I like all the discussion. Isn't it nice to have open and free dialogue without fear of WT labeling any of us apostate and DF-ing us?
That said, until I get this book in hand and read it, for sure it can be said book was written to sensationalize gory details of Rome. It also can be said author did NOT eyewitness the events he wrote about. So there must be references. As said, why is WT using a book like this when they would condemn anyone who went to see "Gladiator" or "Passion of the Christ" or even asking Ridley Scott or Mel Gibson to be a credible source of historical accuracy to be used in WT publication?
They made a statement of fact in paragraph 16 and used a gory novel to support the statement of fact. There has to be some reference to support statement used. I will dig until I find the answer but WT was stupid to grab a snippet like that to use in a study article. Or they just think no one will question anything they say or do.