74 Rick Strelan connection between being sunetov" and believing made in Sir 33,3: ‘A man of understanding will trust in the law’ (a[nqrwpo" suneto;" ejmpisteuvsei nomw). If Luke is implicitly referring to this passage, then v/ the suggestion again is that the novmo" and its interpretation is at stake in this conflict with Bar Jesus. Jervell is right to claim that the use of Septuagintal terms suggests that Paul’s charge “sind Worte gegen einen Juden” (27). After all, Bar Jesus has already been identified as a Jew (13,6). But more importantly, it suggests that the conflict between Bar Jesus and Paul has been on scriptural matters, not on such things as magic or dream interpretation. If the word or law of God, and its interpretation, has been the centre of the debate, as 13,7 suggests, then again it makes sense to understand Bar Jesus as being familiar with that word and as having a particular teaching based on that word. In other words, Bar Jesus belongs close to the tradition, at the very least of the synagogue, if not actually within a Christian community at Paphos. In addition, the fact that it is the teaching of the Lord (didach; tou' kuriou, 13,12) v that astonishes the proconsul and leads to his believing is further evidence that this whole episode is not about magic versus Christianity, but about one teaching (namely, that of Paul) being truly derived from the Lord and based on the word of God versus another teaching (that of Bar Jesus) that has its authentication, as Luke would have it, from elsewhere. 4. Bar Jesus One reason for thinking that this Jewish prophet was actually within the Christian community is found in his name. It is possible, of course, that Bar Jesus was the man’s real name and that he was biologically the son of a man named Jesus. After all, it was common practice for prophets to be identified as the ‘son of’. So, for example, Jehu is ‘the son of Hanani’ (1 Kgs 15,33), Elisha is ‘the son of Shaphat (1 Kgs 19,19), Isaiah is the ‘son of Amoz’ (2 Kgs 19,2) and Zechariah, the ‘son of Iddo’ (Ezra 6,14). So in order to bolster his claim as a prophet, this man used the self-designation, ‘son of Jesus’. That is possible, but given the context and the significance of the name ‘Jesus’ in Acts, this seems too much of a coincidence. I suggest that we consider the possibility that the man called himself Bar Jesus because he thought himself to be a disciple of Jesus. Or, at the very least, he (27) JERVELL, Apostelgeschichte, 347.