Q4Y: "Roman?"
Today’s post is a question for our readers. (Q4Y = Question for You)
One of my friends sent this question to me in an email, and I asked his permission to reprint it here for your consideration. He graciously agreed and I know he would like to see several perspectives on this. I’m reprinting his question verbatim from the email:
“Was Jesus a Roman citizen?”
After that initial question, he wrote the following:
Paul was a Hebrew but also a Roman citizen I suppose based on birth in Tarsus.
Is that one reason the Romans had to pronounce death penalty upon Jesus instead of the Jews just taking care of their own business. I also thought that Paul might have bought Roman citizenship.
So, what do you think? Share your research, your thoughts, your educated opinions. It’s a great Q4Y!
3 Comments
Todd C
Just a brief comment — Roman citizens were rarely crucified as this punishment was generally reserved for non-citizen offenders.
Pilate’s silence on the matter of any citizenship issues would also seem to indicate that Jesus was not a citizen (see Paul at Philippi – Acts 16:34ff), especially in light of the Jewish claims that Jesus was a direct threat to Caesar.
Dean
Jesus was not a Roman citizen. Remember that Paul was not even suppossed to be beaten. The Jews did not have the right, under Roman rule, to execute anyone, especially not crucifixion, so they had to go through the Roman court system to get it done.
Paul was a natural born citizen, not one who bought it. Dean Kelly
Dean
The following is Barnes Commentary on Acts 22:28, where Paul states he is a natural born Roman citizen: “Verse 28. With a great sum obtained I this freedom. This freedom, or privilege of Roman citizenship. From this, it would seem that the privilege of being a Roman citizen might be purchased. Perhaps he refers, however, to the expenses which were necessarily attendant in passing through the proper forms of becoming a Roman citizen. The argument of the tribune in this case is this:-“I obtained this privilege at a great price. Whence did you, Paul, thus poor and persecuted, obtain the means of becoming a Roman citizen?”. Paul had informed him that he was a native of Tarsus, Acts 21:39; and the chief captain supposed that that was not a free city, and that Paul could not have derived the privilege of citizenship from his birth.
But I was free born. I was born a Roman citizen, or I am such in virtue of my birth. Various opinions have been formed on the question, in what way or for what reasons Paul was entitled to the privilege of a Roman citizen. Some have supposed that Tarsus was a Roman colony, and that he thus became a Roman citizen. But of this there does not appear to be sufficient proof. Pliny says, (5, 27,) that it was a free city. The city of Tarsus was endowed with the privileges of a free city by Augustus Cæsar, after it had been greatly afflicted and oppressed by wars.-Appian. Dio Chrysost says to the people of Tarsus, “He (Augustus) has conferred on you everything which any one could bestow on his friends and companions-a country, (i.e. a free country,) laws, honour, authority over the river (Cydranus,) and the neighbouring sea.” Free cities were permitted in the Roman empire to use their own laws and customs, to have their own magistrates, and they were free from being subject to Roman guards. They were required only to acknowledge the supremacy and authority of the Roman people, and to aid them in their wars. Such a city was Tarsus; and having been born there, Paul was entitled to these privileges of a free man. Many critics have supposed that this privilege of Roman citizenship had been conferred on some of the ancestors of Paul, in consequence of some distinguished military service. Such a conferring of the rights of citizenship was not unusual, and possibly might have occurred in this case. But there is no direct historical proof of it; and the former fact, that he was born in a free city, will amply account for his affirmation that he was free-born.” Dean Kelly
—Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament