Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[angellous_evangellous]

My god that was a good post.

 

[outhouse]

A few of the new perspective people but not "most".

and the new perspective are all over the board in different belief/faith

 

[angellous_evangellous]

and the new perspective are all over the board in different belief/faith

I think that she was referring to a trend in scholarship known as:
New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fallingblood]

First some a little info on Philippians, it is one of the uncontested letters of Paul, meaning Paul definitely wrote this letter. And as for it's provenance, most scholars that agree that it's provenance is Rome!

Michael Cook, in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, in regards to the section on Philippians, states, "Increasingly, recent scholarship has gravitated to a mid-50s dating at Ephesus." This work was published in 2011.

The New Jerome Bible Commentary (1990), states:"...most modern scholars assign the imprisonment tot he apostle's lengthy stay in Ephesus.."

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 5 (1992), states: "Ephesus has been adopted by an increasing number of scholars and now rivals or even surpasses Rome as the imprisonment site favored by most."

And just to show this is not a new idea, in The Writings of St Paul, edited by Wayne A. Meeks (1972), it states: "...modern scholars have proposed either Caesarea or Ephesus. Of the two Ephesus is far the more plausible."

So it isn't some "new perspective" that only a few follow.

since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel all of you became partners in God’s grace together with me"

In these few verses we learn that Paul is indeed imprisoned in Rome! And not only that the good people of Philippi have been sending him aid.

It only says that if you already assume this letter was written in Rome. Those verses do not actually state that this letter was written in Rome.

Let's examine some more:

"1:12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my situation has actually turned out to advance the gospel: 1:13 The whole imperial guard and everyone else knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ, "

Paul, our good man is one to take a bunch of lemons and make lemonade. Yes he is imprisoned in Rome but it gives him an opportunity to witness Christ to the Praetorium Guard! Wait a sec here! The Praetorium Guard? Let's move on because there is more.

It does not state that Paul was witnessing to the Praetorium Guard. It simply states that they knew why he was there. Maybe he was complaining. Maybe he was preaching to no one, but others heard. Maybe he was like many prisoners and just screaming whatever. It does not state that he witnessed to anyone. It simply says that they know of the reason he is in prison.

Also, their is evidence that the Praetorium Guard was also in Ephesus. So that works there as well.

We will skip a head some , there is a beautiful hymn in the middle or so but that's for another thread.

"2:19 Now I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be encouraged by hearing news about you."

"2:25 But for now I have considered it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. For he is my brother"

Are Timothy and Epaphroditus imprisoned with Paul. No, they are free to go and deliver messages for Paul. So why are they there? Because Paul even though he is imprisoned is allowed people to help him out, send message and do errands for him. He is allowed servants. I bet many prisoners today would love that privilege.

It does not say that Paul is able to see anyone. Or that he is allowed servants, or the like. In fact, if you read the entire letter, you will see that the Philippians had sent Epaphroditus to Paul in the first place. And most likely would have returned anyway. It is probable that Epaphroditus (and many scholars agree on this) arrived before Paul was in prison. Then he got deathly ill. And then, once he got better, took a letter from Paul back home.

As for Timothy, it does not state that Paul sent him out. Instead, it stated that he hoped that he would be able to. Many scholars agree that Paul probably didn't sent out Timothy until after he gets out of prison. And that raises another issue, and that is that Philippians is probably actually a composition of several letters. Which needs to be remembered.

Basically though, all you have done is read into the verses what you already assumed was there. These verses do not say that Paul had servants, that he had people doing errands, or coming and going from him.

Time for another verse.

"4:21 Give greetings to all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers with me here send greetings. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who belong to Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. "

Seems Paul's imprisonment as been going well, not only is he guarded by the Emperor's own body guards, he is allowed access to the people of Caesar's court.

Where does it state that Paul is guarded by the Emperor's own body guards? It doesn't. Also, as for those who belong to Caesar's household, many scholars agree that means a guild of civll servants. It certainly isn't saying he is allowed access to people of Caesar's court.

Also, again, you did call Caesar the Emperor. There is no mention of Nero here. By what you have said, we should assume that Caesar refers to Julius Caesar. Who is dead by this time. You attacked A_E for the same thing. For you to do it, is hypocritical.

More so, as I assume you are doing, you are showing that there is more than one individual named Caesar or referred to as Caesar. So your initial attacks on A_E were baseless. It seems like it was nothing more than mud flinging.

So this epistle definitely confirms what Luke wrote in Acts. Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome where he was imprisoned by Nero to await trial.

Where does it say that Paul appealed? It doesn't unless you assume way too much. It doesn't say he was waiting trial, it doesn't state he was in Rome, and it doesn't say he appealed anything. You are reading something that isn't there.

Now I am going to ask a few question?

If Paul was some insignificant foreigner, why is he allowed a trial before Caesar? Why not just nail him to a cross? Why is he being guarded by Nero's own bodyguards if he is just some lowly fanatical non-citizen Jew? Why does he have access to Caesar's court?

Well none of that is actually true, and the Epistle to the Philippians don't support any of those ideas. So really, there is no reason to answer those questions, as they are not historically correct.

Why is not only allowed not just one but three people to serve his needs? Why is he allowed access by messenger to the outside world if he was suffering severe imprisonment?

Again, there is no suggestion that he has people serving him, or even people coming and going from him. You assumed that this letter did, because that is what you previously believed. The verses you cited though, as explained above, simply don't support any of that.

Why was this man allowed these privileges? Why is he treated with deference? I think the answer is obvious. Paul is a Roman citizen and not only an ordinary one either.

The answer is only obvious if you jam everything to make it so. But really, that isn't the case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So it isn't some "new perspective" that only a few follow.

Maybe a few people in the "New Perspective (on Paul)" believe it, but it has nothing to do with their New Perspective (which is defined by Paul's theology and not where he was when he wrote a particular letter ).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Michael Cook, in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, in regards to the section on Philippians, states, "Increasingly, recent scholarship has gravitated to a mid-50s dating at Ephesus." This work was published in 2011.

Thanks. I own the book - I'll look at the article when I get home.

 

[gnostic]

One of the ways for non-Roman people to earn Roman citizenship (as well as being the most common way) were to seve in the Roman army, either in the auxiliary infantry or cavalry for a number of years. The auxiliary troops served side-by-side with the Roman legions.

The Roman citizenship was part of pension benefits for foreigners living in the provinces of the Roman empire. Other benefits may include money or small piece of land, like a farm, or have him living in a new colony or town.

I doubt very much that Paul was once an auxiliary soldier.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One of the ways for non-Roman people to earn Roman citizenship (as well as being the most common way) were to seve in the Roman army, either in the auxiliary infantry or cavalry for a number of years. The auxiliary troops served side-by-side with the Roman legions.

The Roman citizenship was part of pension benefits for foreigners living in the provinces of the Roman empire. Other benefits may include money or small piece of land, like a farm, or have him living in a new colony or town.

I doubt very much that Paul was once an auxiliary soldier.

Making your post wholly irrelevant. Thanks for sharing. :yes:

 

[gnostic]

Making your post wholly irrelevant. Thanks for sharing. :yes:

Yes, it does make my post irrelevant...for the most part.

There could be any of number ways of some provincial individuals or even whole towns gaining Roman citizenship. But actively serving in one of the auxilary units for x-number of years (10 to 15 years) was the most common way for obtaining citizenship...which also depends on if you actually survive active duty. Sometimes, it could be shorter duration of time, like if you showed uncommon bravery or you become the pro-magistrate's favorite.

Paul just didn't get it through this route.

Even ex-slave can gain citizenship. I just don't know how Paul gained his...that if he was ever was one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, it does make my post irrelevant...for the most part.

Then why make it?

There could be any of number ways of some provincial individuals or even whole towns gaining Roman citizenship. But actively serving in one of the auxilary units for x-number of years (10 to 15 years) was the most common way for obtaining citizenship...which also depends on if you actually survive active duty. Sometimes, it could be shorter duration of time, like if you showed uncommon bravery or you become the pro-magistrate's favorite. Paul just didn't get it through this route.

It's nice to have someone here with so much knowledge and so many facts. Would you mind sharing your sources?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This just in: Paul was the first dictator of Katztikistan.

 

[outhouse]

This just in: Paul was the first dictator of Katztikistan.

you my friend are one bored cat

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've asked this elsewhere but it is more appropriate to this thread:

A quick web search suggests that Paul's name is Latin. My question here is: did it originate in (or was it more typical to) Greek society, i.e., was it originally a Greek name?​

Thanks.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've asked this elsewhere but it is more appropriate to this thread:

A quick web search suggests that Paul's name is Latin. My question here is: did it originate in (or was it more typical to) Greek society, i.e., was it originally a Greek name?​

Thanks.

Yea, this is an interesting question. The NT said he was known as Saul then became known as Paul...but I once read that Saul is a Hebrew name as well as Latin name. Like you said.."Paul" is a Latin name as well. So far it seems inconclusive.

 

[Pragmatist]

I can't be expected to read 36 pages of posts, so please correct me if these issues have already been addressed.

I can certainly agree that there is no direct, solid evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Acts can not be cited as documentary evidence that Paul was a citizen. Acts is pure mythology, as are the Gospels. These documents have more of a polemical bent, versus a historical or documentary intent.

There is no direct evidence, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. If you have even skimmed Paul's epistles, then you are aware of this fact: Paul thinks in Greek. His command of Greek rhetoric is uncontested. Greek is his "natural" language. Typical of a Roman citizen.

 

[fallingblood]

There is no direct evidence, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. If you have even skimmed Paul's epistles, then you are aware of this fact: Paul thinks in Greek. His command of Greek rhetoric is uncontested. Greek is his "natural" language. Typical of a Roman citizen.

No, it is typical of someone from a Greek speaking area. The Roman language was Latin.

 

[fallingblood]

I've asked this elsewhere but it is more appropriate to this thread:

A quick web search suggests that Paul's name is Latin. My question here is: did it originate in (or was it more typical to) Greek society, i.e., was it originally a Greek name?​

Thanks.

I can't say for 100% sure, but from what I recall, it was originally a Greek name. I can't recall where I heard that from, so I won't say that it is definitely true. I will do some more research on my part though.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can't be expected to read 36 pages of posts, so please correct me if these issues have already been addressed.

I can certainly agree that there is no direct, solid evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Acts can not be cited as documentary evidence that Paul was a citizen. Acts is pure mythology, as are the Gospels. These documents have more of a polemical bent, versus a historical or documentary intent.

There is no direct evidence, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. If you have even skimmed Paul's epistles, then you are aware of this fact: Paul thinks in Greek. His command of Greek rhetoric is uncontested. Greek is his "natural" language. Typical of a Roman citizen.

Once again, speculation from RF quarterbacks. Really, at least back up these statements with some logic.

:beach:

 

[outhouse]

I can't be expected to read 36 pages of posts, so please correct me if these issues have already been addressed.

I can certainly agree that there is no direct, solid evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Acts can not be cited as documentary evidence that Paul was a citizen. Acts is pure mythology, as are the Gospels. These documents have more of a polemical bent, versus a historical or documentary intent.

There is no direct evidence, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. If you have even skimmed Paul's epistles, then you are aware of this fact: Paul thinks in Greek. His command of Greek rhetoric is uncontested. Greek is his "natural" language. Typical of a Roman citizen.

I agree

with the exception mythoogy can contain valid hsitoricity in some events

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't say for 100% sure, but from what I recall, it was originally a Greek name. I can't recall where I heard that from, so I won't say that it is definitely true. I will do some more research on my part though.

That would be very interesting. Thanks for looking into it further.

(I wonder how he came upon the two names.)​