The most obvious connection to Rome for Paul was his Roman citizenship. While it is a significant issue in Acts, there is no reference to it in his letters. This is not unusual since he often did not insist on his rights as a Roman citizen in Acts. There is no real reason to bring it up in a letter to a church. Citizenship is stressed in Acts at the times when Paul is under arrest and later when he appeals to Caesar. But was Paul really a Roman Citizen?
Citizenship was not common in the first century. Not everyone was guaranteed the privilege of being a citizen of the Empire. In 28 B.C., there were approximately 4.9 million citizens; by the time of Claudius, there were 5.9 million. Most of these lived in Italy or were serving in the army.
Privileges of Citizenship. A citizen was always subject to Roman law. No matter where they were living at the time, they had a right to an official Roman trial before a tribunal. A citizen could not be scourged without a hearing (cf Acts 16 in Philippi). In capital cases, the citizen always had the right to appeal to the emperor (as Paul does in Acts), and crucifixion was not usually an option for a citizen if found guilty of a capital offense.
Obtaining citizenship. There were several ways to obtain Roman citizenship in the first century. Freeborn residents of Rome were automatically citizens, and if they moved away from Rome, they retained their citizenship. Soldiers who were veterans of 10 years or more may be granted citizenship, as might individuals or whole territories that had performed some service to the empire. A vote of the Senate would confirm this. Some scholars speculate that Paul’s family was granted citizenship through service in the army as tentmakers.
Could someone buy a citizenship? Polhill (Paul, 16) says this is unlikely, but one might bribe the right people to secure the recommendation for the gift of citizenship. A common way to obtain citizenship was to be a slave that a Roman citizen emancipates. This was first suggested by Jerome and is followed by many scholars today. That slave is given the name of their former master along with citizenship. It is often suggested that Paul’s family received their citizenship in this way. A generation or two back in Paul’s line, they were slaves to a Roman citizen who freed them and gave them his citizenship.
Philo reports that Pompey took Jews to Rome as slaves in 63 B.C. This is a good possibility for deporting Paul’s family, though it is hard to account for their return to Tarsus as citizens. Josephus also says that slaves were taken from Galilee in 4 B.C. after the tax-revolt of Judas the Galilean (Antiq. 27.288; JW 2.68). This may be too late to explain Paul’s citizenship since he was probably born only a few years later.
Would a strict Pharisee want to be a Roman citizen? It seems likely that Paul and his family would be considered apostates for even accepting Roman citizenship. At this point in history, it seems unlikely that accepting Roman citizenship involved any idolatry or recognition of the emperor as a god. Stegmann states that Roman citizens were required to sacrifice to the gods of Rome, but Reisner points out that this was not true during Paul’s lifetime (Reisner, 151). Philo reports in Legatio ad Gaium 155 that there was a large Jewish Community in Rome when he visited the city, and that Augustus respected the synagogues of the Jews.
How did a person prove they were a Roman citizen? Permanent records were to be kept in the town of birth, registered within thirty days, and witnessed by seven witnesses. It is possible that there was some physical identification (soldiers had them), but the penalty for falsely claiming citizenship was so severe that few would risk it.
A few scholars deny the historicity of Paul’s citizenship. He does not mention it in his letters, so the only source is the book of Acts. Several questions have been raised. First, would a “tent-maker” be able to obtain citizenship? This question implies a link between social standing and citizenship, which may not have existed. Since citizenship could be granted for various reasons, many people considered “socially undesirable” were citizens. A citizen was not equivalent to the “social elite” of Rome. Paul generally visits provincial capitals, places where citizenship was more common, especially among freed slaves and ex-soldiers. It is possible that Paul targeted this group of “fresh citizens” with the gospel (E. A. Judge, New Documents 2:106-107).
A second objection centers on Paul’s mistreatment as described in 2 Cor. 11:24ff. This type of abuse would not be possible if Paul were a Roman citizen. This argument compares the unlawful arrest in Acts 16 (in Philippi) to the list of abuses Paul suffered before writing 2 Corinthians. It is impossible, it is argued, for a Roman citizen to have been so abused as Paul claims. Stegmenn notes that Paul is either the worst case of torture of a Roman citizen in history, or a masochist. This objection fails to note that suffering for one’s fate is a mark of Christ. Paul suffers for the Gospel because his Lord suffered (Gal 6:17, Phil 3:10, 2 Cor 4:10, 6:4ff)
The scourging mentioned in 2 Corinthians was likely a synagogue “correction” by the Jews, not by civil authorities. It is possible that Paul could have brought charges against those who whipped him, but it is more likely that Paul would emulate Christ by suffering his abuse in silence in the hope that he might win some to the faith.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
The argument about the beatings cuts both ways. It is precisely because the missionaries were persecuted that they chose Roman citizens for the role, to give them some protection. Also, the abundance of Latin praenomina among the missionaries demonstrates their Roman citizenship (the statistics are compelling).
Just a short question:
you wrote that it was less likely to buy citizenship. What about verse: Then the officer said, “I had to pay a lot of money to become a citizen.” “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied. (Act 22:28 NIRV)?
Thanks
It is interesting to me that there would be so much debate on whether Paul was a Roman citizen or not. I guess in my mind, if the Bible says he is a Roman citizen…then why would scholars’ question that? Yes, one could wonder why he would not claim his citizenship more often, but I think it shows Paul’s humbleness. He was not one to flaunt something which would have the potential to give him special treatment, but a life-or-death situation is different. Also, I would assume that the soldiers would not have been so quickly thwarted from their planned punishment if there was any doubt to the validity of his claim? It seems that Paul must have had some way to prove his citizenship besides just a claim, as I would think he could not have been the first one to “claim” citizenship in the face of torture? Was that the reason the tribune announced his purchased citizenship? Perhaps Paul’s answer would have proven whether he was a true citizen by birth, or was claiming under pretense of a bribed or purchased citizenship? I do wonder though, if it is unlikely that someone could bribe or purchase a citizenship, why the tribune claims that is exactly what he did? Would he have purchased his citizenship from a former owner, or was this just a way to explain being emancipated?
I guess I never really questioned the authenticity of Paul’s statement that he was a roman citizen. When I read about it, I just thought it’s in the Bible so it must be true. I also did not realize it was not mentioned in his other letters (Long 2019), but I also do not think it is something that needed to come up in letters to churches. I agree with others in that Paul did not need to “flaunt” his citizenship throughout his missionary journeys. He brought it up in situations where it was relevant. An example would be in Acts 22 when Paul was about to be flogged and he said to the centurion, “’Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen’”(Acts 22:25). The fact that he said this made it so he was able to be spared from the flogging. “Roman law forbade flogging a Roman Citizen without a hearing or a formal sentence. Officers who did this would then face serious charges” (Polhil 2134). He did not walk around proclaiming his citizenship, he mentioned it at the appropriate time. Later he would tell of his citizenship again when he appeals to Caesar. Just because Paul does not bring up his citizenship in other scenarios or in his letters, does not mean it was not true. Paul tells of his citizenship in the moments that it needs to be said.
As we follow Paul throughout the book of Acts, his status as a Roman citizen is not emphasized. It is only when Paul is arrested does his citizenship became an important issue in the text. Yet, how did Paul and his family obtain citizenship from the Roman empire? As Long notes, most scholars do not deny the historicity of Paul’s citizenship, however, objections and questions must be raised. It is known that Paul was a tentmaker, but would someone of this profession be able to receive citizenship? While this a necessary question, it falsely presumes that there was a correlation between social status and citizenship. Many “socially undesirable” people were considered citizens, often soldiers and freed slaves became citizens of the Roman empire. Another objection is founded on the horrid treatment of Paul in 2nd Corinthians 11:24 since this type of punishment would be prohibited for Roman citizens. However, this punishment was most likely exacted upon Paul by the synagogue Jews, disconnected from Roman law and officials.
However, these refutations to popular objections do not answer the question of how Paul obtained citizenship. One common method to obtain citizenship was for a slave to be emancipated by a Roman citizen. Some scholars suggest that Paul and his family were emancipated a generation or two previously, inferring to Paul Roman citizenship. Another suggestion is that Paul’s family obtained Roman citizenship through surrounding their tentmaking skills to the Roman empire. These two suggestions produce strong cases for an explanation of Paul’s obtaining Roman citizenship.
This concept of Roman citizenship has always been a bit confusing to me. Paul’s citizenship is not something that is mentioned elsewhere in Paul’s writings.
The blog post explains that citizenship was not common. This makes Paul’s citizenship all the more valuable. This would also explain why Paul did not mention it in his letters; it probably served no purpose other than to further put him on a pedestal.
As mentioned in class, Paul does not use his Roman citizenship as a ticket out of suffering. Yet why does he use it now? If he is not using it as a “get out of jail free” card, what is his purpose in using it at all?
Is this about making sure that he receives his due justice? Throughout his ministry, Paul does not demonstrate a burning passion for justice or that he be treated fairly. That seems confusing at first (why invoke it now?). But it also makes sense. Why would he not use it now? If he had not mentioned it up until now, it highlights some of the importance and value…his citizenship and his situation he was in was not something Paul took lightly. Is it less of a “get out of jail free” card and simply using the means that God has given him appropriately so that he is able to continue in his ministry?
I find it interesting the fact that in those days there were several options in obtaining Roman Citizenship, such as being a slave of someone who is a Roman citizen, military duty more than 10 years, and someone who contributed something good for the empire was given such a privilege of citizenship, and one of the other pathways to citizenship was buying it with tons of money. When Paul answered the centurion that he was a Roman citizen, in response the centurion alluded to the huge expenses on the amount of buying citizenship. Therefore, it’s fair to say that obtaining Roman citizenship does come with various privileges. For example here in American all a person has to do to obtain US citizenship is to take the civics questions, and if a person passed they were given citizenship. Of course, some others information is needed. Nevertheless, I hope my personal experience on being a US citizenship although I was not born in the US will help us understand the question of whether Paul was a Roman citizen. Firstly, we can’t be denied the facts that are found throughout the book of Acts where Paul had oftentimes referenced his citizenship without any anxious gesture to his accusers. As it said, no one dares to fake that they are a Roman citizen due to severe consequences. Paul, again and again, mentioned it, but some scholars, however, doubt his citizenship, because the only source that depicts his citizenship is in Acts alone, and claims that Paul never invokes his citizenship in most of his Epistles. For me, this has to be the most ridiculous argument. When I became a US citizen, I talked to many of my friends about my citizenship, and the more privilege that I have as a citizen of the US, in another word, I often invoke my citizenship to them. But, when I talked to my family back home or email them, I don’t ponder much about my US citizenship in our conversion, because It was unnecessary in that contexts. This could be the same for Paul as to why he didn’t mention them on his Epistles because they were unnecessary, and Paul deals with theologies, not political issues. Lastly, Paul often said, “follow in my footstep as I emulate Christ examples”; this could be some of the reason why he doesn’t intend to include them in his Epistles. Also, the reason why I firmly believe Paul was indeed a Roman citizen was, he said, “I was born a Roman Citizen”.
There are many ways to become a citizen of Rome. such as becoming a citizen by buying. In verse 28 of Acts 22, the commander said, ‘’I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship. So is it buying to become a citizen of Rome? Another is by being given citizenship by someone who has the authority. Suetonius tells a story about Nero, who handed out citizenship certificates to some young Greek dancers because he liked their performance.
When the commander were about to flogged Paul, Paul said yo the centurion standing there, ‘’is it legal for your to flog a roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?’’ How did Paul become a citizen of Rome? His citizenship was granted to his father or grandfather for services rendered to the empire. Many scholars have suggested his family served as tentmakers in service to the military.
Lastly, another way to become a citizen is by being a freeborn. Paul said to the commander ‘’I was born a citizen’’ (Acts 22:28). Paul’s citizenship is important for his ministry and the rest of his life. That’s how he could be witness before kings as he was Called for Christ the Lord.
Paul reveals his citizenship to the commander and to the council. He was supposed to be whipped until he confessed his so-called wrongdoings or sins. It was basically a plan to torture the apostle to just side with the false accusations. We should always rebuke false accusations from the enemy just like Joseph in the old testament. False accusations will turn against those who started those rumors. God uses the enemies false accusations about you to prove them wrong and to make a miracle out of you. Paul reminded the people of that government law that is illegal to punish a roman citizen without being tried. Paul was born in Tarsus, which is a Roman province. The Roman officer put a stop to this immediately because he wanted to follow lawful regulations. The commander was frightened because he ordered this Roman citizen named Paul to be immediately whipped. The commander and soldiers who were going to interrogate and punish Paul quickly withdrew. This was God also protecting Paul for preaching what is right. The lord was with Paul when he was placed in disastrous moments that could harm him or either kill him. We know that the God of Justice is with us.
It makes no sense that freed slaves automatically became Roman citizens.
And just because Acts claims Paul’s citizenship makes it true. Being “Roman” and Jew and Christian transforms Paul into an amazing and convenient example for future converts.
I do not think the original post says that. I did say “Freeborn residents of Rome were automatically citizens.” A freed slave might be granted citizenship, but I think you are reacting to the practice of giving veterans citizenship, even people who served as slaves for the Roman army could be given citizenship. I said “A common way to obtain citizenship was to be a slave that is emancipated by a Roman citizen.” Common, not automatic.