Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[fallingblood]

Yet you are no one other then a hobbiest, to try and discount it.

That is just a low blow, and has no place in a discussion like this. I'm asking you to stop with the personal attacks. They don't discredit what I have posted.

Also, I don't see how I can be termed a hobbiest. I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars on educating myself. I'm working through some difficult programs, in an accredited college, that is actually quite respectable. Because of my pursuit (I am pursuing, ultimately, a Ph.D.), I have read hundreds of books, probably thousands of articles, and have spent hundreds of hours in classes taught by individuals with doctorates in their fields. I really don't see how I am a hobbiest then.

But so far your arguements are more personal opinion then anything else.

That isn't true. The opinions that I have formed (and all you have stated as well is opinion, so to try to dismiss me based on that is hypocritical), are based on the vast amount of research, class work, and study I have done. I have backed up much of my "opinions" and have made logical arguments for them. Please, instead of trying to just dismiss me, address the subject.

scholars argue these points, people are on both sides of the fence on this exact issue. but in reality, were talking 80% for a roman citizenship and 20% undecided that ONLY want to question it

Just because people argue both sides doesn't discredit what I'm saying. You spend a lot of time trying to dismiss me, then actually address the issues. I'm asking you to stop doing that, and actually participate in this discussion. As for your statistics, you haven't shown that to be true. You haven't even shown one scholar who states that Paul was a Roman citizen. On the other hand, in the OP, which I will ask you again to actually address, I have shown that many scholars doubt Acts account of Paul in general and others even make arguments for Paul to not be a Roman citizen (or at the very least, his Roman citizenship meaning nothing).

They are, thats the best thing you have stated in this thread.
Atleast they are not the only people claiming roman citizenship

Please show some other scholars (modern scholars who are also credible), that argue for Roman citizenship. Also, if you know that he wasn't a credible scholar, why did you quote from him and essentially base a large portion of your argument on him (as in, you said that if I couldn't refute a claim of his, I was done, and that his information would put the nail in the coffin)? That really seems like intellectual dishonesty.

Not with this view.

What evidence do you have for this? It certainly wasn't discussed in the Wiki article you linked to. Really, they are mainstream scholars, and they are well respected. Because of that, a simple dismissal will not do.

No, im not attacking. But the message isnt backed nor followed. At best, even your new perspective is only silent on the matter, they are smart enough not to claim he wasnt a citizen.

again, they only question it. As it should be questioned

You have been attacking. You haven't addressed the actual message (or little of it). Case in point, this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2891846-post125.html You have addressed maybe one or two points, which really were not that important. Instead though, you have called me a hobbiest, you have called me ignorant. You have dismissed E.P. Sanders for lame reasons, as well as most of what I have said, for no other reason than to discredit the messenger, not the message. That is attacking the messenger.

Even this quote of yours, you fail to actually address the message. Instead, you try to dismiss it out hand. The message is backed though. I backed it in the OP. I have backed it in this thread, as well as the post I just linked to. I have shown that other scholars follow the same idea, etc.

I have made many, because you personaly discount them using a fringe position to back it, then twist the statements to fit your needs. Well thats intellectual dishonety

Again, I refer you to the post I linked to above. I have addressed your points. I don't discount you out right. I did discount Eisenman, but even you stated that he can be dismissed outright. More so, I did address a key point of his work.

I have offered logical rebuttals to your claims. I have backed my position with credible scholars, who are well respected, and I have given their sources. I'm not twisting anything. Again though, instead of dealing with what I have said, you try to dismiss it and make excuses. Please, just enter into a mature and productive conversation here.

would you like to add to the debate?

FB likes to steer a debate, he wants you to play his game so that he will always be right.

I choose not to fall into that style of debate sorry

What game? I see this again as nothing more than a blatant attack, trying to dismiss me. In fact, in your last posts in this thread, you haven't actually addressed the issue. You have dismissed me, insulted me, and made excuses.

I'm not steering the debate. I have addressed everything you have said. I have tried to keep it on topic, that being about Paul and Roman citizenship. I don't see that as steering though.

More so, I do admit when I'm wrong. In the recent thread about the Sabbath, I did admit that what I was saying was incorrect. However, that only happens when the other side can actually make a credible debate. That usually means they don't make it into personal attacks.

But please, if you don't want to actually debate, then don't spam this thread. If you think I'm playing some sort of game, please just ignore me then. Because honestly, I am getting tired of you insulting me, and ignoring the arguments I work on providing.

 

[outhouse]

(and all you have stated as well is opinion, so to try to dismiss me based on that is hypocritical), are based on the vast amount of research, class work, and study I have done.

then make a case, so far you have failed miserably, despite winning a popularity contest by debating skills alone, you are good at that.

you have failed to proved 1 source that flat out states in clear language that "paul was not a roman citizen"

only by twisting the words of scholars that actually "just" question the citizenship and hint he may have been only a jewish man.

Atleast I have provided sources that claim he was a roman citizen, the fact you personaly dont accept that is your fault.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along with being ethnically Jewish, Paul was born a Roman citizen.[20] His given name was Saul (Hebrew: שָׁאוּל, Modern Sha'ul Tiberian Šāʼûl ; "asked for, prayed for"), perhaps after the biblical king Saul, a fellow Benjamite and the first king of Israel. In Greek: Σαούλ (Saul), Σαῦλος (Saulos), and Παῦλος (Paulos), in Latin Paulus or Paullus, in Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎ Šaʾul HaTarsi (Saul of Tarsus)[

Also, I don't see how I can be termed a hobbiest.

because your sitting here arguing with me, and losing. And im self taught only 1 year in.

 

[outhouse]

I did discount Eisenman, but even you stated that he can be dismissed outright.

Not everything and not outright.

Some of his work goes off the deep end but all in all, the man is a professor.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

fallingblood, I wonder if you would address post #133. Thanks.

 

[fallingblood]

fallingblood, is it possible that you're overstating your case? First, I suspect that you're referring to the following from 2 Cor 11

I might be overstating it to a point. There is a chance that Paul was in fact a Roman citizen. And as you stated, one can see some embellishment. I think that is natural though, but at the same time, it shows we can't take everything Paul says at face value.

But I don't think he made up the whole thing, and I find it interesting that here we do see that Paul was treated like a Jew (as in the lashes by the Jews) which suggests that Paul saw himself as a Jew, and that others saw him as a Jew as well.

I see nothing here about Romans.[*]And turning to Acts, and given the two claims that Paul was a Roman citizen and was beaten by the Romans, and given your suggestion that its author sometimes errs in his facts, it is unclear to me why one could not (or should not) accept the citizenship claim while dismissing the story.

Beating with rods was specifically forbidden to be done to Roman citizens. So even though Romans were not mentioned, the fact that Paul was beaten by rods suggests that either he wasn't a Roman citizen, or at least, wasn't seen as such. And I think in the end, that is most telling. When Paul describes himself, it is never as a Roman, or Roman citizen. It is as a Jew. So at the very least, if he was a Roman citizen, it probably isn't likely anyone knew as he simply doesn't identify as one.

As for dismissing Acts here though, scholars generally agree that if Paul's letters don't support what Acts states, then we can only see it as speculation. Part of this has to do with multiple attestation. We simply don't have that when Acts reports something that Paul doesn't. And really, Acts is relying on second hand accounts, that could be late, or even be created out of thin air. We don't know. Now, that doesn't dismiss it by itself, but it does raise problem.

Probably more problem some though is that Acts has a tendency to either try to smooth things out and paint the early movement as one harmonious group, that had more influence and power then it did, or to exaggerate accounts. Paul being a Roman citizen would add more power and influence to the group, while also suggesting that the movement was followed by Roman citizens as well. At the same time, Acts exaggerates Paul's background. For instance, Acts states that Paul was taught at the feet of Gamaliel. Yet, this is unlikely for a number of reasons, but importantly, because Paul (even though he emphasizes his Jewish study and background) never mentions such a thing.

