Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[CynthiaCypher]

Well, I would offer more than a single example from an Emperor and characterize that as normal practice for someone who was not.

Second, you realize that sometimes different people do things differently.

Third, there's no record that Pompey gave citizenship to anyone in Tarsus, at least it's not mentioned in Appian, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny, and Plutarch when they discuss this issue. The argument that Pompey gave citizenship to anyone must come from sources foreign to the ones that mention the Pompey / Tarsus event.

First of all, Julius Caesar was never Emperor.

Second, Caesar along with Pompey and Crassus formed a triumvirate and pretty much shared power. One of their first acts as an alliance was to get agarian laws passed which conferred citizenship on whole provinces under Roman rule.

And third, it is well known that Pompey made Tarsus a province (not a protectorate but a province) of Rome which would have conferred upon it's natives the status of Provinciales...hence the term Provinciales...do you get it yet? And giving them that status he would conferred upon them a limited citizenship.

 

[outhouse]

heres crossan on paul. he sure seems to give act's a certain credibility on paul, as well as mention he was born in Tarsus.

[youtube]xfrhRmuqPxY[/youtube]
The Historical Paul - John Dominic Crossan - YouTube

 

[fallingblood]

heres crossan on paul. he sure seems to give act's a certain credibility on paul, as well as mention he was born in Tarsus.

[youtube]xfrhRmuqPxY[/youtube]
The Historical Paul - John Dominic Crossan - YouTube

Did I ever state anything about Tarsus? You're moving the goal posts. Which is just intellectually dishonest.

As for Crossan on Paul. I quoted him in two of his books in my OP specifically on the subject at hand. More so, I never stated that Acts doesn't have a certain level of credibility. You're not seeming to read my posts.

 

[rusra02]

"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. "

Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, an educated physician, and a meticulous researcher. (Luke 1:1-4) The book of Acts has been noted for it's accuracy and trustworthiness. How important it is to examine the evidence for the Bible's authenticity for oneself, rather than relying on the unproven statements of men who are often intent on undermining the Bible's authority. Clearly, Paul did assert his rights as a Roman citizen, something he would not do if untrue, since it was a capital offense to falsely claim roman citizenship. (Acts 22:25-29)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, an educated physician, and a meticulous researcher. (Luke 1:1-4) The book of Acts has been noted for it's accuracy and trustworthiness.

:biglaugh:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am going to have to agree with FallingBlood here.

The Herodian = herodians argument is pretty weak.

Especially considering that Orthodox Christians consider Herodian a Saint and one of the original fathers of the Church.

Apostle Herodian - OrthodoxWiki

Agreed. The verses before and after seem to suggest Herodian is a single person and not persons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Paul not bringing it up for me is neutral to negative.

He wants to be a jewish apostle really really bad, enough to self appoint himself. The original movement was a movment only within judaism. No need to bring it up.

he could have thought it was common knowledge

I think he knew of the anti roman messages within the original sect as well, more reason "not" to state it.


Now I believe he was a roman citizen but its not certain, many things are not. There are no good reasons why he would not be a roman citizen then a few verses that may or may not have any historicity at all with all the fiction paul wrote.

First, to be clear, I have no problem with you thinking that Paul was a Roman citizen. I too thought that until I critically reviewed the arguments.

I agree that Paul could have been a Roman citizen. Paul was alive in the first century and Roman citizenship existed. There is nothing connecting Paul's life with Roman citizenship.

Second, to be even more clear - Paul being a Roman citizen has almost no bearing on the interpretation of his writings.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Reading the passage says to me that either Paul was telling the truth or he lied to get out of a butt whuppin'..!

The verses at Acts 22 say he was born a Roman and not some sort of right that was purchased. At Acts 25 he seems to want to be judge by Romans and not Jews.

What do we do with all the information out there that says Tarsus was a city of the Roman empire before the birth of Paul?

8170 / Tarsus

The vast majority of info says he was born there whereas I'm finding some scarce info he was born to his parents in Giscalis and when the Romans took Giscalis the parents moved to Tarsus when he was a young boy. Some consider that to be mere conjecture though.

The American biblical repository - Google Books

Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity - Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa - Google Books


How is it justified not trusting the supposed words of Paul himself as to his citizenship but he can be trusted concerning other testimonies concerning Yeshua, knowing "the brother" of Yeshua etc..etc..?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How is it justified not trusting the supposed words of Paul himself as to his citizenship but he can be trusted concerning other testimonies concerning Yeshua, knowing "the brother" of Yeshua etc..etc..?

Which "words of Paul himself" and how is it justified to mandate an all-or-nothing acceptance criteria?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

There is nothing connecting Paul's life with Roman citizenship.

Except...Tarsus.

 

[fallingblood]

Reading the passage says to me that either Paul was telling the truth or he lied to get out of a butt whuppin'..!

The verses at Acts 22 say he was born a Roman and not some sort of right that was purchased. At Acts 25 he seems to want to be judge by Romans and not Jews.

What do we do with all the information out there that says Tarsus was a city of the Roman empire before the birth of Paul?

8170 / Tarsus

The vast majority of info says he was born there whereas I'm finding some scarce info he was born to his parents in Giscalis and when the Romans took Giscalis the parents moved to Tarsus when he was a young boy. Some consider that to be mere conjecture though.

The American biblical repository - Google Books

Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity - Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa - Google Books


How is it justified not trusting the supposed words of Paul himself as to his citizenship but he can be trusted concerning other testimonies concerning Yeshua, knowing "the brother" of Yeshua etc..etc..?

It's justified based on the source such ideas are captured in. Acts is the only source that states Paul was a Roman. Acts at best is a second hand account which has a clear agenda. Acts also, at points, directly contradicts Paul or gives information that is unlikely based on what Paul says in his letters.

Now, a statement such as Paul saying that James is the brother of Jesus is reported first hand by Paul in his own letters. So it becomes much more credible as Paul isn't taking a second hand source but is presenting first hand knowledge

 

[fallingblood]

Except...Tarsus.

Which you haven't shown to be composed of only Roman citizens. We don't even know when Paul's family supposedly moved there. And I think A_E has already gone over the issue of sources for the idea of Roman citizenship.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Which you haven't shown to be composed of only Roman citizens. We don't even know when Paul's family supposedly moved there. And I think A_E has already gone over the issue of sources for the idea of Roman citizenship.

What does A_E know? He thought Julius Caesar was Emperor. And I did go over it again.

The Roman granted citizenship to provinces in toto like in the Lex Roscia

Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province with Tarsus has it's capital. That would have made it's natives Provinciales hence the term Provinciales.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does A_E know?

Lots of stuff ... and he plays a pretty mean guitar.

Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province with Tarsus has it's capital. That would have made it's natives Provinciales hence the term Provinciales.

But Wiki (which you quoted earlier) notes:

Provinciales

Provinciales were those persons who fell under Roman influence, or control, but who lacked even the rights of the Foederati, essentially having only the rights of the jus gentium.

And earlier:

Jus gentium:

The legal recognition, developed in the 3rd century BC, of the growing international scope of Roman affairs, and the need for Roman law to deal with situations between Roman citizens and foreign persons. The jus gentium was therefore a Roman legal codification of the widely accepted international law of the time, and was based on highly developed commercial law of the Greek city-states and of other maritime powers. The rights afforded by the jus gentium were considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship.

Does this not suggest that Provinciales designated nothing more than a class of non-slaves living in an area under Roman rule?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Lots of stuff ... and he plays a pretty mean guitar.

He still thought Julius caesar was Emperor.

But Wiki (which you quoted earlier) notes:

​

And earlier:

​

Does this not suggest that Provinciales designated nothing more than a class of non-slaves living in an area under Roman rule?

And? The very designation Provinciales implies a limited form of citizenship. I am not saying they had the Latin Rights. Probably did because Tarsus was later exempt from the Imperial Tax.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And? The very designation Provinciales implies a limited form of citizenship.

Perhaps, but that is not what your reference suggests. On the contary, if provenciales are those "essentially having only the rights of the jus gentium" then this strikes me as something quite different than a limited form of citizentship. ...

In classical antiquity, the ius gentium was regarded as an aspect of natural law (ius naturale), as distinguished from civil law (ius civile). The jurist Gaius defined the ius gentium as that which "natural reason has established among all peoples":

Every people (populus) that is governed by statutes and customs (leges et mores) observes partly its own peculiar law and partly the common law of all mankind. That law which a people established for itself is peculiar to it and is called ius civile (civil law) as being the special law of that civitas (state), while the law that natural reason establishes among all mankind is followed by all peoples alike, and is called ius gentium (law of nations, or law of the world) as being the law observed by all mankind. Thus the Roman people observes partly its own peculiar law and partly the common law of all mankind.​

As a form of natural law, the ius gentium was regarded as "innate in every human being," a view that was consonant with Stoic philosophy. Cicero distinguished between those things which are written and those which without writing are upheld by the ius gentium or the mos maiorum, "ancestral custom." In his treatise De officiis, he regards the ius gentium as a higher law of moral obligation binding human beings beyond the requirements of civil law. [source]

In fact, ius gentium designates not a right of [limited] citizenship but, on the contrary, that set of rights requiring no citizenship.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Which "words of Paul himself"

Ahh, but if you noticed I did say "supposed words". In Acts all we have to go on is that he said it. I'm not saying he did or didn't. All I'm saying is what is attributed to him saying it is what we have to go on.

and how is it justified to mandate an all-or-nothing acceptance criteria?

I'm not saying it has to be mandated or all or nothing. We're told many things about Paul concerning Yeshua which supposedly makes him a contemporary existing around the time of Yeshua and the fact that his letters in the NT expressing he met with some of the disciples of Yeshua as well as the brother of Yeshua. If we are to accept the letters that are "supposedly his words" then why not the words that are "supposedly his" in Acts?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Perhaps, but that is not what your reference suggests. On the contary, if provenciales are those "essentially having only the rights of the jus gentium" then this strikes me as something quite different than a limited form of citizentship. ...

​

In fact, ius gentium designates not a right of [limited] citizenship but, on the contrary, that set of rights requiring no citizenship.

No no no...Jus Gentium is not a designation of no citizenship whatsoever but of protection under the rule of law as insured by the republic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In fact, ius gentium designates not a right of [limited] citizenship but, on the contrary, that set of rights requiring no citizenship.

No no no...Jus Gentium is not a designation of no citizenship whatsoever but of protection under the rule of law as insured by the republic.

Please, Cynthia, you are more than bright enough to distuguish between

• a set of rights requiring no citizenship, and
• a designation of no citizenship whatsoever.

Please don't misrepresent my comments.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Please, Cynthia, you are more than bright enough to distuguish between

• a set of rights requiring no citizenship, and
• a designation of no citizenship whatsoever.

Please don't misrepresent my comments.

You need to quit trying to interpret the 1st century concept of citizenship with our modern one, they are different.

Provinciales is still considered a class of citizenship, not full, not half but a basic minimum of rights