fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Basically, I just want to put this topic to bed. It has popped up a number of times, and I think it's time to just debunk it thoroughly.
First, there are a couple of terms that need somewhat of a basic explanation:
Roman citizen: This is a special distinction. These were individuals who had special privileges. They were actually citizens of the Roman empire.
Roman: This usually refers to someone living in Rome. They were not necessarily citizens. This can be expanded to include anyone in the Roman Empire, but again, they are not citizens.
Gentile: Anyone who wasn't a Jew. These are the people that Paul brought his message to. Being a Gentile does not equal being a Roman. Not all Gentiles were Romans. So they are two distinct ideas; even though they seem to be confused.
The idea that Paul is a Roman citizen comes exclusively from Acts. If someone claims that Paul is a Roman citizen, they are necessarily relying on Acts. For instance, if we look at the Wikipedia entry on Paul: Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, one will see that they rely on exclusively Acts (they do cite the Encyclopedia Britannica; however, that also relies exclusively on Acts in this case). That is important as Paul himself never states that he is a Roman citizen, and no other source mentions it. The idea rests only on Acts.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary (volume 5, page 187), sums up the doubt about the Roman citizen status of Paul. It states that there is doubt about Paul's Roman citizenship, and it is because "there are questions prompted by the flogging and appeal to Caesar." Simply, Roman citizens were not subjected to flogging. That was part of their status. As L. Michael White states in From Jesus to Christianity, pg 154, "The hardships that Paul claims to have faced at the hands of Roman authorities are not typical for those possessing Roman citizenship. These glaring differences from the account in Acts have led many scholars to question whether Paul was indeed a full-fledged 'citizen" for Rome,..."
So here are what other scholars are saying:
Calvin J Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, pg 207 n30: "Parts of Luke's account give rise to considerable skepticism, however. Most especially the emphasis in Acts on Paul's Roman citizenship cannot be taken without question."
Again by L. Michael White, pg 148: "New Testament scholars have concluded that one must reconstruct Paul's career by starting with the letters themselves, and then correlate the events described in Acts when and where they seem to fit." This is actually a position that John Knox promoted and many scholars follow, such as E.P. Sanders. Donal Akenson, in Saint Saul clarifies this idea on 140: "in the absence of affirmative evidence of the accuracy of a statement in Acts concerning the life of Saint Saul, the assumption has to be that any given statement is not to be trusted (it is not necessarily wrong, just not to be trusted as historical evidence)." Basically then, since Paul does not mention being a Roman citizen, we can not trust Acts on this statement. This is the view that many scholars accept and that is growing in popularity.
Alan Segal, in Paul the Convert, states the same thing on pg 12: "we can be sure of Luke's portrayal of Paul only when Paul's own letter confirm them."
Paula Fredriksen makes a good point concerning this in From Jesus to Christ, pg 55: "If Acts did not exist and all we had were Paul's letters, we would have no reason to think of him as other than a Jew of the Diaspora..." She also mentions, on the same page, "what little biographical information Paul does give us seems to fatally compromise, if not contradict, what we have from Luke." Again, that is more reason to accept Paul or Acts.
Bart Ehrman, who usually follows the mainstream in his books, states in Peter, Paul and Mary, pg 108: "This [Acts mention of Paul being a Roman citizen] has struck some historians as highly unlikely. Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Jews who didn't adhere to some kind of strict Judaism would probably have had few qualms about the matter. But a highly religious Jew such as Paul? It seems unlikely. Moreover, citizenship in this period was, for the most part, restricted to the elite. Paul, on the other hand, even though he was well educated, appears to have been strictly working class."
The first is from The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. On page 68 they say:
"On the other hand, Paul himself never makes a single reference to that status and admits, in fact, that 'three times I was beaten by rods' (2 Cor 11:25)- a Roman punishment forbidden to be used on Roman citizens.... Paul was either not a Roman citizen or, if he were, he never used that privilege for his own advantage."
On page 67, because of that, they also say that "Paul himself never mentions that status and seems even to negate it."
So they acknowledge the possibility Paul was a Roman citizen, but it is unlikely and seems to be something of no import.
In the Search for Paul, by Crossan and Jonathan Reed, on page 5, the same sentiment is stated: "In any case, Paul himself never mentions that latter status [Roman citizenship], and, if his Roman beatings are any indication, he was never a Roman citizen."
Finally, again from Segal, pg 26: "all discussion of Paul's early life, especially with details gleaned from Luke, is bound to end in pure speculation."
To sum up. It appears that the consensus is that Acts is only reliable, when it comes to Paul, when it is supported by Pauline letters. Otherwise, it is nothing more than pure speculation. That means, the idea of Paul being a Roman citizen, is at best, pure speculation. And there are many reasons to doubt that he was a Roman citizen at all.
If, and this is a big if, Paul was a Roman citizen, it appears to be of no importance though. Again, Paul never mentions it, he isn't treated like a Roman citizen (as in he is beaten) and he appears to identify as Jewish. If he was a Roman citizen, it was only by birth, and something he apparently never shared or made use of. It is much more likely that he was never a Roman citizen though, and that Acts is incorrect here, as it often is when talking about Paul.
First, there are a couple of terms that need somewhat of a basic explanation:
Roman citizen: This is a special distinction. These were individuals who had special privileges. They were actually citizens of the Roman empire.
Roman: This usually refers to someone living in Rome. They were not necessarily citizens. This can be expanded to include anyone in the Roman Empire, but again, they are not citizens.
Gentile: Anyone who wasn't a Jew. These are the people that Paul brought his message to. Being a Gentile does not equal being a Roman. Not all Gentiles were Romans. So they are two distinct ideas; even though they seem to be confused.
The idea that Paul is a Roman citizen comes exclusively from Acts. If someone claims that Paul is a Roman citizen, they are necessarily relying on Acts. For instance, if we look at the Wikipedia entry on Paul: Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, one will see that they rely on exclusively Acts (they do cite the Encyclopedia Britannica; however, that also relies exclusively on Acts in this case). That is important as Paul himself never states that he is a Roman citizen, and no other source mentions it. The idea rests only on Acts.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary (volume 5, page 187), sums up the doubt about the Roman citizen status of Paul. It states that there is doubt about Paul's Roman citizenship, and it is because "there are questions prompted by the flogging and appeal to Caesar." Simply, Roman citizens were not subjected to flogging. That was part of their status. As L. Michael White states in From Jesus to Christianity, pg 154, "The hardships that Paul claims to have faced at the hands of Roman authorities are not typical for those possessing Roman citizenship. These glaring differences from the account in Acts have led many scholars to question whether Paul was indeed a full-fledged 'citizen" for Rome,..."
So here are what other scholars are saying:
Calvin J Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, pg 207 n30: "Parts of Luke's account give rise to considerable skepticism, however. Most especially the emphasis in Acts on Paul's Roman citizenship cannot be taken without question."
Again by L. Michael White, pg 148: "New Testament scholars have concluded that one must reconstruct Paul's career by starting with the letters themselves, and then correlate the events described in Acts when and where they seem to fit." This is actually a position that John Knox promoted and many scholars follow, such as E.P. Sanders. Donal Akenson, in Saint Saul clarifies this idea on 140: "in the absence of affirmative evidence of the accuracy of a statement in Acts concerning the life of Saint Saul, the assumption has to be that any given statement is not to be trusted (it is not necessarily wrong, just not to be trusted as historical evidence)." Basically then, since Paul does not mention being a Roman citizen, we can not trust Acts on this statement. This is the view that many scholars accept and that is growing in popularity.
Alan Segal, in Paul the Convert, states the same thing on pg 12: "we can be sure of Luke's portrayal of Paul only when Paul's own letter confirm them."
Paula Fredriksen makes a good point concerning this in From Jesus to Christ, pg 55: "If Acts did not exist and all we had were Paul's letters, we would have no reason to think of him as other than a Jew of the Diaspora..." She also mentions, on the same page, "what little biographical information Paul does give us seems to fatally compromise, if not contradict, what we have from Luke." Again, that is more reason to accept Paul or Acts.
Bart Ehrman, who usually follows the mainstream in his books, states in Peter, Paul and Mary, pg 108: "This [Acts mention of Paul being a Roman citizen] has struck some historians as highly unlikely. Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Jews who didn't adhere to some kind of strict Judaism would probably have had few qualms about the matter. But a highly religious Jew such as Paul? It seems unlikely. Moreover, citizenship in this period was, for the most part, restricted to the elite. Paul, on the other hand, even though he was well educated, appears to have been strictly working class."
The first is from The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. On page 68 they say:
"On the other hand, Paul himself never makes a single reference to that status and admits, in fact, that 'three times I was beaten by rods' (2 Cor 11:25)- a Roman punishment forbidden to be used on Roman citizens.... Paul was either not a Roman citizen or, if he were, he never used that privilege for his own advantage."
On page 67, because of that, they also say that "Paul himself never mentions that status and seems even to negate it."
So they acknowledge the possibility Paul was a Roman citizen, but it is unlikely and seems to be something of no import.
In the Search for Paul, by Crossan and Jonathan Reed, on page 5, the same sentiment is stated: "In any case, Paul himself never mentions that latter status [Roman citizenship], and, if his Roman beatings are any indication, he was never a Roman citizen."
Finally, again from Segal, pg 26: "all discussion of Paul's early life, especially with details gleaned from Luke, is bound to end in pure speculation."
To sum up. It appears that the consensus is that Acts is only reliable, when it comes to Paul, when it is supported by Pauline letters. Otherwise, it is nothing more than pure speculation. That means, the idea of Paul being a Roman citizen, is at best, pure speculation. And there are many reasons to doubt that he was a Roman citizen at all.
If, and this is a big if, Paul was a Roman citizen, it appears to be of no importance though. Again, Paul never mentions it, he isn't treated like a Roman citizen (as in he is beaten) and he appears to identify as Jewish. If he was a Roman citizen, it was only by birth, and something he apparently never shared or made use of. It is much more likely that he was never a Roman citizen though, and that Acts is incorrect here, as it often is when talking about Paul.