So we do have evidence of Acts over exaggerating the background of Paul. Basically then, we are at a lost as what may be true about Paul in Acts. Since Acts exaggerates and makes things up about Paul, unless we have some backup material in Paul.

And, finally, while one might accept as fact that Roman citizens were legally exempt from being beaten, it in no way follows that Roman citizens were never beaten any more than it is reasonable to believe that the empire was exempt from civil rights violations. Perhaps you project more certainty than is warranted?

I do agree that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman citizen. However, at most, if he was, it was a point that simply didn't matter. Paul identifies as a Jew, and never a Roman or Roman citizen. He is treated as a Jew. He does not appear to be exempt from beatings which were not supposed to be done to Roman citizens. And no one else seems to mention it ever, or even care.

So I do admit Paul has a possibility of being a Roman citizen (I do think it is unlikely), but it is a negligible point as it seems to have no bearing on him at all. I do see it as pure speculation though when he is claimed to be a Roman citizen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I don't think he made up the whole thing, and I find it interesting that here we do see that Paul was treated like a Jew (as in the lashes by the Jews) which suggests that Paul saw himself as a Jew, and that others saw him as a Jew as well.

Whether or not Paul saw himself as a Jew (or was a Jew) is an entirely different topic.

Beating with rods was specifically forbidden to be done to Roman citizens. So even though Romans were not mentioned, the fact that Paul was beaten by rods suggests that either he wasn't a Roman citizen, or at least, wasn't seen as such. .

Where, according to Paul, did these beatings take place? Who according to Paul, beat him?

So we do have evidence of Acts over exaggerating the background of Paul. Basically then, we are at a lost as what may be true about Paul in Acts. Since Acts exaggerates and makes things up about Paul, unless we have some backup material in Paul.

Is it a problem of exaggeration or full-scale fabrication. All else being equal, it would seem to me far more likely that Luke exaggerated or manufactured specific exploits than that he manufactured Roman citizenship in a text to be dissimenated within the Roman empire.

I do agree that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman citizen. However, at most, if he was, it was a point that simply didn't matter.

I do not recall anyone suggesting otherwise. You are the one making a definitive claim as if it does matter. Why?

Paul identifies as a Jew, and never a Roman or Roman citizen. He is treated as a Jew.

Paul is seeking legitimacy as leader of the Jerusalem sect in the diaspora. Promoting himself as a Roman citizen strikes me as the exact opposite of what he sees as required. It would be a bit like Obama bragging about his bank account.

And no one else seems to mention it ever, or even care.

Where might you have expected to see it raised other than in Acts?

So I do admit Paul has a possibility of being a Roman citizen (I do think it is unlikely), but it is a negligible point as it seems to have no bearing on him at all. I do see it as pure speculation though when he is claimed to be a Roman citizen.

Then the thread has run its course, and we're left with you're position being:

Paul was not a Roman Citizen! - unless of course he was.​

 

[idav]

I do agree that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman citizen. However, at most, if he was, it was a point that simply didn't matter. Paul identifies as a Jew, and never a Roman or Roman citizen. He is treated as a Jew. He does not appear to be exempt from beatings which were not supposed to be done to Roman citizens. And no one else seems to mention it ever, or even care.

So I do admit Paul has a possibility of being a Roman citizen (I do think it is unlikely), but it is a negligible point as it seems to have no bearing on him at all. I do see it as pure speculation though when he is claimed to be a Roman citizen.

Of course after his conversion he would refer to himself as a jew hoping for the spiritual kingdom. What interests me is what he thought of himself before his conversion and what sins he may have been running from. If he were a soldier helping Rome persecute believers then it could be part of his sins of the past. Rome treating him like a Jew could just as easily be seeing Paul as a traitor. Normally Pharisees wouldn't be seen as a traitor unless some line was crossed and I'm sure Paul was pushing the envelope on that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course after his conversion he would refer to himself as a jew hoping for the spiritual kingdom. What interests me is what he thought of himself before his conversion and what sins he may have been running from.

And I encourage you to pursue those interest in a different thread. Please do not pollute this one.

 

[idav]

And I encourage you to pursue those interest in a different thread. Please do not pollute this one.

It's relevant. Paul wasn't talking like a Roman cause he was a convert. It doesn't mean he wasn't Roman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's relevant. Paul wasn't talking like a Roman cause he was a convert. It doesn't mean he wasn't Roman.

 

[idav]

As if being a Jew means you couldn't be a Roman citizen.

 

[outhouse]

FB dont take things personally

Everything I know, is because of the foundation you have given me.


Look at it as more of arguing with yourself, and having me keeping you on your toes.


Despite what you think threads like this are about knowledge, and what ive gained on paul chasing this idea, well its grown dramatically.

Ive read Wright, Sanders, Crossan, Borg, and Ehrman and others chasing this down. Without a thread like this and a good heated debate, there is no passion to dig deep and learn.


So please take it with a grain of salt. I still look "UP" to you

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is it a problem of exaggeration or full-scale fabrication. All else being equal, it would seem to me far more likely that Luke exaggerated or manufactured specific exploits than that he manufactured Roman citizenship in a text to be dissimenated within the Roman empire.

If it's an exaggeration then the whole exchange is to be called into question (i.e. Acts 21-22). Do you suspect none of it was true?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it's an exaggeration then the whole exchange is to be called into question ...

If someone tells me that they caught a 38 pound trout I may well suspect exaggeration, but that suspicion does not warrant the presumption that she never went fishing.

Do you suspect none of it was true?

No.

 

[rusra02]

but paul was never a apostle

maybe you should look up the greek word, who sent paul? NO ONE!

Romans 11:13- "Forasmuch as I am, in reality, an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry."
1 Corinthians 15:9,10- "For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not fit to be called an apostly, because I persecuted the congregation of God. But by God's undeserved kindness I am what I am."

These are but two of many references in the Greek Scriptures showing Paul was an apostle.

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Romans 11:13- "Forasmuch as I am, in reality, an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry."
1 Corinthians 15:9,10- "For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not fit to be called an apostly, because I persecuted the congregation of God. But by God's undeserved kindness I am what I am."

These are but two of many references in the Greek Scriptures showing Paul was an apostle.

• It shows the exact opposite.
• It is off topic.
• Just stop yourself. :slap:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A rather interesting argument was offered by Peter van Minnen (Paul the Roman Citizen: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1995 17:43) based on his reading of Acts 6-8 relating to the stoning of Stephen, where 'Saul' makes a modest appearance in Acts 7:58.

Earlier (Acts 6:8,9) we read:

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen [Libertinos - JS] (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. [NIV]​

Van Minnen argues:

Among the places of origin of the witnesses we find Cyrene,Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia. Cilicia stands for Tarsus, Paul’s home town. From this we can infer a simple but convincing reason why the itnesses ask Paul to keep an eye on their clothes: they must have known him personally. It has indeed been suspected before that Paul attended the meetings of the synagogue of Acts 6.9 because he was a Cilician himself. The author of Acts does not tell us so explicitly, but in my view the data he has supplied are quite sufficient to warrant the inference. It is even likely that Paul was present at the meeting where Stephen addressed the synagogue and some of those in attendance raised their accusations of blasphemy against him. Again the author of Acts does not tell us so, but this Leerstelle in the narrative can easily be supplied. Because Stephen was a Hellenist as Acts 6.1-6 makes clear, it made sense to him to address this particular synagogue. No Cyrenian, Alexandrian, Cilician or Asian Jew could be mistaken for anything but a Hellenist. Paul too was such a Hellenist.​

He then continues:

A final detail that should be addressed is the name of the synagogue. Libertini are freedmen of Roman citizens-not just any freedmen, as the use of the Latin word makes clear. The implication is that what united the Cyrenian, Alexandrian, Cilician and Asian Jews in attendance at this particular synagogue was the fact that they were all former slaves of Roman owners-or descendants of such people, because the original founders may have died in the course of years. It may not be very useful to speculate on the identity of these freedmen here. I know of only one time before AD 70 when Jews were enslaved by the Romans in good numbers, in the wake of Pompey’s conquest of Palestine in 63 BC, but Jewish communities elsewhere must have suffered likewise during Roman conquests in the East (Cilicia, e.g., preceded in 67 BC). If these Jews survived they were subsequently manumitted by their individual owners in the 50s and 40s of the first century BC in accordance with Roman social praxis. They and the children born after their manumission remained a distinct group within the Jewish community no matter where they were dispersed. Whenever they were in Jerusalem they fostered their peculiar identity by meeting at a synagogue of their own. At the dramatic date of Stephen’s ritual stoning, in the 30s of the first century AD, most of those in attendance in Jerusalem must have been grandsons of the original freedmen rather than freedmen themselves. Paul too was the grandson of such a freedman.

Finally I turn to the original aim of my paper, viz. to argue for Paul’s Roman citizenship. If Paul attended the synagogue of the Libertini in Jerusalem-which now seems most likely-and if he therefore was the descendant of a freedman himself, he must have been a Roman citizen because upon manumission former slaves of Roman citizens were granted Roman citizenship on the same footing as their former owners, including the right to carry their owner’s gentilicium and to pass their citizenship on to their descendants. Because it is claimed that Paul was born a Roman citizen he cannot have been a freedman himself but rather a descendant of one. Nowhere in Acts 6 and 7 does the author make the connection between Paul and the Libertini explicit. This connection therefore cannot have been invented by the author and a fortiori it cannot be part of his alleged invention of Paul’s Roman citizenship. On the contrary, it independently confirms Paul’s Roman citizenship.​

This is clearly not definitive, but it certainly strikes me as worthy of considersation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A rather interesting argument was offered by Peter van Minnen (Paul the Roman Citizen: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1995 17:43) based on his reading of Acts 6-8 relating to the stoning of Stephen, where 'Saul' makes a modest appearance in Acts 7:58.

Earlier (Acts 6:8,9) we read:

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen [Libertinos - JS] (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. [NIV]​

Van Minnen argues:

Among the places of origin of the witnesses we find Cyrene,Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia. Cilicia stands for Tarsus, Paul’s home town. From this we can infer a simple but convincing reason why the itnesses ask Paul to keep an eye on their clothes: they must have known him personally. It has indeed been suspected before that Paul attended the meetings of the synagogue of Acts 6.9 because he was a Cilician himself. The author of Acts does not tell us so explicitly, but in my view the data he has supplied are quite sufficient to warrant the inference. It is even likely that Paul was present at the meeting where Stephen addressed the synagogue and some of those in attendance raised their accusations of blasphemy against him. Again the author of Acts does not tell us so, but this Leerstelle in the narrative can easily be supplied. Because Stephen was a Hellenist as Acts 6.1-6 makes clear, it made sense to him to address this particular synagogue. No Cyrenian, Alexandrian, Cilician or Asian Jew could be mistaken for anything but a Hellenist. Paul too was such a Hellenist.​

He then continues:

A final detail that should be addressed is the name of the synagogue. Libertini are freedmen of Roman citizens-not just any freedmen, as the use of the Latin word makes clear. The implication is that what united the Cyrenian, Alexandrian, Cilician and Asian Jews in attendance at this particular synagogue was the fact that they were all former slaves of Roman owners-or descendants of such people, because the original founders may have died in the course of years. It may not be very useful to speculate on the identity of these freedmen here. I know of only one time before AD 70 when Jews were enslaved by the Romans in good numbers, in the wake of Pompey’s conquest of Palestine in 63 BC, but Jewish communities elsewhere must have suffered likewise during Roman conquests in the East (Cilicia, e.g., preceded in 67 BC). If these Jews survived they were subsequently manumitted by their individual owners in the 50s and 40s of the first century BC in accordance with Roman social praxis. They and the children born after their manumission remained a distinct group within the Jewish community no matter where they were dispersed. Whenever they were in Jerusalem they fostered their peculiar identity by meeting at a synagogue of their own. At the dramatic date of Stephen’s ritual stoning, in the 30s of the first century AD, most of those in attendance in Jerusalem must have been grandsons of the original freedmen rather than freedmen themselves. Paul too was the grandson of such a freedman.

Finally I turn to the original aim of my paper, viz. to argue for Paul’s Roman citizenship. If Paul attended the synagogue of the Libertini in Jerusalem-which now seems most likely-and if he therefore was the descendant of a freedman himself, he must have been a Roman citizen because upon manumission former slaves of Roman citizens were granted Roman citizenship on the same footing as their former owners, including the right to carry their owner’s gentilicium and to pass their citizenship on to their descendants. Because it is claimed that Paul was born a Roman citizen he cannot have been a freedman himself but rather a descendant of one. Nowhere in Acts 6 and 7 does the author make the connection between Paul and the Libertini explicit. This connection therefore cannot have been invented by the author and a fortiori it cannot be part of his alleged invention of Paul’s Roman citizenship. On the contrary, it independently confirms Paul’s Roman citizenship.​

This is clearly not definitive, but it certainly strikes me as worthy of considersation.

The problem is that he is completely dependent on Acts. Yes, the book of Acts may well present Paul as a Roman citizen (of some sort), but the is no hint of this citizenship anywhere in his own letters. And Acts is not accepted as historically reliable - it is written like an ancient novel. Any historical evidence must be teased out of the artistic nature of the material in general --- like perhaps inflating Paul's person (citizenship) and ministry (success as an apostle) that are not mentioned in his epistles.

I agree that it is possible that Paul was a citizen - but if there is no evidence for it, why argue for it? I mean, there's not even a starting point.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is that he is completely dependent on Acts. Yes, the book of Acts may well present Paul as a Roman citizen (of some sort), but the is no hint of this citizenship anywhere in his own letters. And Acts is not accepted as historically reliable - it is written like an ancient novel. Any historical evidence must be teased out of the artistic nature of the material in general --- like perhaps inflating Paul's person (citizenship) and ministry (success as an apostle) that are not mentioned in his epistles.

I agree that it is possible that Paul was a citizen - but if there is no evidence for it, why argue for it? I mean, there's not even a starting point.

You open up a can of worms regading Act's, the whole idea then becomes more about the reliability in Act's then Pauls citizenship.

Acts is not to be discounted as of yet.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being quite accurate and corroborated by archaeology, while agreeing with the Pauline epistles


Corroborated by archeology is not something we can ignore just because its a novel. It may not tie in to Paul exactly, but it also shows the work is not all fiction.

Paul wrote fictional material as well regarding jesus, his death and resurrection and teachings. It is the exact opposite that of historical jesus.



Again, there is as far as I can tell, there is no reason why the author would need to fabricate a fictional citizenship.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that he is completely dependent on Acts.

That is indeed the problem we're presented with.

Yes, the book of Acts may well present Paul as a Roman citizen (of some sort), but the is no hint of this citizenship anywhere in his own letters.

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?

And Acts is not accepted as historically reliable - it is written like an ancient novel.

I'm only now beginning to understand the extent to which that is deemed true. But, at the same time, folks like Scnnelle seem to argue for a middle ground when it comes to Acts. That something appears solely in in this work may leave it open to question, but it does not make it unquestionably false.

Any historical evidence must be teased out of the artistic nature of the material in general --- like perhaps inflating Paul's person (citizenship) and ministry (success as an apostle) that are not mentioned in his epistles.

The point being raised by Professor van Minnen is that one might reasonably infer citizenship from an earlier section in Acts that intends no such thing. Or, as he puts it:

Nowhere in Acts 6 and 7 does the author make the connection between Paul and the Libertini explicit. This connection therefore cannot have been invented by the author and a fortiori it cannot be part of his alleged invention of Paul’s Roman citizenship. On the contrary, it independently confirms Paul’s Roman citizenship.

Perhaps the inference is wrong. Perhaps the author of Acts is masterful when it comes to character development. Or, perhaps van Minnen has recognized the next best thing to a statement in one of Paul's letters. I frankly don't know.

I agree that it is possible that Paul was a citizen - but if there is no evidence for it, why argue for it? I mean, there's not even a starting point.

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.