🚀 go-pugleaf

"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in message 
news:G39gk.26052$GO7.5701@newsfe12.ams2...
>
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:6ea404F63ha8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "The Loan Arranger" <noone@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:5d-dnbl8Ndd98eLVRVnyvgA@bt.com...
>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> > The only writer of the new Testament who was a Roman citizen was 
>>>> > Paul.
>>>> ================================
>>>> All the writers were Roman citizens.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to say, Smiler, Robbie's probably right for once. Roman 
>>> Citizenship was distinct from being a citizen of a country under Roman 
>>> jurisdiction, and was very hard to earn.
>>>
>>> What I'm unsure about is whether he was a full Roman Citizen, or whether 
>>> he held the Latin Right, which was a kind of halfway-house between 
>>> non-citizenship and being a full Citizen. Ordinary people in a 
>>> subjugated country probably wouldn't really appreciate the difference, 
>>> or could be blinded to it. It wasn't uncommon for LR holders to claim to 
>>> their peers to be RCs, to enhance their standing, but they definitely 
>>> wouldn't try that to an official, at least not if they valued their life 
>>> or position.
>>
>> http://www.jgames.co.uk/title/Roman_citizenship
>>
>> Luke may or may not have been a Roman citizen; there is even speculation 
>> that he had been a slave, in which case he certainly would not have been 
>> a full citizen.
>>
>> Being natives of Palestine, it seems unlikely that Mark or Matthew had 
>> been full citizens.
>>
>
> Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not the writers of the gospels 
> attributed to them.
> The gospels were written long after the supposed disciples would have been 
> dead.
>

Granted, but even so, the apostles named do not appear to have been Roman 
citizens.  This whole thing started as an obscure millenarian cult among the 
Jews, and very few of them held citizenship.