OK, I have a bee in my bonnet that must be released. It has to do with your first post, David, and it has bugged me for 2 months and 3 weeks, or 299 posts, whichever measure you choose. It's the Saul/Paul name change issue, and call me neurotic for being a New Testament scholar, but here goes:
"Paul" is not the conversion name of Saul. Saul was also Paul, all along. Like many other Jews in the ancient Greco-Roman milieu, he went by two names according to the context. This is evident from other parts of the New Testament as well, such as Levi going by Matthew, or Thomas adopting that nickname rather than his given name of Judas (a fact which few know), or the other Judas going by Thaddeus. Saul/Paul was truly multicultural and multilingual, a Pharisee and student of Gamaliel (who himself was a student of the famous Hillel), and identifies as a Benjamite and so would proudly bear the name Saul. Yet he was also born a Roman citizen and was raised in Tarsus, one of the great university cities of the ancient world (the other top two being Athens and Alexandria), and was fluent in Greek and probably spoke at least some Latin; so he also went by Paul.
The operative passage is not Acts 9, which details his conversion. He is steadfastly called Saul during that episode and years thereafter; in fact, a modest estimate of the Acts timeline doesn't have him called "Paul" in the narrative until more than a decade after his conversion. (Paul did not pen and sign his first letter as "Paul" until AD 49 at the very earliest.) No, the indicator is found in Acts 13, as follows...
He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, etc."
The problem is in the English rendering according to tradition. Typically, we would read verse 9 as, "But Saul, who is also called Paul...", meaning, we take "Saul" as the contrastive antecedent to "Paul," indicating the change--one name over against the other, so to speak. Yet the real antecedent is not the apostle's other name, but the name of his hearer--the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. (In the Greek text this is obvious, since both are Paulus.) So the proper reading would be, "But Saul, who was also called Paul..."--meaning, just like his hearer, Saul also went by the name Paul.
From this point on, the apostle is no longer identified by the name Saul (except when quoting events of that previous time--such as the encounter on the road to Damascus). He is henceforth Paul, with no other commentary by the writer of Acts. It seems pretty clear that since the shift in names does not happen in Acts 9 (events that unfolded around AD 37), but rather in Acts 13 (events that took place around AD 48), that the point of the change (if such it can be called) is not Saul/Paul's conversion, but rather his ongoing effort to convert others. By insisting that he be called Paul in the Greco-Roman world, he is, to quote him elsewhere, "becoming all things to all men"--he is identifying with his audience. Luke, the author of Acts, is falling into this strategy. The name Paul is not a "conversion" name, but a name to bring about conversion.
Alright. Bee out of bonnet. And that makes 300!
