Corpus-Paul

[Craig S de Vos <csdevos AT trinity.unimelb.edu.au>]

Richard Fellows wrote:
>There is an abundance of Latin names in the letters, indicating that many
>of Paul's converts and associates were Roman citizens.  Given this and the
>evidence of Acts, it seems very likely that Paul was also a citizen.
>

IMHO that is a non sequitur. Why should the nature of Paul's converts
necessarily say anything about Paul himself? On the other hand, why not
suggest that because Paul converted some Thessalonians he must be a
Thessalonian. Paul's converts and associates came from a variety of
ethnic/religious backgrounds. Of itself this proves nothing.

Sheila McGinn wrote:
>I find it curious that (a) Paul never mentions it, even when he is
>"bragging"

To which Richard Fellows responded:
>His readers would have known that he was a citizen, so why mention it?.

Paul's readers certainly would have known that he was a 'Jew', yet he
frequently mentions that.

Richard continued:
>Which passages do you have in mind, and how would it have served his
>purpose to mention his citizenship in those passages?  Generally he brags
>to counter the boasting of his rivals.
>

I'm not sure which texts Sheila had in mind, but I agree that there are
occasions when references to his citizenship (if it were factual) would
actually have helped Paul's argument. For example, in Philippians Paul
writes to a community predominantly (entirely ?) comprised of Roman
citizens, who appear to be suffering some local repression and hostility
for their faith. Yet nowhere does Paul mention his "Roman citizenship".
Indeed, Paul seems to draw a deliberate contrast between the Empire and the
Kingdom of God. This is most apparent in the POLITUEMA language of 3:20 (NB
with the only occurrence together in the genuine Paulines of the key
imperial cult terms SWTHR and KURIOS used for Christ, not the Emperor), but
I would argue that it is also clearly intended in the 'hymn' of 2:6-11
(which seems to draw a direct contrast between Christ and the Emperor). If
Paul is trying to get the Philippian Christians to rethink their attachment
to and involvement in the Empire, why does he also not refer to his own
experience or putting Christ before his "citizenship"?

As I see it, the issue is not why does Paul not mention or discuss his
"citizenship", but why does Luke regard it as important?

Craig



******************************************
Dr. Craig S. de Vos
Bromby Lecturer in New Testament
Trinity College Theological School
Royal Parade
Parkville VIC 3052
Australia
(O) +61 3 9349-0129  (F) +61 3 9349-0460
csdevos AT trinity.unimelb.edu.au

******************************************