Better Call Paul “Saul”: Literary Models and a Lukan Innovation

JBL 138, no. 2 (2019): 433–449 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1382.2019.649979 Better Call Paul “Saul”: Literary Models and a Lukan Innovation michael kochenash [email protected] Yuelu Academy, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan 410082 P. R. China This article argues that Luke’s characterization of Saul as a god-fighter can be read as modeled on the biblical King Saul and on Pentheus from Euripides’s Bacchae, and that the characterization of Paul in Acts 13:4–17:15 can be read as modeled on the Bacchae’s Dionysus. My approach, appealing to the Bacchae as a literary model, avoids a weakness of similar interpretations of the name Saul, which date to the early church, that it is a reference to King Saul. Saul remains “Saul” after the Damascus Road experience in order to demonstrate the appropriate response of one found to be a god-fighter, emulating Pentheus’s model. Philip Schaff ’s 1869 judgment regarding the relation of the name Saul to the apostle Paul remains the closest thing to a scholarly consensus on the issue. Schaff asserts, “The original name of the Apostle was Saul,” and he “used it among the Jews, at least before he entered upon his independent apostolic labors among the Gentiles.”1 The name Paul was selected, he says, because it was “the nearest allusive and alliterative Hellenistic and Latin equivalent for Saul, and because it was already familiar to the Greeks and Romans; while Saul, as a proper name, was unknown to them.”2 Thus, according to this view, the historical Paul was originally named Saul, and he began to use the name Paul during his first major missionary venture into the diaspora.3 It would have been logical, advocates of this explanation claim, for 1 Philip Schaff, “Biblical Monographs: Saul and Paul,” MQR 51 (1869): 422–24, here 422. See also, influentially, William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897), 81–88. 2 Schaff, “Biblical Monographs,” 422. According to Martin Hengel, “The name ‘Paul’ itself is very rare among non-Romans in the Greek east and does not occur at all among contemporary Jews,” and “with only one late exception Saul(os) does not appear among Diaspora Jews” (“The Pre-Christian Paul,” in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak [London: Routledge, 1992], 29–52, here 31). 3 See, e.g., Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2 vols., EKKNT 5 (Zurich: Benziger, 1986), 2:25; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 433 This content downloaded from 434 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) Paul to use a Hebraic name among Jews and a Latin name among gentiles, especially in a Mediterranean culture where it was not unusual for individuals to use multiple names.4 This view, of course, is dependent in crucial ways on Luke’s presentation of Paul in Acts, the only independent attestation to Paul’s use of the name Saul. Nevertheless, the Acts narrative neither attributes the name selection to Paul nor indicates that it was contextually motivated. In fact, it is the narrator who shifts from referring to the apostle as “Saul” to referring to him as “Paul.” The narrative even includes counterexamples to the claim that Paul’s ministerial contexts dictated the uses of “Saul” and “Paul.” For example, when Paul addresses a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, speaking to them in “the Hebrew language,” Luke refers to him only as “Paul” (Acts 21:37–22:21)—with one important exception. In narrating his Damascus Road experience, Paul repeats Jesus’s and Ananias’s addresses to him as “Saul” (22:7, 13). Paul subsequently follows this same practice when renarrating this story before King Agrippa and Berenice (26:14). Accordingly, it appears that narrative chronology was the salient factor in determining which name Luke used: for events occurring prior to the Cyprus narrative in Acts 13, even when retold later in the narrative, Luke uses “Saul”; for events subsequent to the Cyprus narrative, Luke uses “Paul.” The identification of this pattern, however, does not explain it. One attempted explanation, rejected in 1869 by Schaff and subsequently by many scholars in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is that Saul of Tarsus adopted the name Paul as “a memorial of the conversion of Sergius Paulus” in Acts 13.5 As Stephen B. Chapman observes, the suggestion “that Saul would have taken Sergius Paulus’s name” is odd, “since Saul was already a free Roman citizen.”6 1992), 227; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015), 2:2019–22. 4 See, e.g., Walter Schmithals, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, ZBK 3.2 (Zurich: TVZ, 1982), 123; Hengel, “Pre-Christian Paul,” 31; T. J. Leary, “Paul’s Improper Name,” NTS 38 (1992): 467–69; Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 90. Some argue that Luke’s name usage reflects his sources. See C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., ICC 34 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–1998), 1:609. See also n. 21 below. 5 Schaff, “Biblical Monographs,” 423. For other rejections of this hypothesis, see, e.g., Leary, “Paul’s Improper Name”; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 499–500. Fitzmyer states his judgment plainly, “It is sheer coincidence that Saul happens to bear the same Roman name as the proconsul” (499). The rejection of this theory might even be detected in the writings of John Chrysostom. See Michael Compton, “From Saul to Paul: Patristic Interpretation of the Names of the Apostle,” in In Dominico Eloquio / In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken, ed. Paul M. Blowers et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 50–68, here 64. For arguments in favor of this explanation, see, e.g., Origen, Comm. Rom. on 1:1; Jerome, Vir. ill. 5; Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 2:7. 6 Stephen B. Chapman, “Saul/Paul: Onomastics, Typology, and Christian Scripture,” in The This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 435 Indeed, Luke explicitly presents Paul as a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:25– 29). Additionally, it is Luke, not Paul, who transitions from “Saul” to “Paul” in Acts 13, without explicitly connecting the latter to the name of the Cypriot proconsul.7 Even so, the notion that there is some significance to Luke’s introduction of the name Paul in a narrative episode featuring Sergius Paulus persists.8 For instance, Brigitte Kahl insists, “It is hardly a coincidence that the most sophisticated writer in the New Testament mentions the change of name precisely at the moment when Saul makes his first high-ranking Roman convert,” who also happens to share his name.9 In addition to the attribution of the name Saul to Paul, the book of Acts also offers the only independent attestation to Paul’s Roman citizenship. It is not uncommon, however, for scholars to appeal to the latter in order to explain the logistics of the former. Gustave A. Harrer published an influential article on this topic in 1933, arguing that readers should expect Paul, a Roman citizen, to have had three names: a praenomen (given name), a nomen (name of family gens), and a cognomen (family name).10 Some Romans, however, also had a signum (nickname). “Paul” and “Saul” are probably the apostle’s cognomen and signum, he says, given their “similarity of sound.”11 Being a Latin name, “Paul” is more likely to have been his cognomen than “Saul,” which is consequently identified as Paul’s signum. Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 214–43, here 221. He also observes that freed slaves would adopt the praenomen and nomen of their patron; if Paul were following this practice, he would have taken “L. Sergius” from L. Sergius Paul(l)us, not Paul(l)us. See also, e.g., Leary, “Paul’s Improper Name”; G. A. Harrer, “Saul Who Is Also Called Paul,” HTR 33 (1940): 19–33, here 19. None of these three scholars interrogates Luke’s claim— unsubstantiated in Paul’s letters—that Paul was a Roman citizen, and so they regard the claim that Paul’s name follows Roman customs to be a natural one. So also Keener, Acts, 2:2019: “It is highly unlikely that Paul would have received this name [Paul] in addition to his traditional Jewish birth name if he were not a Roman citizen.” 7 Chapman clearly and—in my evaluation—correctly differentiates the historical Paul from the Lukan Paul here: “literary reasons were responsible for the report of the apostle’s two names being placed where it is and not any historical speculations about the relationship between Sergius Paulus and Saul” (“Saul/Paul,” 222). See also Schaff, “Biblical Monographs,” 423. 8 See, e.g., Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 100; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:616; Keener, Acts, 2:2021; Carl R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), 262. 9 Brigitte Kahl, “Acts of the Apostles: Pro(to)-Imperial Script and Hidden Transcript,” in In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 137–56, here 144. She concludes that “as Paul sets out on his mission to the peoples of the Roman world he is, at least symbolically, ‘baptized’ into the Roman order” (“Acts of the Apostles,” 145). 10 Harrer, “Saul Who Is Also Called Paul.” See Leary, “Paul’s Improper Name,” 467. 11 See Harrer, “Saul Who Is Also Called Paul,” 22 n. 11. This content downloaded from 436 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) The credibility, however, of appealing to Paul’s Roman citizenship in support of the claim that Paul’s names follow Roman conventions is questionable since the historicity of his Roman citizenship is itself far from certain—even doubtful.12 Conversely, although the historicity of many aspects of Paul’s life can be debated, perhaps the most secure datum is that his name was Paul. Despite this consideration, it is not unusual for scholars to present arguments that explain the literary significance of Luke’s use of the name Paul. Michael Compton writes, “Given that there is a change from Saul, a new question arises: What is the significance of the new name ‘Paul’?”13 This interpretive tendency has deep historical roots. For example, Schaff summarizes the state of Lukan scholarship in the midnineteenth century: “The motive for adopting [Paul] in place of Saul is still a subject of dispute.”14 Craig Keener echoes this line of inquiry in the second decade of the twenty-first century with a subheading in his Acts commentary, “Why the Name ‘Paul’?,” as if this were Luke’s decision rather than historical reality.15 In a 2006 article, Sean McDonough even attempts to revive a literary reading of Acts advocated by Augustine (Spir. et litt. 12) that foregrounds the meaning of the Latin word paulus, “small.”16 Although it would not be unusual for Luke to create a wordplay on the basis of the meaning of Paul’s name (see, for comparison, Matthew’s use of Jesus’s name in Matt 1:21), as C. K. Barrett suggests, “There may be more to be gained by asking why Luke had hitherto used the name Saul.”17 Indeed, to quote Jerome MurphyO’Connor, “The name Saul . . . is known to us only through Luke, whose credibility cannot be taken for granted, because his usage smacks of artificiality.”18 Given 12 See, e.g., Wolfgang Stegemann, “War der Apostel Paulus ein römischer Bürger?,” ZNW 78 (1987): 200–229; Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 555–56; Thomas E. Phillips, “How Did Paul Become a Roman ‘Citizen’? Reading Acts in Light of Pliny the Younger,” in Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know?, ed. Joseph Verheyden and John S. Kloppenborg, BTS 29 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 171–89. See also the sources cited in Pervo, Acts, 555 n. 45. Of course, since Luke explicitly identifies Paul as a Roman citizen, it is still possible to argue that Luke created the name Saul as a signum and modeled its usage on the naming customs of Roman citizens or that the historical Paul did use the name Saul—though not because he was a Roman citizen—and Luke again models its usage on the Roman naming customs. Neither suggestion is particularly satisfying. 13 Compton, “From Saul to Paul,” 57. 14 Schaff, “Biblical Monographs,” 422. 15 Keener, Acts, 2:2019. There is no doubt, of course, that Keener accepts the name Paul as historical. 16 Sean M. McDonough, “Small Change: Saul to Paul, Again,” JBL 125 (2006): 390–91, https://doi.org/10.2307/27638366. See also n. 22 below. 17 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:616. He suggests that “the answer may be that he wished to show that the well-known Christian Paul had deep roots in Judaism. This, he may have considered, was now sufficiently demonstrated.” 18 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 42. This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 437 Luke’s creative use of names elsewhere, it is not clear why the possibility that Luke created this alias for Paul is not taken more seriously.19 Even Murphy-O’Connor ultimately concludes, “Attractive as is this hypothesis, it is not likely that Luke invented the name of Saul.”20 Although many Lukan scholars continue to affirm the historical Paul’s use of the name Saul, given the considerations discussed above—the pattern determining the narrative distribution of “Saul” and “Paul,” the doubtful historicity of Paul’s Roman citizenship, and Luke’s proclivity to use names in creative ways—it may be more credible to claim that this naming is a Lukan innovation.21 In this article, I argue that this claim’s credibility is strengthened when Luke’s characterizations of Saul/Paul are read as influenced by two literary models, 1 Samuel and Euripides’s Bacchae. Doing so not only explains Luke’s designation of Paul as “Saul”; it also makes sense of why the name transition occurs in Acts 13 rather than during or immediately after his Damascus Road experience. Prior to Acts 13, Saul is characterized as a persecutor of the early church and as a god-fighter, modeled on King Saul and Pentheus (the king of Thebes in the Bacchae). Saul’s encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus presents an opportunity to emulate the example of Pentheus. Beginning in Acts 13, however, Luke’s characterization of Paul imitates that of Dionysus in the Bacchae, facing opposition while heralding a religious movement. I. Saul of Tarsus and King Saul It is not uncommon for Lukan scholars to observe that the name Saul (Σαῦλος/ Σαούλ) can remind readers of the first king of Israel.22 In fact, King Saul is mentioned 19 On Luke’s creative use of names, see, e.g., Dennis R. MacDonald, “Luke’s Eutychus and Homer’s Elpenor: Acts 20:7–12 and Odyssey 10–12,” JHC 1 (1994): 5–24; Michael Kochenash, “You Can’t Hear ‘Aeneas’ without Thinking of Rome,” JBL 136 (2017): 667–85, https://doi .org/10.15699/jbl.1363.2017.288382; Kochenash, “Political Correction: Luke’s Tabitha (Acts 9:36– 43), Virgil’s Dido, and Cleopatra,” NovT 60 (2018): 1–13. 20 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 43. 21 It is certainly possible that the literary strategy that I discuss in this article existed in a source used by Luke. That possibility, however, is not falsifiable. According to Richard I. Pervo, Ernst Haenchen’s judgment that whatever sources Luke utilized are irrecoverable “has attained the status of critical orthodoxy” (Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists [Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006], 347–58, here 348; see Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971], esp. 24–34, 81–90). Moreover, Haenchen rejects proposals that attribute the distribution of Paul’s names to different sources (399 n. 1). 22 The earliest extant manuscript of the Acts of the Apostles (P45) uses only Σαούλ (as King Saul’s name always appears in the Septuagint), never Σαῦλος. See Harrer, “Saul Who Is Also Called Paul.” Of course, other Jewish writings predating Acts use spellings for King Saul’s name that differ This content downloaded from 438 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) only once in the entire New Testament—notably, in Paul’s speech in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:21) following the Cyprus narrative, which features Luke’s transition from “Saul” to “Paul” (13:9). Paul rehearses very little about King Saul: the Israelites asked God for a king during the time of Samuel, God gave them Saul, Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, Saul reigned for forty years, and then God removed him in favor of David (13:21–22). In this minimalist outline of Saul’s significance in the history of Israel, the reference to his tribal affiliation may seem gratuitous. Nevertheless, readers familiar with Paul’s letters—and there is reason to affirm that Luke himself was familiar with a collection of Pauline letters—may interpret this notice as affirming the association of King Saul with his Lukan namesake, Paul, who was also a Benjaminite (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5).23 These observations—which suggest that Luke may have used King Saul as a model for his characterization of Paul—can be supplemented by comparing Luke’s presentation of Saul earlier in Acts with King Saul’s persecution of David in 1 Samuel.24 A young man named Saul is introduced at the end of Acts 7, just as the Jerusalem leaders are stoning Stephen to death (Acts 7:58–60). Following Stephen’s execution, “a great persecution [διωγμός] began against the church in Jerusalem” (8:1), and “Saul was ravaging the church,” imprisoning both men and women (8:3).25 Saul is later described as “breathing [ἐμπνέων] threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (9:1). Shortly thereafter, when Jesus confronts Saul on the road to Damascus, Jesus asks him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting [διώκεις] me?” (9:4). After Saul asks who the speaker is, Jesus clarifies, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting [διώκεις]” (9:5). This language recurs in Paul’s retellings of these events later in Acts (22:4–5, 7–8, 19; 26:10–11, 14–15). The Septuagint version of 1 Samuel uses similar language to describe King Saul. Saul “seethes in anger [ἐθυμώθη ὀργῇ]” (1 Kgdms 19:22; 20:30). David “flees” from Saul (19:10, 18; 20:1; 21:11; 22:1; 27:1– 4). Saul actively “seeks” to kill David (19:2, 10; 20:1; 23:14–15; 26:2; 27:1). The narrative even describes Saul as pursuing David using the verb καταδιώκω. Among from the Septuagint’s “Σαούλ” (e.g., Josephus uses Σαoῦλος [Antiquities, passim]; see also Eupolemus, frag. 2, apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.2). Previous studies that also foreground the connection of Saul of Tarsus to King Saul include McDonough, “Small Change”; Chapman, “Saul/ Paul.” 23 For Luke’s use of a collection of Pauline letters, see Pervo, Dating Acts, 51–147; Ryan S. Schellenberg, “The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts,” JBL 134 (2015): 193–213, https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1341.2015.2837. 24 The citations of 1 Samuel that follow are from the LXX and so are designated as 1 Kingdoms. For the Greek text of 1 Kingdoms, I rely on the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition of the LXX. For the relationship of Acts to 1–4 Kingdoms, see, e.g., Thomas L. Brodie, “The Accusing and Stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8–13) as One Component of the Stephen Text (Acts 6:9–14; 7:58a),” CBQ 45 (1983): 417–32; Samson Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts, WUNT 2/366 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 91–162; David Paul Moessner, Luke the Historian of Israel’s Legacy, Theologian of Israel’s ‘Christ’: A New Reading of the ‘Gospel Acts’ of Luke, BZNW 182 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 33–38. 25 All translations of biblical passages are my own. This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 439 these instances, David asks Saul, “Whom are you pursuing [καταδιώκεις]?” (24:15), and “Why does my lord pursue [καταδιώκει] his servant?” (26:18).26 David’s protests, of course, recall an anomalous element in Luke’s narrative. Although Luke describes Paul as persecuting only the church (Acts 8:3; 9:1; cf. 9:13–14, 21; 22:4–5, 19–20; 26:10–11), Jesus insists that he himself is the object of Saul’s persecution (9:4–5; 22:7–8; 26:14–15). In Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts, Jesus is given a number of designations—of importance here is his identification as a descendant of King David. Born in the City of David (Luke 2:4, 11) into the house of David (1:27; 3:31), Jesus is even promised the throne of his ancestor David (1:32).27 In Luke 18:38–39, Jesus is twice identified as “Son of David.” Even more significant for this discussion, Paul himself identifies Jesus as David’s “posterity” (σπέρματος) only two verses after discussing King Saul (Acts 13:23). Foregrounding this identification, Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9 can be construed as persecuting the Son of David, a schematization that echoes King Saul’s persecution of David throughout 1 Kgdms 18–31. Accordingly, Saul’s persecution of Jesus in Acts not only reiterates the theme of the persecution of prophets (Acts 7:52); it also specifically evokes Saul’s persecution of David. There is thus