Riverwind

I have recently been captivated by an interest in Roman Law. During my investigations, I discovered that free citizens of Roman provinces were not declared Roman citizens until around 212 A.D.

However, in the early first century, Paul of Tarsus (a city in the Roman province of Cilicia - a place briefly governed by the likes of Cicero) was born a Roman citizen. This means that his father and(or?) mother must have been Roman citizens. How was this citizenship conferred upon them? Were they friends of influential Romans? Were they befriended by an emperor?

In Acts, the tribune, upon finding out that Paul is a Roman citizen, mentions that he, himself, had to pay a large sum to become a Roman citizen. Paul tells him that he was born a citizen.

Paul seemed to travel relatively freely throughout the Roman empire and obviously (from his written correspondence) had a classical education and seemingly wealthy upbringing.

Just how important and/or wealthy was Paul and/or his family? What do other make, if anything, of Paul's citizenship and what it says about his possibly wealth and influence? Does anything survive about Paul's childhood, upbringing, or relatives?

Laurentius

To me, he seems to have been as important for Christianity as Moses was for Judaism.

Toto

Nothing.

You are deriving your alleged facts about Paul from historically unreliable sources - the Book of Acts, and Paul's letters - although the letters might be more reliable than Acts. Acts tends to puff up Paul's importance, and has him talking to important public officials and rich citizens. There is no independent record of this, and there are many reasons to doubt the historical accuracy.

Paul's also tells us in his letters that he boasts.

These sources also speak of Paul as working for a living - making tents along with some fellow preachers.

So in the absense of facts, there is a lot of speculation. There is speculation that Paul's father made tents for the Roman Army, and got his citizenship as a result. Robert Eisenman has speculated that Paul was related to the Herodians. (See Paul as Herodian.)

dog-on

Paul wasn't really a Jew...

Laurentius

Which is why Christianity isn't really Judaism...

Roger Pearse

Under Caracalla. I wonder what primary sources tell us this, tho.

I seem to remember reading, probably in A.H.M.Jones, Later Roman empire (or via: amazon.co.uk), that after this the value of Roman citizenship disappeared, and legal privileges depended instead to whether you were one of the wealthy ('honestiores') or not ('humiliores').

Not necessarily. I think it would be interesting to see the ways in which Roman citizenship could be acquired. We have the example from Acts of purchase. Legionaries had to be Roman citizens. Some cities could be granted it. Does anyone have specifics at their fingertips?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The Constitutio Antoniniana or Edict of Caracalla granted Roman citizenship throughout the Roman Empire in AD 212. Herodian does not mention it, tho.

Cassius Dio, book 78, 9.4.

This was the reason why he made all the people in his empire Roman citizens; nominally he was honouring them, but his real purpose was to increase his revenues by this means, inasmuch as aliens did not have to pay most of these taxes.

A copy of the edict was also found on a papyrus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clouseau

There is no evidence of great personal wealth- Paul roughed it along with everyone else, indeed, more than anyone else. There is no sign of him using wealth or influence within the church, and by example he did not encourage anyone to use such influence.

'We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."' 2 Thess 3:7-10 NIV

Paul was at some time a tent maker, and supported himself by that trade. When the time came for the Jerusalem church to receive financial help, he did not step in with a donation large enough to prevent him asking ordinary Gentiles to contribute to a collection. He asked a church member to fetch him his personal possessions while in prison, rather than employ a personal servant. He was evidently in receipt of material help from the Philippian church.

'I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.' Phil 4:10-13 NIV

It may have been that Paul's family was more than just well-to-do, but not disposed to assist him in his religion and his troubles. It may have been that their civil status was firmly assured, but their private wealth less so. It may have been that Paul's father acquired citizenship through wealth or influence, or that citizenship had been in the family for generations, and the standard of living had grown quite modest.

At any rate, when Paul listed his worldly attributes to the church, his Roman citizenship did not figure. It was his advantages, inherited and acquired, in the old religion that had become of no personal value to him.

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the Law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6

While social status and wealth were certainly what Paul regarded as the attractions of the flesh, he did not mention either, so we may suppose that he had no great wealth to sit loose to, and the kudos of his Roman citizenship did not occur to him and his readers, that status being of only practical importance.

Roger Pearse

This is so.

But it may be that his position changed later in his career; perhaps he may have inherited money, or be thought to have done so. For he was kept in prison on flimsy grounds by the notoriously corrupt Felix and then by Festus. If he had done so, perhaps this imprisonment is explained; one or both may have been angling for a bribe.

The crude tactic of threatening to place him at the mercy of his enemies may thus have been intended to pressure him into paying up. Instead it forced Paul to appeal to Caesar.

We don't know, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

wordy

Isn't it more likely that Paul is made up too? Or if he really was historical he is as important as Muhammad for Islam. Christianity looks very much like a Paulianism more than a Jesusianism. The four espistals more like a desperate attempt to direct the authority back to an alleged historical Jesus from the Spiritual Christ that Paul got revelations from. Could not all be explained as many groups competing and the end result is a political compromise of the winners.