DCHindley

What you're missing is that Acts may have enhanced the Paul story into a kind of legend.

Paul himself (assuming the "Paul" who wrote the epistles attributed to him was really himself ... or whatever) doesn't claim Roman citizenship. Acts does attribute it to him. I doubt seriously that the residents of Cilicia had obtained Roman citizenship as early as 27 BCE. The entire population of what? Cilicia is a region, a former client kingdon, its major city Tarsus.

What about the 90%+ of the population who were peasants in the countryside? They get Roman citizenship too just because the former kingdom gets taken over by the Romans directly? I seriously doubt such a wild idea could have even entered a Roman ruler's mind.

Again, even if any citizenship allegedly granted is restricted to the "Greek" citizens of the polis of Tarsus (which is at least possible), Paul would likely NOT have been among those so granted citezenship. Why? Because he is a member of the autonomous Ethnos of the Jews, who could not legally be citizens of a Greek city.

To fully participate in Greek city life, a Jew would have to violate his ancestral traditions. Herod, through his not insignificant military, grain and financial contributions to the Roman rulers, had earned Jews many priviliges that other peoples did not have. Among these was the right to self govern wherever they were living, and the city magistrates could not even force Jews who were active right in the city itself (as traders, whatever) to participate in the pagan rites associated with the management of a Greek city.

I am not aware of one single case where a Jew was considered a citizen of a Greek city. Roman citizenship as it had evolved in the 1st century BCE was something entirely different than citizenship in a Greek polis, and Jews could accept it because the Romansd had exempted them from certain things that might violate their customs.

Romans, however, also respected the rights of established Greek cities to regulate themselves, and did not dare dictate to them an order to accept Jews on Jewish terms. Their solution was effectively to establish a separate legal status for Jews that was distinct from citizens of Greek cities, and which did not also demote them to second class status such as was accorded to peasants and artisans and most other retainers.

DCH

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone accept or reject that Paul came from Tarsus? There is not a conclusive historical case that can be made either way, right?

I am not aware that any skeptic rejects all of Acts as outright fiction. I assume that you accept parts of other religious writings, but reject other parts as outright fiction, in which case your argument does not make any sense since you do exactly the same thing that you accuse skeptics of doing.

It should not be amazing to you that skeptics reject the supernatural claims in Acts since the claims cannot adequately be corroborated by any credible means. The claims were written decades after the fact. When the claims first appeared in print, how could people have reliably verified the claims?

Ben C Smith

Other religious writings? What religious writings do you think I accept all of?

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

But I did not say that you accept all of any religious writings other than the Bible. I said exactly the opposite, "that you accept PARTS of other religious writings, but reject OTHER PARTS as outright fiction......." That is true, isn't it? Surely you accept some ordinary historical claims that are in various religious books, but reject other parts as outright fiction, especially supernatural claims, which is the same situation regarding skeptics' rejection of supernatural claims in Acts as outright fiction, and yet you find it to be amazing that skeptics do what you do yourself.

The issues of where Paul came from and the supernatual claims in Acts are not logically comparable. The former is an ordinary historical claim. The latter is an extraodinary historical claim. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges. If the Bible said that a pig sprouted wings and flew, would you believe it? Would you be surprised if skeptics did not believe it?

You said:

Please do not include me in your assessment. I am not aware of any good reasons why anyone should assume that Paul came from Tarsus. Are you?

Johnny Skeptic

Here is an example of what I meant: Surely you accept some of what is claimed in Hindu writings, but reject as outright fiction other Hindu claims as outright fiction, especially supernatural claims. You need to explain why you are amazed that skeptics do what you do yourself.

The issues of where Paul came from and the supernatual claims in Acts are not logically comparable. The former is an ordinary historical claim. The latter is an extraodinary historical claim. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges. If the Bible said that a pig sprouted wings and flew, which is certainly no more unusual than the claim that Jesus walked on water, would you believe it? Would you be surprised if skeptics did not believe it?

You said:

Please do not include me in your assessment. I am not aware of any good reasons why anyone should assume that Paul came from Tarsus. Are you?

There is in fact nothing at all amazing about considering claims in ancient or modern historical literature INDIVIDUALLY, not COLLECTIVELY. That is the way that the modern historical method works, right? Are you actually suggesting that the logical approach to considering the truth claims in Acts is to accept all of them, or none of them, and that there is not any difference between secular historical claims and supernatural historical claims?

Toto

JS - There are some skeptics in academia and on this Board who think that Acts is entirely fictional, not just a historical work embellished with supernatural events. (There are other skeptics who think that there is some kernel of historical fact in Acts and reject only the supernatural parts.) I think Ben was speaking to those people, although I am not sure who rejects Acts completely and also thinks that Paul came from Tarsus.

I am not aware of anyone who treats the Hindu scriptures this way, accepting parts and rejecting the supernatural parts, but then I don't think that anyone has ever tried to extract secular history from the Mahabarata or the Upanishads, or tried to construct a historical Arjuna.

Ben C Smith

I honestly have not studied the Hindu scriptures enough to say one way or another.

I do not do what I said some people do with Acts. Not that I am aware of, at any rate.

I made my assessment before you even came on board.

I completely agree.

I am so rootedly opposed to such a suggestion that I have no idea whence you even found it to impute to me.

That is correct. I was thinking of people who write things like...:

...and yet can also assert that Paul was from Cilicia without argument:

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

Thanks to you and Ben for the clarification. Now then, which of those skeptics at this forum have stated that they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul came from Tarsus?

Ben C Smith

I am not aware of any who have stated it; usually it is simply assumed, almost as if the person was not aware that the datum came from Acts.

And I gave you one such poster in my last post.

Ben.

Toto

spin seems to be busy elsewhere and is not here to defend himself.

It is of course possible that there are some parts of Acts that are historically accurate. There seems to be no good reason for the author of Acts to invent the idea that Paul came from Tarsus. But we should keep the provisional nature of this factoid in mind before spinning out too many theories based on Paul's origins in Tarsus.

There is virtually nothing in ancient history that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is unlikely that any skeptic would assert that.