Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2020
This article argues that one of the central theses of the counter-imperial reading of Paul has been more asserted than proved – namely, the thesis that Paul disguised anti-imperial sentiments in his letters specifically because speaking out against imperial authorities was too dangerous. This claim is the basic assumption behind the search in Paul's letters for ‘hidden’ or ‘coded’ transcripts. Such an approach can be found in the works of Warren Carter, N. T. Wright, and Richard Horsley, among others. But how likely is it that Paul would have felt the need to encode his anti-imperial sentiments? Was there really a risk that Roman soldiers would have intercepted Paul's mail or prosecuted him for its contents? Is the ‘hidden transcript’ idea an anachronistic concept based on modern surveillance states and transposed into the ancient world? This paper questions how likely it is that Rome's provincial governments would have had the inclination or ability to police private correspondence for seditious sentiments. From there, we can determine whether Paul is speaking as openly as he wants or is in fact protecting himself using ‘hidden transcripts’.
1 Scott, J. C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.
2 Scott's work posits the existence of ‘transcripts’ in public life as a way of describing the language, behaviour and interaction between the powerful and less powerful in a society. The ‘public’ transcript is the ‘open interaction’ between subordinates and those who dominate (Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 2), and is usually characterised by a misleading account of how the parties in question feel about one another. The subordinate class in particular must conceal their beliefs about the dominant class and the political status quo in order to avoid censure (3). This usually involves the subordinate class expressing submission and toleration of their disenfranchised status. The ‘hidden transcript’ is what is said and expressed when the powerful are not able to hear (6). According to Scott, this means that texts produced by a subordinate group may be ‘evasive’ (19) and express more discontent with the ruling class than is immediately apparent. Scott's work has been applied to NT studies most notably in R. A. Horsley's collection Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48; Atlanta: SBL, 2004). For an evaluation of the applicability of Scott's theory to the New Testament, see Heilig, C., Hidden Criticism? The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search of a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul (WUNT 392; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015) 54–67Google Scholar.
3 Walsh, B. J. and Keesmat, S. C., Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 54Google Scholar.
4 Beck, N. A., Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation (The Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1997) 1–2, 17Google Scholar; N. Elliott, ‘Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities’, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 97–122, at 117–22; Heen, E. M., ‘Phil 2:6–11and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule’, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (ed. Horsley, R. A.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004) 126–7Google Scholar; W. R. Herzog II, ‘Onstage and Offstage with Jesus of Nazareth: Public Transcripts, Hidden Transcripts, and Gospel Texts’, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 41–60, at 49; Carter, W., The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide (Abington Essential Guides; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006) 11–13, 12–21, 128–36Google Scholar; Schreiber, S., ‘Caesar oder Gott? (Mk 12, 17): Zur Theoriebildung im Umgang mit politischen Texten des Neuen Testaments,’ BZ 48 (2004) 65–85, at 70–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pascuzzi, M., ‘The Battle of the Gospels: Paul's Anti-Imperial Message and Strategies Past and Present for Subverting the Empire’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 30 (2007) 34–43, at 44Google Scholar.
