Abstract
With examples and illustrations from the African worldview, this article focuses on the nature, meaning, and usage of the double name of Paul of Tarsus. It concludes by considering the help that a proper understanding and functionality of the same name may give an African Christian pastor and theologian, today.
Keywords
In his poem, “African Names”, Amaefule (2016:20) had noted how, “/African names say a lot/Even when they are as short as a dot/.” The fact is, however, it is not only African names that possess this character of encapsulating a sea of profundity even in their brevity. Names, for instance, in Japanese, Roman, Greek and Jewish cultures, among many others, also do the same (Plutschow, 1995:1-2; Orlin, 2022:111-112; McLean 2002:74-133; Lockyer 1958:11-12; Blech and Blech, 2004: 2-5). That is why, therefore, William Shakespeare’s well-known question, “What’s in a name?” (Romeo and Juliet, 2.2), or, even, Lewis Carroll’s own, “Must a name mean something?” (2012: 2), could not have been but rhetorical questions. Names that people bear are, indeed, full of meaning and history. Cognizant of this, therefore, this article examines the nature, meaning, and usage of Paul’s double name. Granted, a lot has been written in recent times on the same double name (Hemer, 1985; Leary, 1992; Compton, 2002; McDonough, 2006; Chapman, 2008; Wenkel, 2011; Kochenash, 2019; Manning, Jr., 2019). But no one has: a) looked at the issue with examples, perspectives and illustrations from the African worldview; or b) considered how a proper understanding and functionality of the same double name could be relevant to the African Christian pastor and theologian, today. These, among others, are the gaps that this article fills, as it adds to the aforementioned existing literature.
The Nature of Paul’s Double Name
Unlike the case of his Jewish background (Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5), Paul does not reveal in any of the authentic letters, the place of his birth. Luke, however, maintains that Paul was born in Tarsus, the capital city of Cilicia (Acts 9: 11; 9:30; 11:25; 21:39; 22:3). That makes Paul, therefore, a Jew in the diaspora, which actually his aforementioned emphasis on his Jewishness is also understood to indirectly betray (Murphy-O’Connor, 1996:32). By the first decade CE when he was possibly born (Fitzmyer, 1998:394), most Jews in the diaspora, just like those in Palestine (Ricciotti, 1953: 184), especially those who were Roman citizens as Paul, against suggestions to the contrary (Tarn, 1952:220-222; Stegemann, 1987; Lentz Jr, 1993:23-61), most probably was (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29; 23:27; van Minnen, 1994), had, right from infancy, two names (Von Loewenich, 1960:16). The first was usually a Greek or Roman name, - a reminder in the first instance of that person’s immediate Greco-Roman environment, but also possibly as an indication of a desire to assimilate (Sevenster, 1968:85). The second was usually a native Semitic/Hebrew name, which marks the bearer’s Jewish identity and background. The Romans called such a Hebrew birth name, signum or supernomen. This is because it was an additional, unofficial, and informal name by which the bearer was called or known among his family members and acquaintances (Harrer, 1940:21). Before long, however, the signum, despite its aforesaid informal nature, became a vital part of the bearer’s identity to the extent that it was usually connected with one or more of the other parts of a man’s name either by the Greek expression o̔ καί, or the Latin, qui et(Harrer, 1940: 21; Murphy-O’Connor, 1996:43). Hence, it could be said that in all: “The choice of personal names by Jews during their long history had always been influenced by two opposing tendencies: faithfulness to national tradition, and wish to conform to usages of their environment.”(Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 1, 27, cited in Sevenster, 1968:85)
With particular reference to Paul, the two names possibly given to him at birth according to Acts 13:9 are Saul and Paul (McRay, 2007:25-26; Schnelle, 2005:61-62; Klauck, 2000:52; Jensen, 1981:236 Origen, 2010). Saul (Heb. 
; Gk., Saulos) is his Hebrew name, and thus, his signum, while Paul (Lat. Paulus or Paullus; Gk., Paulos) is the Roman name. This is said not oblivious that some hold contrary views, here. For instance, some think that rather than both names being given at birth to Paul, the name “Saul” was actually an invention of Luke to support his story in the Acts of the Apostles (Buitenwerf, 2008: 83). Augustine, on his own part, believes that the name “Paul” was chosen by Saul later in life as a testament to his modesty or humility, as the “the least of the apostles” (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 27.3; On the Spirit and the Letter, 12). Jerome is of the view that the name “Paul” was chosen later by Saul in recognition of the first fruit of his gentile mission, Sergius Paulus (De Viris Illustribus [On Illustrious Men], 5). St Ambrose and Pope Damasus believe that Saul chose the name “Paul” at his baptism (Cf. Denton, 1876: 10, no. 1). John Chrysostom maintains that Saul took the name “Paul” following his ordination (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 28). Many scholars, however, are firm in their belief today that Paul had both names possibly from the beginning (cf. Pilch, 2012: 103).
Generally, a full Roman name in those days was a tria nomina, a name made up of three parts: praenomen (given/personal name); nomen (clan name), and cognomen (family name). In that sense, Paul’s full Roman name could have been something like, “Marcus Antonius Paulus” or “Gaius Tullius Paulus” (Manning, Jr., 2019). Hemer (1985:179) on his own part believes that Paul might have been “Cn. Pompeius Paulus”, “C. Julius Paulus” or “M. Antonius Paulus.” Unfortunately, however, only the cognomen, “Paulus”, is known with any certainty. The other two, his praenomen and nomen, were not preserved and, therefore, are not known (Barnett, 2008:205; Bruce, 1988:249, no. 25). But this in itself is not strange. In those days, many diaspora Jews who were Roman citizens often avoided using their full tripartite Roman names (Keener, 2019: 19, no.5), even if the names had been recorded for them for official purposes. Instead, they settled most often for their cognomen. Two reasons may account for this. First, the cognomen was the most specific of the three names (Murphy-O’Connor, 1996:42), meaning that it helped, more than the other two names, in the actual identification of an individual (Polhill, 1999: 16). Hence, the ease to use it alone (Bauckham, 2008: 327). Secondly, by this time, the praenomen and the nomen, were slipping out of routine use (Barnett, 2008: 205).
That said, a walk through the Acts of the Apostles shows other Jews (even those who were not Roman citizens), who as well had such double names, a Hebrew/Jewish name and a Graeco-Roman name. For instance, in Acts 1:23, Luke talks of “Joseph, called Barsabbas, also known as Justus” (’Ιωσὴφ τòν καλούμενον Βαρσαββα̃ν, 
ς ε̒πεκλήθη ’Ιυ̃στος). Here, Joseph and Barsabbas are Jewish/Hebrew names, while Justus is a Roman/Latin name. In 4:36, he talks of “Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas” (’Ιωσὴφ δὲ o̔ ἐπικληθεηηὶς Βαρνάβας ἀπò τω̃ν ἀποστόλων). Joseph, as stated above, is a Hebrew name, while Barnabas is a Greek form of an Aramaic name. In 11:13, he talks of “Simon, also known as Peter” (Σίμωνα τòν ἐπικαλούμενον Πέτρον). Simon is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Simeon”, while Peter is a Greek name. In 12:12, he talks of “John also known as Mark” (’Ιωάννου τοΥ̃ έπικαλουμένου Μάρκου; see also 12:25; 15:37). The name “John” is Hebrew, while Mark is a Latin name. In Acts 13: 1, he talks of “Simeon known as Niger” (Συμεὼν o̔ καλούμενος Νίγερ) Simeon is a Hebrew name, while Niger is a Latin name. Outside the Acts the Apostles, Colossians 4:11 refers to “Jesus, who is called Justus” (’Ιησου̃ς o̔ λεγόμενος ’Ιου̃στος). Here “Jesus” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua”, while Justus, as noted earlier, is a Latin name.
On some occasions, when a double name was chosen, it was determined by similar sounds, even if their meanings were different. This could be seen, for instance, in the two names, Paulos and Saulos, even as they, as shall be seen shortly, mean different things (Gorman, 2017:63; McRay, 2007: 26). On other occasions, instead of giving somebody two different names, one name might be Hebrew/Aramaic and the second a Latinized/Grecianized translation of the same name. This is the case, for instance, with Tabitha in Acts 9:36. Luke talks of a disciple named “Tabitha, which means Dorcas” (RSV). Tabitha is an Aramaic word for “gazelle”; “Dorcas” is the Greek word. Outside the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of John (1:42) refers to “Cephas (which means Peter).” Cephas is the Aramaic word for “rock”; “Peter” is the Greek word. The Gospel of John (20:24) also talks of “Thomas (also known as Didymus)”. The name “Thomas” is Hebrew for “twin” while in Greek, it is “Didymus”.
The Meaning of Paul’s Double Name
The name “Saul” is the passive participle of the Hebrew verb shaa’l, “to ask”, and, therefore, means, “asked”. But the “asking” is being made of someone: God/Yahweh. Hence, the meaning, “Asked of God/Yahweh” (Weir and Payne, 1988: 345; Obiorah, 2009: 7). According to Joseph Fitzmyer (1992:2), this signifies, that “the mother [of the bearer of the name] had asked of God a child, and the one so named was God’s response.” In that sense, if Saul had been, for example, of Igbo-Nigerian origin, his name would have been “Nwaayotarachi” (“a child asked of God”). And apart from him, four other persons in the Bible also go by the name “Saul”: Saul, the sixth king of Edom (Gen 36:37-38; 1 Chron 1:48-49); Saul, the son of Simeon by the Canaanite woman (Gen 46:10; Ex 6:15; Num 26:13; I Chron 4:34); Saul, the son of Uzziah from the tribe of Levi (I Chron 6:24), and then, the most prominent of them all, Saul, the son of Kish, and the first King of Israel whose story is narrated in the First Book of Samuel. King Saul, we are told, was from the tribe of Benjamin (9:1; 21; 10:20-21. See also Acts 13:21).
In Philippians 3:5, Paul makes it clear that he is “a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin” (see also Rom 11:1). Paul locates himself in the same tribe, therefore, as King Saul. Hence, it is most probable that Paul was named “Saul” after King Saul, who, like him, was from the tribe of Benjamin (MacArthur, 1996:20; Onwukeme, 2007:2-3). This, of course, is not surprising. People, even today, tend to give their children names after the great men and women of their tribe, nation, or continent. For instance, I have encountered a good number of people in many places in Nigeria bearing the name, “Mandela,” after Nelson Mandela, the first post-apartheid President of South Africa. The same goes, for example, for the Igbo-Nigerian name, “Chimamanda.” Many Parents in Igboland today give their daughters this name after the award-winning Nigerian writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who is from the same Igbo tribe. Adichie hints at this in a recent interview as she asks rhetorically: “Do you know how many people in Igboland that are called Chimamanda today?”(Akinyoade, 2021) Blech and Blech believe that naming a newborn after someone this way, especially, in ancient Jewish tradition, is an attempt to “bring together two souls in an inseparable bond of life.”(2004:5) Thus, in naming Paul “Saul” after King Saul, Paul’s parents might have had the aspiration that their son might be, in some way, like King Saul (Quarles, 2014: 5).
As for the name “Paul”, it comes from the Latin word “Paulus”/“Paullus”, meaning “small”, “little”, “short”. Although, Knofel Staton (2001:14) had suggested that Paul might have been given the name by his mother because he was smaller than other babies when he was born, I think, that something more could be said here. Sometimes, it happens that someone may be given a name at birth that may capture something about the person’s character, physical appearance, temperament, etc., later in life. This way, it could be said of the person, “as his name is, so is he” (1 Sam 25:25 NRSV), and the Latin saying, nomen est omen, name is a sign, cannot but become real in such a person’s life and situation. This is possibly the case of Paul. Although, his name “Paulus” does not necessarily point to his stature since, as said above, it was probably given to him at birth (McRay, 2007:26; Thekkekara, 1988:14, no. 10; Fitzmyer, 1992:2), at the same time, it rhymes with, and does say something about it. Yes, if it was said of King Saul after whom he was named, that “he stood head and shoulders above everyone else,” (I Sam 9:2 NRSV), Paul could be said to be the opposite. He was a man of small stature. In fact, Paul was truly Paul-ine!
He himself apparently alludes to this in his second letter to the Corinthians where he talks of those who say that while his letters are “weighty and powerful”, his “bodily presence is weak” (10:10). Similarly, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, describes Paul, as “man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now, he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel” (3.1, cited in Murphy-O’Connor, 1996: 44). Against other views (Deissmann, 2004: 57), many believe that this latest description rather than recording what the historical Paul actually looked like, was primarily designed to convey something about his character or personality (Synder, 2022: 114; Murphy-O’Connor, 1996: 45). Physiognomy, as a matter of fact, counted for much in those days. Some are even of the view that apart from Paul being the chief speaker, it was because of his same small stature as against Barnabas who was tall, that he was called Hermes, and Barnabas, Zeus, by the people of Lystra in Acts of the Apostles (14:12) (McKay, 1921:168; Lockyer, 1958: 209). Similarly, others have argued that he would not have fitted in the basket with which he was lowered from a window in Damascus (2 Cor 11:33), if he was not small of stature (Ricciotti, 1953: 151). Paul’s small stature, even, arguably, serves as the inspiration for the character Enoch in the novel Things Fall Apart, by the Nigerian writer, Chinua Achebe (Amaefule, 2015a).
That said, if Paul were alive today, not a few of his friends and may be others would have given him in view of his alleged physical appearance, such Nigerian nicknames as “Smally”, “Short Engine”; “Odimkpukpu” (Nigerian-Igbo word for a short person), etc. And if one were to accept such nicknames notwithstanding their derogatory undertone, the fact remains that Paul was something more in addition. Yes, if he was, for example, an “Odimkpukpu’, he was, indeed, an “Odimkpukpu-Na-Eme-Ire” – The Short-One-That-Makes-Things-Happen; if he was a “Short Engine”, he was a really A-Short-Engine-That-Moves-The Big Lorry; and if he was “Smally”, he was really “Smally-But-Mighty.” And his small-but-mightyness is evidenced in the fact that despite the whole lot that he went through in the course of his mission to the gentiles (2 Cor 11:24-29), he did not give up, he did not abandon his duty post. Hence, he says: “We are afflicted in every way but not crushed, perplexed but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed” (2 Cor 4:8-9 NRSV).
Furthermore, while his name “Paulus” may not necessarily point to his modesty or humility, at the same time, as well, it may say something about it. Here, “littleness” or “smallness” comes to be understood as the opposite of pride, arrogance and self-adulation. Granted, Paul was a man, and like any man, he likely had many sides to him. Throughout his letters, for instance, he presents himself as one deserving of honour, respect, and obedience. He is incensed at the those preaching circumcision to the Galatians and wishes they might castrate themselves (Gal.5:12). He threatens to come after the Corinthians with a stick (I Cor. 4:21). He even comes off sometimes as one who is proud (Harris, 2009: 116; Smith, 2019:63). But some features of his thinking, actions, or theology, show his undeniable “littleness”, his humility. For example, not only does he consider himself the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9), he also believes that whatever he achieved came not through his power, but by the grace of God: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I but the grace of God that is with me” (I Cor 15:10, NRSV). Hence, Cornelius Lapide (2008:55-57) concludes: “In all things Paul sought Christ’s glory, not his own […]. The greater he was, the more Paul desired to belittle himself in the eyes of all. The more he became famous, the more he sought to remain obscure.” Among those who interpret the name “Paulus” in this sense of signifying “littleness”, Augustine must be mentioned. According to him: “Paul, who, although he was formerly called Saul, chose this new designation, for no other reason, as it seems to me, than because he would show himself little, - the ‘least of the apostles’, - contends with much courage and earnestness against the proud and arrogant, and such as plume themselves on their own works, in order that he may commend the grace of God.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 12; Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 27).
Usage of Paul’s Double Name
Usage in the Acts of the Apostles
To appreciate what is at stake, here, one has to recall how, for instance, Igbo-Nigerian immigrants in the United States of America, as in many other countries in the West, live. Igbos are one of the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria with a huge diasporic consciousness and presence (Amaefule, 2020a: 7). They are predominantly Christians. When Igbo immigrants bear children and wish to give them names, they often do so in a particular way. Most often, they give them double names: A native Igbo name, say, “Chidi” (Male name meaning, “God exists”), which is to help the bearer know and appreciate his Igbo identity and background, and then, an English/Christian name, say, “Stephen”. Of course, such a person already has an Igbo surname, say “Ugwunna” (“the pride of the father”). However, like many other things in life, there also exceptions to this convention. In this case, the two names that Igbo parents give their children are all Igbo names, rather than the usual, one Igbo, and another English/foreign name. This, in a way, is a continuation of the cultural nationalism and decolonization that swept through Nigeria, just like many other African countries, just before and immediately after independence from Britain in 1960. Among others, it saw some Nigerians who already had foreign names drop them and make do with their native names (cf. Ayandele, 1966: 256-258). For instance, Nigerian writer, Chinua Achebe, while at the University College in Ibadan, had dropped his English name, “Albert” given to him at baptism, and settled for his indigenous Igbo name, “Chinualumogu”, often shortened as “Chinua” (Achebe, 1995:143). It is the same ideology that makes some Nigerian migrant parents in North America, as elsewhere in the West, give their children two native names at birth, rather the usual one native and another English/foreign name. As said above, this is usually an exception.
What happens generally is that most Igbo immigrant parents usually call their children by their native Igbo names. At home, among relations, and friends, especially those who are, like them, Igbos, or to an extent Nigerians from other ethnic groups, they are mostly known and called by the same Igbo names. This is said not oblivious of some situations as well where some Igbo parents and their children have been involved in the anglicization of Igbo given names. This often happens in two ways. One, by spelling the Igbo names using English alphabet and sounds. For instance, an Igbo name like “Okechukwu”, becomes “Okey”; “Chukwubuike” becomes “Chybyke”; “Ifeoma” becomes “Ify”; “Nneka”, becomes “Nekky”, etc. The second is by translating Igbo names into English and using same. Here, for instance, the Igbo name, “Ngozi”, is translated into “Blessing”, and used instead of the original Igbo name (cf. Nkamigbo, 2019:173. See also Okafo, 2011). But most often, when registering these Igbo kids at schools, hospitals, etc., their parents often use the English names. While playing or interacting with their non-Igbo/Nigerian friends, acquaintances, school mates and colleagues at their places of work, these children are usually known and called by the same English names. Hence, a pattern is developed whereby within their Igbo/Nigerian circles, the Igbo names are used and outside the circles, the English/foreign names are used.
It is quite possibly the same scenario that played out in the usage of the double names that diaspora Jewish parents gave to their kids in the time of Paul. Within their Jewish circles, the native Jewish/Hebrew names may have been used and outside in the wider Graeco-Roman world, the Roman or Greek names may have been preferred. With particular reference to Paul, the name “Saul” was used within Jewish circles among family, Jewish friends and relations, while the name “Paul” was used out there in the non-Jewish/gentile circles. For instance, “[w]hen as a lad Paul played in the streets of Tarsus, his father, when calling him home, shouted: ‘Saul, Saul!’ but the Greek boys on the streets called him ‘Paul’” (Lenski, 2008:20)
It is the same pattern narrated above that holds sway, as well in the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul is within the Jewish territory/land, and that is, before his encounter with the non-Jewish/gentile wider world, Acts of the Apostles mostly calls him “Saul”. This starts from Acts 7:58 when the name “Saul” is mentioned for the first time, during the martyrdom of Stephen: “Then they dragged him [Stephen] out of the city and began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.” (NRSV). It ends at Acts 13:9 with the famous statement, “Saul, who is also called Paul.” It is actually during Paul’s conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, that the name “Paul” is introduced for the first time. The Holy Spirit had commissioned Paul alongside Barnabas (Acts 13:2) for what is traditionally known as his First Missionary Journey (Acts 13:1-Acts 14:28). While John Mark also accompanies them on this journey (Acts 13:4), Sergius Paulus would remain the first recorded Roman official that Paul converts (Acts 13:7-12).
The timing of the introduction of the name “Paul” has motivated scholars to argue that it was done here in order to underscore the significance of Paul’s aforementioned first convert, Sergius Paulus (Walaskay, 1998: 127). Others, pushing the same position slightly, maintain that it was Paul who at this juncture discarded his original name “Saul” and adopted the name “Paul” (Paulus) in commemoration of Sergius Paulus (Ironside, 2007:174). Among the proponents of this latest position is Jerome. He believes that Paul who before now was called Saul took the name “Paulus” after Sergius Paulus, the first victory of his missionary journey. He likened it to what Scipio did when he took the name “Africanus” after conquering Africa. (Cited in Parker, 2007:214). While in antiquity, Augustine is another person that holds the same view as Jerome (Cf. Confessions 8.4.9), in modern times, scholars like Barnett (2019: 132) and Pawson (2014: 203) hold similar views. John Parker (2007: 214) believes that Paul in adopting the name of Sergius Paulus was only following the custom of imperial conquest. Still, others believe that the introduction of the name Paul, here, was not only a way of marking the conversion of Sergius Paulus, but also of acknowledging the patronage, protection and help Paul had received from the same Sergius Paulus and his Paulii family (Barnett, 1999:277-279). Hermann Dessau (Cited in Breytenbach and Zimmermann, 2018: 78) however, maintains that rather than simply adopting the cognomen “Paulus” from Sergius Paulus, what Paul did was to change his Jewish name “Saul” into the cognomen of Sergius Paulus. While Fitzmyer (1992:2), on his own part, believes that the change of name here from Saul to Paul has nothing to do with Sergius Paul-lus, but has everything to do with the different sources of information at Luke’s disposal, Sean McDonough (2006: 391) insists that it “serves for the author of Acts as a vivid illustration of Paul’s transformation from the proud ‘big man’ who persecuted the church, to the servant of ‘little’ David’s messianic offspring.” Fellows (2012) believes that Luke introduced the humble name, “Paul”, here, to juxtapose it with the arrogant names which the false prophet, Elymas Bar-Jesus, whose story is narrated in the same scenario as Sergius Paulus’, had presumptuously taken.
Conversely, it is possible that something else is in evidence here. In the Acts narrative, Paul has left Jewish territory and has just started his missionary outreach to the Gentiles. Now in the Gentile Graeco-Roman world, - even as Gentiles were fully capable of using names that weren’t Gentile - he had to use a name that these same Gentiles he was going to evangelize, or better, he had started evangelizing, could much easily identify with. Hence, his use of the Roman name, “Paul”, which, as stated before, he had alongside the name, “Saul”, the latter which he had used in Jewish territory. William Barclay (2009:117) sees Paul’s decision to use a gentile name here as a testament to his full acceptance of his mission as the apostle to the gentiles and as a mark that “from this time he was launched on the career for which the Holy Spirit had marked him out and that there was to be no turning back.” Such a decision by Paul is a practical demonstration of his confession in 1 Cor 19:21-22: “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not outside God’s law but am within Christ’s law) so that I might gain those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some” (NSRV).
This introduction of Paul as Saul’s other name by Luke in Acts 13:9 is followed by a change in the leadership of the mission. Before now, Barnabas was the leader of the mission. This is attested to not only by the words of the Holy Spirit earlier at the Church in Antioch: “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul.” (Acts 13:2), but also by Luke’s narration of events in verse 7: “The proconsul […] sent for Barnabas and Saul.” In both instances, Barnabas is mentioned first. But after this point, Paul, rather than Barnabas, became the leader of the mission and is mentioned first by Luke as he relates the next issues: “Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia.” (Acts 13:13) and then, “Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:43). Little wonder, then, Darrell Bock (2007:445) concludes: “The change [of name] indicates that Paul is becoming the prominent and leading member of the group.” Similarly, from the same Acts 13:9 till the end of the book, the name “Paul” is used (even within Jewish territory!). For instance, while in Jerusalem for the Jerusalem Council, he was called “Paul” (Acts 15:12, 22, 25), just as the Jews (Acts 23:14) and his nephew (Acts 23:20) also call him “Paul” while in the same city. The only exceptions here are in Acts 22: 7; 13, and Acts 26:14 wherein Paul, in recalling the Damascus event, used the name “Saul.”
Usage in the Letters of Paul
The Acts of the Apostles is the only New Testament source that refers to Paul having two names. None of the Pauline letters (disputed and undisputed) ever mentions an alternative name for Paul, and even 2 Pet 3:15-16, the only source outside Acts that refers to Paul, uses “Paul” and not Saul. This is unlike the case of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who used two names. Living in both the first and early second centuries, he wrote his seven authentic letters (Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans and Polycarp) under his double name, “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus” (’Ιγνάτιος, o̔ καὶ Θεοφóρος) (Cf. Holloway, 2017: 62, no. 16).
This, therefore, raises the question: why did Paul never call himself “Saul” in his letters? There are a number of possible explanations. Firstly, as noted above, in starting off his missionary journey among the Gentiles, he may have used the name “Paul” rather than “Saul” in order to identify with them. The letters that Paul wrote were generally meant for gentile communities and individuals outside the Jewish territory. It may have been his own way of accommodating himself to the reality of his gentile audience, and easing, as it were, their understanding and acceptance of both him and his message. This is also what informed his own decision to settle only for the Graeco-Roman names of his companions who had double names that included Jewish names. For instance, rather than use, in his letters, the Jewish name, “John” for John-Mark, he rather used his Graeco-Roman name, “Mark” (Phm 24). The same trend is also followed in the Deutero-Pauline letters. The name “Mark” rather “John” is also used (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11). What is more, any gain that might be had by sharing the name of a king (namely, Saul), much revered by his tribe Benjamin (Men, 2021:15), would likely be lost on a predominantly Gentile audience, as the name would likely mean nothing to them.
A second possibility is perhaps best illustrated by recalling a scene in Achebe’s aforementioned novel, Things Fall Apart. When the six missionaries, one of whom was a white man, arrived Mbanta, Okonkwo’s maternal home, and where he lived in exile following his accidental killing of Ogbuefi Ezeudu’s sixteen-year-old son, they had, among them, an interpreter, an Igbo man, whose “dialect was different and harsh to the ears of Mbanta” (Achebe, 2008:116). According to the narrator, “Many people laughed at his [the interpreter’s] dialect and the way he used words strangely. Instead of saying ‘myself’, he always said ‘my buttocks’” (2008:116). And to understand what Achebe is up to here, it is good to point out that the Igbo language, the language of both the Mbanta people and the interpreter in the novel, is made up of many dialects. The dialect of some Igbos from the Niger Delta area of Bonny, Opobo, Akwaete, etc., is different from the dialect of the mainland Igbos. For instance, while the mainland Igbos would use the personal pronoun “mu” for “me”, “I” and “myself”, the Niger Delta Igbos would use “ike-mu” for the same thing. But “ike-mu” means a different thing to the mainland Igbos: “My buttocks”/“My ass”. Hence, while a Niger Delta Igbo (like the aforesaid interpreter) would be saying “I’, “me”, or “myself”, he/she would actually be communicating a different thing to the mainland Igbos (like the Mbanta people in the novel): “My buttocks”/’My ass’! Onwuchekwa Jemie (2003:21) notes that usages such as these, among Igbos, “are greeted with laughter, especially by those hearing them for the first time, and speakers of that dialect are teased continuously.”
The situation of this interpreter is perhaps akin to the situation of Paul. His Hebrew name “Saul”, means, as noted above, “Asked of Yahweh”, and always calls to mind Saul, the first King of Israel, who, like Paul, was from the tribe of Benjamin. In Greek, the term “Saulos”, can carry connotations of the seductive, loose and improper walking style of prostitutes (Taylor, 2012: 85; Witherington, III, 1998:402, n.169). Hence, the ease at which the name elicited laughter among the Greek-speaking gentiles (Taylor, 2012: 51) may have motivated Paul not to use the name in his letters. That said, avoiding images or negative self-representations that might have served as stumbling blocks for his audiences does not seem to have been a very consistent concern for Paul. For instance, he often calls himself a slave (Rom 1:1; Gal. 1:10), which was not a positive image in antiquity.
Relevance to the African Christian Pastor and Theologian Today
As earlier pointed out, there are some Africans in the diaspora who in their social intercourse go with their native names, especially, when they either do not have any English first names, or, they have decided to use only their native names, rather than the English ones. These are their choices and they are entitled to them. At the same time, however, Paul’s usage of his double name as explained in the foregoing, whereby, for instance, for reasons of missions, he never used, in his letters, his native name, “Saul” (or even, a mutilated version of it), but preferred the Roman name “Paul”, may also provide an interesting alternative, or, help reinforce a model that is already being followed by some. One thing, however, is noticeable: In using his double name this way which was meant to help him fully identify with his Graeco-Roman audience, Paul, just like Jesus (Meier, 1991-2009; Levine, 2006), was not in any way ashamed of his Jewishness/Jewish heritage. In many places in his letters (Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal. 1:14), he showed his pride in it and how he was “unambiguously Jewish - ethnically, culturally religiously, morally, and theologically” (Eisenbaum, 2009: 9), culminating in his calling himself, “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5). Against other interpretations (Pereira, 1990: 21), this is mostly understood to mean that he was a diasporan Greek-speaking Jew who could still speak Hebrew/Aramaic, the language of his ancestors, unlike many others who could not (Amaefule, 2020:174; Brisebois, 1986:16; Polhill 1999:26). Little wonder, Fredriksen (2017: xii) calls him, Paul, a “committed Jew.”
This surely has implications for African Christian pastors and theologians. For those in the diaspora, it is a challenge for them to remain Africans as they are even if for the sake of their mission thereof, they have to, like Paul, identify with their host communities and thus come to acquire new names (cf. Bulawayo 2013), new idioms and new categories that could help them carry out their work much more effectively. It would also be a challenge aimed at helping them overcome the temptation of having to mutilate their native names in the pretext of making them easier to be pronounced by their host communities in the diaspora and thus rendering the native names not only meaningless but also severing them from their African cultural heritage (Ndiokwere, 1998:45). This way, the pastoral cum theological experience of these African Christian pastors and theologians in the diaspora becomes not an exercise in “rootlessness” (Ilo, 2012: 4), but instead one that makes them much more conscious of their roots as Africans. Thus, para-phrasing Evdokimov’s observation about the fate of the theologian in the ecumenical arena, it could be said that the more one found oneself in the diaspora, the more one became conscious of one’s own roots (2001: 39). Hence, they can much more easily extend the wealth of their knowledge and experience to other Africans in the diaspora, especially, African immigrant Christian parents in North America and Europe today who are known to place great importance on names as regards their immigrant, racial, and ethnic identities (Girma, 2020: 18).
The same challenge holds for Christian pastors and theologians at home in Africa, especially, in their relation to the African culture. Their obvious embrace of Christianity should never make them ashamed of their African culture and heritage as to involve themselves in a certain “de-Africanization”. Instead, it should help them find much more ways of marrying the positive aspects of the African culture with the Christian message they articulate and profess. Hence, the emergence of a new and particular expression of Christianity and ipso facto theology that is fully African and fully Christian (Amaefule, 2021:75). Such inculturated Christianity with its attendant theology (inculturation theology) becomes, as well, a corrective to some aspects of early missionary Christianity in Africa, which, in spite of some of the good things they recorded (Amaefule 2022: 7), looked down on almost every other thing African (Edusa-Eyison, 2006:98). Hence, the ease, for instance, at which some exponents of such mission to Africa rejected the use of African names at baptism (Amaefule 2020b:148; Ndiokwere, 1998:43; Adichie, 2004:272). Little wonder, then, baptism became for many Africans in those days, a sacrament wherein a “new, foreign and often-difficult-to-be-pronounced name” was given (Amaefule, 2020b: 149).
Conclusion
The paper set out to consider the double name of Paul of Tarsus, the latter who remains a towering figure in the history of the Church. It examined the nature, meaning and, then, usage of the name in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters. The article concludes by considering the relevance of Paul’s double name to contemporary African Christian pastors and theologians both in the diaspora and at home. It found out, among others, that it provides a template for the African theologian and pastor when it comes to cultural interaction and the consequent production of an authentic inculturation or intercultural theology.