Layman

The Citizenship of Paul

It is only in Acts that we learn that Paul's birthplace was Tarsus. Also, it is only in Acts that Paul is explicitly identified as a citizen of Tarsus and Rome. Both citizenships seem to have adhered to Paul at birth, a status bestowed on him because of the status of his father.

Are these recollections in Acts even plausible? Are they based on historical tradition or simple fiction? Leaving aside the identity of the author of Luke/Acts, it appears that these reports are accurate and likely historical.

Tarsus

Three times the writer of Acts mentions that Paul's birthplace was Tarsus (9:11; 21:39; 22:3). While Paul's letters are completely silent on the subject of his birthplace, "there is general agreement today in recognising the reliable historical tradition in Paul's Tarsian origin." Simon Legasse, Paul's Pre-Christian Career According to Acts, in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, at 366.

There seems to be no substantial apologetic reason to invent Tarsus as Paul's birthplace. Nor does Paul's Tarsian citizenship seem to play an important role in the story told by Acts. Certainly it plays a much less significant role and would be seen as less prestigious than Paul's reported Roman citizenship (more on that below). Instead, Acts seems intent on reinforcing Paul's connection to Jerusalem--where, it reports, Paul was educated.

Indeed, it is very plausible that a Jew would have been born in Tarsus and/or achieved Tarsian citizenship. Although Greek citizens did not commonly grant citizenship to foreigners, there are sufficient examples of Jews obtaining such citizenship to demonstrate that the practice existed. Seleucus Nicator granted citizenship to Jews in the cities he founded, including some in Asia. Josephus, Ant. 12.119. It is also possible that Jews could have purchased citizenship in a Greek city. Athens used this practice, causing some disapproval, to replenish its coffers. Dio Cassius 54.7.

Moreover, there is specific evidence that Jews could and did obtain Tarsian citizenship. Although the information about Jews in Tarsus is scant, it seems likely that there was a thriving community of Jews there. "The Jews in this area between the mother country and the Tarsus mountains were not only particularly numerous, as Josephus attests, but also very powerful and aware of themselves." Marting Hengel, Paul, Between Damascus and Antioch, at 158. That some of these obtained Tarsian citizenship is supported by explicit historical evidence:

Hengel, at 160.

Accordingly, there seems to be no persuasive reason to reject Acts' description of Paul's birthplace as Tarsus or its identification of Paul as a citizen of Tarsus.

Roman Citizenship

A similar question is raised by Acts' claims that Paul was also a citizen of Rome. Such citizenship was of greater significance and prestige than being a citizen of Tarsus. It endowed its holder with tremendous privileges relative to other subjects of Rome. Indeed, it was a capital offense to falsely claim Roman citizenship.

F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, at 39.

As with Tarsian citizenship, it is perfectly plausible that a Jew such as Paul could have obtained Roman citizenship. Roman citizenship was not restricted to persons born in Rome. By Paul's time, it had become much more expansive. "Roman citizenship was originally confined to freeborn natives of the City of Rome, but as Roman control of Italy and the Mediterranean lands extended, the citizenship was conferred on a number of other people who were not Roman by birth, including select provincials." Bruce, at 37.

It is indisputable that many Jews obtained Roman citizenship. Josephus himself obtained Roman citizenship. As did Antipater, who transmitted it to his son, Herod the Great. More specifically (and focusing on examples further down the social scale), there are explicit reports of Jews in Asia Minor obtaining Roman citizenship. In 48 BCE, the consul Lucius Lentulus exempted from military service Ephesian Jews because of their Roman citizenship. Josephus, Ant. 14.228, 234, 240. This practice was also enacted in Delos and Sardis. Josephus, Ant. 14.231-2; 14.235-7. Accordingly, there is nothing implausible about Acts' report on Paul's Roman citizenship.

There are additional reasons for believing that the report accurately records historical tradition.

One important one is Acts' recounting of the legal process endured by Paul. Most specifically, it is Paul's citizenship that eventually results in his traveling to Rome. When arrested in Jerusalem and taken to Caesaea, Paul asserts his rights as a Roman citizen to "appeal to Caesar." This results in his being transported, under Roman guard, to Rome for trial. "Had he been a non-Roman, Paul would not have been sent to Rome to appear before Caesar at the conclusion of the local procedure, but would have been judged and sentenced or freed in Judea by the procurator with no other complications." Legasse, at 371. Most scholars are unwilling to reject this account as complete fiction. After analyzing the reported legal practices, Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White determined that the procedures were accurately reported and characteristic of that time, rather than a later one. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, at 48-70.

Moreover, if -- as probably the majority of scholars believe -- Acts was written in Rome, its audience would likely have been familiar with Paul's trip to Rome and its surrounding circumstances; as demonstrated by 1 Clement, writing in the first century, which recounts a tradition about Paul's martyrdom.

Additionally, there are features of Paul's own letters that correlate and cohere with his status as a Roman citizen. Paul's missionary activity was focused only on the Roman empire. He often discussed Christianity in terms of "citizenship" of a state, as in Phil. 3:20 and obedience to secular authorities. Rom. 13:1-7.

Finally, Paul shows a "considerable grasp of Greco-Roman rhetoric." Ben Witherington, The Paul Ques, at 70. And, "Paul's attitude about manual labor and patronage (e.g., 1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 11:7) reveal a higher-status person deliberately stepping down the social ladder to identify with his converts and to be all things to all persons...." Witherington, at 70.

In sum, Acts assignment of Roman citizenship to Paul is very plausible. Although it could be argued that it served Luke's purposes of making Christianity more plausible, there is no contrary evidence. Additionally, it could just as easily be argued that Paul's Roman citizenship was one factor in his success as a missionary to so many different places in the Roman empire. Paul's wide travels, association with Roman authorities and citizens, and ministry to Gentiles stands in contrast to the actions of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who were definitely not Roman citizens. Accordingly, the evidence suggests that Paul was indeed a citizen of Rome.

Toto

Layman: I don't want to get into an extended discussion of this question. I don't think it is completely implausible that Paul was a Roman citizen, but I don't think it proves anything one way or the other about any other issue. But if you are going to raise the issue, you should deal with the standard objections to citizenship for Paul:

From this site;

"Stegemann" refers to Stegemann, Wolfgang, “War der Apostel Paulus ein römischer Bürger?”, ZNW 78 (1987) 200-29.

The credentials of the site paulonpaul.org are listed here

Another site summarizes the Stegemann article:
"As arguments against the historicity of Luke's claim, he cites: (1) Paul's low social class and Jewish background, (2) Paul's silence on this point in his letters, and (3) the apologetic nature of Lukan composition in the parts of Acts where citizenship is affirmed. "

You say:

I think Paul's own statements in 2 Cor would be contrary evidence.

I don't see aLuke's purposes as making Christianity more "plausible" (was that a typo?). I would see it as raising the status of Christianity, or providing a convenient plot device.

Layman

That is your choice.

Of course you don't. Nothing does in your mind. At least nothing that might tend to demonstrate some particular level of historicity in Acts.

Fine. But you'll have to make the case for them.

Although you do not actually say so, I presume you are arguing that since Paul was beaten with rods he could not be a Roman citizen, because Roman citizens were not punishable in that way?

This argument is probably the strongest one against Paul's Roman citizenship, but it rests on something of a fallacy--that the authorities will always follow the law.

While there was law enacted that prohibited the flogging of Roman citizens (called the "lex Porcia"), it was often ignored or violated. This might be especially true for a Jewish Roman citizen, since the Jews were generally not very popular with Roman authorities.

According to Simon Legrasse:

"The objection, however is weak, because we know of several infractions of this law. Besides the action of Florus already mentioned, Plutarch (Caes. 29.2) reports that Marcellus, when he was consul, 'had a senator of Novum Comum who had come to Rome flogged.' Anyone who has read Cicero's accusations against Verres, the governor of Sicily, guilty of having inflicted the same treatment on a certain P. Gavius, after the latter had declared loudly that he was a Roman citizen (Verr. 5.62-66), will not doubt that a Jew, who no doubt was not at all 'Roman' in appearance, would have been more than anyone exposed to this kind of illegality. That he suffered it three times is not exceptionally surprising, though it is difficult to judge in which circumstances."

Simon Legasse, Paul's Pre-Christian Career According to Acts, in The Book of Acts in Palestinian Setting, at 370.

Moreover, Roman citizenship could be a difficult thing to prove to a skeptical mob. Punishments might have ben inflicted before citizenship could be established--as depicted in Acts 16:38. Or, they may have been "administered" by a mob, such as the one that stoned Stephen to death.

On the whole, I think the best explanation is that Paul, being a Jew, did not dress or act in a particularly Roman fashion and was teaching a strange, perhaps subversive doctrine, was punished before he could establish his Roman identify or in violation of the lex Porcia.

Students of history should not bind themselves too tightly be assuming that ancient officials acted in perfect regard for the law. Certainly America's own experiences with lynchings, sham juries, and coerced confessions should be a vivid reminder of this unpleasant part of human nature.

So, where, as here, we have evidence that there existed a law prohibiting certain practices, but evidence also that such laws were often violated by government officials, we should not conclude in the face of opposing evidence directed to the specific action at issue, that the prohibited contact did not occur.

I've already responded to the bit about it being a merely apologetic fiction. I've also shown that many Jews were afforded Roman citizenship, so there is nothing about that fact that precludes the assertion. How did Stegemann determine that Paul's social class was "low" and how would that preclude Roman citizenship?

As for the "silence" in Paul's letters, that is the definitional "argument from silence." And the fact is that Paul was silent about a lot of things, such as his birth place, his family history, where he grew up, what Rabbies he learned under. And although Acts shows Paul using his Roman citizenship to "get out of trouble" on occasion, it does not appear to be a particular point of pride for him. Nor is Paul depicted as relying on his Roman citizenship in his preaching.

"Why does Paul say nothing of it in his letters? We can reply that he is also silent about everything which relates to his family and does not serve his religious interest (Phil. 3.5). Moreover, his claims to glory were quite different (2 Cor. 11:21b-12:10)."

Lagasse, at 369.

It's certainly an issue that needs exploring. But try telling a black man in the 30s south that he could not be lynched because that would violate due process.

Plausible was not he best word. Palatable. Respectable. Things like that. Except that it does not appear to be used by Paul for that purpose in Acts. It's when dealing with Roman authorities and trying to escape Roman punishment.

Saying it provides a "plot device" doesn't really tell us whether its true or not. It is very probable that Paul did end up in Rome somehow. And however he got there could be called a "plot" point.

Toto

Layman: I am not making a case for any position here. I do not think that there is enough evidence to have a meaningful discussion of whether Paul was a Roman citizen or not. I will just point out that

1) your opening post claimed that there was no contrary evidence, in spite of the evidence of Paul's own statements in 2 Corinthians. You apparently knew about this verse, because you had a ready multi-paragraph rebuttal ready for it.

2) the only evidence for Paul's Roman citizenship is in the book of Acts, which many suppect to be legendary and mostly fictional. But you are trying to show that Paul was a Roman citizen because it "might tend to demonstrate some particular level of historicity in Acts." This is too circular for my taste.

3) you have not dealt with the argument that Paul's citizenship is an apologetic fiction. You have just dismissed it. Your only statement on that is "Although it could be argued that it served Luke's purposes of making Christianity more plausible, there is no contrary evidence." which we have seen is false and misleading.

I could challenge the implications of some of your statements, but I think that you have made the best case that can be made that Paul was a Roman citizen, and it is not very persuasive.

Layman

Feel free to play coy if you want.

Are we back into the "attack" the other person's character mode?

Perhaps we could argue what I meant by "contrary evidence", but maybe it would be easier to point out that I had prepared that "multi-paragraph" earlier in response to someone who raised that same objection on another site where I had posted the same piece.

If you want to verify this, you can check it at historychannel.com. Click on Religion. Click on Christian History. Then look for a post by "layman" with the title "The Citizenship of Paul." It might be one or two pages back by now.

You will also discover that a very bright and informed poster named "Oldboy" raised this verse and I prepared the "multi-paragraph" rebuttal in response to his post.

There is nothing circular about it. I was evaulating a particular claim made in Acts by looking at the way it was used, what we know about the background of the issue (such as whether Jews could be Roman citizens at all and whether there were Jews who were Tarsian citizens), and compared it to statements made in Paul's own letters for any coherence or conformity. I did not say "it is true because it is in Acts."

Actually, I went on to discuss how it is just as compatable, if not more so, with the reality of Paul's success in missionizing the Roman world. One not matched or even attempted by any of the Jewish Christian leaders who were not claimed to be Roman citizens.

And instead of generically stating "contrary evidence," let me say there is no historical tradition that denied or contradicted Paul's status as a Roman citizen. That he was beaten with rods is evidence from which you may infer that it was unlikely (thought that inference is unjustified), but its is just that, inferential.

I'm more impressed with evidence and rational, not your biased opinions as to what is or is not "very persuasive."

Toto

Hi Layman - I'm not attacking your character, which shines out through your posts. I just wonder when you are going to learn how to link.

http://www.historychannel.com/perl/w...collapsed&sb=5

"Bright, thoughtful, and informed" Oldboy said:

So the criteria for being bright, thoughtful, and informed are clear. I'm glad I found that out.

Layman

Apparently not to you. Oldboy's ideas are actually very different than mine. I believe Paul was born a Roman citizen, as Acts states. Oldboy believes that Paul did not become a Roman citizen until the very end of his missionary work.

And Oldboy actually has a very radical view of Paul, that he was not a Hebrew or a Pharisee as he claimed in his own letters.

I say that Oldboy is bright because he always articulates his positions at length and is ready to defend them or discuss them in detail. He rarely just voices his opinions, he explains them.

I say that Oldboy is thoughtful because he is a really nice guy. He respects the beliefs of Christians even though he thinks they are way off in their history. He also considers arguments presented to him and responds to them in a respecful manner.

I say that Oldboy is informed because he knows a lot. He was a pastor, but left the Christian faith. He is also a member of the Jesus Seminar. And after reading his posts, he is one of the most widely read posters I have had the privilege to interact with.

So it has nothing to do with the fact that he occasionally agrees with me. And I obviously do not believe people that disagree with me on important matters cannot be intelligent people.

Geoff Hudson

Layman,

What do you think a Hebrew is or was?

Geoff

Layman

No offense, but I think that's a little beyond the scope of this thread.

Sauron

Note: I'm not convinced either way of the citizenship of Paul. However, there are several factual errors in Layman's post, as well as some mistakes of logic and fallacious arguments. They might belong to one of his sources, as opposed to being his own; I don't know.


Bad example. Josephus obtained Roman citizenship under extraordinary and peculiar circumstances; he basically impersonated a prophet, guessed correctly, and was rewarded for his sycophantic behavior.

Britannica:

The Romans, under the command of the future emperor Vespasian, arrived in Galilee in the spring of AD 67 and quickly broke the Jewish resistance in the north. Josephus managed to hold the fortress of Jotapata for 47 days, but after the fall of the city he took refuge with 40 diehards in a nearby cave. There, to Josephus' consternation, the beleaguered party voted to perish rather than surrender. Josephus, arguing the immorality of suicide, proposed that each man, in turn, should dispatch his neighbour, the order to be determined by casting lots. Josephus contrived to draw the last lot, and, as one of the two surviving men in the cave, he prevailed upon his intended victim to surrender to the Romans.

Led in chains before Vespasian, Josephus assumed the role of a prophet and foretold that Vespasian would soon be emperor--a prediction that gained in credibility after the death of Nero in AD 68. The stratagem saved his life, and for the next two years he remained a prisoner in the Roman camp. Late in AD 69 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his troops: Josephus' prophecy had come true, and the agreeable Jewish prisoner was given his freedom.

Another bad example. Citizenship was a grant to Antipater, after he had backed the winning side in a civil war, and after helping Caesar in quelling disturbances in Alexandria:

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodian...e_great01.html

Herod was born 73 BCE as the son of a man from Idumea named Antipater and a woman named Cyprus, the daughter of an Arabian sheik. Antipater was an adherent of Hyrcanus, one of two princes who struggling to become king of Judaea.

In this conflict, the Roman general Pompey intervened in Hyrcanus' favor. Having favored the winning side in the conflict, Antipater's star rose, especially since he cooperated with the Romans as much as possible. In the civil war between Pompey and Julius Caesar, Hyrcanus and Antipater sided with the latter, for which especially the courtier was rewarded: in 47, he was appointed epitropos ('regent') and received the Roman citizenship.

Again: the reward of citizenship as an act of gratitude for extraordinary service, or to reward special loyalty.

Josephus and Antipater are both *extremely* atypical scenarios, and no valid generalizations about the common-ness of Jewish Roman citizenship can be drawn from them.


No. As Roman citizens, they were supposed to bear arms in defense of Rome, as one of the obligations of citizenship. They were exempted from this military service not because of their citizenship, but because of their religion: -

11. Hyrcanus sent also one of these ambassadors to Dolabella, who was then the prefect of Asia, and desired him to dismiss the Jews from military services, and to preserve to them the customs of their forefathers, and to permit them to live according to them. And when Dolabella had received Hyrcanus's letter, without any further deliberation, he sent an epistle to all the Asiatics, and particularly to the city of the Ephesians, the metropolis of
Asia, about the Jews; a copy of which epistle here follows:

12. "When Artermon was prytanis, on the first day of the month Leneon, Dolabella, imperator, to the senate, and magistrates, and people of the Ephesians, sendeth greeting. Alexander, the son of Theodorus, the ambassador of Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, appeared before me, to show that his countrymen could not go into their armies, because they are not allowed to bear arms or to travel on the sabbath days, nor there to procure themselves those sorts of food which they have been used to eat from the times of their forefathers; - I do therefore grant them a freedom from going into the army, as the former prefects have done, and permit them to use the customs of their forefathers, in assembling together for sacred and religious purposes, as their law requires, and for collecting oblations necessary for sacrifices; and my will is, that you write this to the several cities under your jurisdiction."

13. And these were the concessions that Dolabella made to our nation when Hyrcanus sent an embassage to him. But Lucius the consul's decree ran thus: "I have at my tribunal set these Jews, who are citizens of Rome, and follow the Jewish religious rites, and yet live at Ephesus, free from going into the army, on account of the superstition they are under. This was done before the twelfth of the calends of October, when Lucius Lentulus and Caius Marcellus were consuls, in the presence of Titus Appius Balgus, the son of Titus, and lieutenant of the
Horatian tribe; of Titus Tongins, the son of Titus, of the Crustumine tribe; of Quintus Resius, the son of Quintus; of Titus Pompeius Longinus, the son of Titus; of Catus Servilius, the son of Caius, of the Terentine tribe; of Bracchus the military tribune; of Publius Lucius Gallus, the son of Publius, of the Veturian tribe; of Caius Sentins, the son of Caius, of the Sabbatine tribe; of Titus Atilius Bulbus, the son of Titus, lieutenant and vice-praetor to the magistrates, senate, and people of the Ephesians, sendeth greeting. Lucius Lentulus the consul freed the Jews that are in Asia from going into the armies, at my intercession for them; and when I had made the same petition some time afterward to Phanius the imperator, and to Lucius Antonius the vice-quaestor, I obtained that privilege of them also; and my will is, that you take care that no one give them any disturbance."

Also wrong. In both of these cities also, the exemption was granted because of religion.


14. The decree of the Delians. "The answer of the praetors, when Beotus was archon, on the twentieth day of the month Thargeleon. While Marcus Piso the lieutenant lived in our city, who was also appointed over the choice of the soldiers, he called us, and many other of the citizens, and gave order, that if there be here any Jews who are Roman citizens, no one is to give them any disturbance about going into the army, because Cornelius Lentulus, the consul, freed the Jews from going into the army, on account of the superstition they are under; - you are therefore obliged to submit to the praetor." And the like decree was made by the Sardians about us also.

So far, it is unclear how common or widespread Jewish Roman citizens would have been.


Toto is correct; there's not really sufficient information to judge either way. Like many historical claims, there is such scant evidence to go on, that no one should be staking out strong claims either way. Indeed, claims of "probable" or "indeed" are too strong. That's the unfortunate situation for many ancient claims; we have to be satisfied with the answer "we don't know" or "we can't be sure". Unfortunately for many people, that kind of uncertainty is intolerable.

But if we were to assume, for argument's sake, that Paul was a citizen of Rome, what did you hope to prove by that? Historicity in one point does not prove anything more than that single point. It does not enhance the other claims of Acts. Each claim must stand or fall on its own merits; there is no "borrowing" of credibility from one claim to another.

Something of interest here:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLA...tizenship.html

Cheapening Of Citizenship And Changing Attitudes

Tacitus once compares unfavorably the attitude toward granting citizenship under the Empire with that of the Republic, when it was granted only seldom and only for courage. Basically, by the late first century, being a Roman citizen was not inherently so important. Although there were still some privileges in the law, these became less significant as more and more lower-class people became citizens, either through the grant of citizenship to entire communities or through honorable discharge after military service. The invocation of his protection was a citizen by the tent maker known as St. Paul illustrates the incongruity of such a person having a privileged position compared to a wealthy peregrine. To Roman sensibilities, which had a strong sense of hierarchy, this situation made no sense. Hence, the law came increasingly to distinguish not between citizen and non-citizen, but between wealthy and poor, whatever the citizenship status. By the early third century, there were not so many communities left to Romanize in the west and the ruling class of the Greek east had become fully assimilated into the system through viritane grants of citizenship. Hence, it was time to do away with the distinction altogether.


This is exceptionally weak logic. Assuming that Paul wanted to win as many converts as possible, where would he have traveled to find them? The largest centers of population in that time were towns and cities in the Roman Empire. If Paul wanted to win converts, then he would have focused on the Roman Empire.

Unconvincing. Since Paul's audience was surrounded by the Roman legal and civic system, they were no doubt familiar with how it worked. Citizenship was not a pre-requisite to understanding how the Roman legal & civic system worked, after all.

This *must* have been the case - since most of his audience would *not* have been Roman citizens. Otherwise, the contrary position implies that only Roman citizens would have understood a gospel discussed in terms of citizenship. Paul may have merely been couching his message in terms that they would understand. That does not imply citizenship on Paul's part (or even of that of his listeners); only a desire to frame his appeal with readily-understood terms of the contemporary society.


Not surprising, since Paul was from Tarsus - "no mean city", which had functioned as a unique crossroad for cultures. That still does not imply citizenship on the part of Paul. It only demonstrates that he was exposed to such influences, which would have been entirely consistent given his city of birth and Jewish background. No citizenship necessary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../missions.html

Do we know anything about Paul's upbringing, his background?

Traditionally Paul grew up as a Diaspora Jew. That is from a Jewish family, [with a] very traditional Jewish upbringing but living not in the homeland but rather in Tarsus, a city in Eastern Turkey. So he lives in a Greek city, itself, in fact, an interesting kind of crossroads on the frontier of the Middle East, and yet he also had a very traditional Jewish education.

He was himself a Pharisee and trained as a Pharisee so he would have been conversant with the tradition of interpretation of the scriptures and indeed of the prophets themselves. When we hear Paul using prophetic language both as a way of framing his preaching message and also as a way of describing his own self-understanding, it is because he was steeped in that prophetic language from his own studies in the Jewish tradition.


Not in these two passages it doesn't.

In the first place, the 1 COR and 2 COR quotes merely describe the necessity of becoming a "servant" for the gospel. Nowhere is citizenship hinted at, nor are there any clues that Paul is thinking of his alleged status as a Roman citizen when he talks about "stepping down the social ladder". There are no words in it that point to citizenship; no parallels or figurative examples that use such images. Paul's text here is merely the actualization of the idea "he who would be first among you, let him be the servant of all". Presumably other new christians (such as the jewish christians you mentioned in Jerusalem) would also be acting in such a manner; i.e., abasing themselves and putting others ahead of their own needs. Yet you claim they were definitely not Roman citizens. The same argument would apply to Paul here as well.

Secondly. Paul's "upper class-ness" is more easily explainable by Paul's former status as a Pharisee, and the lifestyle he would have enjoyed in that capacity - rather than any claim to being a Roman citizen. See the quote above from the Univ of Alberta:

Hence, the law came increasingly to distinguish not between citizen and non-citizen, but between wealthy and poor, whatever the citizenship status.


Well, there is - Toto gave you the web page for it. Your objection "well, the law isn't always followed" doesn't wash. The law would have been followed in the majority of cases. Given the very limited amount of information, the "probability pendulum" swings in the direction of the skeptic being right on this point.



Or Paul could have simply been a very convincing speaker, and the other Jewish Christians weren't trained orators. That would be consistent with Paul's background as a Pharisee vs. the lack of training for the Jewish Christians.

Or perhaps the gentiles were much more fertile ground for conversion than the Jews were. Coming from a polytheistic background that incorporated beliefs from various traditions, the gentiles didn't have their "guard up", watching for false messiahs, which is likely how the Jewish listeners in Jerusalem would have reacted to the message of the Jewish Christians.

There are ample other reasons why Paul's activities might have been more "fruitful" than the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Moreover, you have shown no evidence that Roman citizenship served as a tool which made Paul's missionary activities extraordinarily fruitful.

Using the arguments above to imply citizenship status for Paul (i.e., the quotes from 1 and 2 COR, Paul's success as a missionary, etc.) are very strained and hypothetical. So concluding with a statement like "accordingly the evidence suggests that Paul was indeed a citizen of Rome" from those points is nothing more than wishful thinking.