306 Joel White Roman Empire could have lasted long if he resorted to it. That Paul made such statements was, of course, the very line of attack pursued by his enemies within the Jewish community. According to Luke, Paul’s brief imprisonment in Philippi resulted from charges that he was, in fact, involved in anti-Roman sedition (cf. Acts 16,21), an accusation that followed him to Thessaloniki, as well (cf. Acts 17,7), and his long imprisonment in Caesarea was due to the political intrigues of various Roman officials who were responsible for determining whether Paul had been guilty of the same crime in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 23,28-29; 25,8-9.18-19; 26,31). The fact that Paul was not condemned for sedition until the latter part of Nero’s reign, when the emperor was becoming increasingly capricious and dangerous, demonstrates how careful the Apostle must have been to avoid overt remarks that could be construed as anti-Roman (2). 2. Paul’s Positive View of the Roman State (Rom 13,1-7) Still, Paul’s caution cannot explain the fact that he seems to lend unequivocal support to Rome as a divinely sanctioned authority in the one passage in which he actually discusses the relationship of Christians to the imperial state: Rom 13,1-7. From time to time it has been argued that Paul’s favorable view of the Roman government here is conditioned by the time at which he wrote it: in the first half of Nero’s reign, when it still seemed likely that Nero would, under Seneca’s and Burrus’ influence, develop into a wise and humane ruler (3). Paul’s reference to the “authorities” (ejxousivai), however, likely translates the Latin potestates, a term that referred to a broad range of Roman officials (4). Thus, Paul is probably not thinking about appears as vicious as any modern dictatorship, with the difference that it lacked the technology that in our age provides the means of total control”. (2) Cf. RUDICH, Nero, xxiii: “[First,] writers and orators of the epoch were actually aware of the fact that their discourse could be subjected at any point to a ‘prejudiced interpretation’ by a benevolent or malevolent, dissident or censorious reader. Second, any text or speech could theoretically be charged with an intention to do harm. A Julio-Claudian public figure had to step cautiously, with an eye to every word issuing from his pen or his mouth ... ”. (3) Cf. e.g. Th. ZAHN, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Leipzig 1910) 558; R. JEWETT, Romans. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2007) 793. (4) Cf. V. ZSIFKOVITS, Der Staatsgedanke nach Paulus in Röm 13,1-7, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Umwelt und der patristischen Auslegung (Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 8; Wien 1964) 64-65; A. STROBEL, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 13”, ZNW 47 (1956) 79.