Paul the Roman?

[Bernard Gui]

When Paul was about to be beaten by Roman soldiers, has asked of it was legal to beat a Roman citizen who had not been condemned. This set in motion a chain of events that led to him being taken to Rome.

1. How could he prove he was a citizen?

2. Why did no Roman official up to and including Agrippa ask for proof?

3. Could any Roman citizen demand to be heard by Caesar and then have a military escort to ferry him to Rome?

4.  Is it possible he “lied for the Lord” about his citizenship so he could get to Rome to testify to. Caesar?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 and 2: Citizenship was generally shown by people knowing you are a citizen, basically by relationship under the patronage system.

3: Under the Valerian Law Roman citizens had the right to demand an appeal if they were condemned by a local magistrate to be scourged or executed (and Roman citizens could only be executed for treason). This did not mean a hearing before the Emperor himself. Appealing to Caesar is an expression. He is claiming correctly that local magistrates cannot condemn him. Only in Rome can he be punished so they took him to Rome. In most cases they probably would have let the Roman citizen go and not bothered to haul him back but Paul was probably considered a rabble rouser and sending him to Rome helped deal with the problem. 

4. Doubtful. It is hard to fake. Under the patronage system that dominated the Roman Empire people generally know who is and is not a Roman citizen. If he was found out he probably would have been crucified or at least enslaved. According to tradition he was eventually beheaded which was how you legally killed Roman citizens (they could not be crucified) so it appears Rome believed the claim when he got there. They could also figure it out conclusively in Rome. The Roman officials could check if Paul’s name was on the last census.

According to Christian tradition Paul’s parents were made slaves. Eventually they were freed and granted citizenship and went home and their son was born a citizen. Citizenship was relatively rare. It is estimated only around 10% of the people living in the Empire were citizens and a disproportionate amount of those lived in Rome, and to a lesser extent, the rest of Italy. Citizens were rare enough and well known enough that some yahoo claiming to be a citizen probably could not pull it off.

Edit: I previously thought the censors were still in charge of the census but that was under the Republic. In the Empire the office of Censor was subsumed into that of the Emperor.

Edited August 3, 2019 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

4.  Is it possible he “lied for the Lord” about his citizenship so he could get to Rome to testify to. Caesar?

Not likely.

However, in Acts 23 when he is in trouble and divides the Pharisees and Sadducees by claiming he was only being called into question because of his belief in the resurrection - that bit isn't exactly entirely true. Super clever, but not completely honest.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Paul (Saul) came from Tarsus, Cilicia (Asia Minor), where he was born as a Roman citizen to Roman citizen parents.  The Romans kept official records, just as we do today, and any such claim could be verified.  He was born in about 5 AD.

[The Nehor]

One anomaly with the Roman citizenship thing is he could have used it at other times to make the appeal when he was scourged/whipped. Perhaps he chose not to in order to just take the punishment and get it over with to continue his work?

Edited August 3, 2019 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1 and 2: Citizenship was generally shown by people knowing you are a citizen, basically by relationship under the patronage system.

3: Under the Valerian Law Roman citizens had the right to demand an appeal if they were condemned by a local magistrate to be scourged or executed (and Roman citizens could only be executed for treason). This did not mean a hearing before the Emperor himself. Appealing to Caesar is an expression. He is claiming correctly that local magistrates cannot condemn him. Only in Rome can he be punished so they took him to Rome. In most cases they probably would have let the Roman citizen go and not bothered to haul him back but Paul was probably considered a rabble rouser and sending him to Rome helped deal with the problem. 

4. Doubtful. It is hard to fake. Under the patronage system that dominated the Roman Empire people generally know who is and is not a Roman citizen. If he was found out he probably would have been crucified or at least enslaved. According to tradition he was eventually beheaded which was how you legally killed Roman citizens (they could not be crucified) so it appears Rome believed the claim when he got there. They could also figure it out conclusively in Rome. The Roman officials could check if Paul’s name was on the last census.

According to Christian tradition Paul’s parents were made slaves. Eventually they were freed and granted citizenship and went home and their son was born a citizen. Citizenship was relatively rare. It is estimated only around 10% of the people living in the Empire were citizens and a disproportionate amount of those lived in Rome, and to a lesser extent, the rest of Italy. Citizens were rare enough and well known enough that some yahoo claiming to be a citizen probably could not pull it off.

Edit: I previously thought the censors were still in charge of the census but that was under the Republic. In the Empire the office of Censor was subsumed into that of the Emperor.

Thanks for the great response.

In the thread I started about Judas, some were adamant that the lack of photographic images made it extremely difficult to make identifications which is why the Jewish leaders needed someone like Judas who knew Jesus in order to positively identify him when he was arrested in the Garden.

The Romans who were about to beat Paul didn’t recognize him, nor did any on up the line. They apparently just took him at his his word, unless there is more to the story about his arraignment, which is probably the case. 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Not likely.

However, in Acts 23 when he is in trouble and divides the Pharisees and Sadducees by claiming he was only being called into question because of his belief in the resurrection - that bit isn't exactly entirely true. Super clever, but not completely honest.

Yes, I had the same thought when he used that particular ruse to get out of trouble. Seems like he could also have also gotten out of that scrape by proclaiming citizenship. Would the Jewish leaders assault a Roman citizen?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Paul (Saul) came from Tarsus, Cilicia (Asia Minor), where he was born as a Roman citizen to Roman citizen parents.  The Romans kept official records, just as we do today, and any such claim could be verified.  He was born in about 5 AD.

Would he be identified simply by stating his name? What prevented fraudulent claims? How would his claim be verified?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One anomaly with the Roman citizenship thing is he could have used it at other times to make the appeal when he was scourged/whipped. Perhaps he chose not to in order to just take the punishment and get it over with to continue his work?

Yes, I had the same question about his other troubles with the Romans and the Jews. That’s why I wondered if he might have been pulling a fast one in order to get to Caesar (albeit a dangerous scheme).

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, I had the same question about his other troubles with the Romans and the Jews. That’s why I wondered if he might have been pulling a fast one in order to get to Caesar (albeit a dangerous scheme).

I think if it was a deception he would have been killed by being crucified when he arrived in Rome. They had the census records to verify his status there and would have not taken kindly to the deception.

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, I had the same thought when he used that particular ruse to get out of trouble. Seems like he could also have also gotten out of that scrape by proclaiming citizenship. Would the Jewish leaders assault a Roman citizen?

Yeah, if they thought they could get away with it.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the great response.

In the thread I started about Judas, some were adamant that the lack of photographic images made it extremely difficult to make identifications which is why the Jewish leaders needed someone like Judas who knew Jesus in order to positively identify him when he was arrested in the Garden.

The Romans who were about to beat Paul didn’t recognize him, nor did any on up the line. They apparently just took him at his his word, unless there is more to the story about his arraignment, which is probably the case. 

 

I am guessing they stopped temporarily when he made the appeal and then made some quick inquiries before sending him to Rome.

[PacMan]

Given the Agrippas' relationships with the Caesars (Agrippa II's sister Bernice, for example, had a little someth'n someth'n going on with Titus (in his pre-emperor days), I would suspect that it wasn't as big of a deal to send Paul to Nero as it might seem today. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, PacMan said:

Given the Agrippas' relationships with the Caesars (Agrippa II's sister Bernice, for example, had a little someth'n someth'n going on with Titus (in his pre-emperor days), I would suspect that it wasn't as big of a deal to send Paul to Nero as it might seem today. 

Haha! Just keep an extra centurion or cohort around for special tasks. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would he be identified simply by stating his name? What prevented fraudulent claims? How would his claim be verified?

His notoriety undoubtedly preceded him (first as a rabbi working for the Sanhedrin, and second as a powerful preacher for Jesus Christ), in addition to which lying would bring severe punishment.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

His notoriety undoubtedly preceded him (first as a rabbi working for the Sanhedrin, and second as a powerful preacher for Jesus Christ), in addition to which lying would bring severe punishment.

True. He did trick the Jewish leaders and the Romans with a little creative (but perhaps technically correct) misdirection.....

Quote

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

Reminds me of Parley and the jailer’s dog.

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[PacMan]

A little historical update from Fitzmeyer:

Quote

[P]rovacatio became the form of appeal over the verdict of a private iudex, "judge."  It was made to the magistrate who had appointed the trial judge; but it could go higher, even to Caesar, for with the coming of the principate appeal was no longer made to the "Roman people," but to the princeps, i.e., to Caesar.  This right was confirmed by Augustus in the Lex Iulia de vi publica seu privata, which protected Roman citizens throughout the empire from highhanded decisions of provincial governors, summary punishment, execution, or torture.  Their case could be heard in Rome.  In this instance, a procuratorial verdict or decision has not yet been made; Paul appeals against the suggestion of the procurator to change the venue of his trial.  Even that was within his rights.

 

[The Nehor]

On 8/3/2019 at 8:08 AM, Amulek said:

Not likely.

However, in Acts 23 when he is in trouble and divides the Pharisees and Sadducees by claiming he was only being called into question because of his belief in the resurrection - that bit isn't exactly entirely true. Super clever, but not completely honest.

 

I know a CES guy who was invited to a public debate/discussion with a Christian group. Everyone ganged up on him as the “Mormon” so he brought up transubstantiation to get the Catholics and Protestants to pick on each other a bit and it worked. It is a long and glorious tradition.

Edited August 6, 2019 by The Nehor