good reason, lacking independent corroboration, to regard the identification of Paul as “Saul” as a Lukan innovation—just as King Saul persecuted David, so Saul of Tarsus persecutes the Son of David. Nevertheless, Luke’s use of the name Saul does not cease during his Damascus Road encounter with Jesus. Therefore, while Luke’s use of the name Saul appears to have been influenced by the LXX narratives featuring King Saul and David, another model may also have guided Luke’s characterization of Saul—one that can explain why Luke transitions from “Saul” to “Paul” in Acts 13 rather than in Acts 9.28 II. Saul of Tarsus and Pentheus According to his speech in Acts 22, Paul was “educated with precision regarding our ancestral law at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel, of course, appears at an earlier point in the narrative. After “the apostles” are arrested on the 26 Other uses of καταδιώκω to describe Saul’s persecution of David include 1 Kgdms 23:25, 28; 25:29. It is noteworthy that Paul informs readers of his letters that he persecuted the early church, even using διώκω verbs (Gal 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6; 1 Cor 15:9; see also 1 Tim 1:13). 27 See Michael Kochenash, “ ‘Adam, Son of God’ (Luke 3.38): Another Jesus–Augustus Parallel in Luke’s Gospel,” NTS 64 (2018): 307–25. 28 The interpretation I advocate explains why Luke begins using a different name for Paul in Acts 13. As such, it differs from previous interpretations—dating to the early church—that also appeal to Paul’s similarities to King Saul in order to explain the presence of both names. According to Origen, “When the character of Saul, who persecuted Jesus, was changed, he was named Paul” (Or. 14.2 [PG 11:492]). See Compton, “From Saul to Paul,” 53–56. Compton attests that this interpretation “was widely held by the second half of the fourth century” (54). This content downloaded from 440 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) order of the high priest, they are subsequently released from the public prison by an angel of the Lord (5:17–21). The next day, upon finding them teaching in the temple again, temple guards apprehend them, and, following a testy exchange with the high priest, those in the Sanhedrin “were enraged [διεπρίοντο] and wanted to kill them” (5:33).29 Gamaliel addresses this impulse, warning those in the Sanhedrin against taking action against the apostles (5:34–39). He reasons that the Christian movement will fail even without their opposition—as did those of Judas the Galilean and Theudas—if it is not aligned with God’s purposes; but if it is so aligned then their opposition will itself be futile. In fact, he says, “you may even be found to be god-fighters [θεομάχοι]” (5:39). Immediately after identifying Gamaliel in Acts 22:3, Paul continues his speech by describing his persecution of the Way, his encounter with Jesus, and his interactions with Ananias (22:4–16). This speech is the second of three recitations of these events in Acts. It is perhaps no small irony that Luke first characterizes Saul as a god-fighter, persecuting Jesus and his followers, in Acts 8–9 and only subsequently reveals in Acts 22 that he is a former student of Gamaliel, who advised specifically against this activity in Acts 5. The concept of god-fighting recalls, above all else, the role Pentheus plays in Euripides’s Bacchae.30 In this tragedy, Dionysus returns from the east to his hometown, Thebes, bringing with him his own cult, in order to take revenge on his mother’s family for disbelieving her claim that Zeus had impregnated her. Pentheus, the ruler of Thebes and Dionysus’s cousin, opposes the religious movement that emerges, particularly because of its appeal among elite women, including his mother and aunts. Dionysus, disguised as a Lydian stranger who is the leader of the Dionysian cult, confronts Pentheus on account of his opposition. He eventually tricks Pentheus into dressing in drag and spying on the maenads’ activities. Pentheus’s espionage backfires when the maenads espy him and proceed—in a Bacchic frenzy —to dismember him. The narratives in Acts contain a number of parallels with this Euripidean tragedy, and these have not gone unnoticed by Lukan scholars.31 29 The verb διαπρίομαι occurs only twice in the New Testament, here and in Acts 7:54 to describe the outrage at Stephen’s speech. 30 On the influence of Euripides’s conception of “god-fighting” (θεομαχία), especially from the Bacchae, on Greek literature and thought, see J. C. Kamerbeek, “On the Conception of ΘΕΟΜΑΧΟΣ in Relation with Greek Tragedy,” Mnemosyne 1 (1948): 271–83. See, e.g., Euripides, Bacch. 45, 325, 1255–1256. See also Jeffrey A. Keiser, “Disarming Death: Theomachy and Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15,” in Coming Back to Life: The Permeability of Past and Present, Mortality and Immortality, Death and Life in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Frederick S. Tappenden and Carly Daniel-Hughes, with the assistance of Bradley N. Rice (Montreal: McGill University Library, 2017), 375–406. 31 For arguments that Luke’s characterization of Saul—especially in the Damascus Road accounts—imitates that of Pentheus in Euripides’s Bacchae, see, e.g., Wilhelm Nestle, “Anklänge an Euripides in der Apostelgeschichte,” Philologus 59 (1900): 46–57; Friedrich Smend, “Untersuchungen zu den Acta-Darstellungen von der Bekehrung des Paulus,” Angelos 1 (1925): 34–45; This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 441 Although Luke’s presentation of Saul appears to be modeled on King Saul, the influence of this imitation extends only to Saul’s name, his belligerent disposition, and his persecution of the Son of David. Luke supplements this characterization with language that recalls Pentheus’s persecution of Dionysus in the Bacchae.32 Doing so introduces, for those with the appropriate cultural competence, a particular logic: Jewish opposition to the proclamation about Jesus is akin to Pentheus’s opposition to Dionysus’s religious movement—and may incur a comparable punishment.33 Saul’s persecution of the Way and his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus are narrated three times in Acts, once by the narrator (Acts 8:3, 9:1–9) and twice by Paul (22:4–11; 26:9–18).34 Each of Paul’s versions contributes additional details that allude to Euripides’s Bacchae with increasing explicitness. Otto Weinreich, Gebet und Wunder: Zwei Abhundlungen zur Religions- und Literaturgeschichte, TBZW 5 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929); John Moles, “Jesus and Dionysus in The Acts of the Apostles and Early Christianity,” Hermathena 180 (2006): 65–104; Jan Schäfer, “Zur Funktion der Dionysosmysterien in der Apostelgeschichte: Eine intertextuelle Betrachtung der Berufungs- und Befreiungserzählungen in der Apostelgeschichte und der Bakchen des Euripides,” TZ 66 (2010): 199–222; Manfred Lang, “The Christian and the Roman Self: The Lukan Paul and a Roman Reading,” in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson with the assistance of Robert S. Kinney, WUNT 284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 