Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] Re: "Religio" or "superstitio"?

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... This is simply not the case, as you ll see if you read Tacitus carefully. In the first place, who was a christianoi was not immediately apparent to them.
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Jan Sammer wrote:
      I should have said a proscribed superstitio, not a proscribed religio. In
      any case the practice of Christianity was punishable under Trajan (see
      separate message).

      >Nor is there any evidence that Nero could **not** move, if he so desired,
      >against anyone he wished without appeal to some prior proscription in
      matters
      >as grave as culpability for the fire.

      I doubt that Nero could move against anyone he wished, without evidence. He
      could move against a group whose religious beliefs did not enjoy official
      status.

      This is simply not the case, as you'll see if you read Tacitus carefully. In the first place, who was a christianoi was not immediately apparent to them. They had to "discover" them through informants. Secondly, all the lighting on Christianoi means is NOT that they that were a sect different from Jews, but they were one Jewish group among other, just as there were different Jewish groups in Rome distinguished by synagogue, residence, where they came from in the Diaspora, etc. In any case, it is the plain testimony of Tacitus that the charges against the christianoi were fabricated, that the christianoi (who had to be distinguished from non Christ believing Jews by inside informants) were not guilty of the crime of incendiarism, and that  their arrest, trial, and execution were actually illegal.   In other words, Tacitus declares that Nero acted against those he declared to be culpable for the fire despite a lack of evidence, in full knowledge that those he selected as scapegoats were innocent of the crime for which they were executed -- and that it was this illegal action, this particular instance of high handedness on Nero's part, which was one of the contributing factors in the turning of both the populace and the armies against Nero. Given this, and the whole list of illegal actions that both Tacitus and Suetonius note Nero was wont to undertake, your doubt about what Nero could or could not do is hardly well founded.

      [snip]

      Tacitus exculpates the Christians as being responsible for the fire, by
      stating that Nero "subdidit reos" , which has the clear connotation of
      offering scapegoats; yet a few lines later he states that they were "sontes
      et novissima exempla meritos" (guilty and deserving of the most exemplary
      punishment). So Tacitus admits their guilt and only objects to the cruel
      manner of their punishment. "Sontes" cannot refer to the charges of arson,
      since Tacitus has already stated that they were merely scapegoats. This
      conclusion is underscored by the unsavory terms in which he describes this
      new superstitio.
      Sorry but this won't do. All this is is an admission on Tacitus' part that he was glad to see the back of the Christians, not that they had actually broken any laws or that they were legally guilty of any crime.

      [snip]

      I agree that the Christians were not punished for odium. They were clearly
      punished as arsonists. The manner of their punishment is consistent with
      that. What is more, there may have really been arsonists among them. As
      said, Tacitus seems to exonerate them from the charge, yet calls them guilty
      and deserving of exemplary punishments, without making clear the nature of
      their guilt.
      What you neglect here is that torture was used to extract a (false) confession of arson and that Tacitus declares that those who were charged with setting the fire were actually innocent. And again, all Tacitus is doing in his pronouncement is expressing his disgust of foreign cults -- much like today's homophobics will applaud how AIDS has wiped out members of the gay community. It is not a pronouncement of legal culpability, but an expression of gladness that something bad happened to them.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
       

    • Jon Peter
      ... and ... Jeffrey, I think you missed the logic I was driving at in my question. The above was directly related to the Birkat issue which followed. I ll
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > >
        > > Wasn't it the case, though, that an offshoot sect would have been, by
        > > default, "superstitio" unless and until it gained recognition as licitas
        > > "religio"?
        >
        > If you take both Tacitus and Suetonius at their word, both the christianoi
        and
        > the ioudaioi were supertstio.


        Jeffrey, I think you missed the logic I was driving at in my question. The
        above was directly related to the Birkat issue which followed. I'll restate
        it my point:

        Hypothetically, IF official Jewish leaders determined that Christians were
        no longer to be regarded as Jews, and IF that view could eventually be
        communicated to the Roman government, then, wouldn't this cause Christians
        to be outside the protection accorded to a licitas religio?


        In any case, there is no evidence that Roman
        > elites began to recognize the christianoi as separate from Jews at the
        period in
        > question --


        Could you clarify your previous statements in which you seemed (to me) to
        say that this recognition is documented in 64? What is the 'period in
        question' to you if not the 60s?


        >
        > >
        > > If such was the case, then wouldn't the birkah ha-minim in the 80s have
        had
        > > the effect of formally excluding Christians from the legal rights
        enjoyed by
        > > Jews -- at which point, Christians would have automatically been
        subjected
        > > to punishment under law. Is that not correct?
        > >
        >
        > What makes you think that the Romans would take any notice or regard as
        valid
        > under Roman Law this Jewish decision? Indeed, if this was so it would be
        hard
        > to explain why in the winter of 95 CE Gamaliel took the opportunity while
        he was
        > in Rome to explain to audiences that Christians were not Jews (for this
        > tradition, see the art. on Gamaliel in the JE).>
        >

        I do not think Rome would pay instant attention to the Birkah -- but they
        would do so in time, once persuaded to it by the Jewish leadership's
        explanations. Your reference to Gamaliel provides excellent evidence to
        support my very point ! (thank you) The Birkat aims at excluding
        Christians. Thus, if the Romans learn of the Birkhat and accept it,
        Christians will no longer be under the legal umbrella. Rome can then assume
        the job of persecuting Christians officially. This development is not
        instantaneous however. Rather, it has been evolving for decades, since the
        beginning. Jamnia is a major turning point, after which, Jewish leaders
        begin a lobbying effort to convice Rome to buy in and treat Christians as
        illicit. Hence Gamaliel's embassy to Rome. Again, thanks for the supportive
        datum here Jeffrey.


        >
        > > >
        > >
        > > You appear to be saying that christianoi were tried/convicted for being
        > > hostile to Romans.
        >
        > No. Not at all. They were charge, tried, and convicted for being
        incendiaries --
        > even though they were not. It was the fact that they were, like Jews, on
        account
        > of their amixia, regarded as "hating humankind" that there was not much of
        a
        > protest when the trumped up charges were levelled against them. Note that
        even
        > Tacitus knows that the christianoi were innocent of starting the fire!
        >

        Thanks for your clarification. I wonder why you raised the humanity-hating
        charge if it was irrelevant to the discussion. (I don't want to sound
        ungrateful here. I didn't know Cicero and Romans thought this about the
        Jewish people, and I do appreciate your sharing so much contextualizing
        info, even when it isn't part of any argument.)


        > > If that is your explanation for Tacitus' legal
        > > terminology, then your argument against Jan seems a bit overstated. You
        seem
        > > not to disagree that the 64 AD Roman administration have singled out
        > > Christainoi for conviction of anti-Roman sentiment. In this, Christianoi
        are
        > > viewed as distinct from Jews.
        >
        > But I do disagree, and strongly. The Christian are not viewed as distinct
        from
        > Jews.

        I think the correct answer is that, in certain respects, Christians were
        regarded as distinct from Jews -- for example, when the issue was whom to
        use as scapegoats. Here, Nero chose Christians and excluded Jews. Hence he
        made a distinction in this case. However, in the formal legal terms,
        Christians were technically regarded as Jews. Would you not agree with that
        situational distinctions were being made?


        >
        > > Yet you dispute with Jan over the issue that
        > > christianoi were formally illicit. You seem to concede that sufficient
        > > differentiation exists so that Nero can arrest christianoi for a
        > > categorical, collective-style offense deserving of death.
        >
        > I do not concede any such thing, and you are putting "words in my mouth".
        Nero
        > does not arrest the christianoi for their style of life.


        Whether you realize it or not, you have indeed concede that a situational
        differation existed. I merely stated the logical implication to be drawn
        from the fact that Nero picked on Christians exclusively. You do agree that
        Nero did this. Hence you are acknowledging that Nero made the distinction.

