Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Pragmatist]

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

Greek was used throughout the Roman empire, much as Latin was used throughout Europe in the middle ages. Issac Newton wrote his Principia in Latin. Does that mean he was from a "Latin speaking area"? No, of course not. A philosopher, historian or scientist in England could discourse with the literati in other countries by this means. Latin was the international language of the middle ages, much as Greek was in the time of Jesus.

Paul doesn't just know Greek, but has complete mastery of the language. This fact shines through even in translation: look at the stophe/antistrophe/epode structure of his rhetoric. He has been educated to the highest level possible. Typical of a Roman citizen.

There is more circumstantial evidence. Paul urges his followers to pay their taxes, because the rulers are appointed by God himself. Everybody knew he was talking about the Roman empire. He actually called them "ministers of God"! What a suck-up! Paul did not oppose the Roman authorities in any way. In fact, the subservient nature of his doctrine actually helped Roman power. Why do you think these documents were allowed to circulate?

Very circumstantial, I admit. It is possible to be an agent of the emperor, like Paul, and still not be a full citizen. All I have really shown is that Paul was a sympathizer or appeaser of Roman power. A freedman could rise to the highest circles of power, like Epaphroditos, secretary of Nero, without legally enjoying the full privileges of citizenship.

So we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence: his complete mastery of Greek, his outright sympathy to the Roman cause. The notice in Acts which indicates that he was a citizen becomes a little more convincing in light of these circumstances.

I know that Acts is completely unreliable as a historical document, but it may contain little nuggets of historical information. The notice of Paul's citizenship may be one of these nuggets. One line of reasoning that lends it credibility is this: it is somewhat unorthodox to believe that the great St. Paul, hero of the early church and founder of much of its theology, was a legal citizen of the Roman empire, the very same earthly power that murdered Jesus. There is every reason in the world to leave it out. We know that the pious scribes who transmitted these document would often leave out material that they found embarrassing. The fact that they left it in suggests that Paul's citizenship, although embarrassing, was well known and widely accepted. Since they didn't have "plausible deniability," you might as well leave it in.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is more circumstantial evidence. Paul urges his followers to pay their taxes, because the rulers are appointed by God himself. Everybody knew he was talking about the Roman empire. He actually called them "ministers of God"! What a suck-up! Paul did not oppose the Roman authorities in any way. In fact, the subservient nature of his doctrine actually helped Roman power. Why do you think these documents were allowed to circulate.

And you claim this to be circumstantial evidence of what?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know that Acts is completely unreliable as a historical document, but it may contain little nuggets of historical information. The notice of Paul's citizenship may be one of these nuggets. One line of reasoning that lends it credibility is this: it is somewhat unorthodox to believe that the great St. Paul, hero of the early church and founder of much of its theology, was a legal citizen of the Roman empire, the very same earthly power that murdered Jesus. There is every reason in the world to leave it out. We know that the pious scribes who transmitted these document would often leave out material that they found embarrassing. The fact that they left it in suggests that Paul's citizenship, although embarrassing, was well known and widely accepted. Since they didn't have "plausible deniability," you might as well leave it in.

To me this is the crux of the denial of citizenship for most.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

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.

Paul is derived from the Latin Parvulus. It is a fully Latin name meaning small, in Greek the name is transliterated as Pavlos.

As a side note Paul's Hebrew name Saul sounds a little like the Greek word for "wabbler" seio, which is probably the reason why he changed it to Paul.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul is derived from the Latin Parvulus. It is a fully Latin name meaning small, in Greek the name is transliterated as Pavlos.

I must admit to being mildly disappointed, but thanks for the information.

As a side note Paul's Hebrew name Saul sounds a little like the Greek word for "wabbler" seio, which is probably the reason why he changed it to Paul.

So you're suggesting that 'Paul' was adopted later and that prior to the adoption this Roman citizen (from birth?) was known to the non-Jews around him as Saul. You may be right, but it strikes me as rather odd.

 

[fallingblood]

Greek was used throughout the Roman empire, much as Latin was used throughout Europe in the middle ages. Issac Newton wrote his Principia in Latin. Does that mean he was from a "Latin speaking area"? No, of course not. A philosopher, historian or scientist in England could discourse with the literati in other countries by this means. Latin was the international language of the middle ages, much as Greek was in the time of Jesus.

Actually, Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. Greek may have been read and spoken by the educated, but it certainly doesn't imply one was a Roman citizen. It implies simply that he was educated.

Paul doesn't just know Greek, but has complete mastery of the language. This fact shines through even in translation: look at the stophe/antistrophe/epode structure of his rhetoric. He has been educated to the highest level possible. Typical of a Roman citizen.

No, it would be typical of an educated citizen. Now, Paul's mastery of the language is questionable. In many of his letters, he admits to not even writing them, but having a scribe copy them. More so, when he does write, he brings attention to just how poor his handwriting is. I would take those two clues as to him not having a complete mastery of the language.

And again, it does not even begin to suggest he was a Roman citizen. All of the books of the NT were written in Greek. The Gospel of John is some pretty good Greek as well. That hardly means they were Roman citizens. It only means that they knew Greek, and were educated in it. And it wasn't only Roman citizens who were (and not all Roman citizens could read and write Greek anyway).

There is more circumstantial evidence. Paul urges his followers to pay their taxes, because the rulers are appointed by God himself. Everybody knew he was talking about the Roman empire. He actually called them "ministers of God"! What a suck-up! Paul did not oppose the Roman authorities in any way. In fact, the subservient nature of his doctrine actually helped Roman power. Why do you think these documents were allowed to circulate?

Jesus also tells his followers to pay their taxes. Certainly Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen.

More so, Paul obviously did oppose Roman authorities as he was thrown into jail multiple times, and was beaten by the authorities on a number of other times. So yes, he does show opposition to the authorities.

But of course Paul was talking about the Roman Empire in general. That is simply because he was addressing congregations that existed in the Roman Empire. He also planned on going to Spain, and most likely would have repeated the same sort of message, even though it wasn't part of the Roman Empire. So your argument really is weak at best.

Finally, as for the circulation of this material. We don't know how much it really even circulated at first. But just because it was circulated at all didn't mean that the Romans liked it. The Book of Revelations, which contains a lot of anti-Roman rhetoric, also circulated quite a bit. The Gospels, none of which were written by Roman citizens, also circulated quite a bit, even though they contain some anti-Roman ideas. Jewish works from that time, again not written by Roman citizens, circulated as well, even though some of them contained anti-Roman ideas.

So your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on when other examples are examined.

Very circumstantial, I admit. It is possible to be an agent of the emperor, like Paul, and still not be a full citizen. All I have really shown is that Paul was a sympathizer or appeaser of Roman power. A freedman could rise to the highest circles of power, like Epaphroditos, secretary of Nero, without legally enjoying the full privileges of citizenship.

You just made a huge leap. Paul was not an agent of the emperor, and you have made no argument for that. You simply jumped to such a conclusion on what I assume to be a desire for it to be so.

So we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence: his complete mastery of Greek, his outright sympathy to the Roman cause. The notice in Acts which indicates that he was a citizen becomes a little more convincing in light of these circumstances.

Those two circumstantial pieces of evidence are not actually circumstantial. They have nothing to do with Roman citizenship. And he hardly had sympathy for the Roman cause.

I know that Acts is completely unreliable as a historical document, but it may contain little nuggets of historical information. The notice of Paul's citizenship may be one of these nuggets. One line of reasoning that lends it credibility is this: it is somewhat unorthodox to believe that the great St. Paul, hero of the early church and founder of much of its theology, was a legal citizen of the Roman empire, the very same earthly power that murdered Jesus. There is every reason in the world to leave it out. We know that the pious scribes who transmitted these document would often leave out material that they found embarrassing. The fact that they left it in suggests that Paul's citizenship, although embarrassing, was well known and widely accepted. Since they didn't have "plausible deniability," you might as well leave it in.

It is hardly unorthodox to believe that Paul was a Roman citizen. In fact, most Christians believe just that. In fact, it is the orthodox position, as in, it is the accepted position.

Also, if you notice in the Gospels, the Roman authorities are increasingly left off the hook. And later on, the Roman Empire embraces Christianity, and Christians still remember that. So the Roman Empire isn't this evil entity that people would want to make Paul unassociated with.

Now there really is no reason to leave such out. I have explained this earlier, but if Paul had mentioned it, it simply would have given him more credibility. That is why Acts does it. Obviously, it wasn't a problem some idea. And by Paul openly rejecting it, he would have appeared more humble. But even when Paul has an opportune time to mention such, he never does. Paul doesn't seem to be aware of such a status.

Finally, whether or not scribes left out material that was embarrassing really means little when we look at the NT, and see a lot of embarrassing material, some of which the Gospel writers actually go out of their way to try to explain.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus also tells his followers to pay their taxes.

false he does not


the only way you can state that is to twist out of context, "render unto Caesar"

which he was being questioned and if answered wrong could have been arrested and killed right then. he played the middle of the road. OH WAIT who wrote that??? ah yes roman jewish authors writing to a roman audience. maybe the same writers who made Pilate look like a decent man LOL EPIC FAIL

the fact they are questioning him shows they want to know why he doest pay taxes.

through the NT jesus is portrayed as going after all the tax collectors to preach to these low life sinners to heal them. he even gets zacc to give back much of his tax earnings which is perverting the nation.

even Luke states he was arrested for not paying taxes.

he was question shortly before his death about why he didnt pay his taxes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul is derived from the Latin Parvulus. It is a fully Latin name meaning small, in Greek the name is transliterated as Pavlos.

You seem to be confusing parvus (dim. parvulus) with paulus. The roman surname Paulus was transliterated in Greek as Παυλος.

As a side note Paul's Hebrew name Saul sounds a little like the Greek word for "wabbler" seio, which is probably the reason why he changed it to Paul.

seio/σείω is a verb ("I shake" something) usually found in the medio-passive form. σαλός/salos sounds like Saul and can mean refer to a "wabbling/tossing" motion but for things like waves or earthquakes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem to be confusing parvus (dim. parvulus) with paulus. The roman surname Paulus was transliterated in Greek as Παυλος.

But it is a fully Roman (as opposed to Greek) name?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But it is a fully Roman (as opposed to Greek) name?

Yes. A fairly common roman surname (e.g. esp. L. Aemilius Paulus). However, I don't know of any examples apart from Paul the Apostle where the name is used as in Paul's letters (just "Paul"). There was an adjective in Latin to describe a person (or thing) belonging to or a member of the gens/family Paulus. In other words, the actual Roman name identified one as being "Paulinian", and one could either just say this (i.e., use the adjective) or use the full name to indicate which of the "Pauls" one was or was referring to. Paul's use almost indicates either that he didn't intend for the name to be understand as referring the roman name (but to the adjective for "small") or wasn't really familiar with the roman name itself.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes. A fairly common roman surname (e.g. esp. L. Aemilius Paulus). However, I don't know of any examples apart from Paul the Apostle where the name is used as in Paul's letters (just "Paul"). There was an adjective in Latin to describe a person (or thing) belonging to or a member of the gens/family Paulus. In other words, the actual Roman name identified one as being "Paulinian", and one could either just say this (i.e., use the adjective) or use the full name to indicate which of the "Pauls" one was or was referring to. Paul's use almost indicates either that he didn't intend for the name to be understand as referring the roman name (but to the adjective for "small") or wasn't really familiar with the roman name itself.

Wow, that was a lot better then what I said.

 

[fallingblood]

false he does not

You can keep making things up as much as you want, but it doesn't make them right. As it stands, you have never shown this stuff to be true, or even been able to provide scholars who support what you are saying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. A fairly common roman surname (e.g. esp. L. Aemilius Paulus). However, I don't know of any examples apart from Paul the Apostle where the name is used as in Paul's letters (just "Paul"). There was an adjective in Latin to describe a person (or thing) belonging to or a member of the gens/family Paulus. In other words, the actual Roman name identified one as being "Paulinian", and one could either just say this (i.e., use the adjective) or use the full name to indicate which of the "Pauls" one was or was referring to.

Thank you.

Paul's use almost indicates either that he didn't intend for the name to be understand as referring the roman name (but to the adjective for "small") or wasn't really familiar with the roman name itself.

I'm not quite sure how either of those options make a great deal of sense.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not quite sure how either of those options make a great deal of sense.

Paul calls Simon Kephas, so he was aware of this nickname. It could be that Paul, when he decided to rename himself, went with the roman name Paul knowing that it was identical to the adjective small. Paul does refer to himself more than once as a sort of "lesser" or even "least" among apostles. It's also quite possible that he went with Paul only knowing it was a roman name, but not that it was a surname. Quintus Paullus Fabius Maximus, for example, is generally referred to as Paullus Fabius Maximus, and in ancient epigraphy or writings it is even less clear. A rather faded dedication on a statue seems to have simply referred to him Paullus Fabius while Tacitus and others called him Fabius Maximus. In any case, there were romans who had "Paul" as a part of their name from a relation (direct or indirect; in the case of Q. Paulus Fabius Maximus, the "Paul" was already a part of the family name through anotther ancestor's relation to L. Aemilius Paulus) to the gens. All Paul had to do was know of romans whose names included "Paul" but were of a different family and not know much about the gens itself to suppose that Paul could be a praenomen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It could be that Paul, when he decided to rename himself, went with the roman name Paul knowing that it was identical to the adjective small. Paul does refer to himself more than once as a sort of "lesser" or even "least" among apostles. It's also quite possible that he went with Paul only knowing it was a roman name, but not that it was a surname.

A couple of questions if I may:

• Where do think Paul was born and raised/educated?
• What do you suspect my be true about his parents?
• When did Paul assume his Roman name?

I fully realize that I'm asking for some wild speculation on your part, but I'd like to get a better sense of what and who you imagine Paul to be. Thanks.

 

[Pragmatist]

Jesus also tells his followers to pay their taxes. Certainly Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen.

Jesus tells his followers to pay their taxes, according to Mathew. This fact almost certainly does not originate on the level of historical reality, but from the imagination of the anonymous author. If Jesus really did exist, then he was a Messianic leader from 1st century Palestine in the run-up to the war against the Jews and the destruction of the temple. He would have been opposed to the Roman occupation; Mathew would have him be almost a collaborator. Remember, when the people heard this, "they were amazed." This is not something you would expect a popular religious leader of the region to say.

On the other hand, when it comes to "I bring not peace, but the sword," and "If you do not have a sword, sell your garments and buy a sword," we have some reason to speculate that these are authentic sayings, because it is the kind of thing we would expect a Messianic Jewish leader from that time to say. But pay your taxes and obey the Roman authorities? Not likely.

Remember, the Gospels come later than the epistles; the authors were certainly influenced by the doctrines of Paul. Paul, as we can see from his letters, was a veritable busy body, running around, organizing his churches, spreading his message. His faction of Christianity was opposed by a more Jewish faction, which insisted that new members had to be circumcised, follow the traditional dietary regulations, and almost certainly would have been less accommodating to Roman power. So of the two major branches of Christianity at this time, Paul was a leader in the wing which was collaborationist and anti-Jewish. By the time the Gospels came to be written, the Pauline doctrines had taken root. Hence, the authors put pro-Roman sentiments in the mouth of Jesus, when they actually originated in the teachings of Paul.

If Paul wasn't acting directly on behalf of the Roman authorities, he might has well have been. One must consider the geo-political situation of the era. Palestine was the problem child of the empire. An extremely radical and uncompromising form of messianic Judaism had taken root there. The authorities were quite sensitive to indigenous religious sensibilities. There were occasional abuses, by various governors, various emperors, like Caligula. But as a rule their policy was very liberal. They allowed the Jews to kill any unclean gentile, even a Roman citizen, who wandered into the holy precincts of the temple. The decrees of Claudius are a good example of the liberality of the authorities on these religious issues, but it didn't get them anywhere. The Palestinians could not be brought to discipline, and the messianic movement eventually had to be violently suppressed in a genocidal war.

Now, the important thing to keep in mind is that the Romans had a sizable Jewish population in every city of their empire. There was a very real fear that the messianic fervor could spread. Paul's propaganda was intended to inoculate these populations, to convert the anti-authoritarian messianism into a more compromising "spiritual" religion, not so much concerned with worldly affairs. In a word, something that Roman authorities could live with.

His first mission was to Palestine, to infiltrate the messianic movement at its point of origin. This project was a failure. If he was preaching a religion in which there was no distinction between clean and unclean foods, in which circumcision is not necessary, which includes anti-semitic notions like, "The Jews kill all the prophets," as he preaches in his letters, then he would be lucky to escape from Palestine with his life.

His next mission, to other regions of the empire, was fantastically successful. Considering the fact that it eventually became the official state religion, and the fact there is still a church centered in Rome to this day, he is the most successful propagandist in all of history, putting amateurs like Goebbels to shame.

Anyway, that's my "conspiracy theory." I can't really prove that Paul was a direct agent of Rome, and even if he was, it does not prove the technical fact of his citizenship, or lack thereof. His message is definitely accommodating to Roman authority, however. It is definitely not a message we would expect to hear from a Palestinian Jew. It is possible to imagine it coming from a Roman citizen, on the other hand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is definitely not a message we would expect to hear from a Palestinian Jew. It is possible to imagine it coming from a Roman citizen, on the other hand.

I am amazed at how much you pretend to 'definitely' know. :yes:

 

[Pragmatist]

I am amazed at how much you pretend to 'definitely' know.

You would expect a Palestinian Jew to preach that there is no distinction between clean and unclean foods, that circumcision means nothing, that the Jews kill all the prophets, and other anti-semitic ideas?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A couple of questions if I may:

• Where do think Paul was born and raised/educated?
• What do you suspect my be true about his parents?
• When did Paul assume his Roman name?

I fully realize that I'm asking for some wild speculation on your part, but I'd like to get a better sense of what and who you imagine Paul to be. Thanks.

I don't see any reason to suppose that the author of Acts made up the "of Tarsus" but rather that Paul was from Tarsus. Whether he was educated there and in Jerusalem is a guess, but it is certainly a possibility. However, the knowledge of (and the fact that Paul refers to it in the way he does) his tribal lineage, his cirumcision, his use of Kephas rather than Petros, his knowledge of aramaic, his "zeal", and other signs all point to a devout jewish upbringing and education. Yet Paul also seems to follow the LXX, and although he probably dictated, rather than wrote, his letters, he still dictated in Greek, and I find it unlikely that this was a learned language but rather his primary language (perhaps he was raised speaking aramaic as well as Greek, perhaps he learned it later). I would say he was born in Tarsus, raised there, and perhaps sent (or travelled) to Jerusalem for additional education (especially if he really was a pharisee). Whatever the case, the extent to which he was "educated" in the ways of the Roman world (socio-political/religious traditions) I would guess were quite limited. There was clearly a large and yet devout greek speaking Jewish population, and as a Jew raised in the Diaspora (at least initially) he could have quite easily spoken only Greek yet know little of Roman culture (e.g., speak/read latin, be familiar with classical literature or philosophy, be familiar with much in the way of roman customs, etc.). At the same time, his interest (or obsession) with ensuring that "gentiles" received the "good news" (and his ability to create converts among them) means he must have known more than simply their language (or at least a language they knew-greek).

As for the name, it could be that Paul decided to pick a new name when he "converted." Or it could be that he was called Paul as a sort of second name for interactions with "gentiles". Or, if he were a roman citizen, it could be his name from birth. Akenson goes so far as to say Paul's "sense of being 'Paul of Tarsus' " was something he was quite proud of because of how Roman it made him. Yet Paul never refers to Tarsus and refers to himself as "a hebrew of the hebrews" and "of race of Israel." He is proud of his ethnic identity, and it isn't that of a Roman, but a Jew/Israelite. The author of Acts, in 13:9, refers to him as "Saul, also Paul" or "who is also Paul" which seems to indicate that this name was secondary. He was Saul, and Paul was an additional name. Even in letters from fathers to son we find things opening addresses like "Claudius Terentianus Claudio Tiberiano patri suo/Claudius Tiberius to his father Claudius Tiberianus" where the author of the letter uses more (or something other than) the cognomon. Pliny's letters to Trajan include C. rather than simply Plinius. Paul's letters are sermons to entire communities. They are the kind of letters we would expect to see more than just "Paul" if he were using Paul to because it was his legal roman name (and especially if he was using it because he was proud of this fact). Instead, he uses "apostle" as an identifier and the fact that he is known by the name Paul. So why does the author of Acts know his semitic name (and why does he have two names)? Either he had both from birth (in which case the only plausible explanation is that an ancestor was a slave who was freed by a Paulinian family) or he took the roman name on later (as a nickname? as a way to better appeal to gentiles? Because σαλός/salos was an insult in Greek and he didn't want to go by a name which sounded like a greek insult?).

Hope this answers your questions well enough. As you say, it involves a lot of speculation, and I'm hardly a Pauline expert.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can't really prove that Paul was a direct agent of Rome,

You can't prove it, argue it, film it, sell it, make cookies with it. Heck you couldn't even troll with it.

Paul an agent of Rome. Do you have a conspiracy theory that includes Mickey Mouse?

I'm frustrated because I see from your post that you at least have two brain cells to rub together, but the product of your thinking is so far from a responsible interpretation of your evidence that you rendered whatever little thought you put into such a long post utterly and completely useless.