Sauron

Yes. I guess it is a UBB error; I also couldn't get the link I posted to work anymore.

I'm looking at another part, further down the page. Here's the paragraph in question:

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.

FYI - the areas that I bolded is the point I am debating with Layman.

As for this statement:

It is hard to judge how accurate this charge was, though strangely enough a military tribune who learns that St. Paul had been born a Roman citizen comments that he had had to buy his own.

That actually proves *my* point, not Layman's - i.e., that Roman citizenship had been so devalued and commonplace, that it could be bought and sold as a commodity. Which also means that it most likely did *not* bring with it all the various legal benefits that Witherington claims it did.

That is why I asked Layman to provide proof that Roman citizenship meant anything concrete to the bearer of that citizenship, in the 1st century.

Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sauron

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.

Two more points about this.

1. What the paragraph indicates is that the law -- its protections and privileges -- had shifted to working in favor of the wealthy and against the poor, regardless of the citizenship status of the person in question. That's another reason why I asked for proof that non-citizens would have routinely been denied these legal privileges, since any denial of privileges would apparently have been based upon lack of personal wealth, and not citizenship status.

2. Considering the above, we come to the claim that Paul had Roman citizenship. But was it worth anything to him in his situation? Paul:

i. by all accounts would not have been a wealthy person, and thus would not have had the law and privileges of Rome working in his favor (per the paragraph I quoted, above);

ii. was certainly Jewish, and obviously a member of a group distrusted in the Roman Empire

Even if Paul *had* been a Roman citizen, he would already have two large strikes against him.

So to hypothesize that such a second-class person would have been extended those extra legal benefits of Roman citizenship - during a time when such benefits were focused on the wealthy, and were on the wane anyhow - well; that's going to require more proof than Layman or Witherington have presented thus far.

Layman

Here is how we end up wasting so much time.

You find some article on the internet that you claim proves my sources wrong. You claim my source is worth nothing and your source is superior. But. In fact. Your internet source turns out to provide no support for your position. And my sources was proven correct. It in fact offers support for my position. This is exactly what happened with the argument over the Nabateans.

It will take many posts, and much time, and you will continue to twist your source and completely ignore mine until we've irritate the hell out of the board.

You have offered nothing to indicate that Paul's citizenship would not have been helpful for him (though you have argued that Acts would have invented such citizenship to add prestige to his hero).

Acutally it does not. It renders no specifics at all about the legal privileges of a Roman citizen. And, even more importantly, it is talking about a different time period.

Paul's ministry began in the late 30s and ended by the mid 60s. The unspecified diminishment of the importance of citizenship did not occur, according to your article, until "the late first century.

While that would probably cover the time that Luke wrote Acts. In other words, if your source is true, it would not cover the time period in which Paul ministered but it would cover the time period in which Acts was written. Thus elminating Paul from its scope, but diminishing any alleged motive that the author of Luke would have had to invent Paul's citizenship for apologetic purposes.

Additionally, the article does not touch on a single of the privileges that Witherington discusses. It only generally talks about how much esteem citizenship was held in. Indeed, your article confirms that even as late as the end of the first century, "there were still some privileges in the law.".

What is a "specified expert"?

The truth of the matter is that Witherington has established himself as an expert on Acts and Pauline studies. His many books in this field have been widely praised, by such scholars as Richard Bauckham, C.K. Barrett, John P. Meier, and Raymond Brown. He is no apologist. In fact, he has been critical of scholars like N.T. Wright for not taking modern criticism of the gospels seriously enough.

Some of his relevant Books include:

Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians

The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus

Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians

Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph

History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts

The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology

Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians (New Testament in Context)

Yeah, like your source on the Nabateans "trumped" Witherington last time.

Yes, by definition. If I have a "right" to something I am much more assured of getting it than if it is given out at someone else's discretoin.

No, it simply means that local officials could not ban Roman citizens from entry.

You simply want to assume that every noncitizen could do what every citizen could do. There is no foundation for such an assumption.

Obviously the legal rights are the most important ones. Romans had the right to appeal to Ceasar if threatened with capital punishment. This is obviously something that not everyone had the right to do. And it is very doubtful that it was something that Ceasar granted in his discretion to nonRomans.

In fact, Acts is itself evidence for how useful citizenship could be.

Sauron

Yes, it is.

Instead of sticking to the issue at hand, you decide to go on and on about past events, and/or crow about your past "victories". So I'll clip out the extended "director's cut" version of your pompous whining, and move to the issue at hand.


You're getting ahead of yourself. You have offered no definitive proof that Paul even *had* such citizenship.

You have also not offered any proof that non-citizens would have de facto routinely been denied such activities or access.

Have I? I think not. Stooping to tell lies about my position, Layman? I argued no such invented citizenship.


1. The fact that it indicates that such privileges were in decline, and were focused on personal wealth and not citizenship anyhow, is sufficient.

2. Your source offered many specifics - so it shouldn't be hard for him (or you) to substantiate such marvelously detailed claims.

3. Timeframe - allegedly Paul was martyred in 65 AD. So that puts the cheapening of citizenship and changes in attitudes (discussed by the U of Calgary website) as being in progress, if not fully completed, during the timeframe that Paul's missionary journeys would have occurred.


An expert in the specified area; in this case, classical civilization.


So much a respected expert, and such a sober researcher, that he rushed out to print a book about the ossuary, before the final analysis was even concluded.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/The_experts.htm

The ossuary’s display and the two scholarly events were surrounded by an atmosphere of rumor and speculation. HarperSan Francisco announced that Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III would write a book about the inscription that would be published in March 2003. Rumor pinned a 6-figure price tag to the deal. It was also noted that such a fast publication meant that the authors would beat any scholarly analysis into print and thus could not be faulted for failing to discuss it.


I'm not interested in the list of books he has published; being a prolific writer doesn't make him an expert. Jack Chick is a prolific writer also.

But if he has published so much, then it should be child's play for you (or him) to substantiate the claims about the privileges of Roman citizenship.

Your source is trumped this time.

As for the Nabatean debate, we can return to it, if you like. The Nabatean discussion arose, from your wild claim that there was a pre-Qurinian census - a maneuver you tried, to rescue Luke from being in error.

There are still questions you failed to answer.

1. To wit, it is still your argument that Herod:

a. conducted a pre-Quirinius census, as
b. a punishment from Rome, for a military action against Arabs;
c. without any Roman records of such a command from Rome;
d. Without any local records of such a census taking place in Judea; and
e. without any precedent for a census in any other non-provincial area in the Roman Empire

You are stacking five ad-hoc assumptions on top of each other, without a shred of proof for even one of them.

2. Moreover, out of all the possible options that Rome had at its command, you have no reason to specifically postulate that Rome would have required a census as a punitive measure. Postulating merely because you need a census to dig yourself out of a hole is is unscholarly.

3. Incidentlly, even your idol, Meier, admits that no such census took place.

Luke's solution is a world-wide census decreed by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria (2:1) -- unfortunately, such a census (which would have to occur ca. 5 BC) cannot be documented in any other ancient source. According to ancient records, Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in AD 6, conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in AD 6-7. Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived. Moreover, Mary would not have had to accompany Joseph to register, and her advanced pregnancy would have positively argued against accompanying him when there was no obligation to do so. Meier, p 213.

So not even your own source here is willing to back you up.

4. Moreover, your earlier claim that:

Most historians place Jesus' birth -- and therefore the disputed census -- in 7 or 6 BCE.

is likewise not supported by Meier here, either.




Wrong. Only if that right is being actively defended or protected. I'm not interested in the de jure difference between a citizen and non-citizen; all that matters to this argument is whether those differences would have actually been seen and enforced. That's your claim to prove, not mine.



Only if they are actively defended, and a clear distinction is consistently made between citizen and non-citizen. Even in our own country, most people (citizens or not) are routinely allowed the right to assemble, free speech, etc.

During the timeframe in question, those distinctions were breaking down. And where such distinctions continued to be made and enforced, they were based upon personal wealth, and not upon the citizenship status. Laxity of enforcement, the general declining of privileges, and selective enforcement targted at the wealthy all meant that Paul's alleged status as a citizen would have been irrelevant.

Let's also remember what the meta-argument was here: you and Witherington indicated that somehow being a Roman citizen was key to Paul's relatively successful missionary activities. Yet such success is far easier explained by the factors I already listed:

1. Differences between the audiences - you ignore the fact that the two tasks you are comparing are different.

a. converting polytheistic gentiles with no a priori bias against a messiah; vs.

b. converting monotheistic Jews who do possess a bias against false messiahs, and who would resist being told that their Law was past and a new testament was now taking its place. After all, even Paul says in ROM 9 and 10 that the Jews are purposedly blinded, and would not receive the gospel. And Christ said "a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country".

The Jewish "ground" was harder to plow and plant seeds in, than the gentile ground. Paul makes that clear. So your comparison is not valid, because you're comparing apples and oranges.


2. Centers of population - we've already discussed the "why" of the orientation outwards, towards the gentiles in the Roman Empire: it was logical, if Paul wanted to win as many converts as possible - travel to the big towns and cities, which were all part of the Empire.

3. Luck of the draw - in addition, there was a spat (for lack of a better term) between Paul and the other apostles in Jerusalem, after which Paul focused on the gentile community. Perhaps they "divided up the work" among themselves, and Paul was assigned the gentiles, who (for reasons stated above) turned out to be much easier to convert than native Jews would have been.



Disqualified for circular reasoning. Ther veracity of the account in Acts is what you're trying to prove here, Layman.

Toto

I am the one who probably said that aLuke could have given Paul Roman citizenship from birth to raise his status. But I suspect it was more likely to be a literary device to solve the problem of getting Paul to Rome in one piece.

<please, not the Nabatean census again!>

Sauron

I suspected that Layman confused me with someone else. I wonder if he will admit it.

But then again, he also denied making the hard claim that the Jewish Christians in Rome were "definitely not Roman citizens". Yet the record shows that he did make the claim. Here it is:

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.

He never admitted his error there, either. So I won't be holding my breath.

Layman

I would be thrilled if you would address the issue at hand.

You were the one who challenged the very idea that Paul's citizenship could have been helpful for him. That was one "issue at hand."


Sauron: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.

No. Your internet article does not even mention what privileges where at issue. It offers not a single example. Also, your internet article is talking about a different time period, the end of the first century. Paul was dead by then.

Generalized BS on your part.

The privileges of Roman citizenship are basic stuff. There is nothing remarkable about Witherington's claims.

Your article does not discuss anything about "being in progress". It says the diminishment took place in the "late first century." Obviously, that means it did not take place in the "early first century" or the "mid first century."

Your expert offers no opinion on the relevant time period.

Ah, a smear for writing about what could be a very important scholarly find. How odd. Not only can you judge a book by its cover, it seems, you can judge it merely by its topic.

Jack Chick does not get accolades from top New Testament scholars like Meier and Brown.

Because he is such an expert in the field and you have no counter evidence, I have no reason to doubt his statement. One reason we have secondary sources is so that we don't have to confirm the most basic and agreed upon facts. While that might be useful for skeptics to waste my time on, no one really doubts that Roman citizenship had advantages.

No, my source is a specialist on this very topic. Your source doesn't even write about the same time period.

Ah. I'm not simply claiming I "won" a debate. I'm noting your pattern. You cite to an internet article you only half-read to attack my expert, but further review reveals that the cited article actually supported my position.

There are still questions you failed to answer.

But how about we refer to another source? One who is a professor of ancient history, has no pro-Christian bias, and who is writing about the exact topic at issue: Robin Lane Fox.

He affirms Paul's citizenship and the privileges to which he would have been entitled. He also affirms Acts' "Trial of Paul" as fact and accurately portrayed.

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, at 309-10.

Fellow of New College, Oxford and a University Reader in Ancient History.


Once again you have managed to waste my time for a broadly recognized historical proposition by refering to an internet article that never supported your argument in the first place.

It is simply impossible to have an honest to discussion with you. There is not a time in the world to track down these baseless tangents of yours and defend propositions that are generally accepted. No matter how much taunting you do.

Toto

I recognize my own words here. I am not Sauron.

Layman

You are right.

I apologize to Suaron and to you.

Geoff Hudson

Layman

How do you establish these dates?

Geoff