151–73, esp. 162–65; Dennis R. MacDonald, “Classical Greek Poetry and the Acts of the Apostles: Imitations of Euripides’ Bacchae,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1, TENTS 9 (Leiden: Brill 2013), 463–96, esp. 477–78 and 480–81; Courtney J. P. Friesen, Reading Dionysus: Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians, STAC 95 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 207–35, esp. 213–17; Dennis R. MacDonald, Luke and Vergil: Imitations of Classical Greek Literature, New Testament and Greek Literature 2 (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 11–65, esp. 44, 52–58, and 62–63; Harold W. Attridge, “Paul and Pentheus: What’s in a Possible Allusion,” in Delightful Acts: New Essays on Canonical and Non-Canonical Acts, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Clare K. Rothschild, WUNT 391 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 7–18. See also Detlef Ziegler, Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte—Eine intertextuelle Lektüre, Religion und Biographie 18 (Berlin: LIT, 2008), 132–210; Detlev Dormeyer, “Bakchos in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Griechische Mythologie und frühes Christentum, ed. R. von Haehling (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2014), 287–301. 32 It is possible that Paul’s self-representation in his letters, especially 1 Corinthians, inspired the selection of these literary models. See Keiser, “Disarming Death.” 33 For examples of ancient readers possessing such cultural competence, see MacDonald, “Classical Greek Poetry,” esp. 490–96. 34 On the variations within these recitations, see esp. Beverly R. Gaventa, “The Overthrown Enemy: Luke’s Portrait of Paul,” in SBL Seminar 1985 Papers, ed. Kent H. Richards, SBLSP 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 439–49; Charles Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts,” JBL 100 (1981): 415–32, https://doi.org/10.2307/3265962. On the influence of Ezekiel, see Dale C. Allison Jr., “Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel,” JBL 135 (2016): 807–26, https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1354.2016.3138. This content downloaded from 442 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) Following the murder of Stephen, Luke describes the Jewish persecution of Christ-followers as narrowing from a general opposition to that of Saul specifically. Saul is manic in his opposition, “ravaging” (ἐλυμαίνετο) the church (Acts 8:3, 9:21) and imprisoning both men and women. The gender-inclusive nature of Saul’s persecution is compatible with that of Pentheus: those who joined Dionysus’s cult in Thebes included primarily women (but also, notably, Cadmus and Tiresias). Pentheus, moreover, imprisoned the disguised Dionysus. Immediately prior to Saul’s encounter with Jesus, Luke describes him as “breathing threats and murder [ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου] against the disciples of the Lord” (9:1) and as wanting to go to Damascus in order to bind (δέω) men and women who were followers of the Way (9:2, 14, 21). This language recalls Pentheus’s rage against Dionysus and the maenads: Pentheus ordered soldiers to bind (Bacch. 439, 505) the disguised Dionysus, was “breathing out fury [θυμὸν ἐκπνέων]” (620), had resolved to slaughter (φόνον) the maenads (796), and made “terrifying threats [ἀπειλῶν]” against them (856).35 On his way to Damascus, with the intention of persecuting followers of the Way, Saul is confronted by Jesus himself. Luke’s description of this account is certainly animated by language from the Septuagint.36 Nevertheless, this encounter follows the logic of the Bacchae: an opponent of a religious movement seeks to persecute its adherents but is opposed—and punished—by the divine figure at the center of that movement, who is also himself an object of the persecution. In both cases, the divine figures are the offspring of a mortal woman and a deity. Jesus’s punishment of Saul thus follows the Euripidean logic already evoked: there is a price to pay for god-fighting. For Saul, that price (in Acts 9 and 22) is temporary blindness. The version of this account in Acts 22 repeats much of the relevant language already noted from Acts 9, but it also builds on the Euripidean characterization. Paul explains to the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem how he intended to bind followers of the Way in Damascus and bring them to Jerusalem “so that they might receive vengeance [τιμωρηθῶσιν]” (Acts 22:5).37 Immediately following this statement, Paul narrates his encounter with Jesus: “A great light from the sky flashed around me, I fell to the ground, and I heard a voice speaking to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ ” (22:7). Saul was blinded “from the brightness of that light” (22:11). Especially given the parallels already discussed, this series of events can be read as reconfiguring the climax of the Bacchae. On the advice of the disguised 35 All translations from the Bacchae are taken from Stephen Esposito, Euripides’ Bacchae: Translation, Introduction, and Notes, Focus Classical Library (Newburyport, MA: Focus, 1998). I alter Esposito’s translation only at Bacch. 795, using “goads” instead of “pricks” to translate “κέντρα.” 36 For double vocatives, see Gen 22:11; 46:2; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:4, 10. For the command to rise and go to another location for instruction, see Ezek 3:22. 37 The verb τιμωρέω occurs only twice in the New Testament, both in Damascus Road narratives (Acts 22:5, 26:11). The related noun τιμωρία occurs only once (Heb 10:29). This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 443 Dionysus, Pentheus climbs a tree in order to spy on the maenads, but “rather than seeing the maenads from above he was seen by them” (Bacch. 1075). The stranger who had been leading Pentheus disappears, and the disembodied voice of Dionysus calls the maenads to attack Pentheus, “Take revenge [τιμωρεῖσθε] on him!” (1081). Euripides continues, “And while he was speaking these words / a light of holy fire was towering up between heaven and earth” (1082–1083). Saul sought to take vengeance on the followers of the Way but was stopped by a bright light and the disembodied voice of Jesus; Pentheus was discovered in his plot against the maenads, and the disembodied voice of Dionysus, accompanied by a great light, called the maenads to take vengeance on Pentheus, resulting in his death. Saul, of course, receives an opportunity to reform. Saul’s encounter with Jesus in Acts 26 receives an even more pronounced Euripidean characterization. Paul describes his former self as “exceedingly maddened [ἐμμαινόμενος]” by followers of the Way (Acts 26:11), a verb that recalls Dionysus’s followers, the maenads. Courtney Friesen observes, “Unlike Pentheus … who was content merely to bar the maenads from around his own polis, Paul pursued them ‘even into foreign cities.’ ”38 When Saul is confronted by Jesus on the road to Damascus, in this iteration Jesus warns him, “It hurts you to kick against the goads [πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν]” (26:14). This warning repeats a phrase from the disguised Dionysus to Pentheus: “I would sacrifice to him rather than rage on, / kicking against the goads [πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζοιμι], a man at war with god” (Bacch. 794–795). Following Paul’s apologia, Festus twice accuses Paul of mania: “You are mad [μαίνῃ], Paul! Much learning has turned you mad [μανίαν]!” (Acts 26:24). Paul repeats the verb μαίνομαι in his denial (26:25), where he insists that he is, rather, “sober-minded [σωφροσύνης].”39 If the previous comparisons of Saul to Pentheus and Jesus to Dionysus were ambiguous, the account in Acts 26 leaves little room for doubt. By continuing to use the name Saul beyond the Damascus Road encounter, Luke allows the apostle’s subsequent actions to emulate those of Pentheus.40 After the Theban king is confronted, far from conceding that Dionysus was the son of Zeus, Pentheus persists in his opposition, answering Dionysus’s warning quoted in the preceding paragraph, “Yes, I’ll sacrifice but it will be the women’s slaughter [φόνον]” (Bacch. 796). This resolution results in his tragic dismemberment by the Theban maenads, including Agave, his mother. Saul, however, demonstrates the proper response of someone revealed as a god-fighter. After Saul was with the disciples in Damascus for a few days, “immediately he was proclaiming Jesus in the synagogue, that this one is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20; cf. 9:27). The Jews react to Saul with astonishment (9:21), reminiscent of the reaction to the Lukan Jesus’s 38 Friesen, Reading Dionysus, 219. ibid., 213–21. 28 40 See n. — 27 above. 39 See This content downloaded from 444 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) initial proclamation (Luke 4:22).41 Saul’s identity has not yet transitioned—evidenced by the fact that the followers of the Way in Damascus and Jerusalem still fear Saul as the famous persecutor—and so neither has his name. III. The Cyprus Episode as a Literary Pivot The Cyprus narrative (Acts 13:4–12) is short but dense with allusions. In addition to containing elements that correspond to the presentations of Peter and Saul earlier in Acts, it also features internal contrasting characterizations. More broadly, however, it functions as a literary pivot within the narrative of Acts, particularly with respect to Luke’s characterization—and naming—of Saul/Paul. It is in this narrative that Luke begins calling Saul “Paul,” the only name the apostle uses in his letters; it also features the first instance of Paul proclaiming the word of God before a gentile audience. Amid these transitions, the Cyprus narrative exhibits features that imitate and reconfigure the narrative structure of the Bacchae—an imitation that can illumine Luke’s various characterizations and contrasts. After being commissioned in Antioch (Acts 13:1–3), Saul and Barnabas sail to Cyprus and proclaim the word of God in synagogues from Salamis to Paphos (13:4–6). In Paphos, they encounter “a certain man, a magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus” (13:6). Luke locates Bar-Jesus with the Cypriot proconsul, Sergius Paulus, “an intelligent man” who summons Saul and Barnabas because he “sought to hear the word of God” (13:7). A confrontation ensues as “Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul from the faith” (13:8). Luke then introduces a second name for Saul, “who was also called Paul” (13:9), and reports his response, a caustic rebuke of Bar-Jesus/ Elymas that plays both with the etymology of his name and with his prophetic status, culminating with Paul pronouncing that Bar-Jesus/Elymas will be blinded for a certain amount of time (13:9–11).42 Bar-Jesus/Elymas is promptly blinded, and Sergius Paulus is not turned from the faith (13:12). Several elements in this narrative characterize Saul/Paul as a legitimate successor to the ministry of Peter and—by extension—that of Jesus.43 Bar-Jesus’s identification as a magician recalls Peter’s earlier encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria (Acts 8:9–24). Peter rebukes Simon for misunderstanding the nature of the Holy Spirit, evidenced through his offer to pay Peter for access to its wonderworking power. Paul rebukes Bar-Jesus for attempting to turn Sergius Paulus away from his message about the word of God. Both passages feature wordplay with 41 As another parallel, others attempt to kill both Jesus and Saul after their initial proclamations, attempts that they both avert (Luke 4:28–30, Acts 9:23–25). 42 Robert C. Tannehill compares Acts 13 with Elijah’s confrontation of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kgs 22 (The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols., FF [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990], 2:162). 43 See, e.g., ibid., 2:159–63; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 226. Compare Luke 4:32 and Acts 13:12. This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 445 respect to names. Simon Magus is opposed by Peter, whom Luke often refers to as Simon in the Third Gospel. Paul is opposed by Bar-Jesus for teaching about Jesus before Sergius Paulus. That Paul’s first gentile convert is a Roman official likewise recalls an earlier Petrine episode. The first gentile Peter converts is Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian cohort (Acts 10:1–11:18). It is noteworthy—given Luke’s deliberate use of names in Acts 8:9–24 and 13:4–12—that Peter is lodging with a certain Simon the tanner at the beginning of the Cornelius episode and that this pericope contains the only instance in Acts where Luke refers to Peter as “Simon” (10:5, 18, 32; 11:13). The thematic—and schematic—similarities between these Petrine and Pauline episodes encourage readers to regard their ministries as continuous.44 Both represent “authorized” successions of Jesus’s ministry, much like biblical representations of Joshua and Elisha succeeding Moses and Elijah, respectively.45 Paul, of course, becomes Luke’s primary protagonist beginning in Acts 13 through the remainder of the narrative, so these parallels legitimize Paul’s ministry for Luke’s readers. While these considerations identify Paul’s ministry with that of Peter, at least two aspects of the characterization of Bar-Jesus/Elymas recall Luke’s earlier presentation of Saul of Tarsus.46 First, both play an antagonistic role. Whereas Saul previously persecuted Jesus (Acts 9:4) and his followers (8:1b–3; 9:2), Bar-Jesus now opposes Paul (13:8). Second, both receive remarkably similar punishments for their opposition. In Acts 9:8, Saul is blinded and needs to be “led by the hand [χειραγωγοῦντες]” (see also 22:11). He remains blind for three days (9:9). Similarly, in Acts 13:11, Bar-Jesus is blinded after “mist [ἀχλύς] and darkness fell over him” and likewise needs someone “to guide him by the hand [χειραγωγούς].”47 According to Paul’s pronouncement, Bar-Jesus will be blind “for a while [ἄχρι καιροῦ].” Just as Saul opposes Jesus and is temporarily blinded in Acts 9, Bar-Jesus opposes Paul and is temporarily blinded in Acts 13. Bar-Jesus thus fills the role formerly played by Saul. Significantly, there exist a number of explicit contrasts between Bar-Jesus/ Elymas and Saul/Paul within Acts 13:4–12 that distinguish the latter from the false prophet.48 Immediately after Saul/Paul is described as “being filled [πλησθείς] with 44 Some critics reject this conclusion. Barrett, for example, objects, “This is not convincing. It does not seem to have been Luke’s intention to bring out the equality of Peter and Paul in this crude way. The effect rather is additive: both men condemn magical practices” (Acts of the Apostles, 1:610). Other critics would likely rejoin that Barrett’s objection is itself not convincing. 45 See Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography, 118–55; and 91–117 for Joshua’s succession of Moses and Elisha’s succession of Elijah. 46 See, e.g., Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 84; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 227. 47 On ἀχλύς, a New Testament hapax legomenon, Barrett writes, “It is for the most part a poetical word, used fairly frequently by Homer. It is used of the failure of sight in death (e.g. Odyssey 22.88 …; cf. Iliad 5.696), also ‘of one whom a god deprives of the power of seeing and knowing others’ (LS 297, s.v.; e.g., Iliad 20.321 …; cf. Josephus, Ant. 9.56 …)” (Acts of the Apostles, 1:618). 48 See also, e.g., Garrett, Demise of the Devil, 80–81. This content downloaded from 446 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) the Holy Spirit” (Acts 13:9), Saul/Paul disparages Bar-Jesus/Elymas as “full [πλήρης] of all deceit and every villainy” (13:10). This contrast extends to their characterizations. At the beginning of this narrative, Saul and Barnabas travel across Cyprus— from Salamis to Paphos—proclaiming “the word of God” (Acts 13:5), and it is “the word of God” that Sergius Paulus sought to hear (13:7). This activity characterizes Saul/Paul as a true prophet.49 Indeed, Saul/Paul and Barnabas are explicitly identified as “prophets [προφῆται] and teachers” in Acts 13:1. In stark contrast, Luke explicitly identifies Bar-Jesus/Elymas as a “false prophet [ψευδοπροφήτης]” (13:6). Paul’s diatribe likewise characterizes Bar-Jesus/Elymas’s actions as those of a false prophet, asking, “Will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?” (13:10), echoing Isaiah (Isa 40:3) and John the Baptist (Luke 3:4).50 Whereas Paul becomes a prophet—continuing Jesus’s ministry by proclaiming the word of God among not only Jews but also gentiles—Bar-Jesus/Elymas opposes this activity as a false prophet. The particular contours of Luke’s characterization of Bar-Jesus/Elymas as a false prophet merit further reflection. In Acts 13:8, Luke qualifies Bar-Jesus’s opposition to Saul and Barnabas as “seeking to turn [διαστρέψαι] the proconsul from the faith.” Paul’s denunciation follows, wherein he employs the same verb (διαστρέφω) used by the narrator: “Will you not stop making crooked [διαστρέφων] the straight paths of the Lord?” (13:10). The repetition of a verb in close proximity to its first use can suggest that their meanings might be related, and that appears to be the case here. The first use refers to Bar-Jesus’s action of trying to prevent a gentile from hearing the word of God; the second characterizes Bar-Jesus as antithetical to a true prophet (see also Luke 9:41, 23:2, Acts 20:30). In view of the two instances of the verb, readers can attribute Luke’s characterization of Bar-Jesus as a false prophet to his opposition to the inclusion of gentiles among God’s people. Such opposition is, according to Paul’s rebuke, characteristic of someone “full of all deceit and every villainy, a son of the devil, an enemy of all righteousness” (13:10). In Acts 13:11, Bar-Jesus receives a Penthean punishment for his opposition to Paul’s proclamation to Sergius Paulus. Bar-Jesus is temporarily blinded, and, “turning about, he searched for someone to guide him by the hand [χειραγωγούς]” (13:11), a punishment from “the hand [χείρ] of the Lord” that recalls Saul’s condition in Acts 9:8 (see also Deut 28:28–29). A punishment of blinding carried symbolic (ableist) connotations in the ancient world, particularly that of ignorance.51 Nevertheless, Bar-Jesus’s blindness and consequent need to be led by the hand can also be read as signaling Luke’s use of a literary model, the recognition of which helps readers frame the narrative. 49 See 1 Kgdms 9:27, Isa 1:10, Jer 19:3, Ezek 6:3, Hos 4:1. See also Rick Strelan, “Who Was Bar Jesus (Acts 13,6–12)?,” Bib 85 (2004): 65–81, here 69. 50 On the septuagintal nature of the language in Paul’s rebuke, see Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 400 nn. 3 and 4. 51 See, e.g., Pervo, Acts, 242 n. 73, 327 nn. 74 and 78. This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 447 IV. Paul and Dionysus In Acts 13:4–12, Luke reveals that “Saul” is Paul as he faces opposition for proclaiming the word of God before a gentile audience for the first time in Acts. In this case, the gentile seeking to hear Paul is a civic ruler, the proconsul of Cyprus, and Paul faces opposition from a Jewish magician, whom Luke also identifies as a false prophet. Although Luke characterizes Saul earlier in the narrative with language that recalls King Saul and Euripides’s Pentheus—a persecutor of Jesus and of those proclaiming him—Paul now becomes a herald of the faith who faces opposition from others on account of his proclamation. Readers who recognize Luke’s Penthean characterization of Saul and the reversal indicated by the name change to “Paul” might expect the apostle to be opposed by a civic ruler. Instead, it is a Jewish false prophet.52 The relation of the name Bar-Jesus to “Elymas” continues to perplex scholars. Commentators frequently echo the hopeless judgment of Joseph Fitzmyer: “This is a Lucan explanation of the Greek name Elymas, but that the name means magos, ‘magician,’ is far from clear. No one knows what it means.”53 Dennis MacDonald, however, offers a promising interpretation. He writes, “An elyma . . . is a cloak, a woman’s mantle,” which suggests that the name Elymas can evoke—especially for readers attuned to the other parallels with the Bacchae—Tiresias, the blind seer who is sympathetic to the Dionysian cult that arrived in Thebes.54 MacDonald explains further, “Ancient artists often depicted Tiresias in a cloak, sometimes with it draped over his head as though it were a woman’s veil.… Although he usually is bearded, he wears a dress or a himation and often holds the hand of a young lad as a guide. These depictions almost certainly reflect his appearance onstage in performances.”55 In addition to the name Elymas, Bar-Jesus is similar to Tiresias in that they are both prophetic figures. Nevertheless, whereas Tiresias is a blind seer who is receptive to the Dionysian cult, Bar-Jesus is a sight-abled false prophet who is blinded by Paul as a punishment for opposing his proclamation. In this way, BarJesus is similar to Pentheus. Conversely, although readers might expect Sergius Paulus, as a civic ruler, to oppose the introduction of a new religious movement, as Pentheus does, Luke instead describes him as “an intelligent man” who “sought to hear the word of God” (Acts 13:7). In this way, Sergius Paulus is like Tiresias. This pivotal narrative is thus full of transitions. Saul becomes known as Paul, a herald of the word of God to Jews and gentiles alike, and no longer carries a reputation as a persecutor of the Way. Paul thus formally transitions from a Penthean 52 Prior to Saul/Paul’s reintroduction into the narrative in Acts 13, in 12:1–23 Luke characterizes Agrippa as a god-fighter. See Dormeyer, “Bakchos in der Apostelgeschichte,” 166. 53 Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, 502. More recently, see Keener, Acts, 2:2016; Holladay, Acts, 262. 54 MacDonald, Luke and Vergil, 58. See also MacDonald, “Classical Greek Poetry,” 470–71. 55 MacDonald, Luke and Vergil, 58. This content downloaded from 448 Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019) figure to a Dionysian one.56 Followers of the Way, especially Paul, will continue to face persecution, however. This opposition manifests initially as Bar-Jesus’s objections, but it will continue in the form of nameless groups of Jews who oppose the proclamation about Jesus and the inclusion of gentiles in the kingdom of God. The reconfiguration that results in Bar-Jesus, rather than Sergius Paulus, embodying the role of Pentheus allows the Acts narrative to communicate—once again, though with greater specificity—about opposition to the religious movement centered on Jesus.57 Not only is opposition to the message of Jesus likened to Pentheus’s opposition to Dionysus (as with Saul’s Penthean characterization), but so also is opposition specifically to the inclusion of gentiles among God’s people.58 Accordingly, several subsequent episodes in Acts 13:13–17:15 present Paul as a Dionysian herald of a new religious movement and those opposing the kingdom of God—in particular its inclusion of gentiles—as Penthean god-fighters.59 Paul travels from Cyprus to Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13–14). After preaching with some success (13:16–43), Paul faces opposition from certain Jews (13:45, 50), declares that he will take his message to gentiles (13:46–49; see 13:39), and continues to Iconium (13:51). A similar pattern emerges during Paul’s time in Iconium (14:1–7), Lystra (14:8–20), Thessalonica (17:1–9), and Beroea (17:10–15).60 In Iconium and Thessalonica, the opposition occurs immediately after gentiles respond favorably to Paul’s preaching—“a great number of both Jews and gentiles became believers” in Iconium (14:1), and Paul persuaded “a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women” in Thessalonica (17:4; see also 17:12). The Jewish opponents of Paul reprise the Penthean role previously played by Saul 56 See also Dormeyer, “Bakchos in der Apostelgeschichte,” 163–65; MacDonald, Luke and Vergil, 44–48. 57 Euripides’s Bacchae established an influential framework for conceptualizing opposition to deities wherein the opponent receives punishment. For example, Origen addresses Celsus’s objection to Jesus’s divinity on the grounds that those who opposed him were not punished (Cels. 2.34). See Friesen, Reading Dionysus, 149–73. 58 The use of Euripides’s Dionysus as a model for Paul during his missionary trips is a culturally appropriate choice. For example, Alexander the Great, “at least in legend,” styled his conquests after those of Dionysus (Friesen, Reading Dionysus, 71.) Accordingly, Greek and Roman rulers succeeding Alexander often represented their own conquests in a similar fashion. See Friesen, Reading Dionysus, 13–14, 71–93. He writes, “In Plutarch’s mind, at least, the imitation of Dionysus by a ruler was potentially virtuous.… It is no surprise, then, that subsequent emperors and statesmen would follow Alexander’s model, although with varying degrees of success” (Reading Dionysus, 14). 59 For the pattern in these narratives, see Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), 130–57, esp. 132. 60 On the narratives set in Thessalonica and Beroea, see Michael Kochenash, “The Scandal of Gentile Inclusion: Reading Acts 17 with Euripides’ Bacchae,” in Classical Greek Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism, ed. Mark G. Bilby, Michael Kochenash, and Margaret Froelich, Claremont Studies in New Testament and Christian Origins 3 (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), 125–44. This content downloaded from Kochenash: Better Call Paul “Saul” 449 and Bar-Jesus. In this way, for readers with the appropriate cultural competence, the Bacchae functions as a model for communicating in a culturally meaningful way about the rejection of gentile inclusion among Jews. V. Conclusion Luke initially characterizes Paul—calling him “Saul”—as a god-fighter who persecutes the early church and even Jesus himself, whom Luke identifies as both the Son of God and the son of David. This characterization appears to be modeled on both King Saul—Israel’s first king who persecuted David—and Pentheus from Euripides’s Bacchae, the archetypal god-fighter who persecuted Dionysus, the son of Zeus. Paul’s characterization—and name—changes in Acts 13, where he becomes instead a herald of Jesus. This transitional episode can itself be read as a reconfigured reception of the Bacchae: Paul becomes a Dionysus figure, but Sergius Paulus—whom readers might expect, being a civic ruler, to play the role of Pentheus—is receptive to Paul’s message, and the prophet—whom readers might expect to be receptive like Tiresias—opposes Paul. Luke thus exemplifies opposition to Paul’s gentile mission with a Jewish false prophet, indicating to readers with the appropriate cultural competence that opposition to gentile inclusion is akin to Pentheus’s opposition to Dionysus—and will incur comparable consequences. Luke continues to characterize Paul as a Dionysian herald until the middle of Acts 17, when the characterization shifts from Dionysian to Socratic. While my interpretation echoes those of Jerome and Augustine by correlating Luke’s identification of Saul of Tarsus with King Saul, portraying them as persecutors, it avoids a major critique of the patristic theories by also reading Luke’s characterizations of Saul/Paul as imitating the plot of Euripides’s Bacchae. The pre-Cyprus characterization of Paul, wherein he is named Saul, continues beyond his Damascus Road encounter with Jesus. The brief narratives following Saul’s blinding provide him with the opportunity to rival—and best—the most famous god-fighter, Pentheus. Whereas Pentheus persisted in his persecution of Dionysus, resulting in his own tragic death, Saul models the proper response of one whose activity is revealed as god-fighting. Beginning in Acts 13, Luke inaugurates a new characterization of Paul—not as a reformed Pentheus or King Saul figure, but as a Dionysian herald who is himself opposed. This opposition—taking the form of a Jewish false prophet in Acts 13:4–12—necessitates a new name to match a new identity, a name and identity already known to Luke’s readers: Paul the apostle to the gentiles. This content downloaded from