Obviously his transformation on the road to Damascus was so thoroughgoing, the name change shows he has become a different person, at some important level.
How often, or acceptable, or demanded, was that for the early Christians?
1b) For more modern, even contemporary Christians, what’s up with “multiple” naming? I’ve read of nuns taking on new names (mandatory?) some even of male saints. My “Hebrew” name is Moshe–that’s what God calls me when we’re chatting–on my ketubah (wedding contract) and perhaps on my future gravestone. But such is a post-Enlightenment accommodation of secular registry and my religious/cultural one.
(Note “post-Enlightenment,” which is actually pushing it. My father’s grandfather, being a Jew in Hungary, was not allowed to even have a last name. “Soandso son of soandso”–which, in fact, ironically satisfied the religious requirements as well.
As a matter of pure onomastics: why Paul and not Fred? Surely someone must have thought of that question, and come up with a homiletic explanation, at least. (Cf. “my Rock/Peter.”)
How did “Paul” ring in the ears of the Jewish and Gentile society?
It would seem, therefore, that his choice of name had more to do with his mission of preaching to Gentiles than with the circumstances of his conversion itself.
Huh. A very big huh, almost a wow. Isn’t my understanding (although OP still has a lot of life left to it) that his “conversion–>name change” the one that most everybody has?
I seem to recall having been taught something to that effect in Sunday school many moons ago. I suppose “He took on a new name when he became a Christian” is a simpler and more impactful way to approach the subject than “He possessed several legal names due to the political situation of the time and chose to be known by one that would sound more familiar to his intended audience”.
I don’t know that there was a concept of “legal name” at the time (or, for FWIS) at any time until much, much later. A name in fundamentally a matter of fact, not law; your name is what people call you and if different people call you by different names then you have two (or more) names.
Saul/Paul was presumably called “Saul” when addressed in Aramaic and “Paul” when addressed in Greek. With the shift in his evangelisation to non-Jews, and his missionary journey, presumably Greek came to be used more and more.
Maybe “Saint Saul” doesn’t roll off the tongue as well?
It’s not very clear to me what’s going on there. We get an origin story for an apostle (missionary) called Saul, and then it shifts to stories about a Paul, and it seems to be the same guy, and the same as the writer of several epistles. :shrug:
I’ve seen it suggested that he was given the name after Sergius Paulus, who is mentioned in Acts 13:7, two verses ahead of the sudden name switch:
Now that you mention it, it is a bit odd that the book of Acts goes from referring to him as “Saul” to referring to him as “Paul” without any more explanation or transition than the bit you quoted.
Yep, names are traditionally only descriptors of a person, not fixed and exact formulas that must be spelled and specified exactly under penalty of law. This has been a bedrock principle of Anglo-American Common Law, as seen in the famous case In re McUlta. If you say that your name is McUlta and others recognize you on the street by shouting “Hi McUlta!”, then you are McUlta as far as the law is concerned, and the fact that your birth certificate, passport, high school diploma, or whatever might have a different name is a practical problem, not a legal one.
Sovereign Citizens are aware of this and try to twist it out of place by making trivial “changes” to their name (e.g. placing them in all caps or adding punctuation) and then claiming that any other form is invalid. Since a name is only a descriptor, any reasonable description of a person suffices. I’m pretty sure that there is a specific legal principle behind that, but I can’t remember where. Anyone know?
St. Paul had a very difficult relationship with the Jewish Christians running things in Jerusalem. he basically made up a lot of his doctrine himself, called himself an apostle who did not need to consult the Jerusalem temple clique, and even warned about them smearing him or misleading his flock in a few epistles. He had a few run-ins with James and friends when he did get “summoned” to Jerusalem to try and iron things out, and spent much of his time on the road. The real apostles were generally more interested in telling Jews about the messiah, and could not care much about the gentiles. Fortunately there were more gentiles than Jews, and combined with the massacres that followed the rebellion in 70AD, Paul’s version of the cult won the day.
So yes, he spent most of his time with gentiles where the name “Paul” was applicable. the fascetious answer is that after he had a stroke on the road to Damascus, maybe besides hallucinating voices and going blind he also has speech problems and couldn’t pronounce “Saul”.
Some Christian orders ask their members to take a new name; this is an indication that the person ahs left behind the baggage of their previous life and will start anew with the new name, new life, new calling. Typically this is the monastic types, like nuns and monks, rather than parish priests(?). Most of the cardinals we read about, for example, retain their full names, while the monks that taught at the school I went to had chosen new names when they were invested. IIRC this is part of the logic why the pope picks a new name, instead of going by the name they had previously.
It’s not so much a request as a chance, if a member of those orders wants to keep using their usual name they can. And it’s not only religious orders: for example, in the RCC you can choose at Confirmation a name different from your baptismal one. I chose to reuse the baptismal name (albeit in its usual abbreviation rather than the full original version, think Marybeth for Mary Elizabeth) but some of my co-confirmants used something else.
It’s my understanding that in the case of the pope, it’s more a matter of tradition - Mercurius thought it was inappropriate for the pope to have a pagan name when he was elected in the 6th century, so he decided to start calling himself John II instead, and most of the subsequent popes have followed suit.
I think he’s often confused with Simon, who became Peter, the rock on whom Jesus built his church. Simon Peter’s name change is more religiously significant, I believe, and often people think Paul’s name change must have a similar significance.
I had a choice? At my confirmation my step-mother just told me what my confirmation name would be. I don’t know off-hand of anyone who used their baptismal name.
And Attila the Hun, Oscar the Grouch, David the Gnome, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Peter the Hermit, Simon the Zealot, John the Baptist, John the Beloved, William the Conqueror, Edward the Confessor, Æthelred the Unready, Cnut the Great, Edgar the Ætheling, Robert the Bruce, Robert the Strong, Jack the Ripper, Philip the Arab, Dumuzid the Shepherd, Darius the Great, and James the Just.
I realize you probably already know this, but your step-mother is a bit bossy. Also, whomever taught your Confirmation catechesis dropped the ball on the names thing.
Both of my parents got confirmed way back when it was common to get confirmed before getting First Communion; both got identical baptismal and confirmation names, as did their siblings.
That’s interesting. I went to parochial school, and we were never once informed that we could change our baptismal names at confirmation, and I don’t know anyone who did. Your “confirmation name” was essentially an additional name added to your existing name; for most people it would have been a second middle name.
I had three aunts who were nuns. The one I knew best, my mother’s older half-sister, took the name Mary Josepha as her “religious name,” and that was the name I first knew her as. Later the practice of her order (Sisters of the Presentation) changed and she went back to using her birth name, Margaret Mary.
