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 Gods 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 Asiawho 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, Pauls 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 Pompeys 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 Stephens 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 Pauls 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 owners 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 Pauls Roman citizenship. On the contrary, it independently confirms Pauls Roman citizenship.
This is clearly not definitive, but it certainly strikes me as worthy of considersation.
I believe I actually started reading this paper about a week back, but never got threw it. Minnen does make some interesting claims, and appears to back them up. This one though, I really think is just weak, and really based on a big if.
The biggest problem I see with this claim is that it relies on a passage that Paul seems to contradict in his own letters. The trial and stoning of Stephen occurs in Jerusalem. According to Minnen's argument, the people there knew Paul. Paul supposedly went to a synagogue in Jerusalem as well. The problem though is that Paul states in his own letters, that he was unknown to the churches in Judea. Instead, it seems as if Paul probably spent most of his time in Damascus. This is all taken from Galatians 1.
If Paul truly was part of a synagogue in Jerusalem, and was involved in this stoning of Stephen (even in just a minor way), and was known by so many there, it is highly unlikely that he could also claim that Paul was unknown to the churches in Judea.
Minnen also draws an undeserved connection between the Synagogue of the Freedmen and the other groups listed. Minnen makes the claim that the Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia were also somehow apart of the Synagogue of the Freedman; however, the passage does not state that. Instead, it seems that several groups were actually involved, and were distinct groups. So to lump them all together is just incorrect, and that is what Minnen does.
Finally, the story of Stephen seems to be modeled after the death of Jesus. This brings doubt about the narrative as well. It appears that most of it, if not all, was fabricated. I would assume that there was probably an individual named Stephen, who was known as one of the first martyrs, but I don't think the story as told in Acts has any accuracy (besides him being stoned).
So the entire passage that Minnen is using seems to suffer from some major problems. First, it appears to be probably a fabricated story (and we can even see it being modeled after the story of Jesus). Paul seems to contradict key points (as he states he was unknown to the churches in Judea, and instead implies that he was in Damascus instead). And then Minnen, for some reason, makes the claim that Paul, being a Cilician, would have been in attendance at the Synagogue of the Freedmen, even though there is no real reason to make that claim. The Synagogue of the Freemen seems to be composed of former Jewish slaves from Rome. It really is not connected to Cilicia. So he is making a leap there.
Then as A_E states, the authenticity of Acts is severely questioned anyway. As I mentioned in the OP, many scholars do not think one can use Acts, at least in regard to Paul, unless Paul also supports this. Especially in the last decade, this appears to be the view that really is taking hold. And this passage is a prime example of why. It simply does not appear to be historically authentic, and Paul seems to contradict it.
I also agree with A_E that it is possible that Paul was a Roman citizen. However, as he also stated, there just is no evidence. So it appears that Paul probably was not a Roman citizen. The probability of such is low. And I would argue that even, in the slim chance he was, it was a point that meant absolutely nothing.
Paul always identifies as a Jew, and while growing up, a pious Jew (which really suggests that if Paul was a Roman citizen, it meant nothing to him. This is also another problem with Acts. Acts states that Paul was taught under Gamaliel. Yet, Paul, in his letters, never makes a claim. Which, if Paul is correct, it is extremely curious why Paul wouldn't mention it himself, especially since Paul does put an emphasis on his background). Paul never suggests that he is a Roman citizen, and doesn't even mention it in context of being beaten by the rod (which would have occurred somewhere in the Roman empire, and was a punishment conducted by Romans), which would have been an ideal way to show that he was fully committed to the movement, as in, he was rejecting his Roman citizenship, or the like. He also never mentions it in regard to his background.
So really, on the slim chance that he was a Roman citizen, he seems to reject such an identity anyway.
