Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Desert Snake]

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?

Those aren't anti-Semitic ideas.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

What this post means:

"I don't read Greek. But the translations that I read are good and preserve good rhetoric. Paul received an excellent education, which characterizes a Roman citizen (which I know nothing about as well)."

So painful. I hope that no one argues that Paul had a full Greek education. There is simply no evidence of this. Highly educated Romans cited Greek and Latin authors like crazy. The authentic Pauline corpus only has one insignificant reference to a Greek poet. His writings reflect a person somewhat acquainted with Greek rhetoric but he is no master of it by any stretch of the imagination.

And Paul's Greek is clumsy. This is evident in the wide possibility of translations / interpretations of Paul's writings. This is partly the nature of Koine, but mostly Paul's lack of clarity is his fault.

But education means nothing when it comes to citizenship, because most Roman citizens did not receive a full education, and they were lucky to even be literate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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).

I think it likely that 'zeal' was more marketing than real. For one thing, I've never quite been able to embrace the idea of a Pharisee trained at the feet of Gamaliel demonstrating such a reliance on the Septuagint. At the same time, I see nothing unusual about a well educated and well traveled Jew possessing a good knowledge of Aramaic.

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.).

This may well have been true for a lower class and less educated Jew in the diaspora, but I would be extremely surprised if that were true in Paul's case. In fact, the persistent complaint of the self-proclaimed devout was that far too many Jews were succumbing to the pressures of Hellenization, and if this was the complaint in Israel it seems unlikely that it would be less true elsewhere in the Roman Empire.

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.

Or he was seeking to claim/demonstrate/emphasize his legitimacy as an authoritative representative of a Hebrew sect - an apostle every bit as worthy as the pillars of Jerusalem.

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?).

Very interesting.

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

I very much appreciate your input. Thank you again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Unfortunately for us and him: he's "long-winded."

 

[Pragmatist]

...Paul's Greek is clumsy...

Do you have any scholarly authority to support this opinion? I was under the impression that Paul's Greek was excellent according to the scholarly consensus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have any scholarly authority to support this opinion? I was under the impression that Paul's Greek was excellent according to the scholarly consensus.

Yep. Angellous.

I've never seen a NT scholar, classicist, lexicographer, or philologist say that Paul's Greek is excellent. It certainly doesn't measure up to a highly educated person.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But education means nothing when it comes to citizenship, ...

It's called "the American model."

 

[Pragmatist]

Those aren't anti-Semitic ideas.

Perhaps it is not inherently anti-semitic to deny that there is no such thing as unclean foods in the eyes of God, or that circumcision is not essential for salvation.

But, it is one of the classic anti-semitic ideas that the Jews killed all the prophets. We have Paul to directly blame for this slanderous notion. The fact that he was so blatantly anti-semitic indicates that he was not Jewish. More probably a Roman citizen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep. Angellous.

On, him. What does a Willie Nelson fan know about Greek?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps it is not inherently anti-semitic to deny that there is no such thing as unclean foods in the eyes of God, or that circumcision is not essential for salvation.

Antisemitic? Salvation? OMG :biglaugh:

 

[Pragmatist]

Yep. Angellous.

You are yourself a scholar of ancient Greek? You can read and understand this language? You've never encountered the notion, in your readings of the commentary on Paul, that his uses Greek with a high degree of fluency?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are yourself a scholar of ancient Greek? You can read and understand this language?

A friendly suggestion: stop while you're behind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have any scholarly authority to support this opinion? I was under the impression that Paul's Greek was excellent according to the scholarly consensus.

From Google Books (note the date)

The Second epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
books.google.com
Robert Harvey Strachan - 1935 - 149 pages - Snippet view
His Christian faith, compelled to utter itself in the Greek language, created a new style at a period when style had become manner. Paul's Greek models itself on no school, and has no prototype in earlier literature.

The Life of St. Paul - Page 24
books.google.com
James Stalker - 1950 - 160 pages - Full view
of Greece. But, on the other hand, it has been pointed out that his quotations are brief and commonplace, such as any man who spoke Greek would pick up and use occasionally; and the style and vocabulary of ...

The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical ... - Page 52
books.google.com
Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland - 1995 - 366 pages - Google eBook - Preview
... polished Greek of Hebrews. Yet when compared with the contemporary literature, none of the New Testament writings stands out for elegance of style, even if it be admitted that the eloquence of Paul created a new literary genre.

 

[Pragmatist]

Antisemitic? Salvation?

Did the Jews of ancient Palestine have no concept of salvation? Are we to believe that it is pro-semitic to preach that the Jews killed all the prophets?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which ones?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are yourself a scholar of ancient Greek? You can read and understand this language? You've never encountered the notion, in your readings of the commentary on Paul, that his uses Greek with a high degree of fluency?

Obviously Paul has a degree of fluency in Greek. He wrote in Greek. Is he a master of it as you imagine, like Plutarch or those on his level? No.

Plutarch was a genius who showed his intellectual strength with the high style that characterizes the wealthy educated man of his time. Paul was a theological genius (and by that I mean someone who creates theology), and he expresses himself in a much clumsier Greek than you imagine. This is why NT scholars have a tough time reading classical Greek, but classicists can read the NT.

Is Paul so literate that we must consider him a Roman citizen? Absolutely not.

 

[Pragmatist]

...Robert Harvey Strachan - 1935 - 149 pages... James Stalker - 1950 - 160 pages... Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland - 1995 - 366 pages...

Thank you. I can't read Greek, so on this question of Paul's eloquence and fluency in Greek, I must defer to experts. You even provide quotations. Very impressive.

What do you make of the anti-semitic doctrines in Paul's writings?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you. I can't read Greek, so on this question of Paul's eloquence and fluency in Greek, I must defer to experts. You even provide quotations. Very impressive.

What do you make of the anti-semitic doctrines in Paul's writings?

OK. You're welcome. IF you do find someone who says that Paul has good style, check to see if they must say that for theological reasons. That is, if they are a professor at a Southern Baptist or even Roman Catholic seminary, they may be controlled by the religious conviction of their institution = they will be obligated to present Paul in the most favorable way possible.

As for the anti-semitic doctrines in Paul, I don't think that he hated Jews. He was trying to craft a new interpretation of the LXX that called for Jews to give up all of their religious convictions. Paul was trying to integrate this interpretation so that Gentiles could participate in what Paul considered to be the promises of the Jewish God. In every conflict between Gentiles and Jews, the Jews are asked to give in. To us that may be anti-Semitic, but Paul envisioned a unity between Gentiles and Jews -- unfortunately for the church throughout history, Jews have received the short end of the stick.

 

[Pragmatist]

Which ones?

Which ones did believe that the Jews killed all the prophets, as taught by Paul?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which ones did believe that the Jews killed all the prophets, as taught by Paul?

(probably none)