Roman Citizenship Of Jesus

[Storm]

So I was listening to my pastor speak a little bit this past Sunday and He was talking about crucifixion and how is was so barbaric that it was limited to only those who were not citizens of the Roman Empire. It got me thinking about how Jesus, if he actually existed, could have been a Roman citizen since it is my understanding that he was born in Roman territory and under Roman Rule. Is this a correct assumption. The interweb seems to be kind of mixed on the subject. Can anyone answer this question with supporting sources? I found this quote in a forum:

 "On the subject of Roman citizenship; no, Jesus would not have been a Roman citizen. Citizenship was deeply tied to the stratification in Roman society and was dependent upon your family, where you lived, etc. There were various forms of citizenship during the time period in question, from 100 BC to 100 AD. It is quite complex to get into, but let's just say that you were either a Roman citizen of any level for which there were various terms and rights associated or you were a Provinciales or you were a slave. That system lasted until the 200's AD when all persons in the Empire were made full citizens.

Jesus would have been a Provinciales and would have enjoyed only the rights known as jus gentium. Jus gentium itself was the Roman codification of what then comprised common international legal concepts as pioneered by the Greek City States. This gave people some basic rights and governed the relationship between nations.

Under this system Jesus would have been beholden to the laws of Judea that were still crafted by the Jewish government (High Priests of the Temple). Pilate as governor would have overseen all affairs for Roman citizens in Judea and overseen the administration of the province while day-to-day and cultural dealings would have been handled by the local governments according to their own customs. So, you have a situation with two governments. As a Provinciales you are beholden to your local laws and ultimately paid homage to Rome as a subject. As a Roman citizen you only had to answer to Roman law.

Getting into the Biblical end of it, Jesus could not have been a Roman citizen as if he was that would mean he couldn't be the Messiah as prophesied. The Messiah must be from the line of David and Israeli Kings. So, the fact he wasn't a Roman citizen, just a Roman subject is foundational to him being the Messiah. As far as the trial goes, the Jewish leaders could have done whatever they wanted with him under their own laws, but they were not allowed to execute criminals, that is a right reserved solely to the Romans. Since Jesus had violated no Roman laws they came up with the "inciting rebellion" line (which made it a Roman issue) in order to kick it up to Pilate and have him put Jesus to death. Had Jesus been a Roman citizen, the Jewish High Priests could not have done anything to him, he would have been under the sole discretion of Pilate."

Would this be an accurate statement?

 

[Storm]

A little later in the forum, this question is posed:

"why Jesus who was not a Roman citizen, was being treated as exceptional and given a Roman trial as though he was a citizen."
 

Interesting question, in my opinion...

 

[mwc]

     I don't know the answer but I have this from The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law that I have:

 

Peregrinus. A foreigner, a stranger, a citizen of a state other than Rome. A great majority of the population of Rome were peregrines, subjects of Rome after the conquest of their country by Rome. With the increase of the Roman state the number of peregrines grew constantly without being compensated by the number of new citizens to whom Roman citizenship was granted. Within Roman territory the peregrines enjoyed the rights of free persons unless a treaty between Rome and their native country granted them specific rights. Generally, the legislation under the Republic, both statutes and senatus consulta, applied to peregrines only when a particular provision extended their validity to them. Peregrines had no political rights, they could not participate in the popular assemblies, and were excluded from military service. A peregrinus might conclude a valid marriage (iustae nuptiae) only when he had the IUS CONUBII (see CONUBIUM), either granted to him personally or acquired through his citizenship in a civitas which obtained this right from Rome. A peregrine could not make a testament in the forms reserved for Roman citizens nor act as a witness thereto. He could not be instituted an heir of a Roman citizen nor receive a legacy (legaturn) except in a testament of a soldier. He was able to conclude a commercial transaction with a Raman citizen if he had the IUS COMMERCII, which was granted in the same ways as ius conubii. Though excluded from the proceedings by LEGIS ACTIO, a peregrine had the benefit of protection in Roman courts, in particular before that praetor who had jurisdiction inter peregrinos (see PRAETORESfr)o m the middle of the third century B.C. Certain actions were gradually made available to peregrines and against them by the means of a fiction "as if he were a Roman citizen"; see ACTIONES FICTICIAE. Foreigners from the same state concluded transactions in accordance with the laws of that state and litigations among them were settled according to their own laws. A peregrine who obtained Roman citizenship (see CIVITAS ROMANA) ceased to be a peregrine whether he obtained it as a personal grant or within a large group. The sharp distinction between civcs and peregrini lost its emphasis in the legal field in the course of time as a result of the development of commercial relations between Romans and peregrines. On the other hand the extension of Roman citizenship which at the end of the Republic was conferred on the entire population of Italy, furthered the disappearance of the once very sensible differences, The CONSTITUTIO ANTONINIANA did the rest. In Justinian's law the only peregrines were the barbarians (see BARBARI) -For the exceptional status of the Latins, see LATIUM, IUS LATI, LATINI. For the influence of the commercial relations between Romans and peregrines on the development of the Roman private law, see IUS GENTIUM.-See DEDITICII, IUS CIVILE.

     Josephus records a number of treaties that offer special status to Jews as well.  So I can't say that they were of this type but it seems the easiest place to put them (sort of the default position that I know about).  It's less complicated than other explanations as far as I'm concerned.  It allows for local and Roman laws and all that without any real trouble.

 

          mwc

[Storm]

As I understand it, being a Jew really had nothing to do with whether or not you were a full citizen. Paul was a full citizen and evidently Josephus attained full citizenship. Both of these examples obtained their citizenship through family and/or working a job that was considered important to the Roman empire. From reading, I have learned that Paul was what was known as a Latini, because his father was a freed slave who apparently obtain a higher social status living in Tarsus, which was a major Roman city. Josephus earned his citizenship under the patronage of Flavians, and because he was from an aristocratic family that previously ruled Judea before the Roman conquest, and his father was apparently a high priest at one time as well.

[Blood]

The whole thing is a myth. Nobody was crucified on Passover. The Christian myth was that the Passover lamb, which was sacrificed and "crucified" (as Justin Martyr explain in "Dialogue with Trypho" 40), was, in his words, "a type of Christ." The reason "Jesus" must get crucified during Passover in Jerusalem is because the lamb must get crucified at that time and place. It is a mythic reimagining of the Passover sacrifice, with the Messiah taking the place of the lamb. A million apologists protesting that "I can't think of why anyone would have made it up!" does not alter the fact that it was made up. The crucifixion never happened in history. 

 

 

 

JUSTIN MARTYR "dialogue with trypho" CHAPTER XL -- HE RETURNS TO THE MOSAIC LAWS, AND PROVES THAT THEY WERE FIGURES OF THE THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO CHRIST.

"The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on Him. For that the creation which God created--to wit, Adam--was a house for the spirit which proceeded from God, you all can understand. And that this injunction was temporary, I prove thus. God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [goat], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scope [goat]; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem.

 

[Deidre]

A little later in the forum, this question is posed:

"why Jesus who was not a Roman citizen, was being treated as exceptional and given a Roman trial as though he was a citizen."

 

Interesting question, in my opinion...

 

Considering there's no evidence of Jesus' existence, why does a "fact" like this matter?

[Storm]

It lends to the credibility of the story. Although evidence is lacking, it doesn't mean that a person named Jesus didn't exist or didn't get crucified. We are only making educated guesses. But shining a light to the stories and beliefs that people have and exposing their flaws helps other people be able to make educated guesses. People like Blood have spent considerable time studying and learning about culture, history and the reasons why things were done the way they were. While I admire and trust that what he says has merit and is true, I want to seek the answers for myself. Picking the brains of people like him and ficino and ravenstar and the numerous others who post here regularly, I have increased my learning and understanding as to why the things I believed were wrong. That is why a fact like this matters.

[Deidre]

That's true. I think it's very common for religious people to cling to historical facts that were true at the time of the fables they believe in. But, a sprinkling of history doesn't make the Jesus story true, as we have all come to learn.

 

It does however give us a basic context of history and what the people were like during "Biblical times."

[VacuumFlux]

 

A little later in the forum, this question is posed:

"why Jesus who was not a Roman citizen, was being treated as exceptional and given a Roman trial as though he was a citizen."

 

Interesting question, in my opinion...

Considering there's no evidence of Jesus' existence, why does a "fact" like this matter?

 

 

Myths are a great way to understand other cultures. But you also have to understand something of the culture to really get the myths. Sometimes that means pointing out that a particular story is so full of anachronisms that you know it's a more modern story set in a historical time period. I sometimes find reading such stories (written in the past, set in an even more distant past but getting the details wrong) to be as entertaining as reading old sci-fi stories that are supposed to be set in today's time but guessed wrong about the progress of technology (like the people working on asteriod mining doing math with slide rules, or having no concept of social media). It's kinda fun to see which aspects of culture people wrongly thought were universal.

 

It's also like the way people who are really into a particular fictional universe will have heated arguements about how things work within that universe, and get angry at writers who retcon too much (retroactive continuty - altering the plot line or rules of the universe that were established in an early book/TV show/movie because that's not what the current writer wants to work with). I've been deconverted long enough that I don't need to point out the flaws in the bible in order to reassure myself that I made the right choice, but I grew up with so much of this that it's kinda fun to discuss with other people who also know a lot of it. Kinda like finding someone to have conversations in Klingon or Elvish with (I don't speak either, but I did once sit down with the Silmarion to start on an English-Elvish dictionary).

[Storm]

I've been deconverted long enough that I don't need to point out the flaws in the bible in order to reassure myself that I made the right choice, but I grew up with so much of this that it's kinda fun to discuss with other people who also know a lot of it. Kinda like finding someone to have conversations in Klingon or Elvish with (I don't speak either, but I did once sit down with the Silmarion to start on an English-Elvish dictionary).

 

I agree with this a lot. But, I am still deconverting. I've made the conscious choice not to believe anymore, but now I am piecing together the why I don't believe. I am looking at Christianity through a new lens and I see inconsistencies and things that I never noticed before. That is what I like to discuss with people who know.

The threads like ficino started about the disparities of the gospels are my favorite posts to read through because there is a ton of information presented and discussed. My hunger for knowledge definitely gets fed in those threads.