The Roman Citizenship of Paul

[Quid est Veritas?]

We all know that Paul was a Roman citizen, afterall it is an important part of the narrative in Acts. We also know he was born one. But where did his family's citizenship originate?

Roman citizenship was a much sought after status in the first century. You were exempt from onerous duties like quartering soldiers, you could vote, favourable Roman laws regarding commerce applied and immunity from torture or heinous executions. Lastly, you had a right to a trial and could appeal sentences to the Emperor - which is the whole point of it in the Acts narrative.

To be a Roman citizen you either had to have been born one, made one by special acclamation, be a freed slave of a Roman household or bought it underhandedly from corrupt magistrates.

Paul says he was of good Jewish stock, not Roman by blood, so at some point his ancestors had to have had one of the other options occuring.

There is a clue in his name: Paul. This is a Roman cognomen Paullus, which was the name of a number of Consuls of Rome. His family could have gained this from a citizenship grant during one of their consulships. Paul was likely from a wealthy family for him to have studied under Gamaliel, so this is quite possible.

Freed slaves usually adopted the nomen or cognomen of their former masters on emancipation as well. Pompey took Jewish slaves during the Eastern campaigns of 63 BC, so perhaps Paul's ancestor was amongst these?

Another theory I have thought of is that Paul's ancestors collaborated with the Roman legions. He was a tentmaker after all and what better customer than a large legion that makes camp every night? Perhaps they supplied Pompey or the various legions active in the Civil Wars.
One of the triumvir's brother, Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, bears the cognomen although he stood with Cicero against him. His son however was a suffect Consul and later Censor under Augustus, so could perhaps have extended the suffrage to those who helped his uncle or his later patrons during the Second Truimvirate.
I find the idea of Paul's family in the thick of Roman strife fascinating.

If he is the descendant of former slaves this informs his Theology even more. Perhaps that would explain his calling himself a Slave of Christ, being marked by the stigma of Christ like a slave was branded. I think this gives fascinating subtext to 1 Corinthians 7 and especcially Romans, where the Citizen is a slave of Christ.


Is there a Church tradition regarding this that I am unfamiliar with? Or perhaps another scenario to explain it?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is actually fascinating where the name Paul comes from. It means 'humble' or 'the lesser'.
It was originally used as a way to differentiate the less important member of a family when one or more had the same names. In Roman naming conventions this happened frequently as you usually were just known by your nomen and cognomen, basically as if we called everyone on their surnames. So extra names like calling someone 'the younger' or 'the Censor' were frequently necessary.

So again this name is very much coupled to ideas of being lower, subservient, and I can't help but think it informs Paul's writings as a consequence.

The Bible has many examples of using names to make points, like Jacob's name being changed to Israel or to the Catholic view of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church was built. Perhaps Paul is playing off it also?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Another point I would just make is to remember that Paul was his name as a Roman Citizen, likely his cognomen. I am unaware of a source on what his full Roman name would be.

Romans had two or three names - the praenomen (personal name), nomen (gens or clan, the extended family) and cognomen (surname). For instance Gaius Iulius Caesar, but better known as Julius Caesar or just Caesar, as mostly people just used the cognomen or nomen + cognomen.

Paul never ceased to be Saul of Tarsus, his Jewish name. People think that God changed Saul's name to Paul on Damascus road, perhaps thinking of antecedants like Abram/Abraham or Jacob/Israel, but this is not the case. He calls himself Paul in his letters because he is writing to Hellenistic communities, so is using his prestigious Roman name instead of his Jewish one.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If it stems from a citizenship grant to Tarsus, this would be more likely to have occured in 50 BC, 34 BC or 1 AD, for a Paullus was then Consul.
There is however no record of this occuring.

The late date of 1 AD would make Paul much younger than usually envisioned as he would have to be born after this, so is unlikely I think anyway.

The 50 BC date is interesting though as Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus was consul then. He fled to Miletus after his brother's Triumvirate ordered him executed and had ties to Asia Minor. He is also closely aligned to Cicero, a former governor of Cilicia itself. Although there is no concrete evidence of this, if a block grant of citizenship had been made, there is strong circumstantial evidence that this Paullus could have done so.

 

[Norbert L]

We all know that Paul was a Roman citizen, afterall it is an important part of the narrative in Acts. We also know he was born one. But where did his family's citizenship originate?

Roman citizenship was a much sought after status in the first century. You were exempt from onerous duties like quartering soldiers, you could vote, favourable Roman laws regarding commerce applied and immunity from torture or heinous executions. Lastly, you had a right to a trial and could appeal sentences to the Emperor - which is the whole point of it in the Acts narrative.

To be a Roman citizen you either had to have been born one, made one by special acclamation, be a freed slave of a Roman household or bought it underhandedly from corrupt magistrates.

Paul says he was of good Jewish stock, not Roman by blood, so at some point his ancestors had to have had one of the other options occuring.

There is a clue in his name: Paul. This is a Roman cognomen Paullus, which was the name of a number of Consuls of Rome. His family could have gained this from a citizenship grant during one of their consulships. Paul was likely from a wealthy family for him to have studied under Gamaliel, so this is quite possible.

Freed slaves usually adopted the nomen or cognomen of their former masters on emancipation as well. Pompey took Jewish slaves during the Eastern campaigns of 63 BC, so perhaps Paul's ancestor was amongst these?

Another theory I have thought of is that Paul's ancestors collaborated with the Roman legions. He was a tentmaker after all and what better customer than a large legion that makes camp every night? Perhaps they supplied Pompey or the various legions active in the Civil Wars.
One of the triumvir's brother, Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, bears the cognomen although he stood with Cicero against him. His son however was a suffect Consul and later Censor under Augustus, so could perhaps have extended the suffrage to those who helped his uncle or his later patrons during the Second Truimvirate.
I find the idea of Paul's family in the thick of Roman strife fascinating.

If he is the descendant of former slaves this informs his Theology even more. Perhaps that would explain his calling himself a Slave of Christ, being marked by the stigma of Christ like a slave was branded. I think this gives fascinating subtext to 1 Corinthians 7 and especcially Romans, where the Citizen is a slave of Christ.


Is there a Church tradition regarding this that I am unfamiliar with? Or perhaps another scenario to explain it?

I believe when looking at what I put in bold from your comment, it leaves the impression that becoming a Roman citizen was rather hard to accomplish. I also believe they didn't hand the status out left right and center as well. What I would suggest is it is more involved than either of those two, it can involve the lengthy history of between the two nations.

From the little I understand of it, generally Judea changed from a people allied with Rome to a subject nation. Adding to that, the Hellenistic Jews enjoyed a measured and mixed amount of civil status as their nations came under the rule of Rome. Paul could just a likely have come to his citizenship over numerous generations of family involvement within the nation they were scattered to. Jeremiah 29:7

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I believe when looking at what I put in bold from your comment, it leaves the impression that becoming a Roman citizen was rather hard to accomplish. I also believe they didn't hand the status out left right and center as well. What I would suggest is it is more involved than either of those two, it can involve the lengthy history of between the two nations.

From the little I understand of it, generally Judea changed from a people allied with Rome to a subject nation. Adding to that, the Hellenistic Jews enjoyed a measured and mixed amount of civil status as their nations came under the rule of Rome. Paul could just a likely have come to his citizenship over numerous generations of family involvement within the nation they were scattered to. Jeremiah 29:7

Roman Citizenship was very sought after, difficult to obtain and offered many advantages. Of a population of about 60-70 million in the 1st century AD, about 5 million were Roman Citizens.

Roman Citizenship only passed through the father, so at some point Paul's paternal line had to have been specifically granted it for him to be one.

The Jewish state was largely subject to Rome from the start of their dealings. Pompey intervened in a Hasmonaean Civil War on request and thereafter Rome propped up various clients there to act as a bulwark against Parthia. Basically to hold Syria's flank and prevent invasions of Egypt (first the allied Ptolemaic kingdom then the province). This culminated in the Roman installation of Herod in the Hasmonaeans' place and the eventual annexation.

I like your quote from Jeremiah by the way. What is your take on the possibility that Paul my descend from freed slaves and that this may inform his writings? I think the citizen/slave juxtaposition very interesting as Paul may have gained a sought after citizrnship through slavery as slavery to Christ gives a sought after new Life.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I read Jerome's De Virus Illustribus and found an interesting piece of information:

"Paul, formerly called Saul, an apostle outside the number of the twelve apostles, was of the tribe of Benjamin and the town of Giscalis in Judea. When this was taken by the Romans he removed with his parents to Tarsus in Cilicia. Sent by them to Jerusalem to study law he was educated by Gamaliel, a most learned man whom Luke mentions. But after he had been present at the death of the martyr Stephen and had received letters from the high priest of the temple for the persecution of those who believed in Christ, he proceeded to Damascus, where constrained to faith by a revelation, as it is written in the Acts of the apostles, he was transformed from a persecutor into an elect vessel. As Sergius Paulus Proconsul of Cyprus was the first to believe in his preaching, he took his name from him because he had subdued him to faith in Christ, and having been joined by Barnabas, after traversing many cities, he returned to Jerusalem and was ordained apostle to the Gentiles by Peter, James and John."

Two things jump out:
1. The name Paul being derived from Sergius Paulus
2. Jerome claiming Paul to have been born in Giscala and fleeing to Tarsus!

If 1 is true, than all my speculation on his citizenship based on his name is for nought, but this is a late tradition and only mentioned by Jerome as far as I could tell. It also makes little sense as to why Paul would adopt another Roman name when it is likely he already had a Roman or Romanised name as a Roman Citizen by birth.

2 opens a significant can of worms: Jerome is directly contradicting Paul's speech in Acts 22:3 where he says he was born in Tarsus. This is made even more odd by the fact that Jerome even mentions Acts in his biography.

Gischala was a hotbed of anti-Roman activity in the years up to the First Revolt and was the last place in Galilee to be subdued. Jerome however clearly says that Paul's family left after the initial conquest of Gischala, which would have to be in 37 BC when Herod was busy subjugating Galilee with Roman help.
I doubt Paul to be that old in the later narratives, but this could be where Paul's father was taken to Tarsus in slavery with his family and settling there on manumission. Jerome must be simply wrong in Paul being born at Giscala or Paul was lying in his speech in Acts.

It hinges on how much I trust Jerome? I doubt his "Paul's name" story, so this evidence is to be treated with caution as well, I think.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thinking on this matter, we have a Paullus as consul in 34 BC and a tradition from Jerome of fleeing Giscala when it fell to Rome; which was likely 36 BC.
Although there remains the problem of Jerome stating that Paul was born at Giscala, a citizen grant in 34 BC seems plausible if his father somehow cooperated with the Roman conquest. Perhaps he collaborrated or supplied tents to the Legions. This then forced them to flee the area after the conquest due to their neighbours being angry about this and I can see a citizen grant being extended in gratitude to such 'friends of Rome' when leaving for a permanent exile in Tarsus.

 

[Anto9us]

"If he is the descendant of former slaves this informs his Theology even more."

Hmmmm...

Paul sent the escaped slave Onesimus BACK to his owner/master Philemon.

This was AGAINST THE TORAH -- to send an escaped slave back like that -- I think it says in Deuteronomy NOT TO DO IT

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"If he is the descendant of former slaves this informs his Theology even more."

Hmmmm...

Paul sent the escaped slave Onesimus BACK to his owner/master Philemon.

This was AGAINST THE TORAH -- to send an escaped slave back like that -- I think it says in Deuteronomy NOT TO DO IT

Deuteronomy says not to return a slave to his master who has sought refuge with you.

This however is not what was happening here. The letter to Philemon is a prison letter. Onesimus was thus likely a caught runaway who was housed in the same prison as Paul and then converted to Christianity. He was being sent back to his owner by Rome (generally the Romans either returned runaways or crucified them as an example). He hadn't sought shelter with Paul and was sent away, Paul had little to do with his circumstances.

Slaves in Roman times were branded with Stigma, like cattle, so a slave or former slave was easily visible. Freedmen usually stayed in the employ of their former masters or in areas they were known, so that they would not be mistaken for runaways.
To send Onesimus back to his Christian master thus makes sense, as it is the only way to really keep him safe and Paul writes that he is to be treated "as a brother", strongly suggesting he is to be manumitted. Regardless, it was likely the Roman authorities returning him, not Paul.

Interestingly though, Onesimus' slavery led to him being with Paul after running away and therefore becoming Christian. Clearly his slavery was to God's purpose as his owner had also converted. By Church Tradition, Onesimus went on to become a bishop of Ephesus.

Paul, who may have gained the boon of Roman Citizenship via slavery, could easily construe that it is God's purpose being fulfilled here. This makes his ambivalent comments on slavery understandable, like when he says Slaves are to respect and obey their masters, but saying all are brothers in Christ. Slaves are made free in Christ and Free men enslaved to Christ, to paraphrase Paul. There is fascinating subtextual information here, if we assume Paul to have gained citizenship in this manner.

 

[Anto9us]

wow, thx quid -- a lot that I didn't realize about the situation