the name "Paul"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
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

Post by Peter Kirby »

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
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by dewitness »

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.
Your statement that Paulus is not a real name is very significant.

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
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 the Gospel according to gLuke.

The author of the Pauline Corpus knew fiction stories and characters found ONLY in the Gospels.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by TedM »

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.
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??
User avatar
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

Post by Peter Kirby »

TedM wrote:
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.
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??
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.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by dewitness »

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.
If the real name of the historical Paul is unrecoverable with any certainty then how can authenticity be resolved?

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
I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ
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.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.
Is currently unrecoverable; unless new information becomes available? (eg. newly discovered manuscripts)
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.
These issues , of course, are a "beg-the-question" informal fallacy - Petitio Principii or circular-reasoning.
User avatar
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

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:The real name of the historical Paul, if there were one, is unrecoverable with any certainty.
Is currently unrecoverable; unless new information becomes available? (eg. newly discovered manuscripts)
Yes, this is how I meant to be understood.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by andrewcriddle »

Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?

It seems to be a standard Roman name.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
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

Post by stephan happy huller »

Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?

It seems to be a standard Roman name.
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.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

the name "Paul"

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:Is it true that Paulus is a previously unknown name ?
Mea culpa. Please forgive me. I have found examples in Plutarch. Paul is not a previously unknown name.

:tombstone:

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
Post Reply