chapter 3 Graeco-Roman Associations, Judean Synagogues and Early Christianity in Bithynia-Pontus*
Markus Öhler
As has been shown in numerous studies, early Christian communities as well as synagogues of Judeans resemble Graeco-Roman associations in form and structure. Therefore, it makes sense to examine Christ groups from the first three centuries from the perspective of associations and synagogues in order to grasp the various characteristics of Christianity in this area up until the reign of Constantine. This article will begin with a brief geographical and historical overview of the regions composing the double province of Bithynia-Pontus, continue with a review of the inscriptional and literary evidence on associa- tions (including synagogues), and finally discuss early sources for a study of Christianity, namely, the New Testament, Pliny’s letter about Christians, and inscriptions from the second and third centuries with a potentially Christian background.
1 Bithynia and Pontus: The Area and Its History in Early Imperial Times
The area of Bithynia et Pontus, which partly includes the region of Paphlagonia, has had a chequered history.1 In what follows, I will roughly focus on the territo- ries which formed a Roman double province from 63BC onward. This includes, from west to east, the region of Bithynia (from Kalchedon to Klaudiopolis and Tieion), Paphlagonia (from Amastris to Sinope), and Pontus (from Amisos to Nikopolis). Pontus had been a kingdom from Mithradates I until the death of Mithra- dates VI in 63BC. Afterwards, the western part, reaching as far as the city of Nikopolis, became part of the Roman province of Bithynia et Pontus which
* Many thanks to Julien M. Ogereau for not only correcting the wording of this article, but also for asking thought-provoking questions, which I (hopefully) was able to address. 1 See esp. C. Marek, Pontus et Bithynia: Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Mainz: Zabern, 2003) 30–43.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004367197_004 early christianity in bithynia-pontus 63 was established by Pompey. The eastern part formed a client-kingdom until its inclusion into the province of Galatia in AD64. Bithynia had been in var- ious alliances from 430BC until 74BC, when the Roman province of Bithynia was founded. Paphlagonia was included in the Roman province only to some extent, especially the parts near the coast. Most of the hinterland was part of the province of Galatia (since 5BC). Since the borders of provinces in north Asia Minor were never stable from early imperial times onward, some areas of Pontus formed small sub-provinces together with parts of Galatia or Cappado- cia.2 Archaeological research, including epigraphic surveys, has been much more intensive in Bithynia than in Pontus. This implies that the following overview is probably not representative of the actual historical situation. Nevertheless, a few findings will provide us with an insight into the world of local communi- ties, which was not completely different from the rest of Asia Minor.
2 Graeco-Roman Associations in Bithynia-Pontus
Voluntary associations were a widespread phenomenon already in classical Greece and became even more popular in Roman imperial times. They were important to the social structure of a city not only by providing social space for commensality, religious practices and other activities, but also by creat- ing social networks that supported ancient society.3 Most of the evidence for ancient associations comes from inscriptions, scarcely from literary sources. Archaeological remains of clubhouses are attested in various places in Asia Minor, such as at Pergamon or Ephesos, but unfortunately not in Bithynia and Pontus. Therefore, inscriptions will be mostly relied upon to gain insight into the structures of associations in this area.
2 For a detailed discussion, see Marek, PontusetBithynia, 30–43 and 182–183 (maps); S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 2.151–157. See also below the discussion on the address of 1Peter. 3 See e.g. A. Bendlin, “Gemeinschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Identität: Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom,” in ReligiöseVereinein der römischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (ed. U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 9–40.