Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Dirty Penguin]

So we have something more solid to compare Acts to. There are also only two sources here that have to be compared, Paul and Acts.

Paul may have been silent on his citizenship in his letter but how does absence of evidence discount the context of Acts 21 and 22?

 

[idav]

Much of the Gospels are thrown out as being unreliable for a number of reasons, just like this passage is being thrown out of Acts. The big difference though is that for Paul, we have a first hand account. So we have something more solid to compare Acts to. There are also only two sources here that have to be compared, Paul and Acts.

So your not throwing out all of acts just that passage. Sounds convenient.

Anything in Pauls writings that explicitly state he is or isn't a Roman? The passage your throwing out is explicit and Paul never denies it. Having a Jewish education is hardly a reason to say someone isn't a citizen of the empire they live in.

 

[fallingblood]

One thing I'm curious about is: if Paul wasn't a Roman citizen, why would Acts say he was?

What I mean is: if you go with an early date of composition for Acts---immediately after or even during Paul's ministry---it seems unlikely that the author would have added such a significant detail.

If we go with a later date, it seems unlikely that the author would have introduced a new detail into a tradition that was probably already well known.

So it seems like, even going by a later date of composition, the idea that Paul was a Roman citizen would have already been an accepted part of his story. If so, and if in actuality he wasn't a Roman citizen, where would the idea have come from, and why?

Many things came into the tradition after 70 C.E. That is partially because the movement was forced to take a new turn. And really, it doesn't seem as if Paul was all that well preserved. In that, I mean we are missing letters from Paul, we are missing all of the letters to Paul, some of the letters do have interpolations, and others are just a jumbled of possibly multiple letters (2 Corinthians is like that).

Paul also doesn't seem all that important at this early date. For one, his letters weren't preserved in the best way. Acts doesn't even really refer to Paul as an Apostle (which is interesting, because Paul does make a very strong point of being an Apostle, so we know that is an early tradition, yet Acts changes that as well). Acts also, on occasion, directly contradicts Paul, so it wasn't as if the tradition was cemented yet. As a side note, Acts also seems oblivious to the idea that Paul was writing letters, which, from what we see with Paul, was actually a major aspect of his ministry. So the tradition wasn't very firm at all.

As for why would Acts create such a story about Paul being a Roman? It gives Paul a sense of Universalism. Luke-Acts, from the beginning, is trying to make a point of stressing that even though the message started for the Jews, it became a universal message. Paul is the means for the universalism. His Roman citizenship is key here, as it spreads the message not to just Jews and Gentiles, but to even the elite of society. It encompasses everyone. So that is a good reason for Acts to create such an idea, as it fits into the theme of Luke-Acts.

Acts also has a tendency to build up Paul. In Acts, Paul is taught at the feet of Gamaliel. That is quite prestigious. Yet, Paul never mentions such, which is odd since that is something one would assume Paul would mention. Being labeled Roman citizen also builds Paul up, and exaggerates him, as being a Roman citizen was a special status. It was seen as being the elite. There was a prestige with it. And for Paul, it was even more because unlike the centurion he speaks to, he didn't have to pay for such an status, he was born into such. So it builds Paul's reputation, and it builds up the figure of Paul. It gives him more authority.

It also allows the message to be presented to other Roman citizens. We have the Roman centurion as I mentioned above. But it also brings Paul to Rome, and gives him an elite audience. So that universalism comes into play again. The message is for everyone, and since Paul fits in everywhere, he is able to preach the message everywhere.

So creating such an idea, that Paul was a Roman citizen, makes sense when the theme of Luke-Acts is examined. Paul symbolizes this universalism that Luke-Acts really is centered on. More so, it gives Paul more authority. And it makes certain aspects of the narrative more exciting. Paul going to Rome is exciting, when it is in the context of a trial, as in Acts. Paul going to Rome, in order to talk to the churches, is boring, as what Paul states is his plan in Romans.

 

[outhouse]

just like this passage is being thrown out of Acts

False

its not being thrown out


Its being questioned. Big difference there.

 

[outhouse]

Acts doesn't even really refer to Paul as an Apostle

which is correct.


paul was self appointed, which means he is a fictional apostle. "To be sent forth" if you do it yourself, your not "sent forth"

 

[outhouse]

Acts also seems oblivious to the idea that Paul was writing letters, which, from what we see with Paul, was actually a major aspect of his ministry. So the tradition wasn't very firm at all.

GLukes authors source was probably oral tradition, which should have very little chance of getting to the author except for a local letter, which may or may not have even been near said person.

The author of gluke was writing to early for any oral tradition to spread from the epistles, many may or may not have agreed with.


It was in opposition to the original movement, thus may have been deemed roman trash.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Romans

Thanks for sharing. I'm done with you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then as A_E states, the authenticity of Acts is severely questioned anyway. As I mentioned in the OP, many scholars do not think one can use Acts, at least in regard to Paul, unless Paul also supports this. Especially in the last decade, this appears to be the view that really is taking hold.

Very quickly (I have to leave for services in about 15 minutes.

From Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings:

There is once again a renewed interest in the issue of the historical value of Acts. While exegesis oriented to a purely redaction-critical method (E. Haenchen, H. Conzelmann, Ph. Vielhauer) tended to have a rather low estimate of the historical value of Acts, more recently especially J. Roloff and M. Hengel have emphasized that Luke preserved numerous old and historically reliable traditions in Acts. M. Hengel insists that, "We only do justice to the significance of Luke as the first theological 'historian' of Christianity if we take his work seriously as a source," and J. Roloff also warns against "placing the source question too quickly on the shelves." The establishing of extensive sources or reconstruction able units of tradition is once again valued positively, despite the skeptical positions of G. Schille and W. Schmithals; the question of what traditional basis Luke had for his portrayal of Paul is in the center of this discussion, Extreme positions ('Luke as eyewitness of the Pauline mission' - 'Luke as novelist') are losing ground, and being replaced with an interest in the extent and manner of the traditions edited by Luke.​

Perhaps this is a dated appraisal (1998), but one hardly gets the sense of a consensus moving inexorably against Luke as a 'severely questionable source'.

I have no horse in the race, but "Only Luke says so therefore it must be wrong." strikes me a very curious logic.

Shabbat Shalom!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Thanks for sharing. I'm done with you.

Good. I don't care. I can't give you an overview of Paul's theology with one verse. It takes a whole epistles of his. I am not wikipedia. Sorry. Read Romans.

And in the spirit of the thread: futue te ipsum, I am done with you too.

 

[Quagmire]

Many things came into the tradition after 70 C.E. That is partially because the movement was forced to take a new turn. And really, it doesn't seem as if Paul was all that well preserved. In that, I mean we are missing letters from Paul, we are missing all of the letters to Paul, some of the letters do have interpolations, and others are just a jumbled of possibly multiple letters (2 Corinthians is like that).

Paul also doesn't seem all that important at this early date. For one, his letters weren't preserved in the best way. Acts doesn't even really refer to Paul as an Apostle (which is interesting, because Paul does make a very strong point of being an Apostle, so we know that is an early tradition, yet Acts changes that as well). Acts also, on occasion, directly contradicts Paul, so it wasn't as if the tradition was cemented yet. As a side note, Acts also seems oblivious to the idea that Paul was writing letters, which, from what we see with Paul, was actually a major aspect of his ministry. So the tradition wasn't very firm at all.

As for why would Acts create such a story about Paul being a Roman? It gives Paul a sense of Universalism. Luke-Acts, from the beginning, is trying to make a point of stressing that even though the message started for the Jews, it became a universal message. Paul is the means for the universalism. His Roman citizenship is key here, as it spreads the message not to just Jews and Gentiles, but to even the elite of society. It encompasses everyone. So that is a good reason for Acts to create such an idea, as it fits into the theme of Luke-Acts.

Acts also has a tendency to build up Paul. In Acts, Paul is taught at the feet of Gamaliel. That is quite prestigious. Yet, Paul never mentions such, which is odd since that is something one would assume Paul would mention. Being labeled Roman citizen also builds Paul up, and exaggerates him, as being a Roman citizen was a special status. It was seen as being the elite. There was a prestige with it. And for Paul, it was even more because unlike the centurion he speaks to, he didn't have to pay for such an status, he was born into such. So it builds Paul's reputation, and it builds up the figure of Paul. It gives him more authority.

It also allows the message to be presented to other Roman citizens. We have the Roman centurion as I mentioned above. But it also brings Paul to Rome, and gives him an elite audience. So that universalism comes into play again. The message is for everyone, and since Paul fits in everywhere, he is able to preach the message everywhere.

So creating such an idea, that Paul was a Roman citizen, makes sense when the theme of Luke-Acts is examined. Paul symbolizes this universalism that Luke-Acts really is centered on. More so, it gives Paul more authority. And it makes certain aspects of the narrative more exciting. Paul going to Rome is exciting, when it is in the context of a trial, as in Acts. Paul going to Rome, in order to talk to the churches, is boring, as what Paul states is his plan in Romans.

That makes sense. :yes:

I was completely unaware of any of this:

Paul also doesn't seem all that important at this early date. For one, his letters weren't preserved in the best way. Acts doesn't even really refer to Paul as an Apostle (which is interesting, because Paul does make a very strong point of being an Apostle, so we know that is an early tradition, yet Acts changes that as well). Acts also, on occasion, directly contradicts Paul, so it wasn't as if the tradition was cemented yet. As a side note, Acts also seems oblivious to the idea that Paul was writing letters, which, from what we see with Paul, was actually a major aspect of his ministry. So the tradition wasn't very firm at all.

Not having studied anything on Paul outside of the NT, I'd always assumed that Paul's iconic status in the early movement was consistent from the time of his ministry onward. Given the contradictions between what Acts says about him and what he says about himself it seems fair to assume that that wasn't the case.

In that case, the author of Acts would have had a lot of leeway to depict Paul in whatever light he felt he needed to.

 

[outhouse]

In that case, the author of Acts would have had a lot of leeway to depict Paul in whatever light he felt he needed to.

yet paul paints freely about himself, and a jesus he knows absolutely nothing about, he dioesnt speak much but what he does is all fiction.

Paul is a "want to be" apostle, and he tries so very hard to paint himself as close to the original apostles as he can, yet he is miles a part from the real teachings of jesus and the original movement which was strickly judaism.


The reason the "real apostles" are forgotten in history is because their movement died in judaism in different sects that were chort lived after his death.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, yes, but help me to better appreciate why this absence of evidence should be deemed evidence of absence: Where in his letters do you find this lack of hint surprising?

Please excuse me if there is a misunderstanding here. I was trying to say that there is no evidence for Paul being a Roman citizen (Acts is worthless for a positive statement on the issue, Paul doesn't mention it).

Now as for this:

OK. On the other hand ...

1. There's not even a starting point only if one assumes that Acts is virtually devoid of historical contribution.
2. Evaluating the claim is not the same as arguing for it.

I'm not arguing from silence that Paul wasn't an apostle. I would say that there's not a starting point for the claim that Paul was. I think that appreciates the distinction that you're making.

Now I don't think that Paul was a citizen because he doesn't say so, especially when one considers Philippians 2, where Paul reflects on his past. He could have mentioned citizenship also in 1 Corinthians 9, where he talks about the struggles that he endures because of his apostleship. I do think that Paul had some access to wealth because of his education (as reflected by his usage of Greek rhetoric), but that doesn't mean that he was a citizen.

I don't even think that Acts presents a good case for citizenship. I'm sure that you've seen that historians (etc) have to overcome an exception to every indication of citizenship. All of the evidence is interpreted through the claim of citizenship -- instead of arguing from positive evidence to sustain the conclusion.

In other words, Paul is declared a citizen but all of the things that happen to him shouldn't happen to citizens. The initial statement should lose its strength in light of this.

 

[outhouse]

his roman citizenship probably got him the job of headhunting the jesus sect to begin with.


there are way to many things that would go perfectly with his roman citizenship, like saul of tarsus, his literacy, he preached to mainly romans, romans accepted his work to be included in the canon, his persecution of jews, he had money, not common for a traveling teacher> here I will compare jesus, jesus had to heal and preach for dinner scraps and gave away all wealth, paul did not, he had his leather buisines, most jews were taxed into starvation, but not paul.

 

[outhouse]

I like this one LOL

PEOPLE OF THE LIE: SAUL OF TARSUS: PAUL >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

Saul was a Roman citizen who was born around the turn of the century 2000 years ago in Tarsus, Cilicia. The country of Cilicia was located at the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. Cilicia and the adjoining nations of Syria and Phoenicia on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea were all under the rule of the Roman Empire. The remaining country which bordered the "Sea" on the east was Palestine, which joined Phoenicia on the south. Palestine was also under the rule of Rome. Rome, very nicely, controlled all of her acquired territory by using native puppet kings, who were subservient to Rome.

Saul was well educated and highly trained as a Roman citizen, though he was an Armenian by birth. He and his family were well known Pharisees of Tarsus. He spoke several languages as well as Latin, the language of the "empire". Early in his life he became a Roman soldier, and because of his nationality, he was placed in Jerusalem as a key person to both understand and help control the native Palestinians. Saul and his Roman troops closely followed the developments of the "christian cult" led by Esu (Jesus) Immanuel in Palestine.


But to bad it has no credibility at all LOL

 

[outhouse]

Many things came into the tradition after 70 C.E. That is partially because the movement was forced to take a new turn. And really, it doesn't seem as if Paul was all that well preserved. In that, I mean we are missing letters from Paul, we are missing all of the letters to Paul, some of the letters do have interpolations, and others are just a jumbled of possibly multiple letters (2 Corinthians is like that).

And that makes perfect sense why hints of his roman citizenship would be removed early on. The first redactors or scribes that copied and added said interpolatons would love to create Paul as being a real apostle to give him more credibility

 

[outhouse]

As for why would Acts create such a story about Paul being a Roman? It gives Paul a sense of Universalism. Luke-Acts, from the beginning, is trying to make a point of stressing that even though the message started for the Jews, it became a universal message.

While it was a universal message, it was directed at romans because the movement was failing within the jewish community.

There is a conflict of interest with paul since he is in opposition to the real apostles and the original movement strickly within judaism

 

[outhouse]

but to even the elite of society.

i"ll claim no way.

that would be another example that goes against the direct teachings of jesus


who were the Elite? Romans and only Romans, and rich Romans were never a target of this movement that started out for hardworking poor peasant jews.

 

[outhouse]

It also allows the message to be presented to other Roman citizens.

this is also false

there was already a movement going on "without paul" that allowed romans to worship judaism in synagogues side by side with jews. This was common kowledge that romans were already accepted to worship yahweh

 

[outhouse]

So that universalism comes into play again. The message is for everyone, and since Paul fits in everywhere, he is able to preach the message everywhere.

This didnt need to be created in Acts, it was pauls life. Its what made paul.


He ALREADY freely traveled the roman empire preaching to everyone in the capitols and city centers. Acts didnt need to help in a roman movement, it was lready well established and common knowledge

Pauls target from the beginning were romans, not only that the god fearer's [romans] in the synagogues following Yahweh were his prime targets.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And that makes perfect sense why hints of his roman citizenship would be removed early on. The first redactors or scribes that copied and added said interpolatons would love to create Paul as being a real apostle to give him more credibility

That is precisely backwards. The earlier traditions -- Paul's own writings -- clearly do not identify him as a Roman citizen. It's the MUCH later traditions - ACTS - that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, does identify him as a Roman citizen.