Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[outhouse]

(one being that Paul and Acts contradict each other,

Not in every way

and that Acts has a history of making things up or exaggerating points)

So does Mark but he is very valuable in research for jesus

 

[fallingblood]

Not in every way

True. And where Acts doesn't contradict Paul, but instead support what Paul is saying (as in Paul and Acts states the same idea), we can use Acts.

So does Mark but he is very valuable in research for jesus

Because we put stipulations on Mark. We don't blindly follow what it says. Instead, we treat it in the same manner that I have been treating Acts.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So a cheap shot? That's fine. I don't expect much more from you. However, why do we need a smoking gun? This is history, not a court of law. This isn't science. We don't need a smoking gun. As with history, we are simply looking for probability. You don't need a smoking gun for this.

And if the criterion is probability then the evidence at hand goes against your OP.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

People are not taking into consideration that Paul himself is a bias source when it comes to Paul. And Luke is probably more objective because Luke is using multiple sources.

Another thing about Paul in Luke, Luke in Acts is portraying Paul as it's protagonist, the hero of the story who goes through immense suffering in order to get the message out.

Paul is Luke's hero.

I want to know for what reason does Luke include those instances when Paul in order to avoid suffering invokes his citizenship. This isn't the act of a heroic man but of one who is trying to get out of a jam. Why does Luke portray Paul acting somewhat like a coward when for the most part he portrays Paul in heroic terms? It's embarrassing.

 

[outhouse]

People are not taking into consideration that Paul himself is a bias source when it comes to Paul. And Luke is probably more objective because Luke is using multiple sources.

Another thing about Paul in Luke, Luke in Acts is portraying Paul as it's protagonist, the hero of the story who goes through immense suffering in order to get the message out.

Paul is Luke's hero.

I want to know for what reason does Luke include those instances when Paul in order to avoid suffering invokes his citizenship. This isn't the act of a heroic man but of one who is trying to get out of a jam. Why does Luke portray Paul acting somewhat like a coward when for the most part he portrays Paul in heroic terms? It's embarrassing.

because paul spends alot of time in jail


its hard to say here is the righteous hero, who is also a roman criminal, and then sell all this to a roman audience as a man we should follow blindly

 

[fallingblood]

And if the criterion is probability then the evidence at hand goes against your OP.

It might help your case then if you actually addressed the OP then instead of making a baseless claim (I say baseless as you haven't provided any arguement).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, I said that it is most probable that Paul wasn't a Roman citizen as he doesn't mention it, is not treated as one, and that there is no real evidence for him being a Roman citizen.

fallingblood, I wonder if you'd be willing to reread my posts 206, 282, and 284. I really believe them to be worth further consideration.

Again, a large portion of my argument has been that Paul is not treated as a Roman citizen.

Hopefully my library will be able to acquire the study referenced in post 284. From the review and exerpts I've read, there may be too great a tendency to grossly simplify/idealize what being 'treated as a Roman citizen' might look like - particularly given Rome's recent and highly volatile interaction with the Jews. I believe I've asked this of you before, but where precisely in the epistles does Paul suggest that he's been treated in such a way that you feel would likely preclude the possibility of Paul holding such status? Specifically: how was he being treated, where, and by whom?

 

[fallingblood]

People are not taking into consideration that Paul himself is a bias source when it comes to Paul. And Luke is probably more objective because Luke is using multiple sources.

Another thing about Paul in Luke, Luke in Acts is portraying Paul as it's protagonist, the hero of the story who goes through immense suffering in order to get the message out.

Paul is Luke's hero.

I want to know for what reason does Luke include those instances when Paul in order to avoid suffering invokes his citizenship. This isn't the act of a heroic man but of one who is trying to get out of a jam. Why does Luke portray Paul acting somewhat like a coward when for the most part he portrays Paul in heroic terms? It's embarrassing.

How do you know Acts isn't just making this stuff up? Can you point to such sources? And then can you show how these sources are better? The fact is, there are many sources that are simply garbage. There are many books based off of a plethora of sources, but that hardly makes them good if the sources are lousy.

As for Paul invoking his citizenship, it is after he has been beaten and the like.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How do you know Acts isn't just making this stuff up? Can you point to such sources? And then can you show how these sources are better? The fact is, there are many sources that are simply garbage. There are many books based off of a plethora of sources, but that hardly makes them good if the sources are lousy.

Maybe. We just don't know now do we? But we do know Luke used multiple sources when constructing his gospel and probably did so with Acts.

As for Paul invoking his citizenship, it is after he has been beaten and the like.

Precisely. Paul invokes his citizenship when he is knee deep in ****. Not very heroic is it? In fact it is embarrassing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe. We just don't know now do we? But we do know Luke used multiple sources when constructing his gospel and probably did so with Acts.

