Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

Ammianus Marcellinus, the elegant historian of the decline of the Roman empire, speaks in high descriptive terms, both of the province, and the city which makes it eminent in Christian history. In narrating important events here performed during the times whose history he records, he alludes to the character of the region in a preliminary description. “After surmounting the peaks of Taurus, which towards the east rise into higher elevation, Cilicia spreads out before the observer, in far stretching areas,——a land, rich in all good things. To its right (that is the west, as the observer looks south from the summits of Taurus) is joined Isauria,——in equal degree verdant with palms and many fruits, and intersected by the navigable river Calycadnus. This, besides many towns, has two cities,——Seleucia, the work of Seleucus Nicator of Syria, and Claudiopolis, a colony founded by Claudius Caesar. Isauria however, once exceedingly powerful, has formerly been desolated for a destructive rebellion, and therefore shows but very few traces of its ancient splendor. But Cilicia, which rejoices in the river Cydnus, is ennobled by Tarsus, a splendid city,——by Anazarbus, and by Mopsuestia, the dwelling-place of that Mopsus, who accompanied the Argonauts. These two provinces (Isauria or ‘Cilicia the Rocky,’ and Cilicia proper or ‘level’) being formerly connected with hordes of plunderers in a piratical war, were subjugated by the proconsul Servilius, and made tributary. And these regions, placed, as it were, on a long tongue of land, are separated from the eastern world by Mount Amanus.”

This account by Ammianus Marcellinus is found in book XIV. of his history, (p. 19, edited by Vales.)

The native land of Saul was classic ground. Within the limits of Cilicia, were laid the scenes of some of the most splendid passages in early Grecian fable; and here too, were acted some of the grandest events in authentic history, both Greek and Roman. The very city of his birth, Tarsus, is said to have been founded by Perseus, the son of Jupiter and Danae, famed for his exploit at another place on the shore of this part of the Mediterranean. More authentic history however, refers its earliest foundation to Sardanapalus, king of Assyria, who built Tarsus and Anchialus in Cilicia, nine hundred years before Christ. Its origin is by others ascribed to Triptolemus with an Argive colony, who is represented on some medals as the founder. These two stories may be made consistent with each other, on the supposition that the same place was successively the scene of the civilizing influence of each of these attributed founders. So too, may be taken, the legend which Ammianus Marcellinus records and approves,——that it was founded by Sandan, a wealthy and eminent person from Ethiopia, who at some early period not specified, is said to have built Tarsus. It was however, at the earliest period that is definitely mentioned, subject to the Assyrian empire; and afterwards fell under the dominion of each of the sovranties which succeeded it, passing into the hands of the Persian and of Alexander, as each in turn assumed the lordship of the eastern world. While under the Persian sway, it is commemorated by Xenophon as having been honored by the presence of the younger Cyrus, when on his march through Asia to wrest the empire from his brother. On this occasion, he entered this region through the northern “gates of Cilicia,” and passed out through the “gates of Syria,” a passage which is, in connection with this event, very minutely described by the elegant historian of that famous expedition.

Sardanapalus.——The fact of the foundation both of Tarsus and Anchialus by this splendid but unfortunately extravagant monarch, the last of his line, is commemorated by Arrian, who refers to the high authority of an inscription which records the event.

“Anchialus is said to have been founded by the king of Assyria, Sardanapalus. The fortifications, in their magnitude and extent, still, in Arrian’s time, bore the character of greatness, which the Assyrians appear singularly to have affected in works of the kind. A monument, representing Sardanapalus, was found there, warranted by an inscription in Assyrian characters, of course in the old Assyrian language, which the Greeks, whether well or ill, interpreted thus: ‘Sardanapalus, son of Anacyndaraxes, in one day founded Anchialus and Tarsus. Eat, drink, play: all other human joys are not worth a fillip.’ Supposing this version nearly exact, (for Arrian says it was not quite so,) whether the purpose has not been to invite to civil order a people disposed to turbulence, rather than to recommend immoderate luxury, may perhaps reasonably be questioned. What, indeed, could be the object of a king of Assyria in founding such towns in a country so distant from his capital, and so divided from it by an immense extent of sandy desert and lofty mountains, and, still more, how the inhabitants could be at once in circumstances to abandon themselves to the intemperate joys which their prince has been supposed to have recommended, is not obvious; but it may deserve observation that, in that line of coast, the southern of Lesser Asia, ruins of cities, evidently of an age after Alexander, yet barely named in history, at this day astonish the adventurous traveler by their magnificence and elegance.” (Mitford’s Greece, Vol. IX. pp. 311, 312.)

Over the same route passed the conquering armies of the great Alexander. At Issus, within the boundaries of Cilicia, he met, in their mightiest array, the vast hosts of Darius, whom here vanquishing, he thus decided the destiny of the world. Before this great battle, halting to repose at Tarsus, he almost met his death, by imprudently bathing in the classic Cydnus, whose waters were famed for their extreme coldness. By a remarkable coincidence, the next conqueror of the world, Julius Caesar, also rested at Tarsus for some days before his great triumphs in Asia Minor. Cilicia had in the interval between these two visits passed from the Macedonian to the Roman dominion, being made a Roman province by Pompey, about sixty years before Christ, at the time when all the kingdoms of Asia and Syria were subjugated. After this it was visited by Cicero, at the time of his triumphs over the cities of eastern Cilicia; and its classic stream is still farther celebrated in immortal verse and prose, as the scene where Marcus Antony met Cleopatra for the first time. It was the Cydnus, down which she sailed in her splendid galley, to meet the conqueror, who for her afterwards lost the empire of the world. During all the civil wars which desolated the Roman empire through a long course of years in that age, Tarsus steadily adhered to the house of Caesar, first to the great Julius and afterwards to Augustus. So remarkable was its attachment and devotion to the cause of Julius, that when the assassin Cassius marched through Asia into Syria to secure the dominion of the eastern world, he laid siege to Tarsus, and having taken it, laid it waste with the most destructive vengeance for its adherence to the fortunes of his murdered lord; and such were its sufferings under these and subsequent calamities in the same cause, that when Augustus was at last established in the undivided empire of the world, he felt himself bound in honor and gratitude, to bestow on the faithful citizens of Tarsus the most remarkable favors. The city, having at the request of its inhabitants received the new name of Juliopolis, as a testimony of their devotion to the memory of their murdered patron, was lavishly honored with almost every privilege which the imperial Augustus could bestow on these most faithful adherents of his family. From the terms in which his acts of generosity to them are recorded, it has been inferred,——though not therein positively stated,——that he conferred on it the rank and title of a Roman colony, or free city, which must have given all its inhabitants the exalted privileges of Roman citizens. This assertion has been disputed however, and forms one of the most interesting topics in the life of the great apostle, involving the inquiry as to the mode in which he obtained that inviolable privilege, which, on more than one occasion, snatched him from the clutches of tyrannical persecutors. Whether he held this privilege in common with all the citizens of Tarsus, or inherited it as a peculiar honor of his own family, is a question yet to be decided. But whatever may have been the precise extent of the municipal favors enjoyed by Tarsus, it is certain that it was an object of peculiar favor to the imperial Caesars during a long succession of years, not only before but after the apostle’s time, being crowned with repeated acts of munificence by Augustus, Adrian, Caracalla and Heliogabalus, so that through many centuries it was the most favored city in the eastern division of the Roman empire.

The history of Cilicia since the apostolic age, is briefly this: It remained attached to the eastern division of the Roman empire, until about A. D. 800, when it first fell under the Muhammedan sway, being made part of the dominion of the Califs by Haroun Al Rashid. In the thirteenth century it reverted to a Christian government, constituting a province of the Armenian kingdom of Leo. About A. D. 1400, it fell under the sway of Bajazet II., Sultan of the Ottoman empire, and is at present included in that empire,——most of it in a single Turkish pashalic, under the name of Adana.

Roman citizens.——Witsius very fully discusses this point, as follows. (Witsius on the Life of Paul § 1. ¶ V.)

“It is remarkable that though he was of Tarsus, he should say that he was a Roman citizen, and that too by the right of birth: Acts xxii. 28. There has been some discussion whether he enjoyed that privilege in common with all the Tarsans, or whether it was peculiar to his family. Most interpreters firmly hold the former opinion. Beza remarks, ‘that he calls himself a Roman, not by country, but by right of citizenship; since Tarsus had the privileges of a Roman colony.’ He adds, ‘Mark Antony, the triumvir, presented the Tarsans with the rights of citizens of Rome.’ Others, without number, bear the same testimony. Baronius goes still farther,——contending that ‘Tarsus obtained from the Romans, the municipal right,’ that is, the privileges of free-born citizens of Rome; understanding Paul’s expression in Acts xxi. 39, to mean that he was a municeps of Tarsus, or a Tarsan with the freedom of the city of Rome. Now the municipal towns, or free cities, had rights superior to those of mere colonies; for the free-citizens were not only called Roman citizens as the colonists were, but also, as Ulpian records, could share in all the honors and offices of Rome. Moreover, the colonies had to live under the laws of the Romans, while the municipal towns were allowed to act according their own ancient laws, and country usages. To account for the distinction enjoyed by Tarsus, in being called a ‘municipium of Romans,’ the citizens are said to have merited that honor, for having in the civil wars attached themselves first to Julius Caesar, and afterwards to Octavius, in whose cause they suffered much. For so attached was this city to the side of Caesar, that, as Dion Cassius records, their asked to have their name changed from Tarsus to Juliopolis, in memory of Julius and in token of good will to Augustus; and for that reason they were presented with the rights of a colony or a municipium, and this general opinion is strengthened by the high testimony of Pliny and Appian. On the other hand Heinsius and Grotius strongly urge that these things have been too hastily asserted by the learned; for scarcely a passage can be found in the ancient writers, where Tarsus is called a colony, or even a municipium. ‘And how could it be a colony,’ asks Heinsius, ‘when writers on Roman law acknowledge but two in Cilicia? Ulpian (Liber I. De censibus) says of the Roman colonies in Asia Minor, “there is in Bithynia the colony of Apamea,——in Pontus, Sinope,——in Cilicia there are Selinus and Trajanopolis.” But why does he pass over Tarsus or Juliopolis, if that had place among them?’ Baronius proves it to have been a municipium, only from the Latin version of Acts, where that word is used; though the term in the original Greek (πολιτης) means nothing more than the common word, citizen, (as it is rendered in the English version.) Pliny also calls Tarsus not a colony, nor a municipium, but a free city. ([a]libera urbs.]) Book V. chap xxvii. Appian in the first book of the civil wars, says that Antony granted to the Tarsans freedom, but says nothing of the rights of a municipium, or colony. Wherefore Grotius thinks that the only point established is, that some one of the ancestors of Paul, in the civil wars between Augustus Caesar, and Brutus and Cassius, and perhaps those between this Caesar and Antony, received the grant of the privileges of a Roman citizen. Whence he concludes that Paul must have been of an opulent family. These opinions of Grotius have received the approval of other eminent commentators. These notions however, must be rejected as unsatisfactory; because, though some writers have but slightly alluded to Tarsus as a free city, yet Dio Chrysostom, (in Tarsica posteriore,) has enlarged upon it in a tone of high declamation. ‘Yours, men of Tarsus, was the fortune to be first in this nation,——not only because you dwell in the greatest city of Cilicia, and one which was a metropolis from the beginning,——but also because the second Caesar was remarkably well-disposed and gracious towards you. For, the misfortunes which befell the city in his cause, deservedly secured to you his kind regard, and led him to make his benefits to you as conspicuous as the calamities brought upon you for his sake. Therefore did Augustus confer on you everything that a man could on friends and companions, with a view to outdo those who had shown him so great good-will,——your land, laws, honors, the right of the river and of the neighboring sea.’ On which words Heinsius observes in comment, that by land is doubtless meant that he secured to them their own territory, free and undisturbed. By laws are meant such as relate to the liberty usually granted to free towns. Honor plainly refers to the right of citizenship, as the most exalted he could offer. The point then seems to be established, if this interpretation holds good, and it is evidently a rational one. For when he had made up his mind to grant high favors to a city, in return for such great merits, why, when it was in his power, should Augustus fail to grant it the rights of Roman citizenship, which certainly had been often granted to other cities on much slighter grounds? It would be strange indeed, if among the exalted honors which Dio proclaims, that should not have been included. This appears to be the drift, not only of Dio’s remarks, but also of Paul’s, who offers no other proof of his being a Roman citizen, than that he was a Tarsan, and says nothing of it as a special immunity of his own family, although some such explanation would otherwise have been necessary to gain credit to his assertion. Whence it is concluded that it would be rash to pretend, contrary to all historical testimony, any peculiar merits of the ancestors of Paul, towards the Romans, which caused so great an honor to be conferred on a Jewish family.”

But from all these ample and grandiloquent statements of Dio Chrysostom, it by no means follows that Tarsus had the privilege of Roman citizenship; and the conclusion of the learned Witsius seems highly illogical. The very fact, that while Dio was panegyrizing Tarsus in these high terms, and recounting all the favors which imperial beneficence had showered upon it, he yet did not mention among these minutiae, the privilege of citizenship, is quite conclusive against this view; for he would not, when thus seeking for all the particulars of its eminence, have omitted the greatest honor and advantage which could be conferred on any city by a Roman emperor, nor have left it vaguely to be inferred. Besides, there are passages in the Acts of the Apostles which seem to be opposed to the view, that Tarsus was thus privileged. In Acts xxi. 39, Paul is represented as distinctly stating to the tribune, that he was “a citizen of Tarsus;” yet in xxii. 24, 25, it is said, that the tribune was about proceeding, without scruple, to punish Paul with stripes, and was very much surprised indeed, to learn that he was a Roman citizen, and evidently had no idea that a citizen of Tarsus was, as a matter of course, endowed with Roman citizenship;——a fact, however, with which a high Roman officer must have been acquainted, for there were few cities thus privileged, and Tarsus was a very eminent city in a province adjoining Palestine, and not far from the capital of Judea. And the subsequent passages of chap. xxii. represent him as very slow indeed to believe it, after Paul’s distinct assertion.