When the Apostle Paul was being a pain in the arse in Jerusalem sometime in (probably) AD 59, the locals had enough of his weird ranting and dragged him off to the Romans for a good, old-fashioned 'questioning', hoping that they would question him to death.
We never return to the question of Paul's citizenship claim. There doesn't appear to be evidence for how he would justify this, but if Paul's parents or grandparents they have been Jewish slaves of Pompey then they would have been manumitted on death and become Roman citizens. This would be interesting as Paul would be claiming both high Jewish status (by virtue of his background and training) and servile origins.
The New Testament is not very forthcoming as to how Paul 'proved' he was a citizen, but the fact that he is questioned by the commander of the garrison would indicate there was some interrogation before he was released to the Sandhedrin, who then perform their own, slightly rougher 'investigation' into him.
Paul's claim to be a citizen from birth would suggest that one of his ancestors was granted or obtained citizenship, but there are no sources to indicate how. They might have been manumitted slaves, or they might have been granted citizenship as a reflection of some important act. Whoever they were, Paul (or Saul, I suppose) is not born into a lowly rank of the Jewish strata.
Of course, they might have been both high status and enslaved at some point. Being a high ranking Jew didn't save someone from slavery, particularly if the slave made a fine 'trophy' as a result. Josephus was the commander of an army of 60,000 men before ending up a slave of Vespasian (and then being freed and turning sides).
Perhaps the most interesting chap in all this is the commander of the garrison, who expressly claims, "With a great sum obtained I this freedom..." (Acts, 22.28), suggesting that he paid for his status in cash.
But good old Paul absolutely wears either his Jewish or Roman Citizen hat as the occasion suits him.
Yes, the Vespasian slave model is exactly what I’d see for Paul, but perhaps with Pompey or another Roman senior commander in the East in the available time period.
Assuming Paul’s claim is true, then he’s positioning himself as a Jewish cultural and economic elite person whose family accommodated themselves to Roman rule in the East early enough to have gained acceptance from Roman provincial leadership. They also either retained the wealth they had prior to Roman rule or gained new wealth due to their relationship with Roman leadership, such that Paul does no work, and though born in Tarsus, studies under the best teachers of Jewish law in Jerusalem, and travels regularly and freely.
I’d see the presumed ‘slavery’ of Paul’s ancestors as another convenient Roman legal fiction or insistence on the forms being obeyed. Like their insistence that conquered peoples perfunctorily worship the emperor. The owner of Paul’s parents clearly wouldn’t have used them for menial labor, but rather, if they were trained like Paul, to give expert advice on how particular Roman policies or economic initiatives would intersect with Jewish law and custom.
One doesn’t have to stress the negatives here, but Paul’s family would fit in nicely with other accomodationist and collaborationist elites that have greeted imperial and colonial regimes throughout history.
In certain contexts, civis could refer to citizenship of a specific city rather than the broader Roman state. In the Roman world, particularly during the Republic and early Empire, cities within the empire, such as municipia and coloniae, often had their own local citizenships. A person could be a civis of a particular city (e.g., civis Neapolitanus for Naples) while also being a civis Romanus, if they held Roman citizenship.
One could attain Roman citizenship through one's citizenship of a certain city and there might be some privileges that were uniquely associated with being a citizen of that city, but they would normally only apply in a direct geographical sense. So being a citizen of Naples might grant that person the right to vote in local elections, say. But it wouldn't normally be the case that such citizenship would grant universal rights above those of normal citizenship across the broader empire.
There were different levels of citizenship, such as 'Latin Rights' which was a step below the full citizenship. Latin Rights (Ius Latii) originally applied to the cities of Latium as they became allies of Rome. So citizens of cities such as Velitrae (modern Velletri), where Augustus' family, the Octavians were from (although he was born in Rome) had 'Latin Rights' as default.
Any sense of citizenship of a city ultimately came below that of Civis Romanus, or course.
We never return to the question of Paul's citizenship claim. There doesn't appear to be evidence for how he would justify this, but if Paul's parents or grandparents they have been Jewish slaves of Pompey then they would have been manumitted on death and become Roman citizens. This would be interesting as Paul would be claiming both high Jewish status (by virtue of his background and training) and servile origins.
The New Testament is not very forthcoming as to how Paul 'proved' he was a citizen, but the fact that he is questioned by the commander of the garrison would indicate there was some interrogation before he was released to the Sandhedrin, who then perform their own, slightly rougher 'investigation' into him.
Paul's claim to be a citizen from birth would suggest that one of his ancestors was granted or obtained citizenship, but there are no sources to indicate how. They might have been manumitted slaves, or they might have been granted citizenship as a reflection of some important act. Whoever they were, Paul (or Saul, I suppose) is not born into a lowly rank of the Jewish strata.
Of course, they might have been both high status and enslaved at some point. Being a high ranking Jew didn't save someone from slavery, particularly if the slave made a fine 'trophy' as a result. Josephus was the commander of an army of 60,000 men before ending up a slave of Vespasian (and then being freed and turning sides).
Perhaps the most interesting chap in all this is the commander of the garrison, who expressly claims, "With a great sum obtained I this freedom..." (Acts, 22.28), suggesting that he paid for his status in cash.
But good old Paul absolutely wears either his Jewish or Roman Citizen hat as the occasion suits him.
Yes, the Vespasian slave model is exactly what I’d see for Paul, but perhaps with Pompey or another Roman senior commander in the East in the available time period.
Assuming Paul’s claim is true, then he’s positioning himself as a Jewish cultural and economic elite person whose family accommodated themselves to Roman rule in the East early enough to have gained acceptance from Roman provincial leadership. They also either retained the wealth they had prior to Roman rule or gained new wealth due to their relationship with Roman leadership, such that Paul does no work, and though born in Tarsus, studies under the best teachers of Jewish law in Jerusalem, and travels regularly and freely.
I’d see the presumed ‘slavery’ of Paul’s ancestors as another convenient Roman legal fiction or insistence on the forms being obeyed. Like their insistence that conquered peoples perfunctorily worship the emperor. The owner of Paul’s parents clearly wouldn’t have used them for menial labor, but rather, if they were trained like Paul, to give expert advice on how particular Roman policies or economic initiatives would intersect with Jewish law and custom.
One doesn’t have to stress the negatives here, but Paul’s family would fit in nicely with other accomodationist and collaborationist elites that have greeted imperial and colonial regimes throughout history.
Shape shifting goes back a ways.
What an amazing article! I kept having questions as I was reading then you answered them later on.
Thank you so much!
If you ever have any questions, fire away! That's what I'm here for.
Was there a sense of "civis" which referenced membership of a specific city rather than membership of greater Rome?
In certain contexts, civis could refer to citizenship of a specific city rather than the broader Roman state. In the Roman world, particularly during the Republic and early Empire, cities within the empire, such as municipia and coloniae, often had their own local citizenships. A person could be a civis of a particular city (e.g., civis Neapolitanus for Naples) while also being a civis Romanus, if they held Roman citizenship.
One could attain Roman citizenship through one's citizenship of a certain city and there might be some privileges that were uniquely associated with being a citizen of that city, but they would normally only apply in a direct geographical sense. So being a citizen of Naples might grant that person the right to vote in local elections, say. But it wouldn't normally be the case that such citizenship would grant universal rights above those of normal citizenship across the broader empire.
There were different levels of citizenship, such as 'Latin Rights' which was a step below the full citizenship. Latin Rights (Ius Latii) originally applied to the cities of Latium as they became allies of Rome. So citizens of cities such as Velitrae (modern Velletri), where Augustus' family, the Octavians were from (although he was born in Rome) had 'Latin Rights' as default.
Any sense of citizenship of a city ultimately came below that of Civis Romanus, or course.
Thanks very much. Really interesting article.
Thank you!
All part of the service.
I just bought your book, my husband is excited to read it too!
Thank you very much! I hope you both enjoy it.
I have another on the way very soon. If only there were more hours in the day!