tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post7338427704233271341..comments2022-03-26T00:48:43.572-05:00Comments on Pauline Theology: Saul a.k.a. PaulDavid A. Largehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-16601089848954518782007-09-15T17:51:00.000-05:002007-09-15T17:51:00.000-05:00Barbara,That's an interesting question. I think t...Barbara,<BR/>That's an interesting question. I think there may be something to that. It is not demonstrable historically, but certainly suggestive as an explanation for the depth of Paul's commitment to Christ. Remember too, however, that Paul expected every person to die and let the cross take shape in them (cruciformity--see Colossians 3 especially). I have no doubt experience shapes theology in ways we don't fully comprehend. It is at heart a psychological state, don't you think. Can deep commitment be traced directly or indirectly to a significant sense of pain inflicted upon another? I need to ponder it.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-75814660157582848072007-09-15T10:17:00.000-05:002007-09-15T10:17:00.000-05:00David, You made the comment that Paul/Saul may hav...David, <BR/>You made the comment that Paul/Saul may have never gotten over the fact that he persecuted the church, referring to himself as the least of all the apostles and chief sinner. Do you think this internal wrestling contributed to his theology - especially what Gorman refers to as "Cruciform"? Did Paul have a greater sense of dying with Christ, of being cricified with Christ because he was so in touch with the weight of his sin?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04013438504874437030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-6554377354225049412007-09-14T22:57:00.000-05:002007-09-14T22:57:00.000-05:00Simon, I take that as a definite maybe. I am fami...Simon, I take that as a definite maybe. I am familiar with the argument and it does make sense. I'm open to it as an explanation for the name he uses in the Gentile mission. It's also possible that Paulus was a family name. Paulus is a fairly common name. Onomastics is the study of names. I'm sure someone, somewhere has studied the frequency of Paulus inscriptions and literary texts from the time and give us some information on it.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-50404606962772252292007-09-14T11:03:00.000-05:002007-09-14T11:03:00.000-05:00Interesting post, David. What do you make of the s...Interesting post, David. What do you make of the suggestion that Saul might have taken the name Paul because of his contacts with Sergious Paulus on Cyprus and the possibility that the latter gave the former letters of commendation for his trip to Pisidian Antioch and beyond?simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13470335172330595542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-81815937691635453682007-08-30T15:33:00.000-05:002007-08-30T15:33:00.000-05:00Got to be quick on this. I think there is conside...Got to be quick on this. <BR/><BR/>I think there is considerable evidence that the high priest exercised some control over Diaspora Jewish communities. Note how power was exercised in the ancient world. Damascus is not that far away. Remember there is only one temple. Diaspora Jews paid the temple tax. They considered their synagogue meetings and communal meals as participation in the temple. Further, let's not forget that Jews turned toward Jerusalem and the temple to pray. These are more than mere symbols. They reflect a disposition toward the most holy place on earth. For people who have no sacred spaces (or lots of them) we have no idea how Jews may have looked at that one place and its leadership. Remember too that the distinction between secular and sacred does not exist at this time.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Acts and Paul's letters agree that Paul persecuted the church. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul calls himself the least of the apostles because he persecuted the church. Compare Galatians 1 and the statement on zeal. See too the chapter I wrote in the upcoming book on Paul and his conversion/call. Given how Paul talks about his time as a persecutor, I don't think he ever got over what he did.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-56541403813609788562007-08-29T13:19:00.000-05:002007-08-29T13:19:00.000-05:00I remember reading McRay a few years ago on this. ...I remember reading McRay a few years ago on this. I think he may be right. Some have tied the name Paul to the governor Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:4-12.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-39588102476666420132007-08-29T12:42:00.000-05:002007-08-29T12:42:00.000-05:00Was it 'Saul' breathing out murderous threats agai...Was it 'Saul' breathing out murderous threats against the 'christians', or was it someone else who wrote to the high priest to ask for letters to the synagogues, in 'Damascus'? (Acts 9.1) <BR/><BR/>What legal powers would 'Saul' have had to make arrests in 'Damascus' and take its citizens as prisoners to Jerusalem? If 'Saul' could have had no such powers conferred by a high priest who had no jurisdiction in 'Damascus', then the arrests were part of a fiction - the conversion of 'Saul' (Acts 9.3 to 9.19). Surely the only place where the high priest could have such powers of arrest was Jerusalem itself.<BR/><BR/>Thus were the 'letters to the synagogues' merely to confirm that the holder was who he was supposed to be so that in 9.20, he could be allowed 'to preach in the synagogues'. The question would then be what was the message that this antagonist was preaching?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-29320246883589729812007-08-29T00:00:00.000-05:002007-08-29T00:00:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Matthew D. Montoninihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12955318969706745375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-31185946017170336342007-08-28T23:57:00.000-05:002007-08-28T23:57:00.000-05:00David, Good points. I remember reading something s...David, Good points. I remember reading something similar in John McRay's "Paul: His Life and Teaching." He states that "Paul wore both names, Paul and Saul, from birth and no doubt utilized them selectively in various cultural settings." (p.27)<BR/><BR/>He then posits that due to "the possibilities of Paul's family having been granted Roman citizenship probably lie in the generosity of Pompey, Julius Caesar, or Mark Antony,...Paul's Roman name could possibly have been Gnaeus Pompeius Paulus, Gaius Julius Paulus, or Marcus Antonius Paulus." (p.26) For more info, see his discussion on pp.25-28.Matthew D. Montoninihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12955318969706745375noreply@blogger.com