We do know "how," or at least some critical methods. When we interpret writings, genre is quite important. For example, a novelist has more artistic license than a scientist or *most* historians.

Scholars fight over the genre of Acts. Most people believe that it follows the pattern of the ancient novel - for us it would be an "historical fiction." Luke is also considered a novel - it simply uses sources that are partially verifiable (at least with respect to the tradition, which says nothing of truthfulness or accuracy) in Matthew and Luke. Acts, however, contradicts Paul. It's more than a matter of trust. One document (Acts) is a novel, the other (Galatians and other undisputed letters) is an epistle with autobiographical information.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

We do know "how," or at least some critical methods. When we interpret writings, genre is quite important. For example, a novelist has more artistic license than a scientist or *most* historians.

Scholars fight over the genre of Acts. Most people believe that it follows the pattern of the ancient novel - for us it would be an "historical fiction." Luke is also considered a novel - it simply uses sources that are partially verifiable (at least with respect to the tradition, which says nothing of truthfulness or accuracy) in Matthew and Luke. Acts, however, contradicts Paul. It's more than a matter of trust. One document (Acts) is a novel, the other (Galatians and other undisputed letters) is an epistle with autobiographical information.

When it comes to the Gospel, Luke is using much more than Matt or mark as source material. In fact not much in Matt or Mark is that verifiable.

Any of those sources can be said to be fiction. We know that Luke uses sources such as Q and others but still we can't say any of those sources are verifiable. We presume they are due to the evidence we have.

The same criterion we apply to the Gospels is the same criterion we have to apply to Acts.

As for Paul, I see him as a bias source. He doesn't give us full disclosure about his life in his epistles. And we don't have much to verify whether Paul is telling the truth but Acts.

 

[fallingblood]

I respectfully disagree. Schnelle writes: "It is mostly undisputed, however, that in 3.2-11 Paul struggles against Jewish Christian missionaries. The apostle describes them as 'dogs,' in order to characterize the malignant and destructive intentions of his opponents." Paul seems to be saying: "Who are these uber-Jew dogs to come in here and tell us who is and who is not to be circumcised? My Jewish credentials are second to none! Just look at me ...

circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless, -- and I'm a Roman citizen!" ​

Not only does it not flow, it flows counter to what Paul is trying to convey. At least that's how it seems to me.

I think this is actually an interesting verse. In it, Paul relates the idea that he persecuted the church. He's telling these members of the church that he in fact once persecuted them. I find this interesting because it shows that Paul is not too worried about the negativity in his past. So he wasn't too worried about airing negative ideas regarding his past.

At the same time, I agree with A_E that this would be the ideal time for Paul to state that he is a Roman citizen. For me, it would have added to him being a Jew, as well as his story in general. This is mainly because that he would have effectively been disregarding the rights and privileges that were granted to him. For instance, in Acts, we see Paul asking for a trial and in fact goes to Rome for such. There a number of instances in the writings of Paul though in which it is mentioned he was in jail, and had been accused of committing some crime. Now, if Paul was a Roman citizen, either others did not recognize him as such (which in effect makes such an identity useless and hardly a real identity anyway), or Paul never used his supposed privilege. In either case though, mentioning that he was Roman citizen, but still endured as his audiences did as well, or the he gave up such rights in order to be a pious Jews, would have bolstered his arguments. It would have added to his sacrifice. The same is true with Roman citizens not supposed to be whipped, beaten, or tortured. Paul states that he was, and in fact, that he submitted to Jewish rulings. By doing so, either he was not being recognized as a Roman citizen, he didn't mention it, or he simply wasn't one. If it was the first or second case, it would have added to him being Jewish, especially the second one in which he makes being a Jew far more important than being a Roman citizen.

So, I think Paul would have been wise, if he was a Roman citizen, to have mentioned it in Philippians. It would have added to who was Paul. Because it would have shown that here is this Roman citizen, who is giving up such an honor, and instead, devoting himself to something else. It would have shown people that Paul was devoutly Jewish, to the point of giving up being a Roman citizen.

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.

I think it would have served Paul to mention being a Roman citizen. I got into this above. But Paul seems to have no problem with admitting that he done things that are negative, such as persecuting the church. And he turns that negative in a positive, as he is able to show how he has transformed with this new message. Being a Roman citizen seems to be a similar advantage here.

Also, looking at the audience that Paul was speaking to, which was primarily Gentiles, being a Roman citizen doesn't seem like it would be a problem. It actually would probably be an advantage. We can just look at the centurion in Acts, who is told that Paul is a Roman citizen, and see that positive reaction there. It seems like such an addition to Paul's identity would have helped his message.

There is also a reference in Paul's work where he declares that there are no longer man or woman, Jew or Gentile, etc. I think with such a message, declaring that he was a Roman citizen would have been ideal. As again, he would be seen as sacrificing quite a bit for his movement. He would be giving up such a privilege of being a Roman to be part of this movement.

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?

I don't think there was much threat of exposure. There are other blatant contradictions between Paul and Acts, which anyone who had access to both would have been able to see. There were also embellishments, but as Paul being taught by Gamaliel, which could have probably been shown false to, if anyone really cared. But in the end, who Paul was probably wasn't of the most importance. It appears that many simply ignored Paul, or didn't even know of him. Even Acts doesn't appear to be aware of Paul's letters, or at least doesn't care.

As the movement moved more away from Judaism and came under more threat from Rome, I think it would have been a wise idea to show that one of the big players in the movement though was also a Roman citizen. As Schnelle said in your quote: "Luke meets potential attacks from the state by showing that Christians are loyal to government authorities and pose no danger to the empire."

Making Paul a Roman citizen would definitely help meet such a potential attack.

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.

But there wouldn't have really been anything to show that he made it up. Paul doesn't mention it, and if he wasn't a Roman citizen, there would have been no reason to deny it either. So there really is no written data that would expose him. As for members of the churches involved with Paul, there is no reason they would have even heard of Acts. The time difference between Paul and Acts, is probably at minimum, 30 years (with Paul ending his writings in the 60's and Acts being written, at probably the earliest, in the 90's. Many scholars seem to push it even further back). And the geographical locations are different as well. So I don't think Acts had much of a worry to be exposed.

Especially considering that he contradicted Paul as well. And that seems like something that followers of Paul would have been more interested in exposing. I think Acts was quite safe in that regard.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

At the same time, I agree with A_E that this would be the ideal time for Paul to state that he is a Roman citizen.

:takeabow:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I am so glad that FB mention Philippians because that is the very book I was going to bring up sooner or later, but since the cat is out of the bag I think we should examine Philippians.

So lets take a close look at some of the verses.

First some a little info on Philippians, it is one of the uncontested letters of Paul, meaning Paul definitely wrote this letter. And as for it's provenance, most scholars that agree that it's provenance is Rome!

Let's look at the first verses:

"1:1 From Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and deacons. 1:2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!"

Pretty standard greeting of Paul's. But note he has company.

"1:3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 1:4 I always pray with joy in my every prayer for all of you 1:5 because of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. 1:6 For I am sure of this very thing, that the one who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 1:7 For it is right for me to think this about all of you, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel all of you became partners in God’s grace together with me"

In these few verses we learn that Paul is indeed imprisoned in Rome! And not only that the good people of Philippi have been sending him aid.

Let's examine some more:

"1:12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my situation has actually turned out to advance the gospel: 1:13 The whole imperial guard and everyone else knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ, "

Paul, our good man is one to take a bunch of lemons and make lemonade. Yes he is imprisoned in Rome but it gives him an opportunity to witness Christ to the Praetorium Guard! Wait a sec here! The Praetorium Guard? Let's move on because there is more.

We will skip a head some , there is a beautiful hymn in the middle or so but that's for another thread.

"2:19 Now I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be encouraged by hearing news about you."

"2:25 But for now I have considered it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. For he is my brother"

Are Timothy and Epaphroditus imprisoned with Paul. No, they are free to go and deliver messages for Paul. So why are they there? Because Paul even though he is imprisoned is allowed people to help him out, send message and do errands for him. He is allowed servants. I bet many prisoners today would love that privilege.

Time for another verse.

"4:21 Give greetings to all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers with me here send greetings. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who belong to Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. "

Seems Paul's imprisonment as been going well, not only is he guarded by the Emperor's own body guards, he is allowed access to the people of Caesar's court.

So this epistle definitely confirms what Luke wrote in Acts. Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome where he was imprisoned by Nero to await trial.

Now I am going to ask a few question?

If Paul was some insignificant foreigner, why is he allowed a trial before Caesar? Why not just nail him to a cross? Why is he being guarded by Nero's own bodyguards if he is just some lowly fanatical non-citizen Jew? Why does he have access to Caesar's court?

Why is not only allowed not just one but three people to serve his needs? Why is he allowed access by messenger to the outside world if he was suffering severe imprisonment?

Why was this man allowed these privileges? Why is he treated with deference? I think the answer is obvious. Paul is a Roman citizen and not only an ordinary one either.

 

[fallingblood]

First some a little info on Philippians, it is one of the uncontested letters of Paul, meaning Paul definitely wrote this letter. And as for it's provenance, most scholars that agree that it's provenance is Rome!

I'm only going to deal with these two points for now, simply because of time restraints on my part. Most scholars do not agree that it's provenance is Rome. That may have once been true (it was actually Christian tradition), but recent scholarship leans to it having been written in Ephesus. That seems to actually poke quite a few holes in your argument in the first place. But like I said, I will respond more fully later on.

Seems Paul's imprisonment as been going well, not only is he guarded by the Emperor's own body guards, he is allowed access to the people of Caesar's court.

I just found this curious. Because did you not have a problem, and actually insult A_E for stating that Caesar was the emperor? Well now you're doing the same thing. By the logic you were using earlier in regards to A_E, I should be able to just dismiss you outright now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just found this curious. Because did you not have a problem, and actually insult A_E for stating that Caesar was the emperor? Well now you're doing the same thing. By the logic you were using earlier in regards to A_E, I should be able to just dismiss you outright now.

Oh my! I may need to take her off my ignore list if only for my own amusement.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm only going to deal with these two points for now, simply because of time restraints on my part. Most scholars do not agree that it's provenance is Rome. That may have once been true (it was actually Christian tradition), but recent scholarship leans to it having been written in Ephesus. That seems to actually poke quite a few holes in your argument in the first place. But like I said, I will respond more fully later on.

I just found this curious. Because did you not have a problem, and actually insult A_E for stating that Caesar was the emperor? Well now you're doing the same thing. By the logic you were using earlier in regards to A_E, I should be able to just dismiss you outright now.

No. Most scholar say Rome. Name the scholars who say otherwise.

And as for me calling Nero Caesar Emperor? That would be correct because Nero was emperor while Julius wasn't. Not up on Roman history are you?

Please answer the whys in the post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm only going to deal with these two points for now, simply because of time restraints on my part. Most scholars do not agree that it's provenance is Rome. That may have once been true (it was actually Christian tradition), but recent scholarship leans to it having been written in Ephesus. That seems to actually poke quite a few holes in your argument in the first place. But like I said, I will respond more fully later on.

I just found this curious. Because did you not have a problem, and actually insult A_E for stating that Caesar was the emperor? Well now you're doing the same thing. By the logic you were using earlier in regards to A_E, I should be able to just dismiss you outright now.

From Early Christian Writings:

Schnelle argues (The History and Theology, p. 131): "Which place of imprisonment corresponds to this situation in the apostle's life? Of the three suggestions that have been made by scholars (Rome, Caesarea, Ephesus), Rome is the most likely location. The portrayal of the Roman imprisonment in Acts 28.30-31 fits very well with the mild form of imprisonment presupposed by Philippians. Moreover, the most direct way to understand the references to the Pretorian Guard (Phil. 1.13) and the imperial slaves (Phil. 4.22) is in terms of a Roman imprisonment." Schnelle continues with other reasons:

(1) The lack of reference to the offering indicates that at the time Philippians was written the collection had already been concluded. (2) Philippians presupposes an imprisonment that had lasted some time. If the letter had been written in Ephesus, there would be no explanation for the silence of Acts about such a long imprisonment in Ephesus, while the two years of the Roman imprisonment (Acts 28.30) fits very well with the situation presupposed in the letter. Paul's allusion to mortal danger he had experienced in the province of Asia (2 Cor. 1.8) is not necessarily evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis, since this report indicates only the fact of the mortal danger, not the circumstances involved. So also the fighting with 'wild animals' in 1 Cor. 15.32 is no evidence for an extended imprisonment in Ephesus. (3) The somewhat distant manner in which relationships are described at the place where Paul is presently imprisoned (Phil. 1.12-18, esp. vv. 15, 17 and cf. 1 Clem. 5.5!) suggests that the church there had not been founded by the apostle himself. (4) The term episkopoV (overseer) that appears in the authentic Pauline letters only in Phil. 1.1 (cf. further Acts 20.28; 1 Tim. 3.2; Titus 1.7) presupposes a development in the church situation in the direction of the Pastoral letters. (5) The investigation of the Pauline language of Philippians by H. H. Schade shows that the linguistc features of the proemium, in the use of the title 'Christ,' in the use of 'we' and 'I,' and in the presence of rare words (cf. esp. Beniamin [Benjamin] only Rom. 11.1; Phil 3.5; 'EbraioV (Hebrew) only 2 Cor. 11.22; Phil. 3.5; ergathV (worker) only 2 Cor. 11.13; Phil 3.2; fulh (tribe) only Rom. 11.1; Phil 3.5) all indicate that Philippians is to be located chronologically after Romans.​

Who now argues for Ephesus?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

From Early Christian Writings:

​

Who now argues for Ephesus?

A few of the new perspective people but not "most".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not up on Roman history are you?

[youtube]hSLddAZu1ds[/youtube]
A Dummies' Guide to Ancient Roman History - YouTube