"Saul who is also called Paul" - Michael Compton and the Patristic interpretation of "Paul"

I'm currently reading through different essays in "In Dominico Eloquio: In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken." Recently I read through Michael Compton's essay on the Patristic interpretation of the names of the Apostle Paul. He writes:

What is the relationship between these two names? To many Christians (and non-Christians as well), the answer to the question has been and continues to be quite obvious. For them there is, in fact, no problem at all: Saul the persecuting Pharisee received the name Paul when he converted to Christianity. I confess that this is the answer I was first taught, and I have met many who were taught likewise.

Indeed, this was something I had always assumed as well. Saul isn't used anywhere in the Epistles and when one reads Acts, Luke phases out using Saul in favor of using Paul. Thus, it was natural to assume some kind of a name change had occurred. Compton's article focuses on a few ancient interpreters who shared this view - Jerome, Augustine, etc. Though Origen had already stated that no name change had taken place. Compton focuses especially on Chrysostom, whom Compton believes is responding to the "triumphalist" view of Jerome. Essentially, Jerome's view was that because Sergius Paulus was Paul's first convert (Acts 13:7), Saul took Paul's name.(cf. De Viris Illustribus 5 (PL 23:615) quoted on pg 58). Kind of an odd interpretation, but there you have it.

The article also mentions G.A. Harrer who espoused the theory that Paul was "the Apostle's cognomen while 'Saul' was his signum."(pg 53) I wonder if anyone has anything to say about that, because it seems like a convincing theory to me.

Margaret M. Mitchell on St. John Chrysostom

Mitchell's book The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation is an absolutely fascinating read. On a personal note, I find the ancient way of reading texts more refreshing and far more interesting. I've yet to have to wade through 100 pages of an ancient redaction theory before any kind of commentary is provided. Academically, I enjoy reading these texts because of the light it sheds on ancient epistolary theory and hermeneutics in general. Consider Chrysostom's comment on the "inexperienced" reader reading a text:

και επιστολην ο μεν απειρος λαβων, χαρτην ηγησεται και μελαν ειναι. ο δε εμπειδος και φωνης αχοθσεται, και διαλεξεται τω αποντι.

"The inexperienced reader when taking up a letter will consider it to be papyrus and ink; but the experienced reader will both hear a voice, and converse with the one who is absent."[1]


According to Mitchell, it was common to see a letter as a conversation between the reader and the author.

Most interesting in Chrysostom's "author-centered hermeneutic"[2] is the idea of imitation. Essentially, Chrysostom is the best interpreter of Paul because of how much he loves Paul. Chrysostom states that one should look to Paul as a "αρχετυπος ειχων", an archetypal image. This is the "accurate portrait from which copies are to be made."[3] Paul served as the examplar into which Chrysostom tried to mold himself. Mitchell states that imitation is the ultimate goal, and that creating a portrait from the text is the task of hermeneutics.

___
[1] Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville: WJK Press, 2002) 49 (quoted from hom. In 1 Cor. 7.2 [61.56])
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid

Brilliant Exegesis

This is really a brilliant exegesis of Matthew 16. Groundbreaking and revolutionary. I suspect this will shock the world of New Testament studies overnight! (HT: Chris Tilling)