paul in the scriptures and one of the reasons he accepts Paul at all.
I don't know what the author(s) of the letters thought Paul's real name was, but it could not be Paul, and it most likely wasn't Saul either. It might not have been anything at all until later speculation, given how pseudepigrapha works.
Now, the author called Paul was aware of gLuke and its author.
1. it is documented that Paul knew the Gospel according to Luke.
Origen's "Commentary on Matthew 1"
Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first......... And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles....
2. It is documented that Paul was a close companion of the author of gLuke.
Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.1.1
The author of the Pauline Corpus knew the Gospel according to gLuke.Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church........... Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.
The author of the Pauline Corpus knew fiction stories and characters found ONLY in the Gospels.
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
I thought King Saul was considered the first great king of Israel. Perhaps my memory is faulty. Also, 'Paul' says he was from the tribe of Benjamin without saying anything about his name. However, King Saul was also from that tribe. Coincidence? or is this a possible indicator of his having been originally named Saul? Do we have an explanation anywhere for the name change? If not why should we doubt that 'Paul' once had another name? Maybe it was Simon, but maybe it was Saul? Doesn't Josephus write about a Saulus that many believe referred to 'Paul' since it was his only reference to a Saulus and talked about his having caused disturbances among the Jews after the stoning of James? Just another strange coincidence? As to the 'why' of a name change, could it be as simple as the idea that after his conversion he was very concerned about his former reputation and decided to change his name? Or, perhaps the word 'Paul' has some meaning of significance related to his new mission??Peter Kirby wrote:Paulus is not a real name, just like Cephas is not a real name; both are common nouns unattested as actual names before Christianity. The Pauline epistles themselves don't contain the name Saul. I don't know why you accept at face value the interpretation of Acts that the real name of Paul is Saul. Saul is a homophonic name that calls to mind King Saul, who himself persecuted David in 1 Samuel 19, a fact of which Tertullian is aware and considers to be prefiguring of Paul in the scriptures and one of the reasons he accepts Paul at all.
I don't know what the author(s) of the letters thought Paul's real name was, but it could not be Paul, and it most likely wasn't Saul either. It might not have been anything at all until later speculation, given how pseudepigrapha works.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
I don't know. Any answer is speculative. But I do know that the letter writer doesn't offer us the name Saul. That comes from the writer of Acts. Details such as the letters putting Paul in the tribe of Benjamin might just be another one of the coincidences that led to the detail in the romance presented in Acts about his former name, among other exploits and details of his fantastic missionary and miracle work. This is similar to the way that the gospels might have gotten their present names ("according to Matthew," etc.) due to inferences from the text that were and remain wild guesses. The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.TedM wrote:I thought King Saul was considered the first great king of Israel. Perhaps my memory is faulty. Also, 'Paul' says he was from the tribe of Benjamin without saying anything about his name. However, King Saul was also from that tribe. Coincidence? or is this a possible indicator of his having been originally named Saul? Do we have an explanation anywhere for the name change? If not why should we doubt that 'Paul' once had another name? Maybe it was Simon, but maybe it was Saul? Doesn't Josephus write about a Saulus that many believe referred to 'Paul' since it was his only reference to a Saulus and talked about his having caused disturbances among the Jews after the stoning of James? Just another strange coincidence? As to the 'why' of a name change, could it be as simple as the idea that after his conversion he was very concerned about his former reputation and decided to change his name? Or, perhaps the word 'Paul' has some meaning of significance related to his new mission??Peter Kirby wrote:Paulus is not a real name, just like Cephas is not a real name; both are common nouns unattested as actual names before Christianity. The Pauline epistles themselves don't contain the name Saul. I don't know why you accept at face value the interpretation of Acts that the real name of Paul is Saul. Saul is a homophonic name that calls to mind King Saul, who himself persecuted David in 1 Samuel 19, a fact of which Tertullian is aware and considers to be prefiguring of Paul in the scriptures and one of the reasons he accepts Paul at all.
I don't know what the author(s) of the letters thought Paul's real name was, but it could not be Paul, and it most likely wasn't Saul either. It might not have been anything at all until later speculation, given how pseudepigrapha works.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
If the real name of the historical Paul is unrecoverable with any certainty then how can authenticity be resolved?Peter Kirby wrote: I don't know. Any answer is speculative. But I do know that the letter writer doesn't offer us the name Saul. That comes from the writer of Acts. Details such as the letters putting Paul in the tribe of Benjamin might just be another one of the coincidences that led to the detail in the romance presented in Acts about his former name, among other exploits and details of his fantastic missionary and miracle work. This is similar to the way that the gospels might have gotten their present names ("according to Matthew," etc.) due to inferences from the text that were and remain wild guesses. The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.
It cannot be forgotten that the so-called Paul supposedly not only wrote Epistles but also physically preached what he wrote in the very Churches throughout the Roman Empire for at least 25 years.
The Pauline writer should have been known by name and face in the Roman Empire.
The converts of Paul, those whom he baptized, those to whom he preached should have known Paul.
In Galatians a Pauline writer claimed he was unknown in Judea.
Galatians 1:22 NIV
If the real name of the historical Paul is unrecoverable with any certainty, it appears that the Pauline writers were unknown to all the Churches in Christ--not only Judea.I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Is currently unrecoverable; unless new information becomes available? (eg. newly discovered manuscripts)Peter Kirby wrote:The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.
These issues , of course, are a "beg-the-question" informal fallacy - Petitio Principii or circular-reasoning.dewitness wrote:If the real name of the historical Paul is unrecoverable with any certainty then how can authenticity be resolved? ....
The Pauline writer should have been known by name and face in the Roman Empire. ....
If the real name of the historical Paul is unrecoverable with any certainty, it appears that the Pauline writers were unknown to all the Churches in Christ--not only Judea.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Yes, this is how I meant to be understood.MrMacSon wrote:Is currently unrecoverable; unless new information becomes available? (eg. newly discovered manuscripts)Peter Kirby wrote:The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?
It seems to be a standard Roman name.
Andrew Criddle
It seems to be a standard Roman name.
Andrew Criddle
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
I think Peter's point was that it isn't his real name - even by the standards of Acts. It's an appellation or an adopted name but it is not the apostle's actual name. It's a nom de plume, nom de guerre etc.Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?
It seems to be a standard Roman name.
Everyone loves the happy times
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
the name "Paul"
Mea culpa. Please forgive me. I have found examples in Plutarch. Paul is not a previously unknown name.andrewcriddle wrote:Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?
It appears in Plutarch as a Latin "gens" name; presumably as a regular name elsewhere, I am not sure. I made the mistake on analogy with the assertions that I've seen regarding the name Cephas without stopping to check. I hate misinformation, and for that I am sorry.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown