Paul is a Slave Name
Keith posted a while ago here on why ministers wore a unique sort of collar – it’s supposed to represent the slavery of the pastor. Elsewhere I’ve read that the word “minister” itself derives from a late-Latin word meaning servant or slave. I’ve also been pondering for a while now about Paul’s name change. In the first bit of Acts he’s “Saul” and then, somewhat after his conversion (but around the time of his first public ministry) in Acts 13:9 this crops up:
“Then Saul, who was also called Paul”
That’s it, after that he’s called Paul just about all the way through, it’s not like Abram getting told by the Almighty that his new name was Abraham or anything like that. Why would Saul/Paul change to this other alias? Here’s a guess based on what I recall from Roman history classes in undergrad and some other clues in Acts:
Paul isn’t a Jewish name, it isn’t in the OT anywhere, it is a Roman name though, you see the name “Paulus” in lots of places in the Roman world, indeed even in Acts 13, the chapter I quoted above, there is a governor whose cognomen is Paulus. Now why would a Jew have a Roman name? Well, if a Roman freed a slave and conferred citizenship on him, that slave took the Roman’s family name, sort of as a tribute to the goodness of the Roman who bothered to manumit said slave.
Paul was born a Roman citizen, which makes me think that his father or grandfather was a slave freed by one of the members of the Paullus branch of the Aemilius family. Repulsed by his background as the son of a slave, I suspect that Paul was all too eager to ditch his slave name (i.e.: “Paul”) and run with the good Jewish name of Saul. It’s interesting that as he begins his ministry he reverts to the slave name.
Does this narrative of Paul’s back-story make sense to anyone else? If so, what does it mean (if anything)?
I think it’s significant considering Paul was the first real missionary to the Gentiles (as Peter was to the Jews). Paul was called almost exclusively to minister to us “Graftlings”.
Interesting observations Dan.
Well, for one thing, if NT Wright is correct that Paul was a zealot Shammaite Pharisee, then it would signal his rejection of that kind of violent zeal for purity.
Alternatively, it could be connected with his deep awareness of his manumission to Christ, or that Christ himself humbled himself in becoming incarnate, so Paul should also be ready to take on “the form of a slave”. Or maybe it’s all of these things. Or none.
But it’s a very interesting suggestion. I always just thought he went by Paul because he was the apostle to the Gentiles and it was a Gentile name. But now that you mention all this I think there’s probably something more to it.
I edited the original post to include a link to a number of members of the Paul(l)us clan. They include at least one general, several consuls, and someone who married into the imperial family. In other words, they probably owned slaves, lots and lots of them.
It would be a really odd name for a Jew to just pick for appealing to gentile audiences. Does the Saul/Paul similarity even exist in ancient Greek? I’d be curious to know.
Well, in terms of spelling it does (Saulos/Paulos)… is that what you meant?
Yeah, pretty much. But then I wouldn’t choose, say, a Chinese name based on whether it rhymed with my English name. And I wouldn’t choose the name of a powerful political family either.
Interesting. Now we’re actually getting into my area of specific ‘expertise’.
You may be surprised to discover that you’ve come very close to articulating what is a very common (perhaps even the dominant) hypothesis regarding Paul’s background, as it has been developed by Pauline scholarship. In fact, as early as 392-393 CE, St. Jerome asserted that Paul was the son of a slave who had been manumitted and become a freedman (cf. De Viris Illustribus V). Jerome even asserts that Paul’s family was from Galilee, but there is really no way for us to verify or refute that suggestion based upon the Pauline material (and, given further legends that were spread about Paul — things like The Acts of Paul and Thecla — we should be cautious about placing too much value in a late, unverified source).
Thus, I think you’re pretty bang-on in seeing Paul as the descendent of a Jewish freedman (this, as I said above, is a common suggestion amongst Pauline scholars). However, I think you’re psychological hypothesis regarding Paul’s motive for changing names is more problematical. When dealing with Paul, we need to ground our thoughts in the Pauline epistles, and I don’t think you’ll find much support for what you’re saying there (further, it also risks being a part of the so-called ‘Lutheran’ portrayal of Paul that vilifies Paul the Jew, while promoting Paul the Christian — something that Paul himself never seemd to do, as those like Krister Stendahl and the NPP have adequately demonstrated). Contextually, it’s questionable as to whether or not being a descendant of a freedman is all that shaming. Granted, freedmen had low status, but Roman citizenship carried very high status (although it is interesting that we only have that bit of information from secondary material — from Acts — and not from Paul himself), as would Paul’s status as a citizen of Tarsus.
Determining the potential significance of these things is even more difficult. There is a lengthy debate about the social status of Paul and the members of his churches (stretching, at least, from Deissmann, and Kautsky, through Judge, Malharbe, and Theissen, and others who continue to engage in more sociological readings of the Pauline literature). On the one hand, it is much easier to discern that status of Paul’s congregations than it is to discern the status that Paul himself had (although both Paul and his companions seem to share in some degree of ’status dissonance’ — regardless of whatever status they actually held). On the other hand, once we have engaged in our best efforts to discern those things, one must understand those things within the context of the first century Roman empire, and then try to determine what the implications are for Christian congregations and their status within contemporary society.
I don’t want to flop all of my cards, but this is some of what I am working on in my thesis.
Perhaps I should clarify, I don’t think he’s vilifying his Jewishness as much as he is acknowledging where he comes from as being a former slave. It’s not so much that he was anti-Jewish after he became Christian but rather that he was probably anti-Gentile and anti-Roman beforehand (cf: Andrew’s comment above about zealotry).
I also think, upon further reflection, that it’s erroneous to think of it as a name change for, if the slave hypothesis is true, Paul would have been part of his full name. It would be akin to you or I starting to blog under a middle name or a surname or for a contemporary example, Josephus insisting everyone call him Flavius.
The other reason that I could see for Paul going by his Roman name is pragmatic. Freedmen and their descendants were clients of the man that had freed them (and his descendants). The ability to do right by a large number of clients was a status thing for the Romans, by announcing the patron-client connection (in a society where that was paramount) Paul is looking to trade on that connection.
I made some edits to the original post as my explanations of Roman family names were frankly sloppy before.
Dan,
A few quick points:
(1) I wasn’t suggesting that Paul was vilifying his own Jewishness — rather, I was suggesting that your picture risks contributing to the picture crafted by those who vilify Paul as a Jew. This, however, is a secondary concern.
(2) My primary concern is how this position is related to the genuine Pauline epistles that we have. Unless you can demonstrate the connections, your hypothesis strikes me as interesting but unworkable because it seems to argue from silence (thus, it’s similar to what Jerome says — it makes us think, ‘hmmm, that’s an interesting thought’ but we can’t really go to far with it).
(3) I disagree with your suggestion re: Paul’s hypothetical pragmatism in relation to patron-client relations. I believe that Paul significantly challenges patron-client relationships — indeed, I think he creates communities based upon the notion of fictive kinship and, when truly applied, this would totally overturn the patron-client form of relating to one another (this, by the way, is the primary reason why Paul refused to be financially supported by the wealthy in Corinth — they were still caught up in a patron-client mode of thought, and he refused to treated as their client). Paul is decidedly not pragmatic when it comes to these things. (For more on this I refer you to deSilva’s Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity and Tellbe’s Paul Between Synagogue and State, both of which are exceptional books.)
(4) Andrew’s comment needs to be clarified. While I agree that Paul was likely anti-Roman, he should not be called a “zealot”. Rather, he was a zealous (Shammaite?) Pharisee (Wright, by the way, isn’t alone in thinking this way, as scholars as diverse as Dunn, Bruce, Bornkamm, Donaldson, Gorman, Hurtado, and Marxsen also make this point). Of course, there are connections between the zealot movement and those who use the language of zeal — notably the willingness to use violence against pagans and compromised Jews –but to call Paul a zealot is to overstate the case (and I don’t think Wright actually ever does apply the word “zealot” to Paul).
Dan,
Re: (3) I was thinking of Paul’s appeal to citizenship to avail himself of legal privileges. He may be set on overturning the Roman order, but he’ll use their own laws against them. I imagine that it would be a different thing to reject an offer like that from wealthy believers (I’ve seen a rich family try to use the collection plate to force a pastor’s hand before) than it would for Paul to avail himself of a relationship into which he was born in situations where it may have gotten him a better hearing with pagan officials.
Fair enough. Although it is worth wondering why Paul never refers to this citizenship. We only find comments about Paul’s Roman citizenship in Acts. Why does Luke mention this and Paul never does (even in his autobiographical sections — and sections where he mentions things he could boast in)?
When Paul talks about things he could boast in (in Philippians at least) he’s talking about righteousness vis-a-vis the OT law. I don’t think he’s proud of his Roman citizenship, rather I think he sees it as a tool. It’s like having a drivers license. It’s useful but there’s no point in bragging about it (if you’re over 16). The same could be said about a patron-client relationship into which you were born.
I’ll (mostly) grant you the point regarding Phil 3 (and, by implication, Gal 1-2) but it is interesting that Paul never mentions his citizenship when he is defending himself, and his status, in the conflict with Corinth.
Further, Phil might be worth a second glance since Paul is exploring issues of citizenship within that epistle. In this regard I’ll simply refer you to the Tellbe work I already mentioned, and also to Oakes’ commentary on Philippians.
That said, I don’ think the drivers license analogy is very useful. A closer analogy would be somebody granted VIP, or privileged, status within contemporary structures of power. That is the sort of thing that people would — and did — brag about.
I think we’re sort of getting into vague territory in terms of figuring out how Paul regarded his citizenship. I’d even suspect that his feelings about it may have changed from time to time.
Slightly OT: I’m rereading a bunch of Roman history now as a function of this discussion though, and it should be fodder for more posts. I think a big mistake that a lot of Christian commentators make is to view the Greco-Roman world as a lump of Roman military might and Hellenic culture. It was not and many Romans weren’t eager to import Greek culture (cf: M. Porcius Cato), and I think that this creates some misreadings of the NT.
Exactly! Any discussion about how Paul regarded his citizenship is bound to be “vague territory”.
I agree with you that misreadings of the Graeco-Roman world in Paul’s day will lead us to misread the NT. For myself, I’ve been reading a lot of Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, Dio Cassius, and a plethora of secondary sources (both NT scholars, and scholars who have specialized in the study of the Graeco-Roman era). I find this sort of study to be immensely fruitful for how I understand Paul.
Of course, the other side of this is reading up on Second Temple Judaism and, in particular, Jewish apocalypticism, which means reading the OT pseudepigrapha and those who specialize in that material.
Um, all that to say, I’ve been reading obsessively for my thesis (and my typed-up bullet notes — done in size 10 font, with the margins of the pages pushed all the way out — are already longer than my thesis needs to be… this might be a problem).
Brevity is the essence of wit – that’s your mantra.