Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[outhouse]

Absolutely. We come full circle. There is no evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Whether this particular evidence is redacted or not.

could you rewrite this and leave something for me to argue LOL

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If he were a Roman citizen, I think that he would have listed that first. His audience would have known this about him, and if he were constructing himself as a super-Jew, his affiliation with the Empire would have to be explained (or glorified?).

I disagree, but even were that the case it assumes that this "affiliation with the Empire" was unusual and, therefore, noteworthy. According to van Minnen, that was not the case.

But you bring to mind a different issue. You write: "His audience would have known this about him, ..." Was this likewise true of Luke's audience? Though written decades later, certainly a senior stratum of his readership would have been otherwise familiar with Paul and whatever traditions surrounded him. This may not have deterred Luke from creating stories about what Paul did. But lying about what Paul did strikes me as being significantly less problematic than lying about what Paul was. Was there not the significant threat of exposure?

And the problem was not solely with his senior gentile Christian readership. In addressing Luke's presentation of Rome and Roman rule Schnelle writes:

"Luke obviously wants to preserve his Christian community's freedom in the eyes of the state, which it news for the practice of its life, worship, and mission. Luke meets potential attacks from the state by showing that Christians are loyal to government authorities and pose no danger to the empire."​

If Luke is concerned about how his faith community is being viewed by the state, it makes perfect sense that he might unduly emphasize Paul's citizenship. It makes absolutely no sense that he would fabricate such citizenship if there was any chance (real or imagined) that the lie could be exposed by this state.

Given the possibility of being exposed from within and without the community, to presume that Roman citizenship was simply some Lucan embellishment seems to paint Luke as a remarkably careless and fortunate storyteller.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I disagree, but even were that the case it assumes that this "affiliation with the Empire" was unusual and, therefore, noteworthy. According to van Minnen, that was not the case.

But you bring to mind a different issue. You write: "His audience would have known this about him, ..." Was this likewise true of Luke's audience? Though written decades later, certainly a senior stratum of his readership would have been otherwise familiar with Paul and whatever traditions surrounded him. This may not have deterred Luke from creating stories about what Paul did. But lying about what Paul did strikes me as being significantly less problematic than lying about what Paul was. Was there not the significant threat of exposure?

And the problem was not solely with his senior gentile Christian readership. In addressing Luke's presentation of Rome and Roman rule Schnelle writes:

"Luke obviously wants to preserve his Christian community's freedom in the eyes of the state, which it news for the practice of its life, worship, and mission. Luke meets potential attacks from the state by showing that Christians are loyal to government authorities and pose no danger to the empire."​

If Luke is concerned about how his faith community is being viewed by the state, it makes perfect sense that he might unduly emphasize Paul's citizenship. It makes absolutely no sense that he would fabricate such citizenship if there was any chance (real or imagined) that the lie could be exposed by this state.

Given the possibility of being exposed from within and without the community, to presume that Roman citizenship was simply some Lucan embellishment seems to paint Luke as a remarkably careless and fortunate storyteller.

Good points, Jay.

As I'm thinking through this, there are several layers of historical context to consider.

* I refer to the author of the Gospel of Luke as "Luke," knowing that the author is anonymous.

1) Luke's knowledge of Paul's biography, whether from people who know Paul or from his churches or epistles

2) Luke's original audience's knowledge of Paul

3) The earlier Christian communities who received Luke's Gospel - which included Pauline churches

I think that you're addressing points 1 and 2. I'm afraid that I don't know - it seems to me that all we can do is compare Paul's letters to Luke-Acts which has mixed success.

For some years now I've read the Gospels as a qualified affirmation of Paul. Because the Gospels are written so long after Paul's epistles, there is enough time for them to circulate through the churches when Luke was written.

I would consider Marcion as well, who accepted Luke and the *authentic* Pauline epistles, for whatever that's worth. Marcion and his father before him accepted the authentic Pauline epistles (and therefore Paul's biography as expressed in these epistles) and then accepted a version of Luke that they redacted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just became aware of Henrik Mouritsen's The Freedman in the Roman World. The price tag is a bit steep for a topic about which I am only mildly interested, but perhaps I can get it through my local library. I did, however, find MacLean's review tempting, including ...

Mouritsen’s treatment of more technical problems is executed as masterfully as his examination of ideology. He rightly accepts that we lack sufficient documentation to establish demographic measures with any precision. The strength of his discussion is not to solve insoluble problems but to compile the evidence – most of which indicates that manumission at Rome was more common than in other slave systems, but selective on the basis of the ideal that only deserving slaves should be freed. Thankfully, the reasons for why the Romans manumitted so many slaves are easier to ascertain. On the one hand, the promise of freedom was a powerful incentive by which to inspire diligence and good behavior. But the frequency of manumission cannot be explained by this single function; and the social and economic benefits of the patron-freedman relationship were the key to sustaining the Roman system.

You wrote above: "We don't realize, I think, how differently we would have to think about Paul if he were a citizen." That may prove more accurate than either of us fully appreciate. Nevertheless, it appears as if there was a stigma attached to some classes of citizens, although it was a stigma that became less severe over time. Still, while it may well have served Luke to make note of Paul's status, it does not appear to me to be something that Paul would likely brag about, particularly given the focus of Paul's epistles.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Whether this particular evidence is redacted or not.

He calls himself a "Roman" at one point, what else can this mean but "Roman citizen, as we know that He was a Jew from Tarsus. It's likely that He was a Roman citizen, of what status, that's another question.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

He calls himself a "Roman" at one point, what else can this mean but "Roman citizen, as we know that He was a Jew from Tarsus. It's likely that He was a Roman citizen, of what status, that's another question.

Can't use that because the OP poisoned the well against Acts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He calls himself a "Roman" at one point, what else can this mean but "Roman citizen, as we know that He was a Jew from Tarsus. It's likely that He was a Roman citizen, ...

Actually, at a couple of points, but all in Acts 22 and 23.

But the issue being debate here is precisely the validity of Luke's report. To claim that he must be a Roman citizen becaus Luke has him claiming to be Roman is simply begging the question.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, at a couple of points, but all in Acts 22 and 23.

But the issue being debate here is precisely the validity of Luke's report. To claim that he must be a Roman citizen becaus Luke has him claiming to be Roman is simply begging the question.

even without Luke, Pauls citizenship is highly likely

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

angellous_evangellous, fallingblood,

Just a side point. I came into this thread without a strong position. At this point I favor the proposition that Paul did in fact hold some form of Roman citizenship or, at the very least, that Luke was writing with such a tradition in mind. But this is a very provisional stand on my part.

What I wanted you guys to know - and the reason for this post - is that I've very much appreciated the thoughtful interchange. I think I have a slightly better sense of Paul, Luke, and the (differing) Sitz im Leben reflected in the writings of each thanks in large part to the two of you.

Thanks again for the informative discussion.​

- JS

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous_evangellous, fallingblood,

Just a side point. I came into this thread without a strong position. At this point I favor the proposition that Paul did in fact hold some form of Roman citizenship or, at the very least, that Luke was writing with such a tradition in mind. But this is a very provisional stand on my part.

What I wanted you guys to know - and the reason for this post - is that I've very much appreciated the thoughtful interchange. I think I have a slightly better sense of Paul, Luke, and the (differing) Sitz im Leben reflected in the writings of each thanks in large part to the two of you.

Thanks again for the informative discussion.​

- JS

I appreciate your conversation as well, Jay (as always).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

even without Luke, Pauls citizenship is highly likely

Now without Acts, what can you use as evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually, at a couple of points, but all in Acts 22 and 23.

But the issue being debate here is precisely the validity of Luke's report. To claim that he must be a Roman citizen becaus Luke has him claiming to be Roman is simply begging the question.

I've been seeing lately that New Testament scholars are shying away from the idea that "Luke" wrote "Acts." I don't have an iron in that fire, but it goes along with the questions concerning the historicity of Acts.

 

[outhouse]

Now without Acts, what can you use as evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen?

cultural anthropology


to look at paul's citizenship, one should'nt use act's anyway

 

[angellous_evangellous]

cultural anthropology


to look at paul's citizenship, one should use act's anyway

There is nothing in cultural anthropology that dictates that Paul is a Roman citizen (unless, of course, you already think that).

 

[outhouse]

There is nothing in cultural anthropology that dictates that Paul is a Roman citizen (unless, of course, you already think that).

raised in Tarsus
diet, lack of adherence to jewish customs
lack of adherence to jewish law
preached mainly to gentiles/romans
stayed more in highly roman populated areas then jewish
romans/gentiles worshipped in synagogues and followed judaism

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've been seeing lately that New Testament scholars are shying away from the idea that "Luke" wrote "Acts." I don't have an iron in that fire, but it goes along with the questions concerning the historicity of Acts.

I know there is an argument out there that Acts was developed as a response to Marcion. I have no bases upon which to judge the theory and no feel for its implications.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I know there is an argument out there that Acts was developed as a response to Marcion. I have no bases upon which to judge the theory and no feel for its implications.

I've heard the thing about Marcion as well. I think that the Pastoral letters (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) were written in response to Marcion. Acts I think is a bit too early for that argument, but it did come out of a Pauline community (Schnelle).

But these arguments are reaching - stretching the limits of the evidence beyond logic and into historical fantasy. That's not bad in itself - but the argument is rather thin. And it is terribly complex because one has to reconstruct Marcion, his history, the pattern of the development of Marcionite theology and traditions, and compare that to the histories of Paul, Luke, and the patterns of their historical development.

Of course, there's a whole group of scholars who have dedicated their lives to addressing Marcionite issues, but a person who argues that Luke is a response to Marcion is going to have to sort through all of those sources, teasing out what is historical and what isn't. Because Marcion's history is embedded in the rants of people who hate him, it's quite a challenge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

raised in Tarsus
diet, lack of adherence to jewish customs
lack of adherence to jewish law
preached mainly to gentiles/romans
stayed more in highly roman populated areas then jewish
romans/gentiles worshipped in synagogues and followed judaism

None of this is evidence for Roman citizenship.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't know Paul was on a diet.

It's amazing how so little resource and reason manages to produce so much pretentious certitude. It's truly a gift.

 

[outhouse]

I didn't know Paul was on a diet.

It's amazing how so little resource and reason manages to produce so much pretentious certitude. It's truly a gift.

bread and olives LOL