        I never mentioned Christian lifestyle as Nero's motive for so doing, nor did
        I assert anything else about them. I merely pointed to the fact that Nero
        picked them. Your mentioning the anti-Christian lifestyle prejudices of
        the Roman population is indeed interesting context. Again, I appreciate your
        mentioning it for background. (I had had the apparently false impression
        that greater sympathy for Christians existed in some Roman quarters.)

        Since you know more about this than I, may I ask you if this perceived
        lifestyle of Christians involved a differentiation from Jewish lifestyles,
        in the popular mind? Or, was the Christian lifestyle simply the same as
        Jewish lifestyle? (i.e. humanity-hating) Thank you in advance.


        He recognizes that if
        > he trumps up charges against this particular group, who have a life style
        which
        > does not make them popular with the Roman populace, he will satisfy the
        roman
        > populace's clamouring to hold someone responsible for the fire. The
        implication
        > of Tacitus is that Nero also knew they were innocent of the charges under
        which
        > they were condemned -- incendiarism.


        >
        > > Surely that is a de facto designation of being an illicit belief system.
        >
        > Depends what you define as illicit. One that people don't like very much
        (like
        > the moonies or Muslims in a fundamentalist neighbourhood? Perhaps. But an
        > officially outlawed one, one that being a member of is against the law?
        Most
        > assuredly not. And you're equivocating on the term illicit. Sticking with
        the
        > issue of whether branch of judaism in Rome known as the Christianoi was at
        the
        > time of Nero officially declared, designated, or proscribed as a religio
        > illicta, the answer is no.
        >

        I agree of course, but you're arguing about the wrong topic. I was defending
        Jan's assertion that Christians and their texts were campaigning for
        official Jewish 'licitas' status. They were positioning themselves as
        submissive, law-abiding pacifists towards this end. For some reason
        (probably Nero's madness) their campaign failed and backfired. Two top
        Christian leaders were state-executed in the 60s, James was murdered, and
        Christians were scapegoats for the fire. (Incidentally, Clement's letter
        hints that Peter and Paul were somehow betrayed by envious religious
        persons.)

        What's the point in all of this discussion? I'm arguing that all parties --
        Romans, Christians and Jews -- regarded Christians as distinct in some
        significant ways, from non-believing Jews. This almost necessarily entailed
        a struggle between Jews and Christians over the honor and status of being
        "the true Jews." Hence, the polemic of the NT keeps pounding on this theme
        of legitimacy in text after text, as Jan has noted. The whole NT is making
        the case that "Christians make better Roman citizens than Jews, and
        Christians are really more biblically legitimate to boot. " The Jewish
        people also agreed that Christians were "different," and were a heresy, and
        so formalized this at Jamnia.

        Despite all of this, the Christians' power play failed. Neither Jan or I
        claimed it succeeded. We only say that the NT can be reasonably interpreted
        as a document supportive of the failed take-over scenario.

        Now I return to my earlier point and question: IF all parties could
        eventually agree that Christians were different, wouldn't this tend to
        exclude them from licitas protection?


        have themselves to . But the discussion is
        > [snip]
        >
        > > A couple of paragraphs above this, you appeared to say that the
        persecution
        > > involved Roman-hating. That made sense to me because it would account
        for
        > > mass-executions, which would be harder to justify if the charge is
        arson.
        > > Perhaps you could clarify how the 2 offense interact.
        >
        > Makes sense to you? Sure, if you ignore Roman law and let fantasy and a
        legally
        > uninformed imagination substitute for historical reality. Where in the
        whole
        > history of Roman law can you find odium generis humanii noted as a
        criminal, let
        > alone a capital offence?

        Jeffrey, it was you who raised this topic, not me, and you were arguing that
        this odium perception provided the motive, in Roman minds, for the fire. As
        you presented this originally, you left the clear impression (which you
        later corrected) that the odium perception was part of the legal proceding,
        as a motive issue. Thanks for the re-clarification.


        > >
        > > This seems way beyond an economic matter. The Imperial edict clearly was
        > > directed against Christian beliefs/practices.
        >
        > As a recent post demonstrates, there was no imperial edict. Trajan's
        advice was
        > just that, advice, not law.


        What's your interpretation of Pliny's statement to Trajan:

        **according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations.**

        I hope you are not attempting to call this a reference to mere "advice." It
        was indeed an order, and it required a death penalty.

        >
        > > I'd say Jan's interpretation of gospels as attempted exculpatory tracts
        or
        > > testimonials is
        > > at least plausible.
        >
        > Only if you believe they were intended for a non Christian audience, and
        that
        > the very claims within them about Jesus being Lord, Christ, Saviour would
        not be
        > taken to be the political counter claims to the claims of Caesar that they
        were
        > and would have been perceived as being. But that's another issue for
        another
        > post.
        >

        Okay with me! (time permitting)

        Best regards,

        Jon
      • Jon Peter
        ... Do you remember if the speaker (name/affiliation?) discussed Judaism as superstitio? Best regards, Jon
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim wrote:

          >
          > christianity was a superstitio becuase it was popular in some segments of
          > the empire. it became a religio when it was adopted by constantine.
          >

          Do you remember if the speaker (name/affiliation?) discussed Judaism as
          superstitio?

          Best regards,

          Jon
        • Jim West
          ... I dont believe so (except perhaps in passing). Dale B. Martin of Duke delivered a paper titled The Superstition of Christianity . Perhaps if you contact
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:16 AM 9/2/99 -0700, you wrote:

            >Do you remember if the speaker (name/affiliation?) discussed Judaism as
            >superstitio?
            >
            >Best regards,
            >
            >Jon

            I dont believe so (except perhaps in passing). Dale B. Martin of Duke
            delivered a paper titled "The Superstition of Christianity". Perhaps if you
            contact Dale he will share a copy of his address with you (I didnt ask for
            one or I would send it to you).

            Best,

            Jim

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++
            Jim West, ThD
            email- jwest@...
            web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
          • stephen goranson
            Dale is now at Yale. ... stephen goranson goranson@duke.edu
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Dale is now at Yale.

              >[....] Dale B. Martin of Duke
              > delivered a paper titled "The Superstition of Christianity". Perhaps if you
              > contact Dale he will share a copy of his address with you
              >(....]


              ----------------------
              stephen goranson
              goranson@...
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... FYI: Dale Martin has moved to Yale, succeeding Wayne Meeks. Jeff ... Jeffrey Peterson Institute for Christian Studies Austin, Texas, USA
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                At 1:47 PM -0400 9/2/99, Jim West wrote:
                > Dale B. Martin of Duke
                >delivered a paper titled "The Superstition of Christianity". Perhaps if you
                >contact Dale he will share a copy of his address with you (I didnt ask for
                >one or I would send it to you).

                FYI: Dale Martin has moved to Yale, succeeding Wayne Meeks.

                Jeff

                ------------------------------------
                Jeffrey Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, Texas, USA
                ------------------------------------
              • Jim West
                ... Thanks for the info... im surprised he didnt mention it when we last had coffee... :-) Just kidding, I never knew the guy. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:07 PM 9/2/99 -0500, you wrote:

                  >FYI: Dale Martin has moved to Yale, succeeding Wayne Meeks.

                  Thanks for the info... im surprised he didnt mention it when we last had
                  coffee... :-) Just kidding, I never knew the guy.

                  Jim

                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++
                  Jim West, ThD
                  email- jwest@...
                  web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  Jan Sammer wrote: [snip} ... Well, what has not been shown is that there ever was this verdict in a private case or more importantly that a private verdict in
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jan Sammer wrote:

                    [snip}

                    I have tried to show that the characterization of Christianity as a
                    superstitio (the word Tacitus uses in Annals XV.44) as distinct from the
                    religio licita of Judaism was not the result of a lex or an imperial edict,
                    but rather of a verdict in a private case, albeit one handed down by the
                    highest court of the Empire, the Court of Caesar. This would explain why
                    Christianity was persecuted sporadically and not systematically. Except for
                    isolated and brief periods, suppression of Christianity was not state
                    policy, as the suppression of Druidism was, for example.
                     
                    Well, what has not been shown is that there ever was this verdict in a private case or more importantly that a private verdict in a private case would have had the impact of an edict. For it to have had this, it would have had to have had to have been officially approved by the Senate through the issuance of a senatus consultum.

                    In any case, even if it there was a private verdict, not legitimized by the Senate,  which (against all legal precedent) nevertheless somehow was interpreted or ended up functioning as having the authority of a senatus consultum -- indeed, even if the Senate at the request of Caesar Senate had given official approval to the verdict and issued a official De Christianis -- what is neglected here is the fact, noted by Frend that Nero's suicide and his subsequent damnatio memoria by the Senate would have voided any real or imagined Neronic proscription (insitutium Neroniamnum) against the those whom he declared and/or tried and found guilty of setting the fire.

                    So, hard as it might be for you to accept, the realities of  Roman law and Roman history vacate any notion that before, during, or in the years after the fire, there was any official Roman proscription of those who bore the name christianoi.

                    In closing, I'd like to point out that if there was from Nero's time onward a legal ban, of whatever origin, let alone an official proscription against being a christianoi, then it is impossible to account for the fact that, with the exception of what Domitian may or may not have engaged in, the mode of operation in what persecutions there were against christianoi from after Nero until the end of the second century against christianoi was never police action on its own initiative, but private delation, followed by a cogito undertaken by a magistrate in the presence of both parties.  This is simply not what we'd expect if a proscription was in place. And the fact that the mode was as it was means the idea of an intitutium  Neronianumn against Christian, let alone one that stood behind and justified, and was the legal basis of,  the persecutions Christian underwent after Near is a fiction.

                    Yours,

                    Jeffrey
                    --
                    Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                    Chicago, Illinois 60626
                    e-mail jgibson000@...
                     

                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... Maybe I spent too many years in law school, but the part I naturally gravitated toward and quoted of Trajan is the statement of the substantive law. That
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:39 PM 9/1/99 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote [with some reformatting]:
                      > Ah, but this ignores the explicit notice with which Trajan begins his
                      >response to Pliny (who earlier had specifically written to Trajan, when
                      >receiving denunciations against individuals, both citizens and non citizens,
                      >on the rounds that they were Christians [ad me tamquam Christiani
                      >deferbantur], that he -- notably, someone who had held important
                      >administrative posts in Rome before being assigned to the governorship of
                      >Bythinia -- did not know whether it was the nomen itself (the mere
                      >profession of Christianity) or the sclerea (the "crimes" supposedly
                      >associated with it) that "it it is not possible to lay down any general rule
                      >which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature".

                      Maybe I spent too many years in law school, but the part I naturally
                      gravitated toward and quoted of Trajan is the statement of the
                      substantive law. That Pliny was confused about the basis for the
                      crime is of no import to the actual state of the law, because he
                      is the one asking Trajan for guidance. Trajan's statement that
                      "it is not possible to lay down a general rule" merely establishes
                      considerable discretion in the governors in prosecuting these cases,
                      but does not cast any doubts about the essential illegality of
                      being a Christian, which was set forth in Trajan's statement.

                      >No less an authority on the Roman persecutions of Christians than W.H. Frend
                      >concludes from this that "There was [at this point in Trajan's reign],
                      >therefore, no general edict proscribing Christians, and [Trajan himself] was
                      >not intent to pronounce one" (Martrydom and Persecution in the Early Church,
                      >p. 164).

                      Frend could be correct, depending on the meaning of "edict." I don't
                      know how the law was promulgated (whether by edict or otherwise), but
                      Trajan's response demonstrates a substantive rule of law in effect that
                      punished people for being Christians.

                      >So I am not as certain as you are, Stephen, that it is clear that in 115 or
                      >so that the Pliny/Trajan correspondence makes it clear that being a
                      >Christian was per se a crime.

                      It seems clear me that: (a) being a Christian is the accusation,
                      (b) being a Christian is the subject of the interrogation, and
                      (c) punishment is avoid by denying Christianity. These facts
                      suggest few other alternatives.

                      >>Therefore, Pliny's correspondence with Trajan shows that in the early
                      >>second century, being a Christian was a (capital) crime per se,
                      >>remaining on the books from an earlier time (Domitian?) even though
                      >>this crime was only sporadically enforced and consequently prone to
                      >>selective enforcement for a host other reasons, such as those
                      >>explained in Jeffrey's remarks.
                      > In the light of the above, I find this assertion questionable. Moreover it
                      >does not take into account the fact that even had there been a general
                      >proscription against Christians under Domitian (and even this is doubtful),
                      >Nerva's efforts to undo the deleterious effects of Domitian's attempt to
                      >quell anything that might detract from his own majesty, specifically his
                      >(Nerva's) edict in 97 disallowing anyone to bring accusations of impiety or
                      >maiestas or for adopting "Jewish ways of life" against anyone, would have
                      >put an end to that.
                      >
                      >So I doubt that in Trajan's time there was (if there ever had been) anything
                      >"remaining on the books" in this regard..

                      Since I read a reluctance on the part of both Pliny and Trajan in
                      enforcing the law (e.g. that Pliny knows that Christians should be
                      punished, but askes Trajan for excuses not to; and Trajan basically
                      grants Pliny much discretion in handling the situation), it seems
                      more like to me that the law was not promulgated by, but antedates
                      Trajan. Prior to Trajan, Domitian is the best candidate to do so.

                      The suggestion by other people on this list that Christianity was
                      outlawed by Nero, or in response to Paul's failed defense in Rome,
                      is untenable for many of the reasons that you have mentioned. The
                      charge in Nero's day was arson, not superstition.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... This does not seem very plausible to me. From what I ve studied of Roman law, it is very much based on code, not case law. Any policy of punishing
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 02:24 PM 9/2/99 +0200, Jan Sammer wrote:
                        >I have tried to show that the characterization of Christianity as a
                        >superstitio (the word Tacitus uses in Annals XV.44) as distinct from the
                        >religio licita of Judaism was not the result of a lex or an imperial edict,
                        >but rather of a verdict in a private case, albeit one handed down by the
                        >highest court of the Empire, the Court of Caesar.

                        This does not seem very plausible to me. From what I've studied of
                        Roman law, it is very much based on code, not case law. Any policy
                        of punishing Christianity at the time of Tacitus is more probably
                        due to an Emperor rather than to half-century stale case. Besides,
                        with Tacitus, there is the danger of his not uncommon retrojection
                        of later terms and idea into earlier times.

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... It sounds to me that you re implying that Romans was actually addressed to Romans officials (as part of defense team strategy ). Surely you don t mean
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 2, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 09:10 PM 9/1/99 -0700, Jon Peter wrote:
                          >I'd say Jan's interpretation of gospels as attempted exculpatory tracts or
                          >testimonials is
                          >at least plausible. It is consistent with all evidence and events. Paul's
                          >epistle to Rome is part of defense team strategy ("submit to authority" Rom
                          >13); likewise Heb 13 and Peter (1Pet2.18ff). All of this "obey the masters"
                          >verbiage was generated by men facing serious recurring legal problems and
                          >scrutiny ever since the crucifixion. Surely that fact isn't coincidental
                          >here.

                          It sounds to me that you're implying that Romans was actually addressed
                          to Romans officials (as "part of defense team strategy"). Surely you
                          don't mean this?

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.