Megachusen: notice how the shift from Saul to Paul (13:9) follows the encounter with Elymas bar-Jesus, a "Jewish false prophet" (which parallels the encounter of Peter and Simon Magus in chapter 8), before the proconsul of Cyprus Sergius Paulus (identical to "Paul" in the Greek text), "an intelligent man" (v. 7)...
Apostle Paul as Roman Soldier
by hamsterbait 21 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
XJW4EVR
Well, another possibility is that Roman citizenship was simply granted to Paul (and Silas, 16:37f!) by the author(s) of Acts.
I hope that I am mistaken, but it sounds like you are calling Luke a liar.
Just because Paul does not mention his citizenship, it does not mean that he was not a citizen. Mentioning his citizenship simply did not fit the ends of his letters. When I write letters, I don't generally talk about my American citizenship, do you?
-
Narkissos
XJW4EVR,
Let's say I am quite wary about the 'historical' claims of the book of Acts generally, especially (1) when they cannot be confirmed by any other source (because when they can they are often not, e.g. Gamaliel referring to Judas the Galilean after Theudas while Theudas came after Judas... and Gamaliel, by Josephus' account!) and (2) when they seem to fit all too well into its agenda. Of course I cannot prove that Paul was never a Roman citizen, but I believe it's a definite possibility which should be taken into account in the present discussion. As to the epistles, the mention of Paul's alleged Roman citizenship could have been helpful in the epistle to the Romans (where Paul tries to gain the trust of a Roman community he obviously doesn't know), or to the Philippians (cf. the mention of the heavenly citizenship, and the list of Paul's assets which he counts as losses in chapter 3). This certainly doesn't add up to a 'proof', but leaves room for doubt.
-
Atlantis
Is this the picture you need?
Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie, p.97
http://img14.imageshack.us/i/scan10001.tif/ N. -
reniaa
hi narkissus
From the fact Paul only mentions his roman status well after capture already submitting to punishments that telling his status earlier would have stopped, it looks rather like he was not overly wanting to advertise the fact. So why make up a lie that will make him suffer in the eyes of Jews who would see Roman citizenship as being part of the enemy?
We know that people could acquire roman citizenship in various ways in that time so it is a historically acccurate in that sense. There is no reason to suppose he is lying. The dubious benefits of appealing to roman citizens with a hope to convert them by saying he is a roman citizen. This really is an incompatible thought with Paul teachings of openly rejecting Roman gods and idols, if he was wanting to curry favour he would have taken a less strictor line like christendom today when appeasing other faiths preaching a general "all roads lead to God" doctrine.
Reniaa
-
Narkissos
reniaa,
You are sort of making my point I feel. From a "realistic" angle, concealing his Roman citizenship when it could have changed something, then showing it off "just for the principle" doesn't make much sense if he really didn't want it to be known. Otoh it fits the portrait of the dignified Stoic hero perfectly. The important thing is that the (overwhelmingly Gentile) audience of the story "understands the misunderstanding," and perceives the difference between the outward humiliation and the inner dignity (and sovereign freedom) of the character.
Iow, had Paul not been a Roman citizen it would have been a good idea to make him one...
-
reniaa
hi narkissos
If he wanted to make himself appealing and so fictionalised a few facts for the letters he wrote why tell how evil he was in the first place? Why not make himself a guy who was nice and not done terrible evil acts against the christians? when you read his constant humility always talking about fighting the sin in him. You don't get the impression of a man trying to be anything more than just honest. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction he would know a roman citizen pharisee would not have been common and hard for readers to believe but he doesn't elucidate he keeps it very plain and factual which smacks more of the truth rather thank an elaborate lie full of explanation to justify it.
Reniaa
-
Narkissos
Roman citizenship belongs exclusively to the portray of Paul in the book of Acts (including what the book says he says), which differs considerably from the (self-)portrait(s) in the epistles on a number of issues, not just that one -- unless you have been used to read one into the other(s) of course.
Contrary to the picture in Galatians, Paul in Acts is introduced to the apostles right after his conversion, remains obedient to them and second to Barnabas until he gets front stage, carries the apostolic decree (which is at odds with the Pauline view of "food sacrificed to idols" in 1 Corinthians), observes the Torah (shaving for a vow, Passover, pays for sacrifices) and leaves the role of questioning its efficiency in justification to Peter (!); he argues his doctrine philosophically in Athens (contrary to the cross-only stance in 1 Corinthiens), and so on.
Now the "how evil I was" part of the epistles (which interestingly increases with time and pseudepigraphy as the portraits merge) suits the rhetoric of the latter pretty well, since Pauline theology is all about grace and justification by faith.
But I certainly agree that there are many ways to assess the same data, provided we consider it closely enough.
-
reniaa
hi narkissos
You are right there are many ways to assess the same data, we all have our own viewpoint. I personally have a simpathy for Paul he must have lived with the thought that but for Jesus's intervention he may have stayed the bad way he was. He certainly appears to me as a man constantly trying to wipe out past sins, it makes him very human and approachable.
Reniaa
-
PSacramento
I doubt we will ever have a complete picture of Paul.
As it is, we may speculate that when Luke wrote Acts he wrote it from his viewpoint of what he saw or was told, as such,it a sa second and 3rd party account.
The letters that Paul wrote were aimed at particular groups with particular issues and whiel we can get a preyy good view of his beliefs, it is still not the complete picture, even more so with the question of him being the author of ALL his letters.
I think that its best in the cases of uncertainly to focus on the parts of certainty as carry "more weight".
Paul was a converted pharisse, converted by a vision of Jesus, he viewed Hope, Faith and Love as the "pillars" of his Faith, Love being greater than all.
He viewed faith in Jesus and the New Covenant as the crucial for salvation because itw as from there that good deeds come from, the knowledge that we don't HAVE to do good to be saved, allows us to do good out of love, sans conditions.