5 My goal in this article is to discuss counter-imperial or anti-imperial interpretations of the New Testament, which I define as a reading that looks for allusions or hidden meanings expressing dissatisfaction with Rome. This is distinct from post-colonial criticism. Post-colonial critics may approach the text with scepticism or resistance, or to construct a theology that draws on biblical resources but does not adopt their views entirely. By contrast, counter-imperial interpreters tend towards more conservative approaches, looking for evidence that the NT writers themselves oppose Rome. These readings are often advanced by confessional scholars who intend for their interpretations to guide the civic life of the church. The phenomenon of the anglophone, counter-imperial reading of Paul, characterised by the SBL working group Paul and Empire, has been widely recognised and evaluated. See Boer, R., ‘Imperial Fetish: On Anti-Imperial Readings of the Bible’, Psychoanalytic Mediations between Marxist and Postcolonial Readings of the Bible (ed. Liew, T. B. and Runions, E.; Semeia 84; Atlanta: SBL, 2016) 45–64, at 45–8Google Scholar; also S. Krauter, Studien zu Röm 13, 1–7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit (WUNT 243; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 30–2. Burk makes distinctions between post-colonial and counter-imperial readings of the New Testament, though his goal is more to evaluate the ‘new perspective’ on Paul and fundamentalist theological views (Burk, D., ‘Is Paul's Gospel Counterimperial? Evaluating the Prospects of the “Fresh Perspective” for Evangelical Theology’, JETS 51 (2008) 309–37, at 323Google Scholar). Strecker provides a helpful breakdown of a spectrum of counter-imperial readings of Paul (C. Strecker, ‘Taktiken der Aneignung: Politische Implikationen der Paulinischen Botschaft im Kontext der Römischen imperialen Wirklichkeit’, Neues Testament und politische Theorie: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge dur Zukunft des Politischen (Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 2011) 114–61, at 116–21). This paper focuses on scholars who seek evidence of anti-imperial attitudes in Paul's own writing. This is one small segment of a much larger field of counter-imperial readings of Paul and the New Testament in general. Robert Jewett, in particular, has argued for an implicit criticism of Rome's honour-shame systems in Paul's non-hierarchical church structures, but does not argue for a hidden anti-imperial agenda in Paul's letters. See R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006) 48–9, 829–99.
6 Notable work to correct the excesses of anti-imperial interpretation of Paul has been contributed by White, J., ‘Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul: An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation’, Biblica 90 (2009) 305–33Google Scholar; Barclay, J. M. G., Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly 363–87; and Heilig, Hidden Criticism. White's article, while strong, does not explore the question of surveillance or controlled speech in antiquity. Krauter's book challenges counter-imperial readings of Romans on the grounds that a strident anti-imperial ethic is incoherent with Paul's larger theological goals in the letter, and any reading of Romans 13 must contribute to a larger ethic concerning the place of Jews and Christians in the Empire. See Krauter, Studien zu Röm 13, 1–7, 30–2.
7 N. T. Wright, ‘Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire’, Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PN: Trinity Press International, 2000) 160–83, at 173–81. See White's challenge concerning dual citizenship in White, ‘Anti-Imperial Subtexts’, 314–15.
8 See Klauck, H., Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum: Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT 152; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 265Google Scholar, who argues that ‘it would never have been wise to criticize an emperor directly’ if one was a member of a marginalised community (my translation). Diehl's article ‘Empire and Epistles’ posits that antagonism from ‘local Jews’ and ‘the Roman establishment’ would have required Paul to write so that no one who read his letters could accuse him or his readers of treason (22). How Diehl moves from antagonism with Jewish leaders to treason accusations is not clear. See Diehl, J. A., ‘Empire and Epistles: Anti-Roman Rhetoric in the New Testament Epistles’, CBR 10 (2012) 217–63Google Scholar. For an example from classical sources, see V. Rudich, Dissidence and Literature under Nero: The Price of Rhetoricization (London/New York: Routledge, 1997) xxiii, which again assumes the danger of speaking openly about leadership. Rudich's work on classical censorship is excellent but not particularly applicable to Paul's case. Rudich focuses on authors whose writings were intended for the well-off and whose work circulated well within the hearing of imperial leaders. However, the fact that Cremetius Cordus’ praise of Cassius and Brutus led to Cordus’ eventual execution (Dissidence and Literature under Nero, 13–14) does not mean that most private writers such as Paul could expect capital punishment for their own writing. Cordus’ work was apparently important enough that it was known to Augustus (Dissidence and Literature under Nero, 13), a level of readership which Paul's letters certainly did not have.
9 A. Smith, ‘“Unmasking the Powers”: Toward a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians’, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 47–66, at 54.
10 To bolster this point, Smith cites Sampley in Social World of First Christians and ‘Art of Safe Criticism,’ both of which discuss criticism directed to leaders, not about them. Sampley writes that frank speech might be discouraged because a blunt criticism is often rejected. This is not relevant for Paul's purposes, because Paul is not writing to the emperor. See Sampley, J. P., ‘The Weak and the Strong: Paul's Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13’, The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. White, L. M. and Yarbrough, O. L.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 40–52Google Scholar and Ahl, F., ‘The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome’, The American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 174–208, at 186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sampley, J. P., ‘The Weak and the Strong: Paul's Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13’, The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. White, L. M. and Yarbrough, O. L.. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 40–52, at 43–6Google Scholar.
11 R. A. Horsley, ‘Introduction’, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 1–28, at 9.
12 Wright, N. T., Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 71–2Google Scholar.
13 Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 74.
14 Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 60.
15 Wu, Y., The Cultural Revolution at the Margins: Chinese Socialism in Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014) 20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 See, for example, Elliott's argument that early Jewish resistance literature was by necessity ‘muted’, so that the Psalms of Solomon identify Pompey as ‘the sinner’ and the Habakkuk pesher identifies the Romans only as kittim. Elliott assumes that such terminology is the author being ‘evasive’ or ‘vague’. See N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008) 40. However, apocalyptic literature is a genre with its own tropes and conventions, few of which could ever be described as ‘muted’. First, apocalypses tend to appear in times of perceived crisis, which can include social or economic upheavals as well as political instability (Thompson, L. T., The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) 27Google Scholar). It does not follow that all these circumstances surrounding the production of apocalypses would require coding to evade censorship. Secondly, the heightened language of apocalypses usually requires some kind of ‘conversational context’ or mutual understanding of the circumstances surrounding an apocalypse to be comprehensible to viewers (Thompson, Apocalypse, 29). The images of an apocalypse have to be relatable to the reader's lived experience if he or she is going to interpret them. Many of the symbols of the book of Revelation are therefore quite obvious even to modern readers (the ‘seven hills’, for instance, in 17.9). This contradicts any idea that an apocalypse is a ‘muted’ or coded form of protest intended to evade official sanction.
17 Villiers, M. De ‘Roman Law of Defamation’, Law Quarterly Review 344 (1918) 412–19, especially 413–14Google Scholar.
18 Smith, R. E., ‘The Law of Libel at Rome’, The Classical Quarterly 1 (1951) 169–82, at 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar. ‘Before … Naevius almost every line could be delivered from the stage without risk of punishment … Then, at the end of the 3rd century bc [sic] Naevius was thrown in jail, attending further punishment, maybe even death, because his words offended potent politicians’ (119). However, in Naevius’ case, the insulted magistrates sponsored the production in question, attended it, and seem to have been explicitly named (117–19). None of these seem to have been conditions that would have affected Paul's writing. E. Loska, ‘Actor, Beware of What You're Saying!’, ‘They Called Me to Destroy the Wicked and the Evil’: Selected Essays on Crime and Punishment in Antiquity (ed. S. Nowicki; Beiträge zur Wiftschafts-, Rechts, und Sozialgeschichte des östlichen Mittelmeerraums und Altvorderasiens 1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2016) 113–21.
19 Smith, ‘Law of Libel’, 171.
20 We could also include anonymous pamphleteering under this heading. Though this kind of writing was criminalised, it is impossible to find evidence that Paul was interested in producing such material, or that it would have served Paul's missionary interests. Cramer, F. H., ‘Bookburning and Censorship in Ancient Rome’, Journal of the History of Ideas 6 (1945) 157–96, at 168–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Though note that Paul does name Aretas in 2 Cor 11.32. Barclay, Pauline Churches, 375.
22 Smith, ‘Law of Libel’, 172.
23 Guterman, S. L., Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome (London: Aiglon Press LTD, 1951) 45Google Scholar; K. V. Markov, ‘The Trial of Senator Libo: A Comparative Analysis of the Versions of Tacitus and Cassius Dio’, ‘They Called Me to Destroy the Wicked and the Evil’, 121–8, at 124–5. For the repealing and reinstatement of maiestas laws under Caligula, see Keaveny, A. and Madden, J. A., ‘The Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula: The Evidence of Dio Cassius’, The Classical Quarterly 48 (1998) 316–20Google Scholar.
24 Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem: A Study of Treason against the Roman Emperor with Special Reference to the First Century ad (Munich: Oscar Beck, 1974) 58Google Scholar.
25 Robinson, O. F., Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome (London and New York: Routledge, 2007) 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Marshall, T. W., ‘The Law of Treason under the Roman Empire’, Law Magazine and Review 22 (1896) 33–8, at 34–6Google Scholar; C. Gizewski, ‘Maiestas’, Brill's New Pauly (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneide), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e718120, accessed 10 August 2019. This is often taken to be the charge that Paul faces in Acts 17.7. See H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877) ii.104–5; F. Blass, Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: editio philologica apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895) 187; H. W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT ii/35; Tübingen: Mohr, 1989) 36–42; J. K. Hardin, ‘Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason's House (Acts 17.1–10a)’, NTS 52 (2006) 29–49, esp. 31 n. 5, from which the above sources are drawn.
27 See Tacitus, Ann. 1.74; Rudich, Dissidence and Literature under Nero, xxv–xxvi; Flint, W. W., ‘The Delatores in the Reign of Tiberius, as Described by Tacitus’, The Classical Journal 8 (1912) 37–42Google Scholar.
28 Dio Cassius, Roman History, Epitome 67.
29 R. A. Bauman, Impietas in Principem, 19. Marshall, ‘Treason’, 35–6, though Marshall nuances this to note that careless language was rarely prosecuted. Rosenblitt also posits that Tactius’ evaluation of Tiberius and emphasis on his tyranny is refracted through his experiences under Domitian. See Rosenblitt, A., ‘Rome and North Korea: Totalitarian Questions’, Greece & Rome 59 (2012) 202–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the accuracy of Tacitus’ take on treason trials, see Bowen, E. P., ‘Did Tacitus in the Annals Traduce the Character of Tiberius?’, The Classical Weekly 6 (1913) 162–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Judge argues that maiestas was specifically a crime of the upper class; civil disturbances committed by the non-elite Roman resident would be punished less formally. Judge, E. A., ‘The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica’, RTR 30 (1971) 1–7Google Scholar; Hardin, ‘Decrees and Drachmas’, 31–2; T. E. J. Wiedemann, ‘From Tiberius to Nero’, The Cambridge Ancient History (ed. A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 198–255, at 219; also R. A. Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (London/New York: Routledge, 1996) 40. Menouva notes that those sentenced for treason in the first century, according to the records of Tacitus, are senators; senators’ wives are convicted of magic or soothsaying. These people, Menouva argues, are ‘most guilty of the Emperor's or Empress’ personal disfavor’ (119). Further discussion of the control of upper-class literature can be found in M. Meiser, ‘Lukas und die römische Staatsmacht’, in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft (ed. M. Labahn and J. Zangenberg. TANZ 36. Tübingen: A. Francke, 2002), 180–184; Schreiber, ‘Paulus als Kritiker Roms?’, 342n12; K.A. Raaflaub, ‘Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the Greco-Roman World’, in Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (ed. I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen. Mnemosyne; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 41-62, at 54–7.
31 Clearly how Markov sees this offence. See Markov, ‘The Trial of Senator Libo’, 124–6.
32 Barclay, Pauline Churches, 381. For Barclay's in-depth study on Josephus’ rhetorical strategy and criticism of Rome, see particularly Pauline Churches, 307–16.
33 Barclay, Pauline Churches, 381.
34 Heilig, Hidden Criticism, 88–91.
35 See particularly the examples of Zerubbabel in Haggai 21–3. J. Schaper, ‘The Persian Period’, Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (ed. M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton Paget; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2007) 3–14.
36 A good example of this is the political messiah of the Qumran scrolls, as in 4QIsaiah 18–22. J. W. van Henten, ‘The Hasmonean Period’, Redemption and Resistance, 15–28, at 21–8.
37 See Bauman, Impietas in Principem, 100 for the trial of the historian Cordus. See also MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966) 55Google Scholar.
38 Burk, ‘Is Paul's Gospel Counterimperial?’, 317, and White, ‘Anti-Imperial Subtexts’, 309, both note that this vocabulary has Septuagintal origins. The use of the words εὐαγγέλιον, δικαιοσύνη, ἐκκλησία and παρουσία may not be drawn deliberately from the political sphere at all, but from the Septuagint.
39 Rudich in Political Dissidence under Nero calls the Julio-Claudian dynasty ‘as vicious as any modern dictatorship, with the difference that it lacked the technology that in our age provides the means of total control’ (242). When discussing dissidence in private communications between members of the working class, the difference that Rudich treats as incidental is actually quite significant, as I hope to show in this section.
40 Barclay, Pauline Churches, 381.
41 Nicholson, J., ‘The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero's Letters’, The Classical Journal 90 (1994) 33–63, at 33–4Google Scholar.
42 Stambaugh, J. and Balch, D., The Social World of the First Christians (London: SPCK, 1986) 40Google Scholar.
43 Nicholson, J., ‘The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero's Letters’, The Classical Journal 90 (1994) 33–63Google Scholar.
44 Nicholson, ‘Delivery’, 39–42.
45 For literacy rates in the Roman world, see Gamble, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 2–10Google Scholar.
46 For the limited policing abilities of the Roman Empire, see Krause, J., Gefängnisse im römischen Reich, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1996) 28–38Google Scholar; Fuhrmann, C., Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 182–5Google Scholar. Military police presence in the provinces actually seems to have been something of a scarce resource, and troops were particularly thin on the ground during Paul's lifetime. Gambash, G., Rome and Provincial Resistance (New York: Routledge, 2015) 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tertullian complains that Christians are being watched by curiosii in De fuga 13 – either informants (Furhman, Policing, 221) or soldiers (G. Lopuszanski, ‘La police romaine et les chrétiens’, L'Antiquité Classique 20 (1951) 5-46) who kept an eye on suspect local populations. These figures eventually had an intrusive role in Christian life, but Tertuallian writes well after Paul's era in a time where Chrsitians were an identifiable and disliked anti-social minority in the Roman world. It does not follow that Christians in Paul's day would have been subject to the same level of control.
47 Robinson, Penal Practice, 35.
48 Rutledge, S. H., Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (New York: Routledge, 2001) 21Google Scholar.
49 Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 20–53.
50 Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 21.
51 Another common motive for delation. Robinson, Penal Practice, 35.
52 One possible exception that has been suggested is οἱ ἄγγελοι in 1 Cor 11.10. Winter posits that these ‘messengers’ are possible informers who would gather information on the goings-on in church gatherings and report to the authorities. Winter, B. W., After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 134–8Google Scholar. This seems unlikely, since Paul speaks of ἄγγελοι three other times in the letter (1 Cor 4.9; 6.3; 13.1), and all of these refer to divine beings. There does not seem to be a reason to seek an alternative translation besides ‘angels’. These angels could be evil angels, who will endanger women they see with their heads uncovered, or they could be holy angels who are present with the congregation and oversee the creation order. See Hooker, M. D., ‘Authority on her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor 11:10’, NTS 10 (1964) 410–16, at 413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 100.
54 D. Georgi, ‘God Turned Upside Down’, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997) 148–57, at 157.
55 Georgi, ‘God Turned Upside Down’, 156.
56 See Barclay, Pauline Churches, 381. We should note that while eastern religions found adherents all over the Empire, the proselytism of ‘foreign’ religions among Romans was not often looked upon favourably. A number of sources attest to the fact that even authorised cults were subject to some control from the state (Guterman, Religious Toleration, 32–3).
57 Krause notes that the imprisonment of individuals who were known to cause disturbances was a common urban phenomenon in antiquity. These are, however, people whose behaviour is specifically associated with civil unrest and rioting, not with the publication of texts with possible subversive readings. See Krause, Gefängnisse, 98–9. For the legal specifics of Jesus’ trial, who was probably executed for similar reasons, see Cook, J. G., ‘Crucifixion and Burial’, NTS 57 (2011) 193–213, at 199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other ancient examples of Romans facing charges for instigating riots, see Bauman, Impietas in Principem, 85–6.
58 Heilig, Hidden Criticism, 130.
