The Economic and Honorific Organization of the Corinthian Ekklēsia

Money, Meals, and Honour: The Economic and Honorific Organization of the Corinthian Ekklēsia

By Richard Last

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of philosophy

Department for the Study of Religion

University of Toronto

Abstract Money, Meals, and Honour: The Economic and Honorific Organization of the Corinthian Ekklēsia

Richard Last Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Department for the Study of Religion University of Toronto

In standard portrayals of Paul’s Corinthian ekklēsia, the Christ-group is said to have existed without the level of economic and honorific organization we know to have been rather generalized in Greco-Roman associations: it did not collect subscription fees, failed to appoint or elect temporary officers, and neglected presentation of formal honorific prizes to its service- providers (e.g., crowns, proclamations, honorific inscriptions). In contrast to ancient associations, the ekklēsia, many scholars presently maintain with very little disagreement, had

“no real organization” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 298), and its members shared a “close, undifferentiated mode of social relationship” (Meeks, First Urban, 88) that is often described as ecclesiastical egalitarianism.

This dissertation offers a different perspective by setting the practices of the Corinthian

Christ-group alongside practices that are much more fully known from Greco-Roman associations, and asks whether the structural features (economic and honorific) we know to have been common in Greco-Roman associations might also be evidenced in the Corinthian Christ- group. My argument is that the ekklēsia was a structurally sophisticated group equipped with a common fund and a schedule for subscription fees, a “flat hierarchy” of elected temporary officers, and competition among members to perform services that would be reciprocated with crowns and other forms of formal commendation.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude, first, to my advisor, John Kloppenborg. During my time at the University of Toronto, he was an ideal scholarly role model and gave an enormous amount of time mentoring me at all stages of my doctoral degree. The invitation to join his GRA project as a research trainee in 2012-13 changed the direction of my dissertation for the better – I cannot remember what chapters two and three were supposed to look like before working on

Egyptian papyri with him, Sarah Rollens, and Callie Callon.

I thank the members of my dissertation committee, John Marshall and Andreas Bendlin, for reading and providing feedback on all chapters. John Marshall challenged me to clarify sections and terms that were formerly obscure, and helped me gain a clearer sense of how to frame and connect the research that went into each chapter. Andreas Bendlin was generous with his time at various stages while I researched and wrote this dissertation and was particularly helpful in conversations and literature recommendations concerning legal dimensions of ancient clubs. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dennis Smith and Bradley McLean, external and internal examiners, who offered valuable comments on this manuscript.

Many scholars have read, or listened to, earlier versions of chapters, and I have benefitted from their feedback. I extend special thanks to John Barclay for his helpful criticism on chapter six, and to Terence Donaldson for his comments on chapters two and three. Other scholars have offered much-appreciated encouragement and comments on my research over the past few years:

Anders Runesson, Markus Öhler, David Sim, Daniel Schwartz, Ian Henderson, Jennifer Harris,

Ken Derry, Eileen Schuller, Margaret MacDonald, Richard Ascough, Philip Harland, and

William Arnal.

iii

I would also like to thank my colleagues at the University of Toronto for their friendship and willingness to have conversations on matters such as ancient law, ξένοι, elections, and crowns: David Kaden, Sarah Rollens, Ronald Charles, Brigidda Bell, Callie Callon, Ian Brown, and Ryan Olfert.

I thank New Testament Studies for their permission to include, “The Election of Officers in the Corinthian Christ-Group.” I am very grateful for financial support from the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the Faculty of Arts and Science at the

University of Toronto.

I could not have completed this dissertation without the support and love of my family:

Debbie, Rob, Jason, and Derek.

Finally, I owe much gratitude to my wife, Vanessa Kehoe-Last, for her patience, love, and faith in me while I completed my doctoral degree.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………. vi

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….. x

Chapter One: Economic and Honorific Organization ……………………………………. 1

Chapter Two: Three Modest Clubs ………………………………………………………. 24

Chapter Three: The Corinthian Common Fund ………………………………………….. 59

Chapter Four: Services and Recognition in Associations ………………………………... 93

Chapter Five: Services and Recognition in the Ekklēsia …………………………………. 117

Chapter Six: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group ……………………………… 159

Chapter Seven: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour ……………………………………….. 179

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….. 198

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………… 201

Abbreviations and Translations

Abbreviations follow The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). Many abbreviated papyrological and epigraphic sources can be found in two recent collections:

AGRW Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg. Associations in the Greco-Roman World. A Sourcebook. Waco, Tx.: Baylor University Press, 2012.

GRA I Kloppenborg, John S., Philip A. Harland, and Richard S. Ascough. Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. BZNW 181. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Volume 1. Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace. 2011– .

Translations from the abovementioned volumes are the editors’ unless indicated otherwise. The papyri and epigraphy that I cite outside of GRA I and AGRW can be found in the following volumes. Translations of this material are my own unless noted otherwise.

AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1896 –.

BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (later Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–.

CIG Boeckh, A., ed. Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1828-1877.

CIJ Frey, J.B., ed. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant J.–C. 2 vols. Roma: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1936–1952. I. Europe (1936); II. Asia-Africa (1952).

CIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editum. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1863-1974.

IAlexandriaK François Kayser, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines, non funéraires, d'Alexandrie imperial: Ier-IIIe s, apr. J.-C. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, 1994.

IApamBith Corsten, Thomas. Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai. IGSK 32. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1987

IChios McCabe, D., and J.V. Brownson. Chios Inscriptions. Texts and List. Princeton: Institute for Advanced study, 1986.

ICorinth I Benjamin Dean Meritt, Corinth: Results of excavations. Greek Inscriptions 1896- 1927. Vol.8/1. American School of Classical Studies at Athens; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931.

ICorinth III John Harvey Kent, Corinth: Results of excavations. The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Vol.8/3. American School of Classical Studies at Athens; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.

IDelta Bernand, A., ed. Le delta égyptien d’après les texts grecs 1: Les confines libyques. 3 vols. Mémoires publies par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 91. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1970.

IEph Engelmann, H., H. Wankel, and R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. IGSK 11-17. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1979-1984.

IErythrai H. Engelmann and R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1972-4.

IG II2 Kirchner, Johannes, ed. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. 4 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1913–1940.

IG V/1 Kolbe, W., ed. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae, part 1. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1913.

IG XII/1 Hiller von Gaertringen, Friedrich F., ed. Inscriptiones Rhodi, Chalces, Carpathi cum Saro, Casi. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1895.

IG XII/5 Hiller von Gaertringen, Friedrich F., ed. Inscriptiones Cycladu. 2 vols. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1903-1909. I: Inscriptiones Cycladum praeter Tenum (1903); II: Inscriptiones Teni insulae (1909).

IG XII/7 Delamarre, J., ed. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1908.

IGRR Cagnat, R.L., J.F. Toutain, V. Henry, and G.L. Lafaye, eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: E. Leroux, 1911–1927. Vol 1: (nos. 1– 1518) ed. R.L. Cagnat, J.F. Toutain, and P. Jouguet (1911); Vol 2: never published; Vol 3: R. Cagnat and G. Lafaye (1906); Vol. 4: Asia (nos. 1–1764) ed. G. L. Lafaye (1927).

IGUR Moretti, Luigi. Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5 parts. Rome 1968- 1990.

IMagnesia Kern, Otto. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1900.

vii

IMT Barth, Matthias and Josef Stauber. Inschriften Mysia und Troas. Munich: Leopold Wenger-Institut, 1993.

IPerinthos Sayar, Mustafa Hamdi, ed. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 269 = Veröffentlichungen der kleinasiatischen Kommission 9. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998.

LSS Sokolowski, F. Lois Sacrées des Cités Grecques. Paris, 1969

MAMA Calder, W.M., E. Herzfeld, S. Guyer and C.W.M. Cox, eds. Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua. 10 vols. American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia Minor. Publications 1–10. London: Manchester University Press, 1928–1993.

O.Edfou Tell Edfou. Cairo: Institut Franc ais d Archéologie Orientale, 1937-1950.

OGIS Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–1905. Repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970. O.Wilck Wilcken, U., ed. Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien. 2 vols. Leipzig- Berlin 1899.

P. Ant. The Antinoopolis Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950 –.

P.Athen. Petropoulos, G.A., ed. Papyri Societatis Archaeologicae Atheniensis. Athens, 1939.

P.Giss. Eger, O., E. Kornemann, and P.M. Meyer, ed. Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig-Berlin 1910-1912.

P.Lille dem. Sottas, H., ed. Papyrus démotiques de Lille. Paris, 1927.

P.Mich Michigan Papyri, 1931 –.

P.Oslo Eitrem, S., and L. Amundsen, ed., Papyri Osloenses, 1925 –.

P.Oxy. Grenfell, B.P., et. al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 1898–.

P.Lond. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1893–1974. I: ed. F.G. Kenyon, 1893; II: ed. F.G. Kenyon, 1898; III: ed. F.G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell, 1907; IV: The Aphrodito Papyri, ed. H. I. Bell, with appendix of Coptic papyri, ed. W. E. Crum, 1910; V: ed. H. I. Bell, 1917; VI: Jews and Christians in Egypt; The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, ed. H. I. Bell, 1924; VII: The Zenon Archive, ed. T. C. Skeat, 1974.

viii

P. Lund Knudtzon, E.J., ed. Bakchiastexte und andere Papyri. 1945—1946.

P.Ryl. Johnson, J. M., V. Martin, A. S. Hunt, C. H. Roberts, and E. G. Turner. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1911-1952

PSI III Papiri greci e latini. Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto. Vol.3 = 1914.

P.Tebt. Bernard P. Grenfall, Arthur S. Hunt, J. Gilbart Smyly, ed., Tebtunis Papyri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902–.

SB Preisigke, F. and F. Bilabel, et al. eds. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Strassburg: K. J. Trubner; Wiesbanden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1915–.

SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Leiden: Brill, 1923–.

Syll3 Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Leizpig: S. Hirzel, 1915–24.

UPZ Wilcken, U., ed. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). 2 vols. Berlin: Leipzig, 1927-57.

O.Narm. Pintaudi, R., and P.J. Sijpesteijn, ed. Ostraka greci da Narmuthis (OGN I). Pisa 1993

List of Tables

2.1 Corinthians in Economic Scales 33

3.1 The Finances of a Modest Association (P.Tebt. I 118; Tebtynis, Egypt; late II BCE) 73

3.2 Expenditures of the Corinthian Ekklēsia 81

5.1 The ξένοι of Associations 128

7.1 The Opposite of a Corinthian ίδιώτης 189

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

CHAPTER ONE:

Economic and Honorific Organization

1. Introduction

Scholars often portray the Corinthian ekklēsia to have survived the 50s without the level of economic and honorific organization that kept Greco-Roman associations alive. For example,

Gerd Theissen believes “it is obvious” that the Corinthians did not elect or appoint temporary officers1; Eva Ebel argues it is “unübersehbar” that the Christ-group would not have collected subscription fees2; and Wayne Meeks contends that the ekklēsia was “quite different” from associations in that it did not “reward its patron[s] with encomiastic inscriptions, honorary titles,

[and] wreaths.”3 On the whole, scholarship depicts the Christ-group as possessing “no real organization”4 and, in this respect, as quite unique from associations.

1 Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 84 (2001):65-84, at 78. 2 Eva Ebel, Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel grichisch- römischer Vereine (WUNT 2/178; Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 217. 3 Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 78. 4 Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 298. This is a longstanding position on Corinthian financial and hierarchical organization that has been articulated to varying degrees by several scholars. Some examples include: Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight lectures delivered before the University of Oxford in the year 1880 on the foundation of the late John Bampton (London: Rivingtons, 1881) 119-120; Johannes Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) xxiv-xxvi, 386; Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1961) 99; Meeks, First Urban, 134; Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 113-117, cf. 205; Thomas Schmeller, Hierarchie und Egalität: eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung paulinischer Gemeinden und griechisch-römischer Vereine (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995) 77-8; Jan Bremmer, “The Social and Religious Capital of Early Christians,” Hephaistos 24 (2006): 269-78, at 276; and Stanley K Stowers, “Kinds of Myth, Meals, and Power: Paul and the Corinthians,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (Early Christianity and Its Literature 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 105-49 at 109. For scholarship on Pauline Christ-groups and “egalitarianism” – a word that some but not all of the above use – see John S. Kloppenborg, “Egalitarianism in the Myth and Rhetoric of Pauline Churches,” in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honouring Burton L. Mack (eds. Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig; Valley Forge, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1996) 247-63.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

My dissertation offers a different perspective. Working within an analogical comparative framework established by Jonathan Z. Smith, and introduced to the study of ancient cult groups by John Kloppenborg, I find that the Corinthian ekklēsia organized their financial and honorific matters in ways that fit within the range of economic and honorific practices attested by modest and middling Greco-Roman association. To be sure, individual clubs, depending on their members’ socio-economic status, collected different amounts of fees at their banquets, required varying financial commitments from magistrates, and delivered different types of rewards to their service-providers, but three organizational features – subscription fees, offices, and delivery of honorific prizes – were rather generalized and, indeed, necessary for most associations’ ability to function. This dissertation will argue that these three economic and honorific organizational features were foundational in the Corinthian ekklēsia.

2. The Association Model

The Corinthian ekklēsia, like other social groups, met regularly (1 Cor 16:2) to dine (11:17-34), and participate in cultic activity and symposia (1 Cor 14:26). It shared these practices with

Judean synagogues, Greco-Roman associations, and philosophical schools. In the past, the boundaries between these groups had been emphasized, and scholars debated the differing essential features of an association, a philosophical school, and so forth.5 Recent scholarship

5 After reviewing household, synagogue, school, and association models, Wayne Meeks contends that “the structures worked out by the Pauline movement itself … may after all have been unique” (idem, First Urban, 84). Richard A. Horsley, strikingly, argues, “[c]ritical review of these ‘models’ … suggests that they offer far less by way of ‘significant analogies’ than Meeks thought. Indeed, this review suggests far more strongly than Meeks did that we must look for the distinctive features of the ekklēsiai that Paul advocated within his letters themselves” in “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth. Interdisciplinary Approaches (ed. Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen; Harvard Theological Studies 53; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005) 371-395, at 381. For the boundary between schools and associations, see Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933) 1-14.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization finds too much diversity within these models of ancient community to speak of central aspects.6

It is for this reason that Richard Ascough prefers a broad definition of “associations” that can, in fact, fit all four models: “a group of men and/or women organized on the basis of freely chosen membership for a common purpose.”7

The boundary between synagogues and associations was already blurred in the first century. For example, when Josephus described Julius Caesar’s ban of thiasoi banquets in Rome, he noted that Jewish synagogues were exempted from this law (Ant. 14.213-16).8 The implication is that Josephus understood Diaspora synagogues as types of associations in antiquity

– so much so that he felt the need to specify that Judean (thiasoi) gatherings were not affected by

Caesar’s regulation concerning Roman thiasoi. Josephus also mentions Judeans from Sardis who established “their own association” (σύνοδος ... ἰδία; Ant. 14.235). His descriptor of this synagogue, σύνοδος, was commonly used as a title of Greco-Egyptian clubs.9

The modern notion of a “synagogue” as something specifically-Jewish does not translate well in antiquity. “Synagogue” derives from συναγωγή, a designator used by some Greek

6 See John S. Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch, Churches and Collegia,” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (ed. Bradley H. McLean; JSNTS 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 212-38, at 231. John M.G. Barclay concedes,“[t]o ask … in what respects the Diaspora synagogues or early churches were like ‘associations’ is akin to asking whether churches today are like clubs: there are too many different kinds of churches, and too many different kinds of club to make this vague and over- generalised comparison of much heuristic value.” See idem, “Money and Meetings: Group Formation among Diaspora Jews and Early Christians,” in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (ed. Andreas Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch; STAC 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 113-27, at 114-5. 7 Richard S. Ascough, “Associations, Voluntary,” in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. David N. Freedman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000) 117-18, at 117. 8 Any inaccuracies in Josephus’ passage concerning the Caesarian decree were likely introduced during later transmission of the text. For discussions of this issue, see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (TSAJ 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 107-18; Zvi Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983) 85-93; and Tessa Rajak, “Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?”JRS 74 (1984): 107-23. Despite the text’s possible inaccuracies, Barclay finds it useful in his analogical comparison of ancient communities since it “suggests that [Josephus] did not consider this categorisation of Dispora communities to be implausible” (“Money and Meetings,” 113 n.1). 9 See, for example, P.Oslo III 143.1 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; I CE); P.Ryl. IV 590.4,8 (Unknown provenance, 51-30 BCE); and IAlexandriaK 65.5 (Alexandria, Egypt; I CE).

1: Economic and Honorific Organization associations in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. The following inscription, for example, was produced by a synagogue (association) of barbers (IPerinthos 49A = GRA I 86; Perinthos,

Thrace, I CE and II CE):

[N.N.] the administrator and Marcus Pompeius Komikos, son of Komikos, restored the altar to the association (συναγωγή) of barbers, those around the chief-convener (ἀρχισυναγωγός) Gaius Iulius Valens, and provided the location (land).

Other Greek, non-Jewish, associations labeled themselves synagogues, as well,10 or used the word to describe the act of coming together for a meeting in the formulaic phrase ἐπὶ τῆς

γενηθείσης συναγωγῆς (“having come together in the assembly”).11

An inscription from a Judean synagogue from Cilicia clarifies why ancient authors could describe asociations as synagōgai, and synagogues as synodoi – namely, because they took part in many similar practices (OGIS 573 = AGRW 213; Cilicia; late I BCE – early I CE). This engraving was produced by an association of “Sabbatists” (Σαββατισταῖ). It mentions a certain

Prōtos, a member from the synagogue, who recommended that the group honour Aithibelios, the synagogue leader (συναγωγεύς, l.10) with a crown. This group would need funds with which to purchase this reward, as well as to complete their other activities, such as writing expenses (ll.11-

15). Mention is made at the end of the inscription to contributions (ἰσφερόμενα, l.25), perhaps paid by each member. This source, then, attests to honorific and economic practices frequently observed in association papyri and epigraphy. To be sure, the group behind this inscription

10 For example, a synagogue of merchants: IPerinthos 59 (I-II CE); and a synagogue of Zeus: IApamBith 35 (119 or 104 BCE). See John S. Kloppenborg and Richard S. Ascough, eds., Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (vol. 1 of Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary; Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 2011) 312 n.11, 389.

11 See, for example, BGU IV 1137.2 (Alexandria, Egypt; 6 BCE); IAlexandriaK 91.3 (Alexandria, Egypt; 3/4 CE)

1: Economic and Honorific Organization cannot definitively be identified as a synagogue or association,12 but this only highlights the convergences between the categories. As a result of these and other data, some scholars now speak of “Judean associations” rather than uphold firm boundaries between associations and synagogues.13

There is some reason now to also abandon certain distinctions between associations and philosophical schools, such as Arthur Darby Nock’s argument that associations primarily took part in temporary ritual practices whereas philosophical schools mostly showed concern for on- going moral exhortation.14 Kloppenborg has recently demonstrated that associations engaged in moralizing discourse resembling the intellectual practices of philosophies to a greater extent than had been recognized previously.15 Moreover, we have evidence of philosophical schools participating in common meals and honorific practices resembling those of cultic associations

(IAlexandriaK 98; 3/4 CE):

ιον ημήτριο[ν]

12 The association’s leader, Aithibelios, seemingly had an Aramaic or Phoenician name. See Richard S. Ascough, Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg, ed., Associations in the Greco-Roman World. A Sourcebook (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2012) 128. Even if this group did not consist of Judeans, or devotees of the Judean God, several other Judean inscriptions illuminate strategies implemented to meet economic and honorific concerns in Greek associations. See, for example, IJO I Mac1 = GRA I 73 (Stobi, Macedonia, II-III CE); and IJO II 36 = AGRW 105 (Kyme or Phokaia, Asia Minor; III CE). 13 See, for example, Peter G. Richardson, “Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson; London and New York: Routledge, 1996) 90-109; idem, “An Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations,” in The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins Until 200 C.E.: Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University October 14-17, 2001 (ed. Birger Olson and Magnus Zetterholm; CBNT 39; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2003) 90-117; Matthias Klinghardt, “The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statues of Hellenistic Associations,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Colllins, and Dennis G. Pardee; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 251-70; Anders Runesson, Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001); and Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 340-45. 14 Nock. Conversion, 1-14; Robert L. Wilcken, “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology,” in The Catacombs and the Colosseum: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity (ed. Stephen Benko and John J. O’Rourke (Valley Forge: Judson, 1971) 268-91. Re-assessments include: Steve N. Mason, “Philosophiai: Greco- Roman, Jewish, and Christian,” in Voluntary Associations (ed. Kloppenborg and Wilson) 31- 58, esp. 38-41; and the forthcoming paper, John S. Kloppenborg, “The Moralizing of Discourse in Graeco-Roman Associations.” 15 Kloppenborg, “Moralizing of Discourse.”

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

τὸν ῥήτορα [ο]ἱ φι όσοφοι, [Φ α]ουΐου Ἱέρακος 5 [τοῦ] συσσίτου ἀναθέντος, [— —ca.13— —] κ α ὶ πα τ έρ α .

The philosophers (honour) Aelios Dēmētrios, the orator. Flavios Hierax, member of the banqueters (at the Alexandrian Museum), dedicated (the statue) … and father.

Strabo provides additional information about this association (17.1.8):

[t]he Museum is also a part of the royal palaces; it has a public walk, an Exedra with seats, and a large house, in which is the common mess-hall (συσσίτιον) of the men of learning (φι ο όγων ἀνδρῶν) who share the Museum. This group of men not only hold property in common, but also have a priest in charge of the Museum, who formerly was appointed by the kings, but is now appointed by Caesar (Horace Leonard Jones, LCL).

This group of philosophers seemingly have a banqueting hall in the Alexandrian museum16 and identified themselves by the name of the room: the συσσίτιον.17 Their common meal needed funding, as did the honorific inscription they provided for Aelios, which suggests they collected dues from their members as did the associations and synagogues.

Differences between social groups, in fact, do not cut exclusively along the categories scholars give to ancient social groups (e.g., synagogues, associations, philosophical schools,

Christ-groups). With respect to clubs, Ilias Arnaoutoglou sees differences between eranistai, thiasōtai, and orgēones within Hellenistic Athens alone. He observes, for example that

“[w]hereas orgeones and thiasotai are directly connected with cult practices, the association of eranistai with cult is usually underplayed, in favour of their involvement in the provision of

16 Mariano San Nicolò argues that this association of philosophers was independent from the Alexandrian Museum. See idem, Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (2 vols; Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 2; Munich: Berk, 1972) 1:196-8. 17 François Kayser, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines, non funéraires, d'Alexandrie imperial: Ier-IIIe s, apr. J.-C. (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, 1994) 290 n.2.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization loans.”18 Commenting on collegia from Italian terrain, Jean-Pierre Waltzing and others suggested that clubs could be differentiated based on function, most being of the funerary, rather than cultic or professional, type.19 The Lanuvium association of Diana and Antinoüs (CIL XIV

2112 = AGRW 310), long held to be of the burial variety, highlights the value of comparing such groups with different functions for the purpose of illuminating economic and honorific patterns.

While Waltzing understood this club’s function as primarily in providing burials for its deceased members, the inscription records that the association held six banquets a year, funded by rotating officers called magistri cenarum (II.11-16). Moreover, it elected or appointed a president

(quinquennalis) every three years,20 who enjoyed opportunities for status displays at banquets where the incumbent enjoyed double portions of food (II.17). Functional peculiarities, to the extent that they even existed,21 are of little significance when the objective of the comparison is to illuminate dynamics behind common practices.

18 Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias Heneka Kai Sunousias: Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens (Yearbook of the Reseaerch Centre for the History of Greek Law 37/4. Athens: Academy of Athens, 2003) 70. He does not emphasize this distinction and realizes that eranistai shared cultic practices with other associations from Attica. cf. Martti Leiwo, “Religion, or Other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens,” in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change (ed. Jaakko Frösén; Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens; Helsinki: Finnish Institute at Athens, 1997) 103-17, at 106-108. Whatever differences existed between these three “types” of Attic associations, evidence exists of eranistai banquets (SEG 31:122 = GRA I 50) and honorific practices (SEG 54:235 = GRA I 47); thiasōtai banquets (IG II2 1261B = GRA I 9) and honorific practices (IG II2 1323 = GRA I 31; and orgēones banquets (IG II2 1327) and honorific practices (IG II2 1329 = GRA I 37); and, therefore, they are all helpful for the scholar of the Corinthian Christ-group who wants to imagine the possibilities that existed for this Christ-group when it devised strategies to meet economic and honorific challenges and concerns. 19 Jean –Pierre Waltzing, Étude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’empire d’Occident (4 vols.; Mémoires Couronnés et Autres Mémoires Publié par l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 50; Bruxelles: F. Hayez, 1895-1900) 1:32-56; cf. Theodor Mommsen, De Collegis et sodaliciis romanorum (Kiliae: Libraria Schwersiana, 1843). 20 Despite the name, this office was likely a three-year rather than five-year term. See Halsey L. Royden, “The Tenure of Office of the Quinquennalis in the Roman Professional Collegia,” AJPh 110 (1989): 303-315. 21 Frank Ausbüttel and John Kloppenborg challenge the existence of associations with only funerary purposes before the reign of Hadrian. See Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches (FAS 11; Kallmünz: Michael Laßleben, 1982) esp. 22-23; and Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership,” in Voluntary Associations (ed. Kloppenborga and Wilson) 16-30, at 20-23.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

Differences between Christ-groups and associations (of philosophical, Judean, or Greco-

Roman varieties) are also sometimes overstated. Certainly, whatever dissimilarites may have existed between Christ-groups and associations, they were not so great to dissuade Eusebius and

Celsus (Origen, Cels. 3.23) from referring to Christ-followers as thiasōtai, or Pliny from calling them hetaeria (Ep. 10.96), both designators for collegiati and collegia.22 Moreover, to say that a particular Christ-group is different from all the ancient associations attested in the thousands of inscriptions and papyri they produced is no easy task. It typically involves overgeneralizations concerning the uniformity of ancient clubs. On this point, Kloppenborg observes that “there was a broad spectrum of forms of collegia, broad enough that most of the particularities seen in

Pauline churches could fit comfortably within that spectrum.”23 Objections to the association model on account of supposed differences between the two communal models (e.g., terminology, leadership, recruitment, trans-local links) have been addressed by Kloppenborg24 and Ascough25 to the extent that there is little more to say on the matter and, in any case, Kloppenborg rightly argues, “[w]hether ekklēsiai were or were not associations is less relevant than whether associative behavior in collegia might help us discover something about associative patterns in early churches.”26

22 John S. Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi, The Ekklēsia at Corinth, and Conflict Management,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (Early Christianity and Its Literature 5; ed. Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 187-218, at 195 n.25. 23 Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch,” 231. 24 Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch,” 212-38; idem, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 194-6. 25 Richard S. Ascough, “Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Churches: Addressing the Objections,” in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (ed. Andreas Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch) 149-83. 26 Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 196.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

Modern comparative work on Christ-groups and associations follow methodological strategies developed by Jonathan Z. Smith27 and Kloppenborg.28 Both scholars call for analogical comparisons – endeavors to better understand the practices of early ekklēsiai and associations, accepting that each ekklēsia and association was a little different despite broader similarities. This is a departure from older, genealogical comparisons that were primarily interested in whether Christ-groups borrowed from associations, or whether Christ-groups could or could not be identified as associations.29

The value of analogical comparison for scholars of Pauline ekklēsiai is the amount of comparative data that becomes available to them from communal models contemporary with the

Christ-groups. Paul was generally silent on day-to-day matters that collegium epigraphy and papyri illuminate quite well. The associations have proven useful in many recent analogical comparative studies, including Kloppenborg’s analyses of leadership structures and membership requirements in early Christ-groups,30 Ascough’s research on the meals of the Thessalonian

Christ-group,31 Markus Öhler’s study of benefactors in the Jerusalem group,32 Philip Harland’s

27 Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 14; London: The School of Oriental and African Studies; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 28 Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch,” 224-38. 29 See, for example, the argument that the Corinthian Christ-group was a cultic association in Georg Heinrici, “Die Christengemeinden Korinths und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen,” ZWT 19 (1876): 465-526; and the argument that it was not an association in Edwin A. Judge, “Did the Churches Compete with Cult Groups?” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White; NovTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 501-24. In contrast to studies of this nature, Richard Ascough explains that currently “[o]ne is not looking for the ‘earlier’ exemplar, nor is one trying to determine the direction of borrowing. Rather, one type of association is compared to another in order to highlight both similarities and differences”(idem, Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians [WUNT 2/161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003] 2). 30 John Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices in Pauline Christ Groups.” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 183-215; idem, “Egalitarianism,” 247-63. 31 Richard Ascough, “Of Memories and Meals: Greco-Roman Associations and the Early Jesus-group at Thessalonikē,” in From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology (ed. Laura Nasrallah, Charalambos Bakirtzis, and Steven Friesen; Harvard Theological Studies 64; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010).

1: Economic and Honorific Organization investigation on relationships between Christ-groups and civic authorities,33 and David Downs’ study of the Jerusalem collection,34 to name some. Associations, Kloppenborg argues, are of heuristic value for scholars of Pauline Christ-groups. Although ekklēsiai cannot necessarily be identified as associations – identity, in any case, is not the central concern of the comparative critic informed by the work of Smith – collegia are nonetheless “good to think with”35 since they encountered some of the challenges, and experienced some of the concerns and practices we know to have been faced and experienced by the Christ-groups. A comparative context allows scholars of Pauline Christ-groups to control speculations concerning the behaviour, language, and practices of early ekklēsiai, and to help ensure that the silences Paul leaves are not filled with anachronisms resulting in portrayals of ancient Christ-groups that resemble modern churches more closely than ancient models of community. My dissertation follows from this recent comparative work and consults association sources for heuristic purposes when exploring economic and honorific patterns in the Corinthian ekklēsia.

3. Economic and Honorific Organization as a Necessity rather than a Luxury

The traditional theory that the “Corinthian church in the fifties … had no clearly marked form or structure”36 situates the ekklēsia as unique from contemporary associations in this respect. It also

32 Markus, Öhler, “Die Jerusalemer Urgemeinde im Spiegel des antiken Vereinswesens,” NTS 51 (2005): 393-415. 33 Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003). 34 David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles. Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 35 Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices,” 187. 36 Charles Kingsley Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s; London: Hendrickson, 1968) 24. This is a longstanding position on Corinthian financial and hierarchical organization that has been articulated to varying degrees by several scholars. See n.4 for examples, and later chapters for reviews of the arguments behind this supposition.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization fails to account for the reality that economic and honorific organizational features were necessities, not luxuries, for associations that met to dine and perform cultic activity.

By “economic organization,” I refer to typical financial features that were standard among the diverse multitude of private cultic groups found within ancient Mediterranean cities and villages, and throughout Hellenistic and Roman times. These include a common fund

(κοινόν), a fiscal officer (ταμίας) who is elected or appointed for a temporary amount of time, collection of subscription fees at every banquet, and the writing of financial accounts listing who has paid their fees and who owes what at the next meeting. Economic organization was not, as is often supposed, an extravagance that early Christ-groups could do without.37 Rather, in order to simply assemble for a banquet as an association, subscription dues most often needed to be collected from all members. Association sources from Egypt are generally the most illuminating on this issue since their financial records, written on papyrus, have survived. The following text clarifies the importance of collecting fees from all members at banquets (P.Tebt. I 118.16-18,

Tebtynis, 112-111 BCE):

Τῦβι κε. ο νου κε(ραμίου) α Β, στ[εφάνου , (γίνονται) ] εἰσὶν ἄνδρες κα ἀνὰ ρ [Βρ,] ὑπὲρ ἀνη( ώματος) κ.

25th of Tybi: one keramion of wine cost 2000 drachmas, one crown cost [120 drachmas].38 Twenty-one persons were present, each paid 100 drachmas, for a total income of 2100 drachmas. Debt: 20 drachmas.

For this club, income from membership dues was the bare minimum for holding a banquet. In fact, the money generated from subscription was not even sufficient for the association to cover

37 John Barclay carefully considers money matters in early Christ-groups but finds “no institutional structures concerning money” in the early movement (“Money and Meetings,” 120); David Downs reaches the same conclusion: “[t]here is no evidence that the members of Paul’s churches paid monthly or weekly membership dues” (The Offering of the Gentiles. Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 101. 38 The club paid 120 drachmas for a crown at a previous meeting (l.9). The numbers at the Tybi 25 meeting add up if they paid the same price for this crown.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization its dining expenses. The club depended on all members paying their subscription in order that they could come close to funding a proper banquet. If banquet expenditures exceeded the club’s income that evening, they used surplus resources from previous banquets, stored in the common fund (ll.8, 15), to pay for extra expenses.

In chapters two and three, I explore money matters in associations and the Corinthian ekklēsia. There were many differences in how associations managed their expenditures and income, but these differences existed on top of the basic organizational requirements that all members pay subscription fees. In chapter three, specifically, I will argue that the Christ-group’s economic structure comprised of the typical attributes that a relatively-debt-free cultic and banqueting group would need to have in place. This means that members were not receiving

“mehr als 50” free meals a year,39 funded by two or three patrons40, who, as I will show, would have needed to be enormously wealthy in order to perpetually fund the Christ-group’s meals.

I also find that the Christ-group possessed “honorific organization.” By this I refer, first, to the presence of elected or appointed, temporary, magistrates, peer benefactors,41 and patrons.

In collegia, these hierarchical positions represented honorific practices in that they tended to mimic the way public institutions allowed elites to generate, affirm, and display social status.42

39 Peter Pilhofer Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996-2001 (WUNT 2/145; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 207. 40 Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 148-54. 41 I follow Kloppenborg’s distinction between elite patrons and peer benefactors. The peer benefactor did not provide large gifts such as clubhouses or sportulae, but held administrative functions, and used small amounts of their own resources on club activities and towards voluntary collections. As we will observe in this chapter, they could come from anywhere in an association’s hierarchy (e.g., from the officers or from the ordinary members). See Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 212-13. 42 Koenraad Verboven, “The Associative order, status and ethos of Roman businessmen in Late Republic and Early Empire,” Athenaeum 95 (2007): 861-93; idem, “Magistrates, Patrons and Benefactors of Collegia: Status Building and Romanisation in the Spanish, Gallic and German Provinces,” in Transforming Historical Landscapes in the Ancient Empires. Proceedings of the First Workshop Area of Research in Studies from Antiquity, Barcelona 2007 (eds. I.B. Antela Bernárdez and T. Ñaco del Hoyo; British Archaeological Reports; International Series 1986; Oxford: John and Erica Hedge, 2009) 159-67.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

For example, collegia offices were often named after civic titles,43 and the commendatory rewards they received were written with civic benefaction language.44

Second, a club’s honorific structure includes the ability to ensure and reward honorifics to service-providers. This involves setting subscription rates high enough so that the group could afford commendatory prizes, establishing rules that dictate what members need to do in order to win awards, and resolving to punish officers who are in charge of delivering honorific prizes but fail to do so.

There were, as with money matters, different forms that a group’s honorific structures could take, but a basic minimum was required in order to attract recruits in honour-shame cultures of the ancient Mediterranean. The club account cited above represents one variation. At their meal on the 25th of Tybi in 112 BCE, the club purchased one crown as an honorific reward for a member. The association could not fully afford the wreath and needed to have this banquet without any food in order to purchase it, which clarifies how important it was to them that their service-providers received appropriate thanks.45 Other associations were wealthier and rewarded their peer-benefactors with crowns, proclamations, and honorific inscriptions. The following example from Hellenistic Attica is representative (IG II2 1282, Attica, 262/1 BCE):

[θ]εοί. ἐπ’ Ἀντιπ[ά]τρου ἄρχοντος, Ἑκα[το]νβαιῶ- νος ὀγδόει μετ’ εἰκάδας, ἀγορᾶ[ι κ]υρ[ί]αι· Ἀριστόδημος ιονυσίου εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ 5 οἱ προ[σ]αιρε[θ]έντες μετὰ τοῦ ἐπιμε η-

43 Franz Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 337-423; cf. San Nicolò, Ägyptisches Vereinswesen, 2: 67-96. 44 Onno M. Van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997) 73-128; Brigitte Le Guen, “L’association des technites d’Athènes ou les resorts d’une cohabitation réussie” in Individus, groups et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate (ed. Jean-Christophe Couvenhes; Perspectives Historiques 15; Tours: Presses Universitairres François Rabelais, 2007) 339-64. 45 At an earlier banquet where no crown was required, the club was able to place bread on its menu (ll.1-8). See chapter three.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

τοῦ [Ἀ]φροδ[ι]σίου? τῆς προσοικοδομίας τοῦ ἱερ[οῦ τοῦ] Ἄμμωνος τό τε ἔ[ρ]γον κα ὸν καὶ [ἄ]ξιο[ν τ]οῦ [θε]οῦ ἐποίησαν κ[α]ὶ ἐπεστάτησα[ν] [κα ῶς καὶ φ]ι[ ]οτίμως καὶ όγον ἀπέδω- 10 [καν τοῦ ἀνα ]ώματος, ἐπαινέσαι καὶ στεφ[α]- [νῶσαι ἕκαστον] αὐτῶν θα οῦ στεφάνωι κ[α]- [τὰ τὸν νόμον, κα]ὶ ἀναγορεῦσαι τοὺ[ς σ]τεφ[ά]- [νους τῆι θυσίαι τ]οῦ Ἀμφιαράου μετὰ τὰς [σπονδὰς — — — — — — — —]ι[ον] τὸν — — — 15 [εὐσεβείας ἕνεκ]εν τῆς εἰς τοὺς θε[οὺς κα]- [ὶ φι οτιμίας τῆς πρὸ]ς [τ]ο[ὺς θιασώτας] — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Gods! When Antipatros was archon, on the 28th of the month of Hekatombaion, at the regular assembly, Aristodēmos son of Dionysios proposed (the following motion): Since the ones elected with the supervisor, Aphrodisios, for the renovation of the temple of Ammōn did good and worthy work for the god and supervised well and honorably and handed over an account of expenditures, (it was resolved by the thiasōtai) to commend and crown each of them with an olive wreath according to the law, and to publically proclaim the crowns at the sacrifices of Amphiaros after the libations ... on account of piety towards to gods and ambition towards the thiasōtai….

Honorific structure was not optional – in other words, the Corinthian ekklēsia could not have survived in Roman Corinth if it were entirely without it. The ekklēsia grew up in a city whose inhabitants regarded competition for honour as a “most important” cultural value,46 and the ten or twenty people who joined the Christ-group47 behaved the way socially-ambitious people did: they vied for status at public courts (1 Cor 6:1-8), argued about distinctions of place and food portion at club banquets (11:17-34), put themselves in positions to be invited to private

46 Donald Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990) 86. For a similar conclusion concerning Corinthian cultural values, see Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 18; Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill, 1993) 23-39. 47 Andreas Lindemann’s suggestion that the congregation consisted of one hundred members is unlikely. See Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen; Mohr, 2000 [1945-7]) 13. Philip Venticinque represents a majority opinion when stating that “[g]uilds tended to be small – roughly 10-25 individuals, but larger numbers were possible at certain places and times” in “Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 273-94, at 278.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization dinners (10:27-30), and tried to impress their peers by speaking in tongues (14:2-33).48 Ebel recently observed that “die Christinnen und Christen sind somit keineswegs konkurrenzlos, sondern müssen sich einem Wettbewerb um potentielle Mitglieder stellen. Beliebt, weit verbreitet und damit ein ernstzunehmender Konkurrent der christlichen Gemeinden sind

Vereine.”49 Wolfgang Schrage identifies cultic options particularly in Corinth, “ein Ort zahlreicher Kulte und Tempel.”50 One of the Konkurrenen vying specifically with the Corinthian ekklēsia for recruits was a local thiasos. This club is known to us exclusively from a fragmentary inscription, possibly dating to the first-century CE:

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] 1 τ’ ἔρχεσ θ [αι(?) — — — — — — — —] ἡ ίου δυο[μένου(?) — — — — — —]- να π[ρα]ξο [— — — — — — — — — —] του ευκο[— — — — — — — — — —] 5 τοῦ ἀγορα [νόμου — — — — — — —] τοῦ θιάσου κ[— — — — — — — — —] τειμὴν τῆς [— — — — — — — — —] οὐκ ἐξέσται δ [ὲ — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] (ICorinth III 308 = AGRW 26; Corinth, 44 BCE-267 CE).

The inscription contains only twelve legible words but it reveals that the thiasos’ members were appointed or elected to communal offices that mimicked titles from the civic order (ἀγορανόμος, l.5)51; and that the club honoured (τειμή, l. 7) service-providers with status-generating prizes. In a

Corinthian culture characterized by an “obsessive concern to win reputation and status in the

48 Edwin A. Judge goes as far as to say that affiliates likely consisted mostly of the “socially pretentious.” Idem, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960) 60. 49 Ebel, Attraktivität, 1. 50 Schrage specifies, “Gottheiten und Kulte des alten Griechenlands waren ebenso vertreten wie die ägyptischen Mysterien-religionen und die Institutionen des Kaiser-Kults” (Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther [4 vols.; EKKNT 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991-2001] 1:27). 51 The inscription is so fragmentary that we do not know for certain if the ἀγορανόμος is a club official or a civic magistrate.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization eyes of others”52 this thiasos would have been tough competition for a Christ-group that supposedly offered few opportunities to win formal honours and, in any case, was unable to fund them given its apparent policy on subscription fees.

Opportunities for status achievements represented an important factor driving recruitment, though there were no doubt multiple factors affecting recruitment and adherence to

Christ-groups and associations, including fictive-family connections,53 social compensation,54 and patronage.55

52 Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 21. 53 Meeks surmises, “[m]ay we … guess that the sorts of [people with] status inconsistency we observed … brought with them not only anxiety but also loneliness, in a society in which social position was important and usually rigid? Would, then, the intimacy of the Christian groups become a welcome refuge, the emotion-charged language of family and affection and the image of a caring, personal God powerful antidotes, while the master symbol of the crucified savior crystallized a believable picture of the way the world seemed really to work? (First Urban, 191). Karl Olav Sandnes (“The Role of the Congregation as a Family within the Context of Recruitment and Conflict in the Early Church,” from Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World [eds., Peder Borgen, Vernon K. Robbins, and David B. Gowler; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998] 333-45), informed by descriptions of conversion by sociologists of knowledge, argues that the need for fictive-kinship came after not before the conversion experience, which itself “brought a number of converts into conflict with their families” (335). He later posits that churches fulfilled “the needs of some of their converts” by providing “new primary ‘influencers’ or ‘significant others.’ The domestic setting of early Christianity made it possible to build personal relationships on which the convert depended” (343). 54 Scholars who describe collegiati and members of Christ-groups as particularly vulnerable socially and economically have, in the past, imagined associations as functioning to provide individuals with needs (e.g., decent burials, social networks) that could not be met elsewhere. It is mostly in older association scholarship where one finds compensation elevated to the major attractor to guild membership. Philip Venticinque has summarized the results of new research on the place of compensation in associations as follows: “[i]n light of recent reconsiderations of the actual position occupied by guilds and leading craftsmen and merchants, compensation for deficiencies in their economic, social, or family lives should be set aside as the sole motivation for guild membership, or at least adopted with some caution” (Venticinque, “Family Affairs,” 275. See also Van Nijf, Professional Associations, 3- 28; Verboven, “Associative order,” 861- 93; Kloppenborg, and Ascough, Attica, 8.) Venticinque is referring to new scholarship on collegiati that understands club membership to be a relatively expensive luxury unaffordable to individuals most in need of social and economic compensation. He is careful to say “sole motivation” since research continues to show that associations likely did function in part as compensation for the needs of members, even if these members were not as poor as originally thought. For example, Andreas Bendlin, who rejects the notion that associations functioned exclusively to compensate individuals looking for integration into their polis, notes some compensatory functions. He observed that, in I BCE, Rome reached a population of one million – a number it managed to maintain into the empire despite its high mortality rate due partially to horrid urban living conditions. Immigrants from Italy and beyond replenished Rome’s population but required stable social networks in their new homeland for survival, especially if they were young, unmarried men, as many of them should have been. The mortality rate damaged the social networks even of those who had familial ties in Rome. Collegia offered opportunities for new networks that were relatively stable and provided religious and social integration partially outside of the influence of civic institutions. In this sense, collegia offered forms of compensation, in addition to holding broader functions. See Andreas Bendlin, “Gemeinschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Identität: 16

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

Verboven, who understands social status as a multi-dimensional phenomenon,56 identifies three levels of status generation fostered through affiliation to a local association: first, individuals who joined collegia were differentiated and elevated socially above those who could not afford to join a club57; second, holding a fixed-term collegium office was an honourable, financial commitment, and it temporarily elevated magistrates above regular members; and, third, contributing a service to a club differentiated oneself above peers who had not shown generosity to their club.58 Verboven argues that, in these ways, associations “institutionalized” status differentiation in the lower strata.59 It would seem that a person’s place in local associative life helped to clarify his or her place in the social order among local humiliores. The honorific aspects of clubs made them, for non-elites, dependable organizations that would regularly

Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom,” in Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike: Unversuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (eds. Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser and Alfred Schäfer; STAC 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 9-40, at 32-33. See also Markus Öhler, “Antikes Vereinswesen,” in Neues Testament und antike Kultur II: Familie, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft (ed. Kurt Scherberich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005) 79-86. 55 Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of he Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2004) 186-90. 56 Meeks defines social status as a multidimensional social construction comprising of “power (defined as ‘the capacity for achieving goals in social systems’), occupational prestige, income or wealth, education and knowledge, religious and ritual purity, family and ethnic-group position, and local community status” (First Urban 54). To Meeks’ list, Thomas Schmeller adds legal status (freeborn, freed, enslaved), and gender (Hierarchie, 44). A person can rank high or low in any status category and the overall status of an individual “is a composite of his or her ranks in all the relevant dimensions” (Meeks, First Urban, 54). Speaking specifically about social status and association practices, Koenraad Verboven has argued that “[g]enerosity in general and evergetism in particular was indissolubly linked to the Roman status system” (“Associative order,” 866). Verboven’s description of honorific practices in associations highlights ways in which clubs allowed members to use their economic assets to appropriately display their wealth and generosity so as to generate symbolic capital. Steven Friesen prefers to speak about poverty and economic status rather than social status. His reason is that social status, as defined by Meeks, is unquantifiable: how do we determine one’s overall social status? Do we average out each individual component? Moreover, we do not know much about most components with respect to any Pauline Christians (Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus,” JSNT 26 [2004]: 323-61, at 333-5). These are fair critiques, but we also know little about weekly wages and savings of any Corinthian. 57 “At the bottom end, membership of a collegium … served to distinguish members … socially from those who were unable to participate in the activities of collegia.” See Verboven, “Magistrates,” 160. 58 Verboven, “Associative order,” 872; cf. Sandra R. Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992) 114-15. 59 Verboven, “Associative order,” 870.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization reciprocate financial benefactors with symbolic capital in the form of material rewards (e.g., crowns, honorific epigraphy).60

Although the particulars of their honorific structures differed, recruitment depended on a cultic group’s ability to participate in honorific practices. On this point, the observations of historians of ancient collegia could illuminate dynamics behind recruitment in early Christianity.

Franz Poland, in his classic work on Greek associations, spoke “des Eifers der Vereine für die

Ehre der Genossen.”61 Recent scholarship elaborates on the centrality of honorific organization in associations:

[t]he bestowal of honours was not only a formal and standardized custom; its purpose was twofold, in the first place to honour the official and in this way to increase his or her social esteem among the members of the association or in an even larger community, and secondly to encourage others to act as officials in the association.”62

associations likely served as vehicles by which various populations in the polis replicated and internalized the hierarchical structures of the ancient city and mimicked its honorific practices. This is a strategy for ‘claiming a place in ancient Mediterranean society’ (Harland 2003) rather than one of compensation or resistance.63

By joining these organizations, members most likely augmented an already strong position in their communities.64

Der Beitritt zu einem Verein war für die meisten Mitglieder mit einem sozialen Aufstieg verbunden.65

Most scholars would probably agree that commensality was one of the major attractions of Roman collegia…. commensality helped to establish group identity, but it also served to create social distance.66

60 Verboven, “Associative order,” 886. 61 Poland, Geschichte, 445. 62 Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 117. 63 Kloppenborg, and Ascough, Attica, 8; cf Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003). 64 Venticinque, “Family Affairs,” 275. 65 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 40.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

[t]he associations created a social environment with constraints and possibilities that for the vast majority of the population constituted the social order par excellence…. The hierarchies of [associations] were publicly expressed and displayed. Patrons, magistrates and former magistrates were rewarded by visible tokens of honour; seats of honour were reserved for them at banquets, larger portions were given them, honorific decrees were voted, busts and statues of them were erected in club houses.67

By honouring service-providers, a collegium was able to “increase his or her social esteem among the members of the association or in an even larger community.”68

The social impact of these rewards was significant. Ilias Arnaoutoglou explains that “the process of honouring resulted in an adjustment of the attitudes of the honoured, as well as in the attitudes of the other members towards him in conformity with his new status.”69 Honorific structures, then, were central to an association’s ability to recruit members. This review of economic and honorific structures in collegia demonstrates that such features were necessities for most clubs’ survival. It is no surprise, therefore, that on several occasions Paul betrays the presence of these organizational elements in the Corinthian ekklēsia.

4. Overview of Chapters

The histories of scholarship on the presence (or lack therefore) of economic and honorific organization in the Corinthian Christ-group carry their own peculiarities and cannot be reviewed

66 Onno M. Van Nijf, “Collegia and Civic Guards. Two Chapters in the History of Sociability,” in After the Past: Essays in Ancient History in Honour of H.W. Pleket (ed. Willem Jongman and Marc Kleijwegt; Mnemosyne Supplement 233; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 305-40, at 324, 330. Some other recent studies that arrive at similar conclusions include Leiwo, “Religion,” 103-17; and Nicholas Tran, Les membres des associations romaines. Le rang social des collegiate en Italie et en Gaules, sous le Haut-Empire (Rome: École française de Rome, 2006) 49- 210. 67 Verboven, “Associative order,” 11, 24. 68 Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 117. 69 Ilias Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion: legal and social dimensions of religious associations in ancient Athens,” in Kosmos. Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens (ed. Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett, and Sitta von Reden; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 63-83, at 80-81.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization all together. They will each be explored individually in subsequent chapters where they can be properly tested with the relevant primary data. Chapter two tackles a potential problem in this dissertation’s proposal that the ekklēsia collected subscription dues, elected members into offices that could be financial cumbersome, and took part in other activities requiring surplus economic resources. The problem is, namely, that recent economic descriptions of Pauline Christians by

Justin Meggitt,70 Steven Friesen,71 and Bruce Longenecker72 portray the Corinthians as too poor to participate in any of these activities. In order to expose the weaknesses in this assumption, I analyze two “modest” associations from below the “middling” socio-economic category(ies).

Instructively, these associations collected modest subscription dues, purchased cheap honorifics for their service-providers, and some of their members were even able to commit additional financial resources towards club activities. I conclude that even if Meggitt’s, Friesen’s, and

Longenecker’s low assessment of Corinthian socio-economic status were accurate, the presence of a typical organizational structure would have been entirely manageable for the ekklēsia.

Chapter three argues that the Christ-group needed to collect subscription fees from all members in order to survive. Gerd Theissen’s73 and Peter Lampe’s74 oft-followed proposals concerning mechanisms by which the Corinthians obtained their banquet menu-items are untenable and, in any case, would not free the Christ-group from the need to collect subscription dues. The ekklēsia’s financial pressures went beyond banquet expenses; the accounts of modest

Egyptian clubs are heuristically valuable in order to establish controls for speculations

70 Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). 71 Friesen, “Poverty,” 323-61. 72 Bruce W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids, Mich. And Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010). 73 Theissen, Social Setting, 145-74. 74 Peter Lampe, “Das korinthinische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11,17-34),” ZNW 82 (1991): 183-212.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization concerning the ekklēsia’s expenditures and how the Christ-group financed its activities. There is also some evidence from the Corinthian correspondence, 1 Cor 16:2, that the Christ-group was equipped with a common fund into which members’ regular contributions were placed. Hitherto confusing details in Paul temporal and spatial directives to the Corinthians concerning the

Jerusalem ογεία – namely, the instructions that collections are to be made specifically on days when the Christ-group met, and at home – are best explained on the theory that the Christ-group had other on-going collections during this time that Paul wanted to be kept separate from donations to the Jerusalem ογεία.

In chapter four, I begin to question the common assumption that the Christ-group failed to provide honours for its service-providers. This chapter’s concern is primarily with the notion that associations only honoured officers and “distant patrons”75, and the proposal that, since the

Christ-group supposedly had neither, they had no reason to give any members crowns, proclamations, and honorific inscriptions. These are both groundless conclusions and no reason to suspect a lack of reciprocity in the Christ-group. The association sources show that quality service won recognition – it did not matter if the service-provider was a patron, officer, or regular member. As various scholars have demonstrated, civic and association benefactions left donors with “irreversible” forfeit of economic assets. As a result, benefactors consciously sought out institutions that would predictably reciprocate with symbolic capital.76 Most private cultic groups that benefitted from benefactions were seen by donors as clubs that would dependably convert the economic assets of service-providers (from all levels of group hierarchies) into symbolic capital. It is telling, then, that Roman Corinthians chose to spend economic resources on benefactions for the Christ-group.

75 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 73. Schmeller is followed in Ebel, Attraktivität, 220. 76 Verboven, “Associative order,” 5.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

Chapter five demonstrates that the Corinthians performed the very activities that earned material rewards in associations. Scholars of the Corinthian correspondence argue that these service-providers were rewarded not with crowns, proclamations, and/or honorific inscriptions but, rather, with “respect” and other “attitudinal changes.” This theory cannot be maintained. As

Arnaoutoglou has shown, “attitudinal changes” happen as a result of crowns, proclamations, and inscriptions – they do not replace these honorifics.77 Moreover, Paul himself seems to assume that the Christ-group had the structural apparatus in place to properly recognize Stephanas,

Fortunatus, and Achaiacus for their services (1 Cor 16:17-18) without deeming it necessary to provide instructions on how this should be done. He also uses typical benefaction language in

11:21-22 when denying the banquet officers (see chapter six) ἔπαινος. This chapter also questions the assumption that Gaius monopolized hosting responsibilities in the Christ-group. It seems more likely that this duty rotated among members. Since Paul calls Gaius a ξένος, such a conclusion is especially warranted. This was the typical word in associations for their guests, and was never used to mean “host” in contexts resembling Rom 16:23.

In chapter six, I argue that the Corinthians elected officers. Our best indication of communal officers is Paul’s contention that “αἱρέσεις are necessary” (1 Cor 11:19) while addressing problems with the organization of the banquet. It is problematic to translate αἱρέσεις as “factions,” the typical rendering, given that Paul is telling the Corinthians (of all people) that such are necessary. It is most natural to read Paul to say in 1 Cor 11:19 that elections (αἱρέσεις), not factions, are a necessary solution to the club’s banquet problems. According to Paul, it is only when the terms of the current officers expire and elections are held for new, approved

77 Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion,” 80-81.

1: Economic and Honorific Organization

(δόκιμοι), and notable (φανεροί), officers that the banquet issues will be resolved. Paul’s language in 1 Cor 11:18-19 contains numerous terms found in election contexts.

The final chapter explores Paul’s references to Corinthian ἰδιῶται (14:16-25). Scholars have disagreed to some extent on how to understand this term. The main possibilities are

“outsiders” and “proselytes,” however, the word meant neither concept in antiquity. A better translation is “ordinary members,” as opposed to non-members. With this new translation, additional details concerning the Christ-group’s economic and honorific practices come to light.

The overall picture emerging from this study is a Corinthian Christ-group with much greater economic and honorific structure than the traditional picture of Pauline communities allow. It is not at all the case that the ekklēsia was “obviously” without organization in economic and honorific matters.

2: Three Modest Clubs

CHAPTER TWO

Three Modest Clubs 1. Introduction

If ekklēsia members joined a structurally sophisticated Christ-group, as I will argue, they must have had surplus economic resources: it cost fees to participate in the Lord’s Supper, and additional assets were required from office-holders and contributors of financial services. The immediate economic question arising from this dissertation’s reconstruction is, to what extent would the Corinthians’ low socio-economic status have allowed them to enjoy luxury items?

Presently, scholars tend to portray the majority of Corinthians as too poor to afford much beyond the necessities for subsistence, preferring to categorize them somewhere between middling and destitute (i.e., ES5-7; see below).78 Positioning most of the Corinthians below the middling stratum may be correct, but little work has been done to find out what such people could afford.

The assumption that individuals in ES5-7 economic categories could not afford the luxuries of life in a club is incorrect. In this chapter, I explore the financial records of modest

Egyptian associations living below the middling stratum. An analysis of the luxury expenditures by individuals in these clubs provides greater clarity concerning what humble individuals could and could not purchase.

2. Middling Associations and Poor Christ-Groups

In the following pages, I will introduce two modest clubs, an association of slaves from

Philadelphia (SB III 7182, II-I BCE), and a cultic club from Tebtynis (P.Tebt. III/2 894, 114

78 Here I refer specifically to recent critiques of the “new consensus” which will be discussed further below. Many proponents of the new consensus would also take issue with these suggestions. For commonalities in the old and new consensuses, see Longenecker, Remember, 229; John Gager, Review of Social Aspects of Early Christianity by Abraham Malherbe, RelSRev 5 (1979): 174-80; John M.G. Barclay, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen,” JSNT 26 (2004): 363-66. “ES5-7” is language from Longenecker’s economic model.

2: Three Modest Clubs

BCE). Since these papyri offer much more information about economic life below the middling category than does Paul, they can serve heuristic ends to control speculations about the amount of disposable income carried by ekklēsia members.

Turning to Greco-Roman associations for heuristic purposes is now widely regarded as profitable in the study of the Corinthian group.79 One of the supposed differences between associations and early Christ-groups, that some scholars continue to cite, concerns economic activity. The suspicion persists that associations could afford to do things the Corinthians could not. This assumption is caused, I believe, by the type of associations with which scholars prefer to compare the Corinthians; we typically find our wealthiest associations in epigraphy, and four of the associations most commonly compared with the ekklēsia are known from inscriptions.80

These four middling associations enjoyed a kind of economic prosperity supposedly absent among the Corinthians, and tend to shape generalizations about associations’ economic superiority to Christ-groups.

2.1 Comparisons between the Ekklēsia and Association from Inscriptions

One example of an association commonly compared with the Christ-group is the Lanuvium collegium of Diana and Antinoüs (CIL XIV 2112=AGRW 310; Lanuvium, Italy; June 9, 136 CE).

Thomas Schmeller and Eva Ebel (erroneously) view the Lanuvium group as one of relatively low status,81 but they both acknowledge that all members of the collegium, even the slaves, were

79 Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices,” 183-215; idem, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 187-218; Richard Last, “The Election of Officers in the Corinthian Christ-Group,” NTS 59 (2013): 365-81; Chester, Conversion, 227-66; Ebel, Attraktivität; Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 87-125, 173-217; James C. Hanges, “1 Corinthians 4:6 and the Possibility of Written Bylaws in the Corinthian Church,” JBL (1998): 275-98; Schmeller, Hierarchie; Richard S. Ascough, “The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor 8.1-15” NTS 42 (1996): 584-99. 80 CIL XIV 2112 = AGRW 310; IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51; SIG3 985 = AGRW 121; IGUR 160. See below. 81 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 26; Ebel, Attraktivität, 55.

2: Three Modest Clubs resourceful enough to provide benefactions on rotation: four members provided an amphora of good wine, and two loaves of bread, and four sardines for each member six times a year when it was their turn to take up the rotating offices of magistri cenarum (I.3, II.2, 8-23). These expenses were in addition to entrance fees and monthly subscription dues (I.20-21). Social-historical descriptions of the Corinthians rarely claim all members could afford all three sets of expenses.

In fact, scholars tend to assume that early Christ-groups could not even spare modest membership contributions.82 Thus, even though this Lanuvium collegium comprised of somewhat a cross-section of ancient society (at least in terms of legal status), most members required moderate surplus economic resources, which would place them in Steven Friesen’s and

Bruce Longenecker’s middling economic category (see below).

When we explore other associations selected for comparisons with the Corinthians, we find Schmeller’s choice of a Roman club devoted to Asklepios and Hygiae (CIL VI 10234 =

AGRW 322; Rome, Italy; 153 CE). Schmeller identifies this group as a “sozial höhergestellter

Verein”83, enjoying the support of two rich donors, Salvia Marcellina and Publius Aelius Zenon, who gave benefactions of 50,000 and 10,000 sesterces respectively. Marcellina also donated a

82 This is such a consensus that Eva Ebel can call it “unübersehbar” (Attraktivität, 217); see also Schmeller, Hierarchie, 72-8, and chapter three. Pilhofer, (Die frühen Christen), explicitly contrasts the ekklēsia with associations on this matter. While comparing the Lanuvium collegium with early Christ-groups, he notes that churches were unrivalled in offering “mehr als 50” free meals a year, a charitable feature that would have attracted poor members. Pilhofer argues, “[a]us sicht der Armen ist das [i.e., the Christ-groups as opposed to the Lanuvium group] vergleichweise ein paradies” (207). He erroneously suggests that members of the Lanuvium group enjoyed six free meals per annum. Members paid regular subscription fees and these meals were procured by four rotating magistri cenarum – each member would have a turn in these offices since they rotated down the collegium’s membership list; if one failed to fulfill their duties when a magister, they would be fined thirty sesterces (II.9) and would be responsible to pay back whoever took over their responsibilities. Ebel cautiously agrees that the mechanism by which the Lanuvium group procured food suggests it attracted members of higher social levels than did Corinthian meal practices, though, she suggest that the Lanuvium group was of generally-low status. Her reasons include its inclusion of slaves in its membership and “der Funktion des Vereins als Sterbeversicherung” (Attraktivität, 55). Alternatively, recent work by Andreas Bendlin confirms that membership in this association was quite financially-burdensome (“Associations, Funerals, Sociality, and Roman Law: The collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) Reconsidered,” in Das Aposteldekret und das antike Vereinswesen (ed. Markus Öhler and Hermut Löhr; WUNT 1/280; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 207-96, at 266-68. 83 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 26; cf. 37-8.

2: Three Modest Clubs clubhouse to the association. There is little evidence of this type of benefaction or infrastructure in the Corinthian group.84

Schmeller and Ebel also compare the Corinthians with the Athenian Iobacchoi (IG II2

1368 = GRA I 51; Athens; 164/5 CE), whose status in mid second-century Athens attracted the

“berühmten Herodes Atticus” as their patron.85 He portrays the Iobacchoi’s social standing as

“nicht schlecht gestellten” presumably in contrast to the Lanuvium collegium.86 For Schmeller, a distinguishing feature of wealthier associations was the presence of a president87 who is wealthy enough to hold an office for life, or at least a long time. The Iobacchoi meet this criterion – they could boast of priests who held offices for seventeen and twenty-three years, which is far longer than the Lanuvium group’s quinquennalis (three years) and magistri cenarum (one year).88 The

Iobacchoi, moreover, have features long-regarded as absent in the Christ-group for socio- economic reasons: every member was required to pay entrance and monthly fees (ll. 37-41, 46-

7); the group was structurally-organized with rotating magistrates who owed services to the group; they honoured their officers with gifts89; possessed a clubhouse (Baccheion, l.56); and enjoyed meat at certain of their banquets (ll. 117-27).90 Similar economic differences exist when

84 David Horrell, “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre,” NTS 50 (2004): 349-69. John Barclay also observes that the Corinthians were “without buildings to construct or maintain” in “Money and Meetings,” 120. 85 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 26. Ebel characterizes the Iobacchoi as even wealthier than the Lanuvium collegiati in Attraktivität, 121. 86 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 38. 87 Usually a priest in cultic associations, according to Schmeller. 88 Schmeller, Hierarchie, 36-38. 89 Unlike the Corinthians, see Schmeller, Hierarchie, 74. 90 Kloppenborg and Harland recently suggested the following concerning the Athenian Iobacchoi’s social status: “[t]he honors for which a member was required to provide wine are all offices open only to citizens (II. 127-36): the ephebate; (a grant of) citizenship; rod-bearer, Council member, president of the games, member of the elders’ council (gerousia), thesmothesia, peace officer, and other magistracies. This perhaps means that membership in the group was limited to (male) citizens” Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 254.

2: Three Modest Clubs comparing the Corinthians with other famous association inscriptions, such as the household collegia behind SIG3 985 = AGRW 121 and IGUR 160.91

In summary, Schmeller, Ebel, and others92 prefer to compare the Corinthians primarily with middling associations living above the socio-economic position of typical ekklēsia members.93 Their work lends the impression that collegiati were more financially-stable than

Pauline Christians, which partially drives the supposition that the Christ-group was without, and unable to afford, economic and honorific organizational features.

2.2 The Rising Social Status of Collegiati in Scholarship

It is not only comparative work that gives such an impression. Two broader trends are currently driving a wedge between the economic positions of Christ-groups and associations. First, scholars of collegia are beginning to recognize the economic prowess of typical association

91 Bradley McLean draws several fascinating observations about social hierarchies in the Agrippinilla inscription (IGUR 160) and early Christian communities. Scholars who are skeptical of comparing “poor” Corinthians with “middling” association will question the comparison since, as McLean notes, “the principal functionaries [in IGUR 160] are all members of the senatorial family of M(arcus) Gavius Squilla Gallicanus” (247-8; cf. 267-8). McLean suggests that, like the collegium of Asclepius and Hygia discussed above, the Agrippinilla association was “dependent upon aristocratic individuals or families who established and financed them” (249). See “The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Church Formation,” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (ed. Bradley H. McLean; JSNTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 239-70. On SIG3 985 = AGRW 121 and Christ-groups, see Markus Öhler, “Iobakchen und Christusverehrer: Das Christentum im Rahmen des antiken Vereinswesens,” in Inkulturation: Historische Beispiele und theologische Reflexionen zur Flexibilität und Widerständigkeit des Christlichen (ed. Rupert Klieber and Martin Stowasser; Theologie Forschung und Wissenschaft 10; Vienna: LIT, 2004), 63-86; and S.C. Barton and G.H.R. Horsley, “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 24 (1981): 7-41. 92 Chester draws mainly from IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51; IGUR 160; CIL XIV 2112 = AGRW 310; IDelos 1520 = AGRW 224 and other middling associations (Conversion, 227-66); Downs engages with a variety of middling clubs (Offering, 79-119); and Longenecker compares Christ-groups with mostly middling associations (Remember, 259- 78). 93 Kloppenborg, Ascough, and Harland have significantly increased the accessibility of a variety of associations sources representing several economic levels with the publications of GRA I, AGRW, and the establishment of a searchable digital database (http://philipharland.com/greco-roman-associations/).

2: Three Modest Clubs members represented in epigraphic sources.94 For example, Onno Van Nijf depicts association affiliates as moderately wealthy and “mainly from among the upper levels of the urban plebs.”95

John Patterson and others note that the financial cost of joining an association made membership tenable mostly to those with moderate wealth.96 Andreas Bendlin has shown that even the

Lanuvium group, long held to be an association of poorer individuals, was actually a collegium of rather well-off affiliates.97 Jinyu Liu’s “main body of information concerning collegia

[centonariorum] comes from inscriptions”98 and her careful analysis of social status in these groups reveals many instances of high social standing: members from equestrian ranks,99 epigraphic dedications with “high-quality carvings,”100 and large sums of money transferred from members to their associations.101 These studies indicate that even in associations representing a relative cross-section of ancient society, the bottom-end was still higher than the people “who have nothing” (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες, 1 Cor 11:22) in the Corinthian group, and, therefore, the collegiati who took advantage of their clubs’ structural features lived in higher economic registers than those from which most ekklēsia members came.102

94 For the older view on the economic status of collegiati, see, for example, Paul Foucart, Des associations religeuses chez les Grecs: thiases, éranes, orgéons, avec le texte des inscriptions rélative à ces associations (Paris: Klingksieck, 1873) 5-7; Waltzing, Étude historique, I:32-56; Ernst Kornemann, “Collegium,” Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1901): 380-479, at 386-403; George La Piana, “Foreign Groups in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire,” HTR 20 (1927): 183-403, at 239-44; Schmeller, Hierarchie, 26; and Ebel, Attraktivität, 55. 95 Van Nijf, “Collegia and Civic Guards,” 307; cf. idem, Civic World, 18-22. 96 John R. Patterson, Landscapes and Cities: Rural Settlement and Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 255; van Nijf, “Collegia and Civic Guards,” 308. 97 Bendlin, “Associations,” 265-68, 283. 98 Jinyu Liu, Occupation, Social Organization, and Public Service in the Collegia Centonariorum in the Roman Empire (First Century BC-Fourth Century AD) (PhD Diss.; Columbia University, 2004) 13. 99 Liu, Occupation, 239. 100 Liu, Occupation, 242. 101 Liu, Occupation, 243-44. 102 I cite 1 Cor 11:22 because most scholars of the Corinthian correspondence, not I, take it as evidence for ekklēsia members living at or below the level of subsistence. I offer an alternative interpretation of this phrase in chapter five.

2: Three Modest Clubs

With regards to minimum requirements for association membership, Koenraad Verboven recently characterized the bottom-end comprising of people who were far from “having nothing.” Rather, they were distinguished from their fellow humiliores who could not afford the time and money required for membership.103 For Verboven, “the rank and file of the collegia was composed of …‘working-class’ people, making enough money to cover living expenses and in addition to engage in social activities such as college membership, but hardly enough to live in luxury.”104 Philip Venticinque observes from the Egyptian data that “members in Egypt or elsewhere needed a baseline of wealth in order to sustain even the most basic membership in such groups.”105

Typical association members, it would seem, were of a “middling” variety by definition

(i.e., they had moderate amounts of disposable income). The top-end of association membership, on the other hand, were individuals who “possessed fortunes surpassing those of many decuriones,” some of whom entered the ordo decurionum or established a precedent that would allow future generations of their families to do so.106 This new perspective on the economic status of association members creates further socio-economic distance between associations and

Christ-groups.

2.3 The Falling Social Status of Ekklēsiai Members

Alongside this recent recognition of economic stability within associations comes a shift in

Pauline scholarship away from the “new consensus.” Some Pauline interpreters now emphasize

103 Verboven, “Magistrates,” 161; cf. Robert Parker, Athenian religion. A History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 340. 104 Verboven, “Associative order,” 882. 105 Venticinque, “Family Affairs,” 293. 106 Verboven, “Magistrates,” 160; cf. “Associative order,” 886.

2: Three Modest Clubs poverty among early Christians.107 For example, Justin Meggitt contends all Pauline Christians struggled with meeting requirements for subsistence on a daily basis, supposing that “[n]either the apostle nor any members of the congregations he addresses in his epistles escaped from the harsh existence that typified life in the Roman Empire for the non-élite.”108

Steven Friesen clarifies the term, poverty, but agrees in substance with Meggitt’s conclusions.109 He understands one’s economic status as intricately related to subsistence. In

Friesen’s words, one’s subsistence level is “defined as the resources needed to procure enough calories in food to maintain the human body.”110 People need between 1,500 to 3,000 calories per day, but can survive below the subsistence level for some time.111 In contrast to Friesen’s suggestion that economic status can be measured exclusively by varying abilities to buy food, it probably involves more; Allan Chester Johnson more properly analyzes wages in Roman Egypt

107 For Meggitt, material poverty in the ancient world is “best understood as an absolute rather than relative phenomenon. It is present where the basic essentials necessary for supporting human life are not taken for granted but are a continuous source of anxiety” (Meggitt, Paul,5). See also Peter Garnsey and Greg Woolf’s definition: “[t]he poor are those living at or near subsistence level, whose prime concern it is to obtain the minimum food, shelter, and clothing necessary to sustain life, whose lives are dominated by the struggle for physical survival” (“Patronage of the rural poor in the Roman world,” in Patronage in Ancient Society [ed. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill; London: Routledge, 1989] 153-70 at 153). Scholars who regard the Corinthians as “poor” tend to make their case on the basis of a few ambiguous texts. The main verse is 1 Cor 1:26: “not many were well-born (εὐγενής).” Karl Kautsky uses this verse to support his contention that “die christliche Gemeinde ursprünglich fast ausschließlich proletarische Elemente umfaßte und eine proletarische Organisation war” (Der Ursprung des Christentus [Hannover: J.H.W. Dietz, 1910] 338). Scholars now recognize that εὐγενεῖς were “die aus angesehenen Familien Stammenden, die aristokratische Bourgeoisie” (Schrage, Der erste Brief, I: 209) and therefore the fact that not many were εὐγενεῖς tells us little about where they fit in the highly differentiated lower strata of society. This is the conclusion drawn by several scholars of Pauline Christians. See, for example, Clarke, Secular and Christian, 41-5; Theissen, Social Setting, 71-3; Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (second edition; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 30; John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 145; Judge, Social Pattern, 59; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, 61). A second commonly-cited text is 1 Cor 11:22, where we hear of “those who have nothing.” This has long been interpreted as s a reference to poverty among the Corinthians. I offer a new interpretation of this verse in chapter five. 108 Meggitt, Paul, 75. Original italics. 109 Friesen insists on the “nearly complete absence of wealth in Paul’s churches” in “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis,” in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (ed. Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010) 231-56, at 256. 110 Friesen, “Poverty,” 343. 111 Friesen, “Poverty,” 343; cf. Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

2: Three Modest Clubs in relation to food as well as other necessities, such as clothing, and the ability to pay taxes (i.e., living costs).112

The outcome of Friesen’s (and others’) studies is the realization that we need more than a single category (“the poor”) to describe 97-99% of the urban population that fell below the ruling elite. Friesen’s “poverty scale” stratifies the people whom historians of Pauline Christians formerly called “the poor” into four groupings:

PS4 denotes those with “modern surplus resources” PS5 denotes individuals who were “stable near subsistence level” PS6 denotes people “at subsistence level” PS7 denotes those “below subsistence level”113

He proceeds to suggest, “the vast majority of the people in [Paul’s] assemblies lived just above or just below the level of subsistence.”114 Bruce Longenecker, while allowing for a larger middling demographic in the ancient world than does Friesen,115 surmises that “[i]t is unlikely … that, among urban Jesus-followers, the percentage for ES4 [=middling people] would have risen much above 10%.”116 This means one or two Corinthian members lived at an ES4 level if we imagine the ekklēsia as a 10 to 20 member Christ-group, as was typical among ancient associations. Longenecker arrives at his 10% figure only partially from prosopographic data.

2.3.1 Textual Basis for Poverty in the Corinthian Ekklēsia

112 Allan Chester Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (volume 2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1936) 301-22. 113 Friesen, “Poverty,” 341. 114 Friesen, “Poverty,” 357. 115 Friesen supposes 7% in “Poverty,” 347. In a more recent article co-authored by Walter Scheidel, Friesen and Scheidel estimate the middling category at 6-12%. See Walter Scheidel and Steven J. Friesen, “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire,” JRS 99 (2009): 61-91. Longenecker proposes 17% (Remember, 46). 116 Longenecker, Remember, 57.

2: Three Modest Clubs

In Friesen’s and Longenecker’s prospographic surveys, most named individuals affiliated with the Corinthian ekklēsia lived around middling levels (see Table 2.1):

Table 2.1: Corinthians in Economic Scales

Name Source Economic Status Economic Status according to according to Friesen117 Longenecker118 Chloe 1 Cor 1:11 4 4-5119

Gaius Rom 16:23 4 4

Erastus Rom 16:23 4-5 4

Prisca and Aquila Rom 16:3-5 4-5 5-6120

Phoebe Rom 16:1-2 4-5 4

Chloe’s people 1 Cor 1:11 5 4-5

Stephanas 1 Cor 16:17-18 5-6121 4-5

Household of 1 Cor 16:17-18 5-6 4-5122 Stephanas Crispus 1 Cor 1:14; N/A 4-5 Acts 18:8

117 Friesen, “Poverty,” 357. 118 Longenecker, Remember, 235-49. 119 Longenecker, Remember, 249, n.93. 120 Longenecker, Remember, 235-49. His placement of Prisca and Aquila in ES5/ES6 is curious. Others have found the data to indicate they enjoyed economic stability on par with other householders such as Gaius and Stephanas. See Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006) 32; and Peter Oakes, “Methodological Issues in Using Economic Evidence in Interpretation of Early Christian Texts,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (eds. Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009) 9-34, at 33. Longenecker’s assessment is based on his synthesis of data from Acts 18:3 and 2 Cor 11:9, which produces a scenario where Paul was in need even while staying at Aquila and Priscilla’s house in Corinth. In this scenario, one must conclude that the householders made too little profit at their workshop to sustain their guest, Paul. Cf. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 191. 121 Friesen concedes, “[t]he most appropriate category for Stephanas is PS5, and PS6 is not to be excluded as a possibility” (“Poverty,” 352). 122 Longenecker does not explicitly discuss Fortunatus and Achaicus apart from Stephanas. See Remember, 243-4.

2: Three Modest Clubs

For this reason, prosopographic surveys are difficult for scholars who emphasize subsistence lifestyles among the Corinthians – every Corinthian member named by Paul was around ES4

(“surplus economic resources”) according to Friesen’s or Longenecker’s surveys; a phenomenon recognized as problematic by Longencker.123 In a speculative move, Longenecker claims that named individuals were exceptionally well-off, and attempts to show that when Paul imagines the “general economic profile” of specific groups, he presupposes a lower average economic status. He argues that Paul’s description of entire Christ-groups “seem[s] to drop a level, gravitating towards the ES5 level primarily, with some resonance with ES6.”124 Very little evidence is provided for this. One piece of support is apparently Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor 16:1-

2 that the Corinthians should save money for the collection on a weekly basis. For an unstated reason, Longenecker believes that this sort of measure would be taken by members in ES5 and

ES6 categories rather than in ES4.125 Friesen does the same: “[t]he instructions to the Corinthian saints about how to save up money for the poor among the Jerusalem saints presuppose people in categories 5 or 6 of the poverty scale.”126 Both interpreters fail to take seriously the economic dynamics behind contributing to the Jerusalem collection. To be a Corinthian donor to the

Jerusalem ογεία, a Corinthian needed to meet subsistence requirements, and possess still more money for the collection. Such people did not live at or below the level of subsistence. This is especially clear if the argument in chapter three is correct – namely, that membership fees were

123 “Most of the individuals whom Paul mentions by name, and whose economic profile can be tentatively reconstructed, seem to fall within ES4 or ES5.” (Longenecker, Paul, 253). Meeks contends only that “there is … no specific evidence of people who are destitute – such as the hired menials and dependent handworkers…. There may well have been members of the Pauline communities who lived at the subsistence level, but we hear nothing of them” (First Urban, 73). 124 Longenecker, Remember, 253. 125 Longenecker, Remember, 253-4. See chapter three where I unpack this supposition. 126 Friesen, “Poverty,” 350-351.

2: Three Modest Clubs required from all members at every banquet otherwise the ekklēsia would have been backrupted soon after its formation.

The other evidence put forward by Longenecker and Friesen is equally speculative. Both

Longenecker and Friesen engage with Paul reference to οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες (1 Cor 11:22) in a problematic fashion. Friesen takes this phrase “in an absolute sense as ‘those who have nothing’”127 and Longenecker renders it “in absolute terms as ‘those who have nothing.’ ”128 The problem with identifying these individuals as literally having nothing is that it does not match up well with Paul’s “mental averaging”129 in 2 Cor 8:14-15, where he speaks of the Corinthians in their entirety as individuals with an abundance, nor with 1 Cor 16:1-2 where Paul expects all

Corinthians to contribute money they have been able to save to the Jerusalem collection.

Longenecker notes that Paul’s comment about Corinthian abundance in 2 Cor 8:14 is made in relation to the lower economic power of the Macedonian groups but since the Macedonian groups were able to contribute quite generously to the Jerusalem collection, these individuals were seemingly not as poor as Longenecker perhaps assumes.

I do not wish to further pursue the issues Meggitt, Friesen, and Longenecker will need to sort out in order to strengthen their conclusion concerning the economic level of Pauline

Christians. Rather, I will explore the extent to which the Corinthians, on recent economic reconstructions, would have been able to afford to participate in an economically-organized

Christ-group. The contributions of Meggitt, Friesen, and Longenecker push the socio-economic status of the Corinthians far below the rising profiles of collegiati.

127 Friesen, “Poverty,” 349. 128 Longenecker, Remember, 232 n.41. 129 This is Longenecker’s phrase (Remember, 258).

2: Three Modest Clubs

The current shift towards upgrading the social status of association members while downgrading the social status of Pauline Christians has culminated in Longenecker’s recent argument that association members, on average, came from higher social registers than Pauline

Christians130, a conclusion that also could be drawn from Schmeller’s and Ebel’s comparisons.

Does this mean that collegiati could afford to structure their groups in ways unaffordable for

Pauline Christians? According to Longenecker, the answer is “yes.” For him, activities requiring financial resources worked differently in Christ-groups than they did in associations due to differences in socio-economic status: benefactors were not as attracted to Christ-groups as they were to associations,131 service-providers were not given honorific rewards for their generosity in

Christ-groups though could expect such prizes in collegia,132 and membership fees were not collected in Christ-groups as they were in associations.133

3. Two Modest Clubs

Comparative scholarship has almost entirely ignored the existence and practices of modest associations. These clubs lived below the economic level of the Iobacchoi association, the

Lanuvium collegium, and the other cults most often compared with the Christ-group. Modest clubs were not rare – papyrological evidence attests to a variety of associations consisting of humble individuals – it is here where we find collegiati who worked as condiment merchants

130 Longenecker, Remember, 259-68. 131 Longenecker, Remember, 266. 132 Longenecker, Remember, 266-8. This is an argument made by several other scholars. See, for example, William L. Countryman, “Patrons and Officers in Club and Church,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers (ed. Paul J. Achtemeier; SBLSP 11; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) 135-43; Schmeller, Hierarchie, 73-4; and Thiselton, who notes that in the Corinthian church “often loyal hard work is simply taken for granted rather than publicly and consciously recognized” in First Epistle, 1342. I engage with this assumption in chapters four and five. 133 Longenecker, Remember, 271. See also Pilhofer, Die frühen Christen, 207-8; Barrett, First Epistle, 24-6; and chapter three.

2: Three Modest Clubs

(P.Oxy. LIV 3739; 312 CE), tavern-keepers (P.Oxy. LIV 3762, IV CE; 3740, 312 CE), and weavers (BGU VII 1572 = AGRW 296; Philadelphia, Egypt; 17 Dec 139 CE), for example.

Consideration of modest associations will provide some controls for speculating what the

Corinthians could not afford since these associations fit the socio-economic context into which

Pauline scholars such as Meggitt, Friesen, and Longenecker place the Corinthians.

My focus in this chapter centers on two detailed meeting accounts written by modest associations: the account of an association of slaves (SB III 7182; Philadelphia, Egypt; II-I BCE); and the account of a modest cultic and dining club from Tebtynis (P.Tebt III/2 894; c.114 BCE).

I will first provide a brief introduction to some of their status-indicators and economic activities.

What I find especially valuable about these two collegia are the economic features they share with the Corinthians: some of their members could not afford regular contributions, neither association dined in a clubhouse or designated meeting place,134 and neither club secured relationships with elite patrons, to name some.135

My primary question is as follows. Did the low economic profile of the modest Egyptian collegia prevent them from equipping their club with organizational structures such as offices, presentations of honorific rewards, collections of regular financial contributions from all members, and enforcement of bylaws that ensure honours would be delivered to those who deserved them? The modest clubs introduced below should cause some hesitation for scholars who propose that such structural features were absent in the Corinthian community due to their

“poverty.”

134 Verboven, while speaking about middling clubs, contends that the “social prestige [of associations] could be affirmed through wealth display…. Most conspicuous were the club houses or scholae, the remains of which archaeologists continue to discover throughout the empire” (“Associative order,” 879-880). 135 While I disagree with Friesen’s and Longenecker’s description of life below the “middling” economic category, I agree with them that the Christ-group seemingly lacked features of ES-4 clubs such as possession of a clubhouse, and relationships with elite patrons.

2: Three Modest Clubs

3.1 SB III 7182

SB III 7182 was found in the Fayum town of Philadelphia in middle Egypt along with the

“Zenon papyri.” Its discovery with the Zenon papyri led to some confusion about dating. The

Zenon papyri contain documents from 261-229 BCE. They include letter correspondences involving Zenon, an assistant to a Ptolemaic official; accounts connected to Apollonios, Zenon’s employer; and other documents related to government operations in the early Ptolemaic period.

This archive, along with other texts from Philadelphia such as SB III 7182, was discovered by villagers in 1914-15. SB III 7182 was shortly thereafter sent to C.C. Edgar by Italian papyrologist, G. Vitelli, who hoped it was part of, or could illuminate, other Zenon texts that were (and still are) housed in the Cairo Museum. Edgar found that since the papyrus uses the copper standard (which was introduced in 210 BCE), it cannot have been a Zenon text. Zenon texts, which date to the mid 3rd century, record wages and prices in silver drachmas as was common during this century regardless of whether payment was in gold, silver, or copper coins.

Near the end of the second century BCE, a silver shortage that had been developing for some time led to an abandonment of efforts to convert copper prices and wages into their silver equivalents. As a result, accounting became completed in less valuable copper drachmas. Tony

Reekmans has calculated the approximate conversion of silver to drachma according to time period:

210 BCE-183 BCE – 1 silver drachma: 60 copper drachmas 183/2 BCE – 174 BCE – 1 silver drachma: 120 copper drachmas 173 BCE-c. late I BCE – 1 silver drachma: 480 copper drachmas136

136 Tony Reekmans, “Monetary History and the Dating of Ptolemaic Papyri,” Studia Hellenistica 5 (1948): 15-43, at 17, 33-43.

2: Three Modest Clubs

The large subscription and commodity fees in SB III 7182 reflect copper’s inflation in this later period. 137 This means that when Kamax, one of the club members, pays 270 drachmas in subscription fees at one meeting, it was worth just a little more than half a silver drachma

(Frag.1.I.2). Although the papyrus dates to 173 BCE or later, Edgar can “safely assume that it comes from Philadelphia … like the Zenon papyri among which it was purchased.”138

Edgar published the papyrus in 1925 along with a short commentary. His publication consists of five fragments from the text arranged in arbitrary order. Unfortunately, no full record of a single club meeting survives, however much information about this association’s typical proceedings at banquets is provided in these fragments, including: meeting locations, names of members, and items of expenses. The club consisted of seven or eight affiliates. All recorded members have the type of “fanciful names” characteristic of slaves.139 Edgar argues, “when we find a whole group of men with such names, the chances are that they belonged to the menial class.”140

3.2 P.Tebt. III/2 894

P.Tebt. III/2 894 is the most extensive of the published Greek club accounts. After initial usage by the association around the first-century BCE, the papyrus was thrown away, later to be found

137 Reekmans, “Monetary History,” 26-27. Reekmans proposes, “[i]f we can discover and date stages in the development of the currency from the level of prices and wages recorded in dated texts, we find definite criteria by which undated texts can be approximately dated, according to the information which they give about prices and wages” (17). See 34-43 for a chart outlining these currency stages. 138 C.C. Edgar, “Records of a Village Club,” Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1844-1925) (Pubblicazioni di “Aegyptus.” Serie scientifica 3. Milano: Aegyptus, 1925): 369-76, at 369. 139 For servile names, see Heikki Solin, Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen: Ein Namenbuch (3 vols.; Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 2; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996); idem, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch (3 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982); Bradley H. McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C. – A.D. 337) (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2002) 102-3. 140 Edgar, “Records,” 369.

2: Three Modest Clubs in the late Ptolemaic period and re-used with many other texts as “papyrus mâché” to form part of a shell that made a mummy case or mask. It was in this form when Bernard P. Grenfall and

Arthur S. Hunt discovered it in 1900 along with many others in fifty mummies. Only twelve fragments of the account have been published so far from what was a narrow roll. The editors deemed the remaining pieces “too monotonous” for inclusion in the original publication.141

Grenfall and Hunt’s publication appeared in 1938 as part of the third volume of Tebtynis papyri.

P. Tebt III/2 894 is dated to approximately 114 BCE and is from Tebtynis, Egypt. The published pieces mention 49 dates, many of which appear to denote the days of club meetings. Some entries include wide-ranging information such as the meeting location, total number of attendees, and items purchased for banquets (Frag.2 recto, I.1-22); others just consist of amounts of unidentified beverages bought by the group (Frag 6 verso, I.21-35). All figures are recorded in copper drachmas and reflect the inflationary levels found in SB III 7182. The club could expect between twenty and twenty-five attendees when it assembled: in the first fragment, twenty-three members are listed before the papyrus breaks off (Frag.1 recto, II.1-22); elsewhere, the group records total attendance numbers of twenty-two (Frag.2 recto, I.3-5),142 and still elsewhere twenty (Frag.2 verso, II.43). The contents of the papyrus reveal this was a cultic group that met to dine as a community in the houses of its members, and to sacrifice at nearby altars.143

4. Socio-Economic Indicators in the Egyptian Associations and the Corinthian Group

141 Bernard P. Grenfall, Arthur S. Hunt, J. Gilbart Smyly, ed., Tebtynis Papyri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902-1938) 3.2:170. 142 This includes one guest (Frag.2 recto, l.5). 143 The cultic aspect of this group is highlighted by the fact that they chose “sacrifice-makers” for meetings and used altars. The dining component is revealed most clearly by their references to two types of meals: the midday meal (ἄριστον; Frag. 4 recto, l. 4); and supper (δεῖπνον; Frag. 4 recto, l. 6; Frag. 6 recto II .8).

2: Three Modest Clubs

There are at least four reasons to categorize both groups below the economically-middling collegia commonly compared with Pauline Christ-groups. I will briefly review the evidence that these clubs consisted of people below ES4 and then I will show that their modest economic status neither prevented them from structuring their associations around common funds, membership fees, and appointed or elected officers; nor from activities such as vying for honour, and presenting honorific rewards to peer benefactors.

4.1 Expenses, Membership Fees, and Treasuries

One indication of these clubs’ economic modesty is the amount of money they spent on banquets and collected from subscription dues. The Philadelphia slave club (SB III 7182) records one meeting’s expenses at 1,590 copper drachmae (Frag. 2, l. 41). The relevant lines appear as follows:

35 [ -ca.?- ] ϙ [ -ca.?- ] υν [ -ca.?- ]ω η αὐ η(τῇ) Ψα- [μ]μητίχου συμβο( ὴ) σο, [ἄ] ου ξένου σο, 40 [ -ca.?- ] μ α καὶ τρυ(γὸς) ρ, (γίνονται) φϙ

[An account of what the club has spent at this banquet] …. 90 drachmas … 450 drachmas …contribution to the flute-player of Psammētichos, 270 drachmas another guest, 270 drachmas144 …and of new wine, 100 drachmas Total: 1,590 drachmas

Unfortunately, we are missing the first items of the group’s expenses for this meeting. The surviving lines only add to 1180 drachmas, leaving 410 drachmas uncharted. We can imagine

144 See chapter three on the place of guests in association accounts of expenses and income.

2: Three Modest Clubs what this full entry looked like because the group recorded information about each meeting according to the same order. Their procedure was to begin with a list of participants’ names

(officers, members, guests). This component is missing from the quoted fragment. The club followed their attendance list with the phrase εἰς οὕς ἀνή ωται, meaning something like “[an account] of what the club has spent [at this meeting]” (see Frag.4 recto, IV.67; Frag.5 recto, l.92).145 This is also missing in the quoted fragment. The last component was a list of expenditures in the dative case, which survive and have been quoted above.

Using the conversion ratio of 1 silver drachma: 480 copper drachmas, which was likely in effect at the time, the above meeting’s expenditures of 1,590 copper drachmas were equivalent to

“rather more than three drachmae in silver” in total.146 With seven contributors in the club, such an amount equals an approximate financial commitment of 0.43 silver drachma per person (198 copper drachmas per person).147 Edgar surmises that the slave club’s members earned the equivalent of five silver drachmae a month, making club membership “quite a serious ontlay”148 for them despite how cheap it would seem to members of other clubs more commonly included in association scholarship. If Edgar’s supposition is accurate, membership fees represented 10% of their modest income.

The surviving fragments of SB III 7182, unfortunately, do not include precise details concerning regular subscription fees but, rather, take it for granted that members knew the

145 This formulaic phrase is missing from the fragmentary lines I quoted. 146 Edgar, “Records,” 371. Edgar values 1 silver drachmas at 530 copper drachma, which is close to the 1:480 general ratio proposed by Reekmans. 147 This is almost exactly what members in P.Tebt. III/2 894 seem to have contributed in Frag.1 recto, II.22-38). 148 Edgar, “Records,” 371.

2: Three Modest Clubs rates.149 To be sure, we know that participation in each of the club’s feast required payments from most members. The recto of fragment 5 makes this clear. It reads as follows:

Χοία[ -ca.?- ]κ[ -ca.?- ] ἐν τ ῇ σ [κευοθήκῃ] — 80 ἱερ ο π[ ο]ι[ ο]ῦ [ ]ι[ καίου] Ἑρμίας, Βάχ[χος], Θίβρων, ημᾶς, 85 Κάρπος, Κάμαξ, Ψαμμήτιχος, ίκαιος, (γίνονται) η, (τούτων) 90 ἀσύμβο ος Ἑρμίας, (οιποὶ) ζ,

[On the ? day of] Choiak [they were brought together] at the stables when Dikaios was sacrifice-maker Hermias Bacchos Thibrōn Dēmas Karpos Kamax Psammētichos Dikaios They came to eight, of whom Hermias was exempt from contribution,150 the rest (came to) seven.

The key information here is that Hermias’ exemption from dues was recorded by the club as an exception to the regular practice of contributing fees at each feast. Eight members came to this feast, Hermias did not pay but “the rest came to seven,” meaning these seven all contributed fees.

The club placed its subscription dues ἐν κοινῷ (“into the treasury”, Frag.4 recto, III.59) when the income generated by fees exceeded expenses from holding a meeting.

149 Unless Frag.1, I.1-9 represent subscription payments (see below). 150 In associations, ἀσύμβο ος indicates exemption from dues as a reward for providing services that come along with an office or some other leadership role. See, for example, IDelta I 446.40 (Egypt; II BCE); ABSA 56 (1961) 5.5.9 (Cyprus, 114-106 BCE); ASAtene 22 (1939/40) 147, l.5, 10 (Rhodes, II BCE); ID 1519.44 (Delos, 153/2 BCE); IG XII/7 22.9 (Amorgos, III BCE). 43

2: Three Modest Clubs

When we turn to the Tebtynis group, we find that members made payments correlating to their place in the association’s current hierarchical order. The following columns from fragment one (verso) of P.Tebt. III/2 894 are demonstrative of their subscription structure:

(Col. II) 35 Φαρμοῦθι κη Ἁρμιῦσις Πανεῦις Ψεναμοῦνις Πετεσοῦ(χος) Κα(γῶτος) 40 Τιτάκ Ὀνῶφρις Γ υ( ) Θέων Σι οῦς Ἀμενεύς 45 Πατῦνις Χο( ) Ἀπῦγχις Τε(ῶτος) Θορτᾶις νέο(ς) 〚Εὔδημος〛 Ὧρος Πακύ(σιος) 50 Ψενεθώτ(ης) Τρά ις Φατρῆς (Col. III) (ὧν(?)) ἔχομεν ἀρχῶν \τοῦ/ Παχών· 55 Σοκμῆνις ρ Ἀπῦγχις Τε(ῶτος) φ Πανεῦις ξ Φατ[ρῆς] ν Τρά[ ις] μ 60 Ὧρος Πακύ(σιος) ξε, (γίνονται) ωιε ἀπὸ Βσ, ο(ιπαὶ) τπ[ε], ἀνδρῶν ια ἀνὰ (δραχμὰς) ρ, (γίνονται) [ρ]. (Col. II) 28th of the month of Pharmouth: Armiysis, Paneuis, Psenamounis, Petesouchos son of Kagos, Titak, Onōphris Glu( ), Theōn, Silous, Ameneus, Patynis Cho( ), Apygchis son of Teōs, Thortais the younger (?), Eudēmos, Hōros Paku(sis), Psenethōtēs, Trallis, Phatrēs

(Col. III) we collected (the following) from the archons of the month of Pachōn:

2: Three Modest Clubs

Sokmēnis, 100151 Apygchis Teō 500 Paneuis 60 Phatrēs 50 Trallis 40 Hōros Pakysios 65 Their contributions came to 815 drachmas out of a total of 2,200 drachmas in total contributions. The rest of the drachmas: 1,385. Of the men there were 11 at 100 drachmas each, the total came to 1,100.

The 100 drachmas collected from regular members is lower than the financial contributions made by the slave club, but at other Tebtynis meetings the fees were apparently elevated to approximately 200 drachmas.152 Four of the six officers (archons) contributed less than ordinary members because, I suggest, their office required them to carry out other financial activities.

In contrast to the associations behind SB III 7182 and P.Tebt. III/2 894, middling collegiati paid lofty fees. Membership in the Lanuvium association demanded three sets of fees: entrance dues, monthly subscriptions, and requirements to fund six dinners a year with four colleagues when it is one’s turn in the rotation (CIL XIV 2112 = AGRW 310, I.3, 20-21, II.2, 8-

23). It is most unlikely that any individual member of the slave and Tebtynis groups, or even four acting together, would have been in a position to underwrite one of the monthly meals. All had to contribute. The contrast is discernible, as well, between these modest clubs and the middling group behind P.Mich V 243 (Tebtynis, Egypt; 14-37 CE). The latter association required its members to contribute twelve silver drachmas per month (l.2). If the Lanuvium group and the association behind P.Mich. V 243 were “middling” (i.e., ES4), then the substantially lower financial obligations of the slave and Tebtynis associations suggest their members lived below the ES4 level.

151 Sokmēnis does not appear in col.II, indicating that he was absent but still paid 100 drachmas. 152 At a meeting on Payni 18, members paid between 100-300 drachmas (Frag. 1 recto, II.1-24). Fragment 4 verso II is an ἐ ιακοῖς όγος where fourteen members (not everyone) owed 500 drachmas. It is unclear to what this fragment refers.

2: Three Modest Clubs

Richard Duncan-Jones calculates the subsistence level in Roman Egypt at 2.98-6.66 silver drachmas per month per person.153 If Edgar is correct about the monthly income of the slaves in SB III 7182 (five drachmas) then they (as well as the Tebtynis collegiati) may have lived just marginally above the level of subsistence.154 Although they only earned five drachmas

(or so) a month, they could satisfy subsistence requirements and still afford an extra 0.42 silver drachmas per month for membership in a modest club. Those who assume the Corinthians did not collect any subscription fees perhaps fail to realize that membership dues were not always extremely high, and were even affordable to modest members of the non-elite who lived on wages putting them close to the subsistence level. Chapter three will discuss subscription dues further.

4.2 Food

A second indicator of modest socio-economic status among these collegiati is their menu. Their banquets contain noticeably less impressive items than those enjoyed by associations typically compared with the Corinthians. For example, the Lanuvium and Iobacchoi associations regularly drank wine. In contrast, the slave club makes five references to wine, but two of which are to

τρύξ (“unfermented wine”; Frag. 2, l.40; Frag. 4 verso, l.77). This is high-quality grape juice

153 This is based on the finding that the typical person (not accounting for gender, age, or any other variable) needs ten artabas of wheat in a year. One artaba cost between 3.5 to 8 drachmas in Roman Egypt. See Richard P. Duncan- Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 144. In the earlier Ptolemaic period, one artaba of wheat sold at an official rate of two drachmas. See Sitta von Reden, Money in Ptolemaic Egypt. From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 123 n.27. 154 Edgar’s supposition is based on the club’s expenses and income, as well as other economic indicators that will be discussed below, such as meeting locations and menu items.

2: Three Modest Clubs rather than wine.155 Unfermented wine cost the group 50 (Frag.4 verso, l.77) and 100 drachmas

(Frag. 2, l.40),156 which is significantly less than the cost of wine in the same region

(Philadelphia) and time (early II BCE). Attestations to regular wine prices at by the keramion in the region and time include the following:

1 keramion: 400 drachmas (BGU VII 1501; Philadelphia; 189/8 BCE) 2 keramia: 1000 drachmas (BGU VII 1506; Philadelphia; 206-189 BCE) 1 keramion: 600 drachmas (BGU VII 1545; Philadelphia; 210-187 BCE)

The Tebtynis group also found cheaper alternatives to wine. For example, they often drank beer

(e.g., Frag.6. verso, I.21-7). The difference in price between beer and wine is nicely demonstrated by patterns in the group’s meeting schedule. When the club drank beer, they seem to have been able to meet seven times in the span of eighteen days (Frag.6. verso, I.21-30; cf.

Frag. 5 verso, II.11-20).157 In contrast, wine cost between six and eight silver drachmas (Frag. 2. recto, I.6; Frag.2 verso, II.44; Frag. 3 verso, I.4-19; Frag.6 recto, II.1; Frag. 7 verso, II.2;

Frag.10 recto, l.3-5) and was only recorded six times total.

Middling associations were not deterred by the price of wine; the Lanuvium collegium and the Athenian Iobacchoi, for example, drank it regularly and apparently did not need an alternative beverage. The Corinthians supposedly could also afford wine at their banquets since members were getting “drunk on wine” (μεθύειν; 1 Cor 11:21). However, if 1 Cor 16:2 indicates weekly meetings, it is possible that they opted for less-expensive alternatives as the Tebtynis

155 The other three references are to οἶνος twice (Frag. 4 recto, IV.70; Frag. 5 verso, II.112) and Memphite wine (Frag. 5 recto, l.94). Unfortunately the price of the wine does not survive but the papyrus from the Tebtynis group paid substantially more for οἶνος about sixty years later in 114 BCE (3,000-4,000 per keramion). 156 We do not know the unit of measure, but a keramion would be standard. 157 Ebel’s argument that weekly meetings were unique to the Christ-group is perhaps premature: “Ferner kann auf die größere Häufigkeit der Zusammenkünfte verwiesen werden, denn für den wöchentlichen Rhythmus des Zusammenkommens der Christen gibt es keine Parallele unter den antiken Vereinen. Keine konkurrierende Gruppe bietet somit die Möglichkeit, öfter gemeinsam ein Sättigungsmahl einzunehmen” (Attraktivität, 217). The slave clubs also met more than monthly (Edgar, “Records,” 370.

2: Three Modest Clubs group did when they held meetings at small intervals. This is even more likely if Meggitt,

Friesen, and Longenecker have accurately described their economic status.

In addition to occasionally drinking beer, the Tebtynis club also consumed foods regularly associated with members of humble strata. For example, at one meeting the group includes cabbage on its menu (Frag.2 recto, I.8). Several ancient authors associate cabbage and other inexpensive vegetables with low-status.158 During Mecheir 14, the Tebtynis collegiati ate beans and consumed beer (Frag.5.verso, II.11-20). Beans, Peter Garnsey notes, were “the poor man’s meat.”159 We can again distinguish these humble associations from the middling associations on the criterion of menu. The Lanuvium collegium could afford seafood over beans;160 and the Iobacchoi association occasionally enjoyed meat (IG II2 1368.117-127 = GRA I

51). The Christ-group’s common meal, as far as we know, had a menu similar to the Tebtynis group in that it consisted of (cheap) wine and bread, lacking meat. There is no indication what the slave club ate, though references to sacrifice-makers (ἱεροποιοί; Frag.4 recto, II.46; Frag.5 recto, l.80) suggests that food was present.

4.3 Meeting Locations

Another status indicator relates to the spatial environments in which a club’s meeting was held.

The slave association from Philadelphia did not possess a clubhouse. Instead, they settled for what was available when they met. In their account, they record meetings in a store-house

158 Juv. 1.134; 3.283; 5.87; Pers. 3.114; Mart. 13.13.1; Plaut. Poen. 1314; cf. Peter Garnsey, Cities, Peasants, and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 242. 159 Garnsey, Cities, 225. 160 The Lanuvium association ate sardines, which, to be fair, were “a fish conspicuously lacking in prestige” (Bendlin, “Associations,” 269).

2: Three Modest Clubs

(θησαυρός, Frag.1.II.12, Frag.4 recto, III.62), an Isis temple (Ἱσιήῳ, Frag.3.l.43), and the harness-room in a stable (ἱπποκοιναρίῳ ... σχεοθήκῃ, Frag.4 recto, II.45-6, Frag.5 recto, l.79).

Edgar concludes, “I think we may fairly infer that a society which held its meetings in the stables and the barn was mainly recruited from the servants’ quarters.”161 The cultic group from

Tebtynis did not consist of all slaves162 but its physical environment is similarly revealing of its status. It records meetings at the house or shop of Menoitos (Frag. 2 recto, l. 7), at the house of

Harpalos (Frag.2 verso, II.45), at the ἐργευτίγῳ (Frag. 3 recto, I.3; Frag.10 recto,l.4), and at a store-house (θηγαρόν163; Frag.6 recto, II.10). The group also references many visits to altars, sometimes singular (βομός;164 e.g., Frag.10 recto, l. 2) sometimes plural (e.g., Frag.11 verso,

II.6).

The rotating physical space of the Egyptian clubs is different from the consistency enjoyed by the Lanuvium collegium, which met in the temple of Antinoüs;165 the Iobacchoi group, which met in their own hall166; the household Zeus association in Philadelphia, Egypt, which met in its founder’s house (SIG3 985 = AGRW 121); and the association of Asklepios and

Hygiae (CIL VI 10234 = AGRW 322), whose patron gave them land, a chapel, and solarium for banqueting.

It is perhaps telling that Paul makes no reference to a consistent meeting-place for the

Christ-group, whether a clubhouse or a patron’s house. He had ample opportunity to mention their meeting-place if they had one – and takes for granted several times that the community

161 Edgar, “Records,” 370. 162 There were, perhaps, some members from servile backgrounds, such as Eudēmos. 163 This is a misspelling of θησαυρός. 164 This is a misspelling of βωμός. 165 It is possible but unlikely that the collegium owned the temple. See Bendlin, “Associations,” 273-8. 166 For the Iobacchoi’s meeting place, see Richard S. Ascough, Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg, Associations in the Greco-Roman World. A Sourcebook (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2012) 221-2.

2: Three Modest Clubs assembled as a “whole” Christ-group (1 Cor 1:2; 5:4; 11:18; 14:23)167 but never specifies where.

We will see in chapter five that the ekklēsia likely did not meet in Gaius’ house because Paul describes him as a guest (ξένος) not a host (ἑστιάτωρ). This does not diminish from the importance Gaius held within the ekklēsia. The presence of a guest could help ensure that a cultic group did not go into debt over the expenses it incurred, whether the guest’s participation was paid for by the invitee or the guest.

4.4 Members Who Cannot Afford Membership Fees

Ebel has argued that the Corinthian ekklēsia was different from associations with respect to its

“openness.” Anyone could join, regardless of social status since payment of membership dues was not required.168 The degree of association “openness” seemed to have a greater range than

Ebel allows. If the collegiati of middling associations are to be placed in the ES4 category, and the members who could afford subscription fees in the slave and Tebtynis clubs were, say, ES5, then the members in the slave and Tebtynis clubs who could not afford membership fees need to be placed lower down the economic scale and their presence in these clubs represents a good deal of “openness” among associations.

167 Paul also frequently names smaller meeting locations used by the Christ-group when they met as household groups. Robert Banks argues that references to “whole assemblies” presupposes “partial assemblies.” See Paul’s Idea of community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980) 38. He supposes that smaller house-church meetings comprised of family-members, slaves, freed-persons, and friends in the neighbourhood. See Paul’s Idea, 38-9 cf. Theissen, Social Setting, 83-7. Robert Jewett counts the maximum amount of Corinthian house-churches at ten: Remaining members of the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Cor 16:19; cf. Acts 18:1-3), the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16), the household of Chloe (1 Cor 1:11); Phoebe’s house in Cenchraea (Rom 16:1-2), the house of Erastus (Rom 16:23), Gaius’ house (Rom 16:23), and the four factions from 1 Cor 1:12. See Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2007) 980, n.54. 167 Ebel, Attraktivität, 216. 168 Ebel, Attraktivität, 216-7.

2: Three Modest Clubs

In both of our modest collegia we find members who did not pay full membership fees.

For example, in the slave association, Hermias is exempt from dues; he is ἀσύμβο ος three times

(Frag.5 recto, l.90; cf. Frag. 4 recto, II.58; Frag.5 verso, II.114). Hermias’ exemption from dues was a reward for his service as ἐπιμε ητής (Frag.1.II.15).169 In both modest and middling associations members agreed to take up financially-burdensome offices with the understanding that they would not contribute to the common fund during their tenure. SB III 7182 does not contain exact amounts of subscription. The varied contributions (?) in Frag. 1, I total 4,045 drachmas, which is more than twice the amount of money it cost the group to meet at other times

(1,590 drachmas in Frag. 1, II.41).170 It is clear from analogous club accounts that income and expenditure was almost identical for any given meeting, which suggests that the abovementioned

4,045 were not regular subscription fees – though they could be a tally of subscription fees owed to the club from six members who had not paid their regular fees at previous meetings.

In the Tebtynis club, there are five instances where members could not afford fees. We hear of four in the same fragment: “Ameneus (who) paid 400, (and) owes 100” (Frag.1. recto,

II.19); “Terraus (who) paid 500, (and) owes 125” (Frag. 4. verso, II.24); and “Oxyrygchi( )

(who) paid 250, (and) owes …” (Frag. 11.verso, II.12). To be sure, it is unclear what these payments were supposed to be. They are higher than what regular members were recorded to pay at other meetings and on par with the dues expected from the association’s hieropoioi. The club calls the fees Ἰ ιακοῖς, an unknown word apparently indicating a specific occasion for payment or the object towards which contributions will go.

169 Sometimes members accepted administrative positions precisely to be exempted from paying more expensive membership fees they could not afford (P. Mich VIII 511; Karanis, Egypt; first half of III CE). 170 This papyrus, as well as P.Tebt. III/2 894, was composed during the great copper inflation in Egypt from 210 BCE-30 BCE. See above, pp.38-39 and Tony Reekmans, “The Ptolemaic Copper Inflation,” in Ptolemaica (E. Van ‘t Dack and Tony Reekmans; Studia Hellenistica 7; Leiden: Brill, 1951) 61-119. 51

2: Three Modest Clubs

The clearest example from P.Tebt. III/2 894 of a regular member (i.e., not an officer) unable to pay very modest subscription sums is from the recto of the second fragment. Here, in column 1, we learn that 22 paying members came to meeting (l.5). Two additional participants,

Marēs and Penegēris, were exempt from dues (ll.1,2,4) and not counted in the recording of income. Concerning the 22 paying participants, 6 were archons who paid a combined total of

815 drachmas (l.14-21; cf. recto II.29-36). In addition, 5 were hieropoioi who paid a combined total of 1,000 drachmas (recto II. 22-28). A guest is also recorded to have paid 200 drachmas, the rate of regular members (recto I.5). This accounts for 12 of the 22 paying members. The remaining 10 paying participants contributed a total of 2,140 (recto II.38). We should expect the total here to be an even 2,200 – 200 per participant – but the total is 60 drachmas off. The discrepancy is explained in recto I.13: “Onōphris 60.” It would appear that Onōphris was only able to pay 140 drachmas and that the club made note of his debt. The failure of certain members to meet modest subscription fees is an economic indicator signaling positions in lower strata – perhaps ES6 or ES7 if we imagine fully-paid members and officers at the ES5 level.

When imagining whether or not the ekklēsia collected subscription dues, P.Tebt. III/2 894 raises the possibility that the socio-economic status of an ekklēsia’s members would play no factor in its “decision” to collect fees or not. Fees were expected from all ordinary members in

P.Tebt. III/2 894 and in SB III 7182171 – even those with almost “nothing” in terms of free economic assets. The Tebtynis group even recorded the names of those who did not pay the full amount and marked exactly what they owed. With regards to the members who could not afford the fees, such as Ameneus and Terraus, it is interesting that they still tried to pay a good portion

171 And in the modest associations explored in chapter three.

2: Three Modest Clubs of what they owed. Nonetheless, presence of members who could not always afford mandatory club fees serves as another indication that this club functioned below the middling level.

5. Activities of Modest Associations

Since SB III 7182 and P.Tebt. III/2 984 attest to modest associations occupying the economic categories into which many scholars now place the Corinthians, it will be instructive to analyze what these clubs could afford to do. It is to this task that I now turn.

5.1 Membership Dues

Koenraad Verboven articulates the centrality of collecting membership dues in private cultic groups: “[e]ven the most humble associations demanded relatively substantial financial contributions from their members and favoured the ‘better’ to do. The more important a collegium was, the more exclusive and expensive membership became.”172 Verboven’s quotation is particularly fitting in the present study of humble associations since, as has been observed, even they collected modest fees. The slave group records the collection of regular contributions at its meetings (Frag. 1.I.1-9; Frag.1.III.33-Frag.2, l.9), and also betrays the establishment of a common fund: “the aforesaid… (drachmas) were left behind in the common fund (κοινόν)…in the same Thorax’ (house)” (Frag 1.III.30-32). While the Tebtynis club does not mention a common fund, it does record the subscription fees paid by its members at various places (e.g.,

Frag.1 recto, II.1-24; Frag. 3 verso, I.5-19). In chapter three, I will discuss membership fees in these papyri alongside other accounts produced by modest clubs.

172 Verboven, “Associative order,” 881.

2: Three Modest Clubs

5.2 Officers

At several places, the Tebtynis account records ἄρχοντες.173 The association had either five

(Frag. 6 recto, II.15-20) or six archons at a time (Frag.1 verso, III.54-60; Frag.2 recto, I.14-21;

Frag.2 recto, II.29-35). Archons were appointed to one-year terms. We learn that archons enjoyed annual tenures from the minutes of a meeting on an unknown date where the club’s expenses were 4,000 drachmas, of which 850 was paid by the year’s archons (Frag 6 recto,

II.15-20):

15 (ὧν) ἔχομεν ἀρχῶν γενομέ(νων) τοῦ (ἔτους) γ Θορτᾶις νεὸ(ς) σ Πατῦνις Χο( ) σ Πενεγῆρις ρ μ Ἀμεὺς ρ ξ 20 Πανεῦις ρν , (γίνονται) ω ν .

We have the (following contributions) from those who became archons during the 3rd year: Thortais the younger, 200 Patynis Cho.., 200 Penegēeris 140 Ameneus, 160 Paneuis, 150. Total: 850 drachmas

The group also appointed or elected sacrifice-makers (ἱεροποιοί). On one occasion they had five of them (Frag. 2 recto, II. 22), and on another occasion they had two (Frag. 7 verso, II.7). We do not know what responsibilities these officers accepted. However, their incumbency came at a financial price. Sacrifice-makers were responsible for 1000 drachmas (2.08 silver drachmas), regardless of how many people held these offices at a time: when there were five of them, each paid 200 drachmas (Frag.2 recto II.22-23); when there were two, each paid 500 drachmas at a meeting held on Ephiphi 27 (Frag.7 verso II.7-11). The slave association appointed or elected

173 They often use the genitive plural of ἀρχός (ἀρχῶν). See, for example, Frag.1 verso, III.54; and Frag. 6 recto, II.15.

2: Three Modest Clubs one sacrifice-maker at a time. In the existing fragments, this position was held by a certain

Dikaios (Frag.4 recto, II.47; Frag.5 recto, l.80), who at one time paid a contribution of 640 drachmas for an unknown reason (Frag.1.I.4)

In the Tebtynis club, being a hieropoioi required larger subscription fees, whereas functioning as an archon in the Tebtynis association allowed the office-holder to determine his own contribution – we see a range of subscription payments from Tebtynis archons, spanning

40-500 drachmas. In the slave association, the ἐπιμε ητής role perhaps carried a similar rule: the incumbent paid what he could. When Hermias was supervisor, we have seen, he could not afford anything more than what his office required from him. The practice of allowing the incumbents of certain offices to decide their own subscription fees perhaps indicates that these offices required additional financial services from the holder that would prevent some of them from being able to contribute the normal subscription rate in addition to their other financial commitments.

A possible pattern emerges from these papyri concerning strategies for making a leadership hierarchy feasible in a modest club. First, it would appear that one’s regular dues when an ἄρχων in the Tebtynis group and when an ἐπιμε ητής in the slave association were left to the discretion of the officers themselves. The difference between modest and middling associations is not that modest groups lacked officers while middling clubs appointed magistrates. Rather, it is a difference in economic policies. In the Lanuvium association, the magistri cenarum were responsible for regular dues and the additional expenses that came with their offices. In the modest associations, financially-burdensome offices could come with exemptions from regular dues.

2: Three Modest Clubs

Second, the data concerning the hieropoioi office in the Tebtynis group is suggestive of another strategy for keeping the cost of office-holding low. There was no set financial contribution from each incumbent of this office. Rather, the group expected 1,000 drachmas total from occupants, which could be a very high amount if there were only one or two incumbents, or a more manageable amount if there were five incumbents.

5.3 Material Rewards for Service-Providers

In the P.Tebt.III/2 894 association, we find three attestations of crowns. In one fragment the club records the cost “of crowns for the 19th (of Payni)” (Frag.l recto, III.31). Elsewhere, crowns

(plural) are listed as an expense costing 125 drachmas on Epiphi 27 (Frag.7 verso, II.3). The association perhaps presented the honorific rewards to the two sacrifice-makers who were present at this meeting (Frag. 7 verso, II.7-11). Finally, on Hathyr 2, reference is made to crowns worth 130 drachmas (Frag.10 recto, l.7). It is apparent that responsible officers and other service-providers were rewarded with crowns. We perhaps encounter non-officials providing services in the form of hosting banquets. The Tebtynis group records meetings in the houses of at least four different members, who shared the honour of hosting the group. Harmiusios, one of the hosts, seems to have competed for honour in other ways, as well. Although never listed in the published fragments as an officer, on one occasion the collegium seems to have been in need of

420 drachmas and Harmiusios was able to offer 180 (Frag. 1 recto, III.33).

In the five surviving fragments from the slave association we unfortunately do not have the complete records for any single meeting. This, perhaps, explains the absence of honorific rewards in their lists of expenses. The group was not unaware of the honorific aspect to associative life. They elected members to prestigious roles in the community and they made a

2: Three Modest Clubs practice of naming their ἐπιμε ητής, Hermias, first in their meeting minutes (Frag.1.I.1;

Frag.1.II.16; Frag.4 recto, II.48; Frag.4 recto, III.63; Frag.5 recto, l.82; Frag.5 verso, II.103).

These practices demonstrate a concern for hierarchy, honour, and status. The Corinthians demonstrate a similar awareness by performing services that typically won formal recognition in private cultic groups, and by electing officers, I will argue (see chapters five and six).

A distinction should not be made between middling associations that offer rewards, and modest Christ-groups that do not. Rather, cultic groups in all strata rewarded service with formal commendation. The real distinction is in the value and type of honorific prizes. Middling associations could afford gold crowns,174 though olive wreaths were much more common, and honorific inscriptions; while modest associations used wreaths of a cheaper brand, and perhaps also performed proclamations of honours during their meetings.

6. Conclusion

Steven Friesen’s recent insistence on the “nearly complete absence of wealth” 175 among Pauline

Christians is misleading. P.Tebt. III/2 894 and SB III7182 show that luxury expenditures by individuals living at or below Friesen’s category 5 – the level around which he places most named Corinthians – were common, especially if one were a member of a group that met often to dine and carry out cultic activities. While the economic status of Corinthian members may have resembled collegiati in modest associations, scholars should be cautious of making too much out of the “poverty” of people at ES5-6 levels. Longenecker’s assumption that the Christ-group failed to reward service-providers, charge membership fees, and attract members with surplus

174 See, for example, IG II2 1255 = GRA I 2 (Piraeus, Attica; 337/6 BCE); IG II2 1256.9 = GRA I 5 (Piraeus, Attica; 329/8 BCE); IRhamnous II 59.8, 23 = GRA I 27 (Rhamnous, Attica, after 216/15 BCE). 175 Friesen, “The Wrong Erastus,” 256.

2: Three Modest Clubs economic resources to the degree achieved by associations, is unlikely. Both modest and middling associations elected officers, rewarded officers with crowns and inscriptions, and attracted members willing to serve the community. The Corinthians, I will now show in the next four chapters, seem to have participated in similar practices.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

CHAPTER THREE The Corinthian Common Fund

1. Introduction

If Meggitt’s, Friesen’s, and Longenecker’s assessment of the Corinthians’ socio-economic status is accurate then the closest analogies to the ekklēsia with respect to socio-economic status are modest associations.176 There were some variances between associations of different socio- economic strata (e.g., types of meeting places, cost of membership dues, banquet menus), but clubs at all strata equipped themselves with economic and honorific structural features.177

Having previously established the presence of a variety of structural features in modest associations, this chapter focuses on one specific set of organizational components: treasuries and membership dues. Did the ekklēsia’s survival depend on its ability to secure subscription fees from its members?

2. A Not-So Obvious Difference

There presently stands a curious discrepancy between association and ekklēsia scholarship. On the one hand, scholars of associations recognize the centrality of membership fees to the life of collegia. In his commentary on SB III 7182, C.C Edgar states, “[t]he club was of course kept up by subscription.”178 Koenraad Verboven’s conclusion concerning the place of subscription dues in associations is worth quoting again: “[e]ven the most humble associations demanded relatively

176 Not the wealthier clubs most often contrasted with the Corinthians in terms of economic status. 177 Structural features are often thought to constitute the defining components of associations. For example, Jinyu Liu’s recent definition of an association is as follows: “a collegium should have had at least the following stock features: the minimum size was three; it had structural features such as magistrates, a name, by-laws, membership requirements, and some sort of common treasury (pecuniae communes); and a collegium could formally take a patron or patrons” (“Pompeii and collegia: a new appraisal of the evidence,” AHB 22 [2008]: 53-69, at 54). 178 Edgar, “Records,” 371. Emphasis added.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund substantial financial contributions from their members and favoured the ‘better’ to do. The more important a collegium was, the more exclusive and expensive membership became.”179

Verboven overstates the burden of membership fees; we observed last chapter (and will see more examples this chapter) that humble clubs could expect as little as 10% of their members’ monthly wages as subscription fees.

Several scholars of Pauline Christians have reached an opposite consensus regarding the place of subscription dues in early Christ-groups. Hans Conzelmann states, without providing support, that the ekklēsia “obviously as yet [had] no organized system of finance.”180 Eva Ebel surmises it is “unübersehbar” that the Corinthian ekklēsia did not charge fees.181 Conzelmann’s and Ebel’s conclusion reflects an accepted consensus that the Corinthians did not pay membership dues.182 Rarely do scholars betray their reasons for drawing this conclusion.183

In a study on financial practices within synagogues, associations, and Christ-groups, John

Barclay takes steps forward. He acknowledges that the Corinthian ekklēsia’s survival depended on the income it could generate – not only for banquets but for other expenses, as well. He also explains some of the convictions behind the consensus:

Not surprisingly, there are no institutional structures concerning money apparent in the first generation of the Christian movement: without buildings to construct or maintain, and without a membership fee or annual dues to collect, there was no reason for the earliest Christians to handle money on other than an ad hoc basis. But that is not to say that money was irrelevant to the social formation of the Christian movement…. Paul’s church in Corinth seems to have relied on

179 Verboven, “Associative order,”881. 180 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 296. 181 Ebel, Attraktivität, 217. 182 See also, for example, Longenecker, Remember, 271; Downs, Offering, 101; and Barrett, First Epistle, 24, 26. Barrett, cites 1 Cor 16:2 as evidence that “[t]here was no treasurer to whom subscriptions could be paid” (24), though, he proposes that fees were contributed in an unstructured format. The meal was procured by “a pooling of resources by rich and poor members” (26). 183 Fee is one exception. For him, subscription dues would necessitate ekklēsia officials in charge of the collections. This, for him, is “a contemporary picture of the church.” See First Epistle, 813, n.22.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

members bringing their own food, or on the wealthier supplying food for others…. But as well as the regular expense of meals (Christian cultic activity, fortunately, cost next to nothing!), there were the occasional, but significant costs of travelling ‘prophets’ and ‘apostles.’ 184

Barclay seems right that the ekklēsia did not build or lease a clubhouse – this was a feature characteristic of middling, not modest, groups. He also correctly remarks that the banquet would have been just one of several expenses the Christ-group would need to somehow meet. But the supposition that the Corinthian meal was styled as a potluck or was procured by a minority of wealthy members cannot be maintained. These theories, especially the former, rest on Paul’s reference to each banquet participant’s act of προ αμβάνειν his or her διον δεῖπνον (1 Cor

11:21). As Barclay mentions, Paul is taken to mean one of two things here concerning the ekklēsia’s method of obtaining menu items, and neither involve a treasury and subscription fees.

The first represents Peter Lampe’s reconstruction and the second is Gerd Theissen’s:

(1) all members were supposed to bring their own meal for the first part of the banquet (prima mensa) and those “who have nothing” ate what was left for them when they arrived later.185

(2) the wealthy members “whose contribution made the meal possible in the first place”186 acted as hosts of the banquet and decided amongst themselves that it was only appropriate that they enjoy larger portions, higher quality food, and started before poorer, non-contributors, arrived.187

184 Barclay, “Money and Meetings,” 120. 185 Lampe, “Korinthinische,” 191-93. 186 Theissen, Social Setting, 154. 187 Theissen argues, “the ἰδιον δεῖπνον is most likely the meal which individual Christians bring with them. If some Christians have no ἰδιον δεῖπνον, that suggests that not all contributed to the Lord’s Supper but that the wealthier Christians provided for all ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων” (e.g., “from their own resources; see Social Setting, 148). Theissen further argues, “[t]he wealthy Christians not only ate separately that food which they themselves had provided, but it appears that they began doing so before the commencement of the congregational meal” (153); cf. Suzanne Watts Henderson, “ ‘If Anyone Hungers…’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17-34,” NTS 48 (2002): 195-208; Schmeller, Hierarchie, 66-73; and Downs, Offering, 101.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

These conclusions are similar since Lampe’s latecomers are generally regarded as “the socially- weak”, and since he describes “those with nothing” (1 Cor 11:22) as having no food to bring to the Christ-group banquet due to poverty and work schedules.188 On the whole, Lampe understands the Lord’s Supper as a potluck where all members were responsible for food procurement.189 Theissen distinctively emphasizes the wealthier Corinthians’ role as benefactors funding the meal from their own resources. His scenario amounts to a regular free meal for most of the ekklēsia. Longenecker, who supports Theissen’s reconstruction, nicely emphasizes the act of benefaction on the part of Theissen’s meal-providers: “those in ES5 could enjoy the benefits of a benefactor’s generosity [at common meals] without being expected either to make membership payments or to be involved in public acclaim of the benefactor.”190

In the following section, I will review ways in which associations financed their banquets. This will aid in better understanding the economic dynamics behind Lampe’s and

Theissen’s theories and, ultimately, in determining whether or not it is possible to continue to deny that the Christ-group paid for the Lord’s Supper from subscription fees. As John

Kloppenborg points out, Christ-groups were not the first “to confront problems of how to organize communal eating, [and] how to fund it,”191 and consideration of funding mechanisms in other ancient cultic groups will allow for fresh perspectives on Lampe’s and Theissen’s theories

– both of which have been submitted to too little critical engagement.192 After examining methods of paying for banquets in private cultic groups, I explore finances in associations more

188 See Lampe, “Korinthische,” 194 n.34. 189 Lampe, “Korinthische,” 192-3; followed by David Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 103-104, and others. 190 Longenecker, Remember, 271. 191 John S. Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Chicago, IL, 2012) 1-54, at 48. 192 Even in Lampe’s “Korinthische” article, “[e]tliche Elemente der Theißenschen Rekonstrucktion der korinthischen Situation warden wiederkehren” (194).

3: The Corinthian Common Fund broadly to help generate new questions about other items the Christ-group may have needed in order to function. Finally, I analyze 1 Cor 16:2 in light of association financial practices.

Specifically, my interest with this verse is in why Paul would instruct Christ-group members to collect funds on a specific day of the week rather than at any time during each week, and why he wanted the Jerusalem ογεία to be kept apart (παρ’ ἑαυτῷ) from the ekklēsia. As I hope to show, these formerly awkward directives make sense if the Corinthians were in the habit of collecting subscription fees.

3. Paying for Dinners in Associations

This section draws extensively from a recent study of association meals by Kloppenborg.193 In this article, Kloppenborg searches for attestation among the collegia to the food procurement mechanisms suggested by Lampe and Theissen. I shall begin with Lampe’s eranos meal.

Lampe’s objective is to explain what Paul meant when he stated each ekklēsia member took an

διον δεῖπνον (1 Cor 11:21). He believes that a potluck-version of the eranos meal illuminates this detail.

The eranos meal was first attested by Homer (Od. 1.227, 11.415). In Homer and later

Greek literature, an eranos dinner could be formatted in one of two ways: “[d]ie Gäste bringen ihren Beitrag entweder in Geld mit … oder als Speisen in Körben.”194 Dennis Smith’s description of the eranos meal favours its more common variant: “[t]he term eranos is used in

Homer to refer to a meal paid for by the common contributions of the participants.”195 In a series of articles, Lampe suggests that the other, less common, practice of guests bringing their own

193 Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 1-54. 194 Lampe, “Korinthische,” 195. 195 Smith, From Symposium, 89.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund meals – the potluck dinner – was practiced by the Corinthians, hence each member ate their own meal (τὸ διον δεῖπνον, 1 Cor 11:21) because they brought their own meal.196 While eranos meals where members make monetary contributions were common among the associations (see below), Kloppenborg has found “no clear parallels” to potluck dinners in associations.197

Lampe’s sources on potluck banquets almost all concern private meals such as the one Paul references in 10:27-33,198 not the Christ-group meal in 11:17-34. A possible exception is Aelius

Aristides’ description of a sacrificial Sarapis cultic meal (Orations 45.27-28 = AGRW L.13).

Aelius describes the banquet as an eranos meal where participants bring food donations and

Sarapis distributes “was diese als Spenden mitgebracht haben.”199

The most significant problem with Lampe’s reconstruction is not necessarily the fact that this was a rare – or even unattested – practice for private cultic groups. Most problematic is the fact that that one needs to impose Lampe’s reconstruction onto Paul’s description of the ekklēsia’s banquet. Paul mentions that members “took” (προ αμβάνειν) food, he says nothing about where it came from. The detail that each member has τὸ διον δεῖπνον should not be pressed to the extent done by Lampe. As Smith persuasively argued, Paul’s point when describing “private meals” was that each member had their own portion as determined by their

196 Lampe, “Korinthische,” 183-213; and Peter Lampe, “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Cor. 11:17-34),” Affirmation 4 (1991): 1-15. 197 Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 36. Some scholars may opine that it is most relevant that potlucks happened at private household banquets, not that they remain almost entirely unattested in associations. The household analogy is useful but has its limits. One of its limits is the ekklēsia weekly common meal; Kloppenborg observes in another article that “a weekly or monthly ritual meal” was not a “standard part of household practice” (“Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 193). Moreover, it was common for associations to meet in the houses of their members. The Tebtynis cultic and dining group represents one example (P.Tebt. III/2 894). Others include: IG X/2.1 68 = AGRW 51 (Thessalonica, late I CE); SIG3 985 = AGRW 121 (Philadelphia, Lyda, late II-early I BCE); CIL VI 10260-10264 = AGRW 323A-G (Rome, II CE); AGRW B7 (Sarapeion built within a household). 198 Aristophanes, Wasps 1085-1149; Lucian, Lexiphanes 13; Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.14.1. Potluck dinners seem rare even in private dinners. Paul, for example, assumes that the Christian at the private dinner will be served by the host. For the structure of typical private banquets, see Smith, From Symposium, 13-46. 199 Lampe, “Korinthische,” 196.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund place in the Christ-group’s present hierarchy.200 This was a very common practice, with officers and other leaders receiving double or, sometimes, unlimited portions (see chapters five and six).201 An “individual meal” (τὸ διον δεῖπνον) was one “in which portions are not equal and activities are not shared by all…. the inequality signified by the situation at Corinth where ‘some are hungry and others are drunk’ qualifies this meal as an ‘individual’ one.”202 This is the way

Plutarch uses the adjective, διον, when describing dinner portions:

When I was holding the eponymous archonship at home, most of the dinners (τῶν δεῖπνον) were portion-banquets, and each man at the sacrifices was allotted his share of the meal. This was wonderfully pleasing to some, but others blamed the practice as unsociable and vulgar … [For Hagias said] “where each guest has his own private portion ( διον), companionship fails (Quaestiones conv. II.10.1, 2).203

The contributions of Theissen, Smith, and Kloppenborg create significant challenges for the viability of the current version of Lampe’s reconstruction. A better way to reconstruct Lampe’s scenario is to maintain the idea of an eranos meal, but privilege the mechanism that almost all other cultic groups used – namely, bringing payment, not food, to banquets. This is more accurately what Paul describes.

It is also difficult to support Theissen’s reconstruction. He suggests that a small, though unspecified, number of Corinthians bought all the food for all participants at ekkēsia banquets.204

If we are to imagine ES4 Corinthians as the benefactors, as Friesen and Longenecker have done, only 7-10% of Corinthian members would have funded the weekly meals.205 Kloppenborg

200 Smith, From Symposium, 191-3. 201 See also Theissen, Social Setting, 154; Smith, From Symposium, 191-3. 202 Smith, From Symposium, 193. 203 Quoted from Theissen, Social Setting, 149. 204 Theissen, Social Setting, 147-51. 205 Friesen posits approximately 7%, Longenecker suggests 10%. See chapter two.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund locates one analogy to this payment method but it, in fact, reveals significant problems with

Theissen’s theory rather than prop it up with support.

The analogy is from a fragmentary inscription from Ionia produced by a Dionysiac club

(SEG 31:983 = Kloppenborg 2012, p.31; Söke, Ionia; II-I BCE). This inscription attests to three people having promised (προεπηγγεί εσθαι) wine to the association, and having made good on their commitments. The third donor, a certain Dionysios, also provides bread (ἄριστον, l.11), cooks (ἐργάτης, l.10) and musicians (μουσικός, l.10). The quantities of the benefactions are lost except for one donation of 100 metretai (3,900 litres) of wine by a certain son of Protamachos whose name is missing (ll.5-7). Since 3,900 litres of wine would be an exorbitant amount for just one banquet, Kloppenborg suggests that it was meant to be consumed at several dinners.206 This wine donation is worth exploring further since it represents the kind of benefaction Theissen imagines the ekklēsia’s ES4 members to have made every year. How much money did the

Dionysiac wine-donor spend on his promised wine?

Modest associations such as the one behind P.Tebt. III/2 894 typically bought one keramion of wine per meeting. Protomachos’ son’s 3,900 litres of wine is equivalent to 534.25 monochoron keramia.207 Keramia of wine could be purchased by the monochoron (7.3 litres) or dichoron (14.6 litres), however, it was usually the monochoron. In Egypt, during the late second century and early first century BCE, we know that one keramion of wine sold for 400-600 copper drachmas (6.66-10 silver drachmas) in Philadelphia between 210-187 BCE.208 This is the

206 Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 31. 207 Dominic Rathbone contends that this jar held 7.3 litres. See Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third- Century AD Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 469; see also Kenneth W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996) 316; and Philip Mayerson, “The Monochoron and Dichoron: Standard Measures of Wine Based on the Oxyrhynchition,” ZPE 131 (2000): 169-72. 208 See BGU VII 1501, 1506, and 1545.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund same price range the Tebtynis club recorded for their wine purchases – they bought one keramion of wine in 114 BCE for 3000-4000 copper drachmas or 6.25-8.33 silver drachmas (P.

Tebt. III/2 894). Since we know, approximately, the size and price of the Tebtynis club’s wine purchases, we can convert the Dionysiac benefactor’s gift into 114 BCE prices and compare it with the contributions made by the Tebtynis club. Given the cost of wine in 114 BCE,

Protomachos’ son’s donation of 3,900 litres would be valued at approximately 3,896 silver drachmas. This is equivalent to the income of all twenty P.Tebt. III/2 894 members over the course of thirty-nine years.209 The fact that Theissen’s method of paying for banquet menu-items was so rare in private cultic groups results from the enormity of the donation.

The procedure proposed by Theissen, in fact, necessitates greater generosity than what is attested in this inscription. The SEG 31:983 benefactors likely did not make these donations perpetually. More probably, given the price of their donations, they accepted the temporary kind of responsibilities held by the middling Lanuvium association’s four annual, rotating, magistri cenarum.

What happens when we apply Protomachos’ son’s donation to Christ-group practices?

First, the Christ-group did not require 3,900 litres of wine per annum. If they consisted of twenty members then perhaps they ordered a keramion for each meeting. Let us assume with many scholars that ekklēsia assemblies were held at weekly intervals (see below). Since one keramion was approximately 7.3 silver drachmas for the Tebtynis group, fifty orders at this quantity in 114

BCE would cost 365 silver drachmas. If two Corinthians shared the expense, it would be the equivalent of 181.25 drachmas. This is almost equal to the annual income of all the Tebtynis collegiati over the course of two years. Even if the Christ-group were a socially heterogeneous

209 This is, of course, if the Tebtynis club members’ income resembled what Edgar supposes of the slave collegiati (5 drachmas). See chapter two for socio-economic similarities between these two collegia.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund group, this type of benefaction would have been beyond the typical available resources of someone living at the ES4 level. The Tebtynis group, it will be remembered, was also socially heterogeneous. Some members paid regular fees and contributed to additional collections

(ES5?), some members paid only modest fees (ES6?), and others could not even afford subscription dues – though they attempted to pay them (ES7?). The theory that a few wealthy

Corinthians purchased all the banquet items from their own resources, allowing “50 free meals”210 for everyone else, is not a plausible scenario.

There is nothing in 1 Cor 11:17-34 that describes Theissen’s rarely-attested mechanism better than other, very common, methods of procuring food and drink in private cultic groups.

Moreover, if two people bought food and drink for twenty each week, it would have been a temporary service that would not relieve the Christ-group from collecting membership dues.

An alternative way to understand Theissen’s theory may be to imagine the ekklēsia’s two meal-providers as donors of sportulae (gifts)211 or endowments. Endowments were generally modest and did not relieve recipients from the necessity of collecting entrance and monthly fees from their members in order to fund their activities.212 It is doubtful that the Christ-group would not have even been the beneficiary of endowments; Jinyu Liu observes that endowments

were not made out of charity or in response to particular financial difficulties, but … donors tended to favor the wealthier and more prominent associations and often obliged the recipients to perform certain services in return. The more prominent and well off the association, the larger and more frequent the donations it tended to receive.213

210 Pilhofer, Die frühen Christen, 207. 211 These could be in the form of money (more common) or food (less common). See Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 33-34; cf. John Donahue, The Roman Community at Table During the Principate (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004) 133. 212 Jinyu Liu, “The Economy of Endowments: the case of Roman associations,” in 'Pistoi dia tèn technèn’. Bankers, loans and archives in the Ancient World. Studies in honour of Raymond Bogaert (eds. Koenraad Verboven, Katelijn Vandorpe and Véronique Chankowski-Sable; Studia Hellenistica 44. Leuven, Peeters, 2008) 231-256, at 238; cf. Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 41. 213 Liu, “Economy of Endowments,” 239.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

Sportulae and endowments were more than a modest ekklēsia could expect and, in any case, did not eliminate banquet expenses.

4. Expenditures and Income in Modest Associations

It is far from “obvious” that the ekklēsia managed to avoid “the most commonly attested practice for funding banquets,” namely, collections of membership dues.214 Edgar, Liu, Verboven, and

Kloppenborg have all found collection of subscription payments to be pre-requisite to holding association meals. In the documentary papyri and epigraphic evidence, associations never record potluck dinners, and almost never enjoyed the type of benefaction proposed by Theissen. This data urges scholars to reconsider how the ekklēsia paid for their weekly meals. I will next explore associations’ financial practices more broadly. Even if Theissen’s or Lampe’s implausible scenarios are to be maintained, they still do not indicate an absence of ekklēsia subscription fees. Club accounts provide a wealth of economic information beyond banquets, and generate questions about what the Corinthians would have needed to buy other than bread and wine. They also reveal fiscal strategies that may have also been practiced in the Corinthian

Christ-group.

4.1 Non-Menu Expenses

Association expenditures include items rarely discussed in economic descriptions of Christ- group activities. The following papyrus consists entirely of expenditures, of which the association’s menu was only one. It was written by an association of priests from first-century

Oxyrhynchus (P.Oslo III 143; Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; I CE):

214 Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 36.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

όγο[ς π]αστοφό(ρων) συ ν όδο(υ) Θῶνις Τεῶτος (δραχμαὶ) πδ Θομπαχράτῃ (δραχμαὶ) ξϛ γραμματεῖ (δραχμαὶ) ε 5 ἱστιατορίας κοινω( ) (δραχμαὶ) ιβ χειρογραφίας (δραχμαὶ) δ επτῆς δαπάνη(ς) ὀβο( οὶ) κδ∠ συνόδωι ἐν τῷ Θων ι είου (δραχμαὶ) ι Σενθεῖ Θοω( ) συνόδ(ου) αμαρίω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) η 10 Οὐερεθώνει (δραχμαὶ) μ γ(ίνονται) (δραχμαὶ) σ β (ὀβο οὶ) γ∠ Account of a pastophoroi synodos. Thōnis son of Teōs 84 drachmas; to Thōmpakhrates 66 drachmas; to the secretary 5 drachmas; for the common feast 12 drachmas; for writing expenses 4 drachmas; for small expenses 24.5 obols; to the synodos in the temple of Thōnis 10 drachmas; to Sentheus son of ? of the Damarion synodos 8 drachmas; to Ouerethōnis 40 drachmas. The total comes to 232 drachmas and 3.5 obols.215

These figures may be in copper drachmas216, but do not represent the inflationary copper levels during II-I BCE. The value of copper apparently stabilized by this date. At least, this is the impression one gets from a farm account from 78/9 CE – approximately the time of P.Oslo III

143 – where copper expenditures were converted to silver drachmas at the approximate rate of

1.13 copper drachmas to 1 silver drachma (P.Lond. I 131; Hermopolis). In this papyrus, the author translates an expenditure of 68 copper drachmas and 4.5 obols into 59 silver drachmas. 217

The synodos’ expenditures in P. Oslo III 143 begin with the names or offices of three club members (Thōnis, Thōmpakhrates, and the secretary) who are paid various sums. Club

215 The author of the account places a ∠ at the end of lines 7 and 11. This symbol is sometimes taken to mean “one- half,” and other times it serves to remind the author that he or she made an abbreviation in the line (see P.Tebt. II 401 and the editors’ comments on l.18 in Tebtunis Papyri II, 272). In P.Oslo III 143, it means “one-half” – the total sum calculated at the end adds up if the group reckoned a 7-obol drachma. See Verne B. Schuman, “The Seven- Obol Drachma of Roman Egypt,” CP 47 (1952): 214-18, at 214.

216 “Payments in copper were frequently recorded in Roman times, although it is probable that such entries were the survivals of Ptolemaic practice, and copper was no longer actually current. Usually these summers were converted to their equivalent in silver or buillon” (Johnson, Roman Egypt, 431). 217 It is not always possible to know the copper to silver ratio. The conversion rate in P.Lond. I 131 is at odds, for example, with other near-contemporary texts. For example, in P.Fay. 101 (18 BCE), the ratio is 1850:1; P.Fay.44 (6 BCE) uses a ratio of 400:1, and SB III 6951 (II CE) employs a ratio of 300:1.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund officers, such as these three, could be responsible for paying bills up front. Lest this be equated with current theories concerning two or three Corinthians paying for the Lord’s Supper, one will notice that the three affiliates are here reimbursed by their association’s treasury for their expenditures. Officers regularly paid up front for various items (e.g., P.Oxy. X 1275, III CE;

P.Tebt. II 401.23, early I CE).218 This was sometimes a necessary responsibility for members who wanted to rise through the hierarchy of their association by means of holding offices.

The second item represents banqueting fees. Here, the pastophoroi219 record one of their feasts to have cost 12 drachmas, which may mean their 20 (?) members’ subscription fees were 1 silver drachma, slightly more than the modest clubs studied last chapter who paid about 0.5 silver drachmas, but not anywhere near the fees that could be charged by middling collegia (e.g.,

12 drachmas in P.Mich. V 243), and in a different world from the Dionysiac donor of 3,896 silver drachmas worth of wine.

The club also records writing expenses, which amount to one-third the cost of a banquet and, therefore, a significant expense. Curiously, the Oxyrhynchus club pays money to an association that meets in a temple devoted to Thōnis. The editors of the text suggest, “the pastophori had borrowed some implements necessary for their feast for which the other club received dr. 10 as remuneration.”220 The association later records remuneration for a certain

Senyris for an unknown reason. “Small expenses” are listed in obols and did not warrant

218 It is curious that Thōnis is not in the dative. The spelling of a member’s name in the nominative followed by a sum makes it difficult to know if the individual owes the sum or is being paid back money. 219 The pastophoroi were priests responsible for carrying shrines in processions. The editors understand these to be “subordinate priests.” This papyrus is our earliest attestation to Greek associations of priests in Egypt. See Poland, Geschichte, 40-44; San Nicolò, Ägyptisches, 1:11-12; Walter von Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus (2 vols.; Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1905) 1:94-5. 220 Eitrem and Amundsen, Papyri osloenses, 3:222.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund specificity. In all, these fees signify some of the costs to keeping up an association. They would all bankrupt the club if members had not been paying their mandatory fees.

The two modest associations explored last chapter provide further examples of non-food expenditures. For example, the slave club (SB III 7182) records the prices for flute-players and public dancers (Frag. 5 recto, ll. 95-96; cf. Edgar, p.371), and the Tebtynis group (P.Tebt. III/2

894) lists costs of crowns (Frag. 1 recto, III. 30); a lamp (Frag. 2 recto, I.9); perfume (Frag.2 verso, II.45); and a flute-player (Frag.2 verso, II.47). Other club accounts mention crowns

(P.Tebt. I 118; Tebtynis, Egypt; late II BCE), and clothing items for cultic rituals (P.Lund. IV 11; possibly Bakchias, Arsinoites; 169/170 CE). For these associations, food and wine were only two of many expenditures for which they needed income from subscription dues.

4.2 Strategies for Generating Income

In addition to collecting subscription fees, associations often required supplemental income.

They devised numerous strategies to stay out of debate. Four of them are as follows.

4.2.1 Voluntary Contributions and Collections

In a papyrus that calls itself an ἔκθεσις οἰνικῶν συνόδου ὀνη ατῶν221, the authoring association recorded voluntary wine-contributions from affiliates (P.Athen. 41; unknown provenance; I CE).

Nineteen members contributed a variety of sums that are arranged in no order. For example,

Areios son of Ptolemaios is listed first. He contributed four drachmas and eleven obols (l.3).

Several lines down is Dionysios son of Apollos, who contributed twenty drachmas (l.16). Some contributed as little as one drachma and one obol (l.6). This club seemingly put subscription fees

221 List of wine-payments of a synodos of donkey-drivers.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund towards other activities (e.g., funeral costs, lamps, entertainment, bread, cabbage, writing expenses, etc.) and were without funds for wine. In this collection of “wine contributions,” members gave they could over and above what they paid in membership dues in order to secure wine for their banquets.

Apparently, non-menu expenses could be so hefty that the creation of a voluntary wine- collection was not uncommon – another example of a wine collection is found in P.Tebt. III/2

894. Membership dues in this club were 100 drachmas for regular members (Frag. 1 verso,

III.63). In addition to these, fourteen of the club’s twenty (or so) members contributed to the following voluntary collection for wine (P.Tebt. III/2 894; Frag.3 verso, I.1-19):

(ἔτους) δ ε χ [εὶρ ,] ἐν τῷ βομῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ ε[ ]γῳ. συ(μβο αὶ) τῶν οἰν[ -ca.?- ] 5 (γίνονται) α γε ι ς σ υ (μβο αὶ) τμε Σοκμῆνις συ(μβο αὶ) σμε εις Πανεῦις συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Φατρῆς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Τρά ις συ(μβο αὶ) σμε 10 Σι οῦς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Φῖβι ς συ(μβο αὶ) ρμε Νααρῶς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε ζημία υ (γίνονται) χμε Πομβᾶς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε 15 Θορτᾶις νεὸ(ς) συ(μβο αὶ) ρμε Εὔδημος συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Σαρᾶς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Πτό ις ἀδε (φὸς) συ(μβο αὶ) σμε Πετεσοῦ(χος) Καγῶ(τος) σμε

Voluntary collections in associations show that income from subscription dues was a bare minimum for many groups’ survival, and that they sometimes did not even cover the cost of essential items needed for banqueting.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

4.2.2 Guests at Association Banquets

One mechanism for generating income outside of membership fees, and outside of voluntary collections, is inviting guests to club dinners. The short club account, P.Tebt. I 118 (Tebtynis,

Egypt; late II BCE), lists expenses for three meetings at which guests were present. Subscription rates sat at 100 copper drachmas per participant per meeting, which is comparable to the modest dues expected from last chapter’s slave (SB III 7182) and Tebtynis (P.Tebt. III/2 894) associations. Given copper’s value at the time (late II BCE), this amounts to 0.20-0.25 silver drachmas. The information from this account can be charted as follows:

Table 3.1: The Finances of a Modest Association (P.Tebt. I 118; Tebtynis, Egypt; late II BCE)

Meeting Date Occasion Expenses Attendance and Balance Income Hathyr 17 Funeral feast 6 chöes of wine 18 members 100 dr. surplus (2000 dr.) 4 guests each at 100 dr. 6 dinner loaves (190 dr.)

Total: 2190 dr. Total: 2200 dr. 20th day of Regular 6 chöes of wine 18 members 180 dr. surplus that unknown month banquet (2000 dr.) Nephoreges “remain with the Crown (120 dr.) Sen(uris?)222 treasurer”[ἐν 3 guests οἰκο(νόμῳ), l.15] Total: 2120 dr. Each at 100 dr. Total: 2300 dr.

Tybi 25 Regular 6 chöes of wine 21 attendees at 20 dr. deficit [ὑπὲρ banquet (2000 dr.)223 100 dr. each ἀνη( ώματος) κ] crown (120 dr.) Total: 2100 dr. Total: 2120

222 Nephoreges and Senuris are neither listed as ξένοι nor grouped in with the members. They paid 100 drachmas – the same fee as all other participants. 223 The quantity of wine at the third meeting is not stated in the papyrus, but its price indicates the same six chöes as was procured at the previous two dinners.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

Instructively, fees from all 18 members were never enough for the expenses of holding these three meetings. Instead of increasing subscription fees, which were low but presumably burdensome enough already, the club encouraged its members to invite guests who contributed to the income. Participation in this association’s feasts at the rank of a guest cost 100 drachmas from either the guest or the member who invited the guest. The club ordered no additional food or drink when guests came – six chöes of wine was purchased for all three meetings even though the attendance numbers fluctuated from twenty-one to twenty-three. In this papyrus, guests are always listed as sources of income224; their participation in feasts allowed the association to purchase the resources necessary to hold banquets without going into debt.

Interestingly, at the association’s third meeting, they were only able to secure the participation of three guests – a lower number than at previous meetings. The result is a deficit that needed to be paid from the common fund. Reference to the common fund is made in line 15 where there was a great enough surplus that the association’s financial manager (οἰκονόμος) was charged with the responsibility of managing the funds.

A different guest policy appears in SB III 7182. Here, there is mention of “another guest”

(ἄ ος ξένος; Frag. 2, l. 39) in what appears to be an expense report rather than a tally of income

That guest’s participation cost the club 270 drachmas.225 What does it mean to record a guest as an expense rather than a source of income? P.Tebt. III/2 894 provides a hint. A certain Patynis gave over a list of his expenditures at a club banquet on the 1st day of Mecheir. It read as follows:

(P.Tebt. III/2 894, Frag. 4 recto, ll.1-10):

224 For example, line 8 reads: (γίνονται) κβ ἀνὰ ρ Βσ (“The total number of members were 22 at the rate of 100, for a total of 220 drachmas”). Each of the 22 participants, including four guests, paid 100 drachmas. Another example of guests reckoned as income is from P.Tebt. I 224 (Tebtynis, Egypt; late II BCE). This is a very fragmentary account of the expenses of a banquet. It comes from a modest association that charges members and guests 105 drachmas (0.20-0.25 silver drachmas) for attending. 225 Edgar “conjectures” that when a member invites a friend, the member paid their guest’s fee (“Records,” 375).

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

εχεὶρ ι. Πατῦνις Χο( ) ῥη( ) [ -ca.?- ] ἀνά ωμα· ἄριστον ἀτους π 5 ἁ ὸς ι, (γίνονται) ϙ δεῖπνον ο, (γίνονται) ρξ εἰς τὸ μέτρον κ, (γίνονται) ρ[π.] (ὧν) ξένοι Ἡρακ είδ[ου] θ γ ἀν(ὰ) μ , (γίνονται) ρκ 10 Φατρ έ ο υ ς α μ , (γίνονται) ρξ.

10th of Mecheir Patynis Cho … orator(?) expenditure: cakes for the midday meal, 80 drachmas ten measures of salt, 90 drachmas dinner, 70 drachmas; total (salt + dinner): 160 drachmas for twenty measures (of salt) the total is 180 drachmas nine guests of Herakleidēs three at 40 drachmas, totaling 120 drachmas one guest of Phatrēs at 40 drachmas. Total (cost of guests): 160 drachmas

It would seem that the association recorded Patynis’ expenses so that they could reimburse him for items which he paid out of his pocket. Since it cost an association nothing to invite guests – the Tebtynis association would buy the same amount of wine (one keramion) regardless of attendance numbers (see below) – the placement of guests in an expense report seems obscure. I would suggest that these guests needed to pay fees to participate in this association’s banquet, and their fees were paid partially or entirely by Patynis, who would be reimbursed by

Herakleidēs and Phatrēs. The association records the names of members who invited the guests because they owed money to Patynis. Herakleidēs owed Patynis 120 drachmas for his three guests who did not pay their entire fee and for whom Herakleidēs also did not pay. Phatrēs owed

40 drachmas to Patynis for one guest who did not pay and for whom Phatrēs did not pay. The six other guests whom Herakleidēs invited paid for themselves and would have been recorded in the group’s income as in P.Tebt. I 118.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

P.Tebt. III/2 894 further demonstrates the significance of guests as sources of additional income. The Tebtynis club shared with the association behind P.Tebt. I 118 the practice of spending more money than its core membership could afford. To compensate, guests’ fees helped. Here is a tally of a meeting’s income from a banquet that cost 4,140 drachmas (Frag.2 recto, II.36-38):

(γίνονται) ωιε, ξένου α σ, (γίνονται) Βιε, ο(ιπαὶ) Βρ μ.

Total money (i.e., from hieropoioi and archons)226: 1,815 one guest whose participation brought us 200 drachmas. Total: 2,015 drachmas (from officers and a guest). The remaining (income) (i.e., from regular members and other income): 2,140

The club’s total income from this meeting was 4,155. Their expenditures (4,140) were on wine, cabbage, and a lamp (see Frag. 2 recto, I.6-10). If they did not secure 200 drachmas from their guest, they would have been in debt almost 200 drachmas. We know that they ordered the same amount of wine, regardless of attendance numbers. Here, they totalled twenty-two and ordered their standard 7 litre (one keramion) jar of wine, which cost 4,000 drachmas (I.6), while at another banquet, they totalled twenty and ordered the same quantity of wine (Frag. 2 verso,

II.44).

4.2.3 Subscription Fees based on Hierarchical Position

While some modest clubs collected the same amounts of fees from every member (e.g., P.Tebt. I

118, 224), others collected subscriptions based on members’ position in the association’s hierarchy. An association devoted to the Dioskouroi purchased several items for one of their

226 The five archons contributed 815 drachmas in total (Frag. 2 recto, I.14-21), the five hieropoioi paid 200 each for a total of 1,000 (Frag. 2 recto, I.22).

3: The Corinthian Common Fund banquets, held on the first day of Mesorē (P.Lund. IV 11; possibly Bakchias, Arsinoites; 169/170

CE). In column 1 of their account, the association lists its expenses, which include: oil (ll.7, 16), condiments or seasoning (l.17), a vessel for some type of liquid (l.21), dried fruits (l.24), grain

(ll.25-26), and two dichōra of wine (l.4). In the second column, the association lists twenty members who contribute either 100, 80, 60, or 20 silver drachmas (P.Lund. IV 11. II.1-23;

Bakchias, 169/170 CE):

οἱ δὲ συ[ντε] ο[ῦντες εἰς τὸν ἐγ[γεγραμ- μένον στο ισμ[όν · ιόσκ[ο]ρος οὐετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ρ 5 ιόσκορος Ίσί[ω]νος (δραχμαὶ) ρ Φι [ό]ξενος (δραχμαὶ) ρ Ν]εφωτιαν[ὸ]ς (δραχμαὶ) ρ ῖος... (δραχμαὶ) ρ Σερῆνο[ς ο]ὐετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ρ 10 Ἀπο ινάριος οὐετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) π Πτο εμαῖος [οὐ]ετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ξ Ἀπο ινάριος οὐ[ε]τ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ξ Ὡρίων οὐετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ξ ιόσκορος Ἡφαιστ[( )] (δραχμαὶ) ξ 15 ιογένης [(δραχμαὶ) ξ Ζωί ος Ἡφαιστ[( )] (δραχμαὶ) ξ εῖος άρων(ος) . (δραχμαὶ) [ξ Ὡ]ρίων ἐ αιου[ργὸς (δραχμαὶ) ξ ιονύσιος (δραχμαὶ) [ξ 20 Π]το εμαῖος οὐετ(ρανὸς) (δραχμαὶ) ξ .ονας (δραχμαὶ) κ Ἀκῆς (δραχμαὶ) κ Ἑρμείας (δραχμαὶ) κ The ones who have paid for the equipping (of the gods in new clothing and the sacrificial feast) have been written below…227

Erik Knudtzon believes that the different contribution rates reflect the group’s current hierarchical structure (Klasseneinteilung) rather than fee rates based on members’ position in

227 The numerals indicate the following payments: ρ= 100 dr.; π = 80 dr.; ξ = 60 dr.; κ = 20 dr.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund society outside of the community.228 The papyrus nicely demonstrates how rising through the hierarchy of a club provided a mechanism for displays of economic prowess as well as establish individuals as generous and honorable. The association’s current hierarchy seems to be reflected in descending order based on payment levels229

Asking officers to pay higher fees was a strategic method of generating additional income. These officers would be rewarded for their services with crowns (I.20) and other honours. If some Corinthians contributed slightly more to the Lord’s Supper than others, it was perhaps because they occupied a high place in the Christ-group’s present hierarchy rather than a result of their social status outside of the ekklēsia.

4.2.4 Menu Alterations

When income outside of subscription fees could not be obtained, associations sometimes modified their menus in order to stay debt-free. In the previous chapter, it was observed that the slave association occasionally ordered cheap wine (e.g., Frag.2, l.40) for this reason. The same strategy was practiced by the Tebtynis association, who ordered beer when they met at regular intervals (e.g., Frag. 6 verso, I.21-35). Moreover, the club behind P.Tebt. I 118 (see chart above) met without bread on occasion in order to stay out of debt. During this association’s second and third meetings, crowns were required for officers or service-providers, which pushed bread

228 “Obwohl natürlich auch bei einmaligen Festen eine solche Gliederung der Zahler in verschiedene Gruppen nach Vermögensverhältnissen denkbar ist, scheint sie mir doch am besten als Klasseneinteilung eines Kultvereins erklärt warden zu können” (Erik Johan Knudtzon, Bakchiastexte und andere Papyri der Lunder Papyrussammlung [4th volume of Aus der Papyrussammlung der Universitätsbibliothek in Lund; Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1946) 58. 229 Some idea of these members’ social status can be gained from wage information from 170 CE. There is attestation to a bricklayer who earned 40 drachmas per day (P.Tebt. I 42; Tebtunis, 172 CE); and a laborer hired for mowing work earned 10-14 obols (about 1.5-2 drachmas) per day (P.Mil. Vogl. 3/153 col. 2+3; Tebtynis; 169/170 CE). For attestation to wages before and after 170 CE, see Hans-Joachim, Drexhage, Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten (St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991) 402-39; and Johnson, Roman Egypt, 306-310.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund outside of their evening’s budget. When the club needed to choose between rewarding service- providers with formal honours and providing bread to participants, it chose crowns.

4.3 Summary of Associations’ Financial Practices

One pattern to emerge from modest associations’ financial records is the complete absence of potluck dinners and patrons who pay for all cult-group activities and expenses. Even exceptionally-large donations such as Dionysios’ 3,896 drachmas-worth of wine (SEG 31:983;

Söke, Ionia; II-I BCE) were only for the group’s beverage consumption. Moreover, since association banquets generated several expenses beyond menu items, subscription fees were necessary for survival even in the rare cases where a banqueting group could secure a rich and generous patron. If members did not pay the full amount of their fees, their association made note of it and expected the rest of the payment shortly (e.g., P.Tebt. III/2 894, Frag.4 verso,

II.19, 24). Associations that failed to secure sufficient payments from their members dissolved.

This was the outcome of a collegium from second century Dacia – due to absenteeism and a lack of fee payments, the club’s officers had no means to pay the expenses that would accumulate from continued existence and decided to disband it (CIL III 1 = Lewis and Reinhold II, pp.188-9;

Alburnus Major, Dacia; 167 CE).230

To meet financial pressures, clubs employed various strategies. One tactic was to organize a voluntary collection that went towards items subscription fees did not cover. A second method was the invitation of guests. Guests off-set deficits and cost associations no additional menu fees. Third, some associations charged membership fees based on hierarchical positions, with leaders paying more than regular members. Fourth, menu alterations (e.g., cheaper wine, no

230 See also OGIS 595 = AGRW 317 (Campania, Italy; 174 CE), and the discussion of this inscription in chapter five.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund bread if crowns are needed) were implemented when necessary to keep expenditures manageable.

5. Accounting in the Christ-Group

The association data raises new questions about the economic structure of the Corinthian Christ- group, such as the following inquiries. When the Christ-group wrote a letter to Paul (1 Cor 7:1), or composed their own meeting minutes, were these regarded as writing expenses as in P.Oslo

III 143.7? When Stephanas and others travelled to Paul on behalf of the ekklēsia (16:17-18), or when members gave provisions to visiting teachers (e.g., 16:10-11), were they reimbursed by the ekklēsia? Did the Christ-group order the same amount of wine each week regardless of whether they could secure two or four guests, as did the groups behind P.Tebt. III/2 894 and P.Tebt. I

118? Was there pressure to invite the right amount of ξένοι in order to stay out of debt? If certain members were displeased with their food portions, to what extent was their dissatisfaction caused by the fact that they contributed fees that paid for the food? When Paul told the Christ-group to recognize Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, would this have meant altering their menu in order to purchase three crowns? On this point, any Christ-group with enough financial resources for wine and bread were well-enough endowed to provide crowns. Crowns took precedent over bread in some clubs when a choice needed to be made between the two. Other than food and wine, did holding an ekklēsia banquet result in any other expenditures? One possibility is musicians. Dennis Smith observes that ancient banquets “presupposed entertainment as part of the event.”231 Edgar comments that in “little provincial towns no social gathering was complete

231 Smith, From Symposium, 12.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund without the flute-player and the effeminate dancer.”232 It may be coincidental that Paul related poor musical performances to Corinthian tongue-speakers (14:7-12). However, tongue-speaking and other demonstrations of gifts would have taken place during the symposium section of their meetings when a musician would have been present.233 To be sure, Paul does not reference musicians at ekklēsia meetings—that would be too much to expect from his epistles, which address the exceptional, not the routine. I tentatively suggest the following items as expenses for which the Christ-group would likely need to find income:

Table 3.2: Expenditures of the Corinthian Ekklēsia

Expense Source Cheap wine 1 Cor 11:20-22 Bread, other σῖτα 1 Cor 11:20-22 Reimbursement for members’ out of pocket 1 Cor 16:3, 10-11, 15-18; 2 Cor 11:7-9 expenses on behalf of ekklēsia Honorific crowns and/or inscriptions for 1 Cor 16:17-18 (cf. 11:19 and chapter six for officers/ service-providers Corinthian officers) Entertainment 1 Cor 14:7-12? Funerary meals and related expenses 1 Cor 15:17-18 Writing expenses (letter, accounts, bylaws) 1 Cor 4:6234; 7:1

I have intentionally omitted other typical association expenditures that may have been too burdensome for the ekklēsia, though we cannot be sure (i.e., honours for civic officials such as

Erastus, participation in public events such as the Isthmian games). This small chart is not meant as a full reconstruction of the ekklēsia’s expenses, rather, it hopefully substantiates the earlier suggestion that bread and wine were likely only two of many expenses accrued by the Christ-

232 Edgar, “Records,” 370. 233 Smith observes, “[a] full, formal banquet that included both a deipnon and a symposium, as the Corinth banquet surely did, would have to include some form of banquet entertainment during the symposium” (From Symposium, 179). 234 See James C. Hanges, “1 Corinthians 4:6 and the Possibility of Written Bylaws in the Corinthian Church,” JBL 117 (1998): 275-98.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund group. Neither Lampe’s nor Theissen’s interpretation of the Corinthian banquet would free the

Christ-group from having to collect subscription dues.

6. Evidence of the Ekklēsia’s Common Fund

In order to function, it would seem that the Christ-group needed to collect membership dues – even if previous exegeses of 1 Cor 11:17-34 are maintained. In addition to the evidence that suggests any banqueting cultic group such as the ekklēsia would need to collect dues, there is also reason to think Paul assumed the existence of an ekklēsia common fund on one occasion when giving instructions about the Jerusalem ογεία. Paul’s hitherto obscure instructions to the

Corinthians concerning the Jerusalem ογεία read as follows (1 Cor 16:2):

κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἐὰν εὐοδῶται, ἵνα μὴ ὅταν ἔ θω τότε ογεῖαι γίνωνται.

Every first day of the week, let each of you pay235 at home, storing up whatever profit each makes in order that when I come collections do not take place.

These directions include spatial as well as temporal aspects. In the remaining pages of this chapter I will demonstrate how each component can be best understood on the theory that the ekklēsia was equipped with a treasury and schedule of membership dues.

6.1 Temporal Aspects of Paul’s Instructions

There is a general consensus in scholarship on the Corinthian correspondence that Paul’s mention of payments on the first day of the week attest to the ekklēsia’s practice of holding

235 I understand τίθημι to mean “pay” or “deposit” rather than “put.” Even though this makes for an awkward rendering, “putting away” contributions for Jerusalem means more specifically to “pay” or “deposit.” The verb means “pay” or “deposit” in several texts, including PEnteux 32.7 (Pharbaithos, Arsinoites; III BCE); PCair.Zen 218.33 (III BCE), 723.11 (III BCE).

3: The Corinthian Common Fund weekly meetings on this day.236 For many scholars, this verse marks the earliest evidence of weekly Christ-group meetings.237 Why did Paul ask the Corinthians to make collections on the first day of the week rather than, more generally, weekly? Adolf Deismann suggested that this was their pay day, but provided no data in support of weekly wages distributed on Sundays.238

Charles Hodge argued that each member was supposed to bring their private donation to the ekklēsia.239 While this is an attractive thesis, Fee seems correct that “there is very little linguistic warrant for such a suggestion, not to mention that the participle translated ‘saving it up’

[θησαυρίζων] implies that ‘each person’ is to store up what is set aside until the designated time.

The phrase ‘by himself’ almost certainly means ‘at home.’”240

Fee’s answer seems on the right track: “this day marked for them the specifically

Christian day in their week that probably made it convenient for Paul to note it as the time for them to remember the poor among the brothers and sisters in Jerusalem.”241 We can be more specific about why it was “convenient” for Paul to recommend donations to be put aside on the day the ekklēsia assembled. In antiquity, it was normal for private cultic groups to collect dues on the days they gathered, which means the Corinthians likely would not have been confused about the instruction to make collections for Jerusalem on the days they assembled. The following are some examples of collections taking place on meeting dates:

(P.Tebt. I 118, ll.16, 17 = Sel. Pap. I 185; Tebtynis; 112-111 BCE)

236 Willy Rordorf, Sunday, The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (London: 1968) 193-6; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 296; Fee, First Epistle, 813-4; Thiselton, First Epistle, 1321; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4:428; Pilhofer, Die frühen Christen, 207. 237 See also Acts 20:7 and Rev 1:10. In the second century, attestations to weekly church gatherings accumulate. Didache 14:1; Ignatius, Magnesians 9:1; Irenaeus, Fragments 7; Pliny, Epistles 10.97; Justin, Apology 1:65-67. 238 Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Greco-Roman World (Revised edition; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927) 361. 239 Charles Hodges, 1 Corinthians (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1995) 364. 240 Fee, First Epistle, 813. 241 Fee, First Epistle, 813-4.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

Τῦβι κε .... εἰσὶν ἄνδρες κα ἀνὰ ρ [ ‘Βρ, 25th day of Tybi ….there are 21 men at 100 drachmas each. Total: 2,100 drachmas.

(P.Tebt. I 224 recto II; Kerkeosiris?; 109-108 BCE) Τῦβι ιγ .... εἰσ<ὶν> ἄνδρες ιθ ἀν(ὰ) ρε Βμε 13th day of Tybi …. There are 19 men at 105 drachmas each. Total: 2,045 drachmas.

(P.Lund. IV 11, I.1-2, II.1-3; Bakchias; 169/170 CE) όγος δ[απάν]ης στο ισμ[οῦ] θεῶν ιο[σ]κ[ο]ύρων (ἔτους) ι ε[σο(ρὰ)] α .... οἱ δὲ συ[ντε] ο[ῦντες] εἰς τὸν ἐγ[γεγραμ]μένον στο ισμ[όν] · An account of expenditure of the equipping of the Dioskouroi gods (in new clothing and the sacrificial feast) during the 10th year, 1 Mesorē ….The ones who have paid for the equipping (of the gods in new clothing and the sacrificial feast) have been written below…

(SB III 7182, Fragment 5 recto, ll.78, 89-91; Philadelphia; II BCE) Χοία[ -ca.?- ]κ[ -ca.?- ] .... (γίνονται) η, (τούτων) ἀσύμβο ος Ἑρμίας, (οιποὶ) ζ, On the 7th day of Choiak ….they came to 8, of whom Hermias was without contribution. The rest came to 7.

(P.Tebt. III/2 894, Frag.1 recto, II.1-24; Tebtynis; 114 BCE) Παῦνι ι η [ -ca.?- ] [Σοκ]μῆνις τ Θέων τ αρῆς ρξ 5 Ὧρος Πακύ(σιος) σ ο α τ α ς ρ κ Ἀρτέμω(ν) σ Πεκῦσις σ Εὔδημος σ Πομοῦς τ Νααρῶς τ 10 Φατρῆς σ Τρά ις σ Πατῦνις Χο( ) τ Πανεῦις τ Πομβᾶς τ 15 Ἀμενεὺς τ Ἀπῦγχις τ Πετεσοῦ(χος) Κα(γῶτος) τ Πατῦνις μέ(γας) τ Πατμοῦις τ 20 Τεραῦς ρ Ψενεθώτ(ης) τ Σι οῦς σιε Ψεναμοῦνις ρϙ

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

Τιτὰκ ρϙ

18th of the month of Payni: Sokmēnis 300, Theōn 300, Marēs 160, Horos Pakusios 200, …o.latas 120, Artemōn 200, Pekusis 200, Eudēmos 200, Pomous 300, Naarōs 300, Phatrēs 200, Trallis 200, Patunis Cho( ) 300, Paneuis 300, Pombas 300, Ameneus 300, Apugchis 300, Petesou(chos) Ka(gōtos) 300, Patynis the large 300, Patmouis 300, Teraus 100, Psenethōtēs 300, Silous 215, Psenamounis 190, Titak 190

There is no obvious reason why Paul should ask the Corinthians to make contributions for

Jerusalem on the specific day of the week when they assembled unless they were already in the habit of putting aside money for the ekklēsia on that day. This is especially apparent considering the fact that these donations were not supposed to be brought to the ekklēsia. It would seem that

Paul thought it would be “convenient,” to use Fee’s word, for the Corinthians to pay both their required (i.e., subscription) and voluntary (i.e., Jerusalem donations) dues on the same day each week. Certainly, it was convenient for the Tebtynis association to pay both mandatory and voluntary fees on meeting dates, as they collected voluntary wine contributions on days they assembled (P.Tebt. III/2 984, Frag. 3 verso, I.1-19) in addition to subscription dues. Further details in Paul’s instuctions strengthen the theory that the ekklēsia collected membership fees.

6.2 Spatial Aspects

Paul suggests that on the first day of each week, contributions should be paid παρ’ ἑαυτῷ. When

παρά modifies a dative such as ἑαυτῷ, the construction designates the location at which something happens. In 1 Cor 16:2, therefore, Paul insists that each person’s weekly contribution towards the Jerusalem ογεία (16:1) should be placed “aside,” “by itself,” or “at one’s own home.”242 Why did Paul care where collections were made? The detail has baffled exegetes who

242 For other usages of παρ’ ἑαυτῷ carrying this meaning, see Xenophon, Mem. 3.13.2; Philo, Cherubim. 48; Embassy. 271; cf. Fee, First Epistle, 813 n.24 for these.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund prefer to discuss the temporal aspects of Paul’s instruction in 16:2 rather than spatial aspects.243

Thiselton observes, “[i]t is not entirely clear why this collection should take place at home.”244

He concludes that it must be to ensure that there “is to be no last-minute, superficial scraping around for funds as an unplanned off-the-cuff gesture…. Each is to play his or her part in a planned strategy of regular giving.”245 John Chow reaches a similar determination about the timing of donations:

Paul suggests that the money should be saved up bit by bit in keeping with one’s gains until he comes … in asking members of the church to save up in order to give to the collection, Paul gives the impression that his audience is not very well off, and may include poorer people and slaves who may not have stated income.246

Thiselton’s and Chow’s explanation perhaps accounts for why Paul wanted ekklēsia members to collect money each week rather than all at once but it says nothing about why he asked them to keep each donation to the Jerusalem ογεία “by itself.”247 C.K. Barrett attempts to answer the question more directly. He suggests that the donations are to be made away from the ekklēsia in order to “avoid the possibility of accusations with regard to misappropriation, and perhaps to avoid misappropriation itself” does not stand to scrutiny.248 Associations shared this concern but did not address it by avoiding communal collections. Rather, they elected treasurers, kept communal funds, and required their officers who deal with the common fund to keep transaction records and submit them to the association at the expiry of their term. The collegium would then

243 For a review, see Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4:428-30. 244 Thiselton, First Epistle, 1324. 245 Thiselton, First Epistle, 1324. Original emphasis. 246 Chow, Patronage, 187-8. 247 Thiselton entertains another possibility but is correctly dismissive of it: “[p]erhaps sensitivities about patrons, the wealthy, and relations with other churches suggested a quiet, noncompetitive strategy on pastoral grounds” (First Epistle, 1324). 248 Barrett, First Epistle, 387.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund honour financial officers if the records proved they held their office with honesty. Frequently, treasurers were honoured specifically for their honesty since this was such an important attribute for them to possess in the minds of collegiati.249 The difficulty Barrett finds in communal collections was not viewed the same way by association members. Since exegetes have yet to offer a manageable interpretation of Paul’s spatial directive, it is worthwhile to consider some of the insights gained by this chapter’s review of financial practices in other cultic groups.

Associations collected two types of fees: mandatory dues and voluntary συμβο αί.

Sometimes voluntary collections (e.g., for wine, for Jerusalem) were merged with mandatory fees and placed into a club’s common treasury along with subscription dues. This seems to have been the practice of the Tebtynis club when they made a voluntary wine collection which is quoted above. Two lines taken from this list are particularly relevant here (P.Tebt. III/2 894;

Frag.3 verso, I.12-13):

Νααρῶς συ(μβο αὶ) σμε ζημία υ (γίνονται) χμε

Naarōs’ contribution (to the wine collection), 245 drachmas Fine: 400 drachmas; total: 645 drachmas

Although this is specifically a wine collection (Frag.3 verso, I.4)250, the group collected Naarōs’ fine alongside the wine donations. This indicates that the income from the voluntary wine collection was placed into the treasury, not kept separated from other sources of income such as fines and, presumably, subscription. Paul’s spatial, παρ’ ἑαυτῷ, instruction would be understood by the Corinthians as explicitly advising against this practice.

249 For example, see SEG 2:9.5-6 = GRA I 21 (Salamis, Attica; 243/2 BCE); SEG 2:10.6-7 (Salamis; Attica; 248/7 BCE); SEG 31:122 = GRA I 50 (Liopesi, Attica; early II CE). 250 The fact that only fourteen of the group’s more than twenty members contributed to the collection further indicates that this was a voluntary collection.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund

There are several reasons for Paul to prefer a separate account for the Jerusalem ογεία.

One reason is that cultic groups sometimes spent more money on banquets than they collected in weekly subscriptions. In these situations, they paid what they owed from funds sitting in their treasury. For example, in P.Tebt. I 118 one banquet cost 20 drachma more than the group collected. In P.Tebt. I 224 (recto II), a banquet of bread and wine cost 2,400 drachmas on a day the club only collected 2,045 drachmas. These clubs would pay their debts from their treasury.

Edgar identifies this practice as typical: “if a surplus was left over, it went into the treasury; if there was a deficit, it was made good out of the common funds.”251 Associations made payments from their treasuries for more than just deficits caused by bread and wine expenses. For example, in P.Oslo III 143, we observed that three group leaders were reimbursed from the common fund: a certain Thōnis, Thōmpakhrates, and a treasurer were owed a total of 155 drachmas that came from the treasury.

Paul may have been worried that if the Jerusalem collection took place “at the ekklēsia” rather than “at each one’s home,” it would have been placed within the Christ-group’s treasury, as was done by the Tebtynis club. If this happened, the Christ-group may have needed to use

Jerusalem funds to cover various operating expenditures – for example, reimbursing Stephanas for his travelling expenses, paying for writing costs, or covering deficits from banquets. Paul’s advice is that the Jerusalem ογεία be kept by itself (παρ’ ἑαυτῷ), apart from the ekklēsia’s treasury. The instruction becomes comprehensible on the theory that the Christ-group expected subscription dues from its members.

Paul’s directive to keep a voluntary collection separate from other sources of income may not have appeared strange to the Christ-group. In fact, such a measure was taken by an

251 Edgar, “Records,” 371.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund association of donkey-drivers contemporary with the Corinthians, whose wine collection reads as follows (P.Athen. 41; I CE):

ἔκθεσις οἰνικῶν συνόδου ὀνη ατῶν τῶν ἕως Φαρμοῦθ(ι) ιγ Ἄρειος Πτο εμαίο(υ) (δραχμαὶ) δ κ α ὶ ὀβ(ο οὶ) ια Σαρᾶς ἀδε φὸς (δραχμαὶ) ϛ (τριώβο ον) 5 ίδυμο(ς) ιδύμο(υ) (δραχμαὶ) ιε ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) Ἀραβᾶς Τιμο κ(ράτους) (δραχμαὶ) ι ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) ιόσκορο(ς) Πάπ ου (δραχμαὶ) ζ (τριώβο ον) Ἀπο ώ(νιος) Φρόντ(ωνος) (δραχμαὶ) δ ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) Λεονίδ(ης) Φί ω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) β (τριώβο ον) 10 Σωκράτ(ης) Τιμοκ(ράτους) (δραχμαὶ) ζ ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) Ἀπο ω( ) Ἥρω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) ιη ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) Σμαρ (δραχμαὶ) ζ (τετρώβο ον) ίδυμο(ς) Τιμοκ(ράτους) (δραχμαὶ) δ (ὀβο οὶ) ιε Πτο εμ(αῖος) ωρίω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) ιδ 15 Κ ᾶρις Ἰσχυρίω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) ε [ὀ]β(ο ὸς 1) ιονύσιο(ς) Ἀπό ω(νος) (δραχμαὶ) κ (τριώβο ον) Ἀκουσ ί (αος) ιδύμο(υ) (δραχμαὶ) ζ Πάπος ἀδε φὸς (δραχμαὶ) ζ ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) ιονύσιο(ς) Ἥρωνο (ς) (δραχμαὶ) 20 Σκαπ ( ) Πεκ(ύσιος) (δραχμαὶ) [ -ca.?- ] ὀβ(ο ὸς 1) υσθ(ᾶς) Σωκ(ράτους) (δραχμαὶ) [ -ca.?- ] ὀβ(ο ὸς 1)

Wine list of the synodos of donkey-drivers until the 13th day of Pharmouthi…

Unlike subscription fees, which, as we have seen, were collected on specific meeting dates, the donkey-drivers’ wine collection was apparently kept separate from other collections as there are no references within this list to other sources of income, such as fines (though perhaps it was collected on evenings when the club assembled). Moreover, it was an on-going collection until a certain date. Noticeably absent from the papyrus is a date at which the collections took place – the secretary recorded voluntary contributions as they came in, not in an order determined by quantity. 252 The Jerusalem collection shares several similarities. Not only was it separate from

252 This is why, unlike the mandatory collections in P.Lund. IV 11, there was no order to the list of wine contributors – the secretary marked them down in the order they arrived. The largest contribution is by Dionysios son of Apollos on line 16. The smallest contribution was 1 drachma and 1 obol, which is listed on line 5. The treasurer or secretary recorded contributions as they came in and kept a separate record of them.

3: The Corinthian Common Fund other sources of income (16:2), it was also on-going (16:2; 2 Cor 8-9) and had a deadline (1 Cor

16:3; 2 Cor 9:3, 5). This papyrus perhaps helps to clarify some of the mechanics behind the voluntary collection in the Corinthian ekklēsia organized by Paul. Instructively, Paul’s spatial directive is most comprehensible on the theory that the Christ-group collected subscription fees.

6.3 Paul’s Assumed Role During Communal Collections

A second small detail suggests that a collection-mechanism was already part of the Christ- group’s structure. When Paul imagines what will take place if the Corinthians do not listen to his instructions, he envisions a passive role for himself. He does not say “start early otherwise I will need to take collections when I get there.” Rather, he assumes that, in the imagined worst case scenario, the Corinthians would do their own collecting. Paul asks them to begin early:

ἵνα μὴ ὅταν ἔ θω τότε ογεῖαι γίνωνται so that collections do not happen when I arrive (1 Cor 16:2).

The unstated presupposition is that the Corinthians will know how to collect contributions as a community and Paul would assume a sideline role in such a situation – he simply arrives and thereby triggers the Jerusalem collection, the structure for completing it being already in place.

Paul’s assumption concerning Corinthian competence in collecting funds would be curious if to his knowledge the ekklēsia did not regularly collect fees from its members.

7. Conclusion

It is not “unübersehbar” that the ekklēsia lacked a treasury and did not require members to pay subscription fees. In fact, without these features it is difficult to explain how the Christ-group would have funded the Lord’s Supper or any other activities it performed. The existence of a

3: The Corinthian Common Fund common fund and regular contributions from members requires scholars of the Corinthian correspondence to suppose only modest contributions, yet given the economic realities faced by the Corinthian ekklēsia and any other private dining and cultic group, income needed to be generated at minimum from subscription fees. The Christ-group’s financial pressures come to light most clearly in Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 16:2, which presuppose the establishment of a treasury and collection of subscription fees.

I turn now from the Christ-group’s economic structures to honorific practices therein.

The next chapter will focus on honorific behaviour in associations and the subsequent three will primarily engage with data from the Corinthian correspondence concerning the ekklēsia’s honorific organization.

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

CHAPTER FOUR

Service and Recognition in Associations

1. Honorific Organization in Associations and Christ-Groups

The presence of honorific structures in associations marks another supposed organizational difference between collegia and ekklēsiai. As outlined in the first chapter, “honorific structures” consist of organizational apparatuses in ancient associations that encourage and ensure reciprocity for honorific behavior. These features include: the presence of, and opportunities to become, magistrates, peer benefactors,253 and patrons; setting subscription rates high enough so that the group can afford honorific prizes; establishing rules that dictate what members need to do in order to win awards; and resolving to punish officers who are in charge of delivering honorific prizes but fail to do so, to name some components.

Scholars of Pauline Christians have long regarded early Christ-groups as devoid of mechanisms for honouring leaders. For example, Adolf Harnack argued that organizational positions such as priesthoods were not for Paul “an end in [themselves] or a means to worldly aggrandizement.”254 Wayne Meeks suggested that an association would “reward its patron with encomiastic inscriptions, honorary titles, [and] wreaths” but “the Christian congregation was quite different, and the patrons [of early churches] may have had reason to feel somewhat slighted. Paul even admonishes the Corinthians to show a little more respect for such people

253 I follow Kloppenborg’s distinction between elite patrons and peer benefactors. The peer benefactor did not provide large gifts such as clubhouses or sportulae, but held administrative functions, and used small amounts of their own resources on club activities and towards voluntary collections. As we will observe in this chapter, they could come from anywhere in an association’s hierarchy (e.g., from the officers or from the ordinary members). See Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 212-13. 254 Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 1:78.

4: Service and Recognition in Associations such as Stephanas.”255 Eva Ebel agrees: “die Ehrerbietung, die ihnen [i.e., patrons] im Rahmen der christlichen Gemeinde entgegengebracht wird, nicht so ausgeprägt wie in den Vereinen:

Ehreninschriften oder Festmähler am Geburtstag sind nicht zu erwarten.”256 Others socio- historical studies have repeated this view.257

Instead of offering crowns, inscriptions, and proclamations, the Corinthian ekklēsia, so the theory goes, recognized service-providers in the form of attitude changes: “special esteem” was won by the first Corinthians to be baptized258; “voluntary subordination” without

“organization” was given to leaders259; “Achtung und Ansehen” was given to hosts of banquets and providers of food260; and “warrants of authority” were prizes for pneumatikoi.261

2. The Importance of Honouring Service-Providers

Contrary to previous estimations, it may be that the refusal on the part of ekklēsiai to exchange crowns and other honours in return for generous services was scarcely an option. It was argued last chapter that members of cultic groups agreed to pay subscription dues, in part, on the understanding that their association would purchase honorific rewards when necessary – even if this meant forgoing food at banquets (e.g., P.Tebt. I 118). For middling associations throughout

255 Meeks, First Urban, 78. 256 Ebel, Attraktivität, 220. 257 For example, Countryman, “Patrons and Officers,” 135-43; Schmeller, Hierarchie, 73-4; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 181; and Thiselton, who notes that in the Corinthian church “often loyal hard work is simply taken for granted rather than publicly and consciously recognized” in First Epistle, 1342. 258 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 298. 259 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 298. 260 Ebel’s comparison between association and the Corinthian club concludes that the Christ-group did not offer formal honours (Attraktivität. 219-20) but, instead, provided opportunities to earn informal “respect”: “[i]n ähnlicher Weise wie eine Patronin ode rein Patron eines paganen Vereins können sie sich auch im christlichen Kontext Achtung und Ansehen verschaffen, indem sie der Gemeinde ihr Haus als Versammlungsort zur Verfügung stellen oder Speisen und Getränke für deren Mahl stiften” (Attraktivität, 219). 261 Meeks, First Urban, 138.

4: Service and Recognition in Associations the ancient Mediterranean, formal recognition was a matter of policy.262 The following example from an association of thiasitai from Scythia Minor demonstrates the degree to which these exchange relationships were structured:

[T]he society members (thiasitai) resolved that a temple should be constructed for the god. Let those of the society members who want to contribute toward the construction promise whatever amount each chooses. Those who have promised a gold coin (stater) are granted a crown of honor for life and their name inscribed on the monument. Those promising less than a gold coin up to thirty silver pieces (drachmas) are granted their name inscribed and a crown of glory during the triennial festival for life. The rest who have promised less are granted their name inscribed on the monument (IGLSkythia III 35.3-13 = AGRW 73; Kallatis, Scythia Minor; late III BCE).

This announcement is followed by two columns of thiasitai who answered the call by contributing gold coins, silver drachmas, and other benefactions. In the return their names were inscribed on the monument, just as advertised (ll.20-41):

Those who promised to contribute to the building of the temple: (column a) Apollononymos son of Satyros: a gold coin (stater); Apollonios son of Apollonios; Philippos son of Apollonios; Dionysios son of Kalchadon. To build the temple: Meniskos son of Herakleides (?) . . . a gold coin (stater); Damatrios son of Damatrios: a gold coin (stater); Simos son of Promathion: a gold coin (stater); Kratinos son of Mikos: a gold coin (stater); Nautimos son of Pasiadas: a gold coin (stater); Zopyros son of Protopolis: a gold coin (stater); Harmagenes son of Damophon: a gold coin (stater); Kritoboulos son of Pyrsos: a gold coin (stater); Asklapiodoros son of Apollodotos: a gold coin (stater); Nossion son of Hierokles: a gold coin (stater); Zopyros son of Hestios: a gold coin (stater); Damosthenes son of Dionysios: sheltered, vaulted passageway leading the doorway.

(column b) Menis son of Hikesios: 30 silver drachmas; Sosibios son of Protomachos: 30 silver drachmas; Hereas son of Damophon: 30 silver drachmas; Eupraios son of Satyros: 30 silver drachmas; . . . Name: 30 silver drachmas; . . . Name: 30 silver drachmas; . . . (two missing lines). . . Apollodotos . . . : thirty workers; Promathion son of Promathion: –fifteen workers. Hagemon son of Pythion: a work-horse and fifteen workers; Olympos son of Soterichos: fifteen

262 Honorific decrees constitute somewhere between one-third to one-half of extant ancient association epigraphy. Franz Poland estimates one-half in Geschichte, 423. Onno Van Nijf provides the more conservative estimation that one third are honorary in Civic World, 74.

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

workers; Dion son of Aristokles: fifteen workers; Hapheistion son of Skythas: fifteen workers; Dionysios wreath-dealer: ten workers; Apollonios Simos: ten workers.

At least thirty members made contributions after their association promised formal commendation to donors. Some may have been communal magistrates but others were regular members – honorific rewards were available for all members no matter their place in the association’s hierarchy.

One important function of honorific rewards, then, is to generate benefactions from members who want the recognition they see their peers achieving. In addition to the thiasitai from Kallastis (IGLSkythia III 35 = AGRW 73), several other groups publicly guaranteed commendation in order to motivate potential benefactors.263 In fact, an association that failed to offer commendation to service-providers, such as the Corinthian ekklēsia on previous readings, put itself at a serious disadvantage.

In addition to keeping current members content with paying subscription and willing to be generous, delivering honorific rewards publicly, at a festival, in a temple, or in a clubhouse was a recruitment technique in Corinth and elsewhere.264 Philip Harland states that “associations were competitors for the benefaction or support of the elites…. Yet their [i.e., the benefactors’]

263 For example: IDelos 1519.27-34 = AGRW 223 (Delos; 153/2 BCE); IDelta I 446 (Psenamosis, Egypt; 67 and 64 CE); IG II2 1273A B.9-21= GRA I 18 (Piraeus, 265/4 BCE); IG II2 1277.27-33 = GRA I 15 (Athens, 278/7 BCE); IG II2 1327.20-23 = GRA I 35 (Piraeus; 178/7 BCE); IG II2 1263.27-31 = GRA I 11 (Piraeus; 300 BCE); IG II2 1271.18- 21= GRA I 13 (Piraeus? 299/8 BCE); IG II2 1292.18-23 = GRA I 26 (Athens or Piraeus; 215/4 BCE); IG II2 1315 = GRA I 29 (Piraeus, 211/0 BCE). Ilias Arnaoutoglou (“Between Koinon and Idion,” 81) states: “[a]ssociations were a venue in which accumulation of … symbolic capital was highly desirable and was therefore promoted.” 264 Monika Trümper’s analysis of the Delian Poseidoniasts’ meeting space draws interesting conclusions regarding decrees and recruitment: “t]he sanctuary section of the clubhouse … occupied about 15% of the total surface area and included the small courtyard…. The equipment of this courtyard, consisting of many statue bases, and honorary exedra, steles with honorary decrees, and three altars, illustrates its double function as a sacrificial forecourt of the sanctuary and as an honorary atrium for the benefactors of the association. Furthermore, it figured as a kind of grand vestibule and ‘business card’ of the association: every visitor had to pass through it when he came from the narrow entrance corridor … and wanted to proceed to the sanctuary or to the peristyle courtyard complex” (“Negotiating Religious and Ethnic Identity: The Case of Clubhouses in Late Hellenistic Delos,” Hephaistos 24 (2006): 113-40 at 119; italics my own).

4: Service and Recognition in Associations resources were not limitless, and groups of various kinds were contestants as potential beneficiaries.”265 Practices of crowing and inscribing honours signaled to prospective affiliates and passersby that the issuing association provided members with the recognition many non- elites strove to achieve in honour-shame societies. For example, an orgeōnes association from

Piraeus wants “to be seen” honouring an officer by potential recruits:

[I]n order, then, that the orgeōnes might be seen (φαίνωνται) to have rendered thanks appropriate to those who, at any time, have been ambitious (towards the association); for good fortune, be it resolved by the orgeōnes of Bendis and Deloptes and the other gods to commend Stephanos for the zeal that he has shown towards the orgeōnes (and) to crown him with an olive wreath” (IG II2 1324.11-20 = GRA I 32; Piraeus, Attica; ca. 190 BCE)

The orgeōnes’ desire for outsiders to see them honouring their members was shared by other clubs.266 By publicly participating in reciprocal exchanges, collegia attracted new affiliates who wanted to be part of their honorific practices and structure.267

Intangible forms of recognition such as attitude changes, when compared with the crowns, statues, and honorific inscriptions rewarded by collegia, were “of far less utility as a

265 Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians. Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities (New York and London: T&T Clark, 2009) 149. 266For example, IRhamnous II 59.19-26 = GRA I 27 (Rhamnous, after 216/15 BCE); IG XII/1 155.dface I.1.8-13 = AGRW 255 (Rhodes Island, Aegean; II BCE); IG II2 1314.9-12 = GRA I 28 (Piraeus, 213/2 BCE); IG II2 1315.16-18 = GRA I 29 (Piraeus, 211/0 BCE); AM 66: 228.12-18 = GRA I 39 (Athens, 138/7 BCE); IG II2 1337.9-12 = GRA I 44 (Piraeus, 97/6 BCE); IG II2 1334. 11-19 = GRA I 45 (Piraeus, after 71/70 BCE); and Poland, Geschichte, 440 cf. 423-45. 267 Since providing honorific rewards for service-providers could be the difference between an association’s prosperity and failure it is no surprise to find some making particularly spirited pitches. The following inscription was designed to convince prospective recruits not only that the group had the resources and willingness to reward service-providers, but also that it would protect a member’s reward of honour in the face of corruption: “the sacrifice makers are to announce publicly their names [i.e., the names of the treasurer, secretary, and supervisor who were voted honours] at each sacrifice after the ceremony; and … if they should not announce them or if they should not crown them, each shall pay fifty (?) drachmae sacred to the Sarapiastai, so that there might be rivalry among those who are ambitious in respect to them [the members], knowing that they will be honored in a way that is appropriate” (IG II2 1292 = GRA I 26; Athens or the Piraeus, Attica; 215/4 BCE). This Sarapiastai group was one of many collegia that levied fines for failure to announce voted honours. Other examples include: IG XII/1 155.dface III 90- 104 (Rhodes Island; Aegean; II BCE); IG II2 1273.21-22 = GRA I 18 (Piraeus, 265/4 BCE); IG II2 1292.16-18 = GRA I 26 (Athens or Piraeus, 215/4 BCE); IG II2 1297.17-18 = GRA I 24 (Athens, 236/5 BCE); AM 66 338 no. 4. For broader dynamics of competition among associations, see Harland, Dynamics, 145-60; and Jinyu Liu, Collegia Centonariorum. The Guilds of Textile Dealers in the Roman West (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 34; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009) 229-42.

4: Service and Recognition in Associations means by which to display status” in the ancient world.268 Moreover, by maintaining a distinction between attitudinal changes in Christ-groups and material rewards in associations, scholars of Pauline Christians perpetuate a false dichotomy. Arnaoutoglou points out that attitude changes more likely occurred as a result of honorific ceremonies in collegia, not independent of them. He argues, “the process of honouring resulted in an adjustment of the attitudes of the honoured, as well as the attitudes of the other members towards him in conformity with his new status.”269 Given the nearly ubiquitous practice of honoring benefactors, it is not obvious that the

Corinthian Christ-group indeed failed to participate in the practice of honour-exchange that was so fundamental to Mediterranean cultures.

3. Assumptions behind the Standard Position on Recognition in the Corinthian Christ-Group

Why is there such agreement among scholars concerning the ekklēsia’s peculiar act of denying formal honours from its service-providers? The consensus seemingly results from a combination of two long-held and misguided opinions. The first is the conviction that other associations reserved formal recognition exclusively for officers and distant patrons.270 The two inscriptions

268 Chester, Conversion, 244. 269 Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion,” 80-81. 270 Classic works by Paul Foucart, Erich Ziebarth, Franz Poland, J.P. Waltzing, William Scott Ferguson, and others discuss formal honours as though they were reserved exclusively for officers and patrons. Two nineteenth century monographs by Foucart in 1873 (Des associations religieuses) and Ziebarth in 1896 (Das griechische Vereinswesen [Stuttgart: S. Hirzel, 1969]) on Greek associations are exemplary. After surveying common association offices such as priest, priestess, supervisor, secretary and treasurer in orgeōnes (20-32), Foucart concludes that officers and patrons alone constitute an association’s structural organization: “Telle est, dans son ensemble, l’organisation de ces sociétés à l`époque hellénique.” (32). This equation of offices with hierarchy is misleading (see below). Foucart later devotes a section (33-40) to an overview of types of awards presented to orgeōnes service-providers, who are portrayed as officers and benefactors rather than service-providing regular members. Ziebarth notes that many lists of voluntary contributions of regular members exist but, unfortunately, the broader implications of the existence of these documents – namely, that being placed on a list is an honour and generates status for regular members – is not explored (143). The same equation of office with formal recognition is found in Ferguson’s study of the Attic orgeōnes associations (“The Attic Orgeones,” HTR 37 [1944]: 61-140). While discussing the orgeōnes of the Mother of the Gods, Ferguson notes that “the general organization of the orgeones [of the Mother of the Gods] was identical with that of the orgeones of Bendis from which it was obviously copied, either directly or indirectly: epimeletai, treasurer, secretary, priestess (but no priest and no hieropoioi)” (109; cf. 117 for similar language of 98

4: Service and Recognition in Associations cited already in this chapter (IGLSythia III 35 = AGRW 73 and IG II2 1324 = GRA I 32) expose this perception as false. The second widely-held view is that the Christ-group did not have the organizational apparatus to elect, scrutinize, and reward officers271 – and since there were no officers, there must have been no one to crown or otherwise reward formally. As the theory goes, the Corinthians did enjoy the support of patrons,272 but they probably failed to recognize them with material rewards. This is supposedly a result of the fact that ekklēsia patrons did not “auf

Distanz bleibt” but rather meddled with leadership functions in the community. 273 It is not at all clear why it would be acceptable to treat engaged patrons differently from distant patrons.

Chester and Andrew Clarke explicitly combine both theories in recent works. Chester, for example, asks, “[d]oes the absence of offices within the church indicate that those who provided services to it, and to Paul, were expected to do so without receiving any recognition or honour?”274 The assumption here is that only title-holders could win honorific rewards. Chester

equating organization with titles). In the Latin West, a similarly-narrow pattern of hierarchy is found by Jean-Pierre Waltzing in his classic study of professional collegia: Étude historique, 1:368 where he speaks of collegia hierarchy exclusively in terms of office. Notably absent from Waltzing’s study is an in-depth discussion of acts of individuals and corresponding recognition that occurred outside of “official” hierarchies (see 1: 383- 449 for a description of offices). 271 See Chapter six for my discussion of officers in the ekklēsia. 272 Chow, Patronage and Power; and Clarke, Secular and Christian. Scholars of the Corinthian correspondence often speak vaguely about patrons. To rectify the situation, Kloppenborg provides the following distinction: “we might usefully distinguish between patronage and benefaction, that is, between the relation of elite persons and their dependents, on the one hand, and peer benefaction, on the other. Patrons had much to provide: they might offer meeting space or large donations of money sufficient to build a meeting hall, or regular disbursements of sportulae. Some were active, officiating members of their associations; others were individuals who patronized associations but who seldom if ever darkened their doors. But there was another sort of benefactor, the peer/member who contributed to the operation of the associations through lesser administrative functions” in “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 212-13. 273 Schmeller (Hierarchie, 73) is followed by Ebel in Attraktivität, 220. 274 Chester, Conversion, 240. See also Andrew D. Clarke’s monograph (Serve the Community of the Church. Christians as Leaders and Ministