SkepticBoyLee

We still called "Socrates" by that name, unless you are a stoner and then its "So-crates". Excellent!

darstec

Assuming that he even actually lived, wasn't he from Tarsus? Wouldn't he be known by his Turkish name? Even the name he claimed previous to his conversion, Saul, is not Turkish.

Seeing that some linguists claim Turkish is a well defined language going back 8000 years, it seems rather suspect that nobody wrote about the author of the epistles mentioning his Turkish name. Surely he was well known and had relatives?

Why do none of the NT "heroes" have descendants or relatives claiming heritage? That seems rather synonymous with the fact that no one claims to be a relative of Superman, Batman, Gandalf or Frodo (except for a few obvious mental patients). Even the oiled one's garment was said to magically heal if it were touched. In a time where talismans and magic charms abound, why weren't all the possessions, homes, etc of the oiled one and his disciples/apostles gathered, kept, discussed and hoarded? Why did it only become important after Constantine decided he need relics and nameplaces discovered for his mommy?


Surely there would have been first century Turkish translations of their most famous son? Yet nada. Not even Turkish commentary. Doesn't anyone else see that as suspect?

Toto

The Ottoman Turks did not conquer the area until the 15th century. Please don't add to the misinformation on the internet.

There was a group called the Desposyni, who claimed to be descended from Jesus' brother Joses. But they are only known from some tales preserved by Eusebius, and they disappear from history before Constantine. Their status is complicated by the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Good questions. I think that historicists would point out that the Jewish Wars probably obliterated a lot.

darstec

You are confusing the Ottoman Empire with a much older Turkish language. Almost any source on that language depicts the language from that area going back a minimum of 5,000 years and some linguists say 8,000. Tarsus is in Turkey where that language was spoken. Why the missing Turkish translations and commentaries.

It is NOT misinformation. Please check again. The language held its own for millennia before the Ottoman Empire. And from Alexander's time, Greek was also used.

Toto

The Turkish language is spoken by Turks. In the first century CE, what is now Turkey was part of the Roman Empire, and Turks were nowhere to be found.

The Seljuk Turks invaded Persia in the 11th Century and spread from their into Anatolia, defeating the Byzantines. Before that time, it seem fair to surmise that no one in Tarsus spoke Turkish.

Can you provide a source for the idea that any language has been stable for 5,000 years?

Turkish_language on wikipedia says:

I know there are modern Turks who claim some sort of national connection to the Hittites, but that language was dead by the time of Paul.

So what language are you talking about?

darstec

My post mentioned nothing about Turks. It talked about the language of the peoples in a land now known as Turkey, and in which a city called Tarsus existed for many, many centuries predating the Ottoman Empire. Or was Paul of Tarsus from some other Tarsus? It could be some other imaginary Tarsus as the group of writers writing under that cognomen used an imaginary author.

Sorry, but I discount any use of Wikis. A well known poster to this group takes it upon himself to redact, delete and edit anything on a Wiki with which he disagrees. Anyone and their grandmother can add or delete anything from any Wiki. Yes look at the histories of revisions, the majority of which are by anonymous IDs.

Tarsus was known as a center for tin smelting as far back as 3000 BCE. The most probable languages because of the Phonetician trade is said to be a proto Phonetician, Phonetician, and Aramaic by the fictitious Paul's lifetime, in addition to the ever popular Greek.

Doug Shaver

His home city and nation are unknown. In none of the writings attributed to him does he say where he was from. The author of Acts said he was from Tarsus. I, and many others in this forum, consider Acts to be worthless as a source of historical data.

Again, that was the author of Acts making the claim. Paul himself never said anything about having once been known by any other name.

aa5874

But, this would mean that the apologetic corroborative source for the Pauline writings is worthless.

1. In Acts of the Apostles 9.25 it is written that Saul/Paul was in a basket in Damascus and in 2 Corinthians 11.31-32 a Pauline writer claimed he was in a basket in Damascus.

2. In Acts of the Apostles 8.3 it is written that Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers and made havoc of the Church and in Galatians 1.13 and 1.23 a Pauline writer claimed he persecuted Jesus believers and wasted the Church.

3. In Acts of the Apostles 9. it is written that Saul/Paul was with Barnabas in Jerusalem and in Galatians 2.1 a Pauline writer claimed he was with Barnabas in Jeerusalem.

4. In Acts of the Apostles it is written that Saul/Paul preached ALL over the Roman Empire and in the Pauline writings Paul did claim he preached ALL over the Roman Empire.

5. In Acts of the Apostles including Acts 14.19 Saul/Paul was beaten, almost died by stoning, was jailed and shipwrecked and in 2 Cor. 11.25 a Pauline writer claimed he was beaten, stoned and shipwrecked.

Now, if Acts of the Apostles contains worthless historical data then the Pauline writers veracity cannot be assured. We simply cannot ignore the fact that not even apologetic sources about Paul can be trusted.

In effect, the Pauline writings cannot be accepted as true or credible on Paul's word alone.

But, this may mean "Paul" wrote AFTER his name was changed and that the original author of Acts initially wrote about Saul.

Toto

Read Acts 13. Paul did not change his name. Acts describes a man named "Saul" who persecutes Christians, is struck by a vision on the road to Damascus, and starts his missionary journey.

Then, on the island of Cyprus, Saul meets the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who has a false Jewish prophet on his staff, named Bar-Jesus. At that point, the narrative tells us that Saul was also named Paul, and the character is referred to as Paul for the rest of Acts.

There was no name change.

Note: there are several inscriptions that Christians have interpreted as establishing that Sergius Paulus was an actual historical person. The one in Pisidian Antioch actually references Lucius Sergius Paulus, who might have been the son of Sergius Paulus. There is also an inscription in Rome, although Paul does not mention Sergius in any of his letters, which seems strange if this is remotely historical.

aa5874

Of course there seemed to be a name change.

The author of Acts did not introduce Saul as "also known as Paul" from the start when he should have before he wrote his story that "Saul" was also called "Paul". Other characters that had other "aliases" were introduced for the first time with their alias.

Ac 1:23 - Ac 13:1 - Now, there would be no benefit for the author of Acts to introduce "Paul" only as "Saul" from chapter 7 -chapter 13 of Acts if the PAULINE writings did not call "Paul" by the name of "Saul".

From Acts 7-13 ch there is only "Saul" but from 13-28 ch there is only "Paul" except in one single case. Astonishingly Jesus did not use the name "Paul" only "Saul" throughout all of Acts which seem to indicate that the story was initially about "Saul" and not "Paul".

Ac 26:14 -
But, where is the name "Saul"? You have Sergius Paulus not Sergius Saul.

There seems to have been a name change, it would appear the initial author was writing about a character called Saul and then the name was changed to "Paul" possibly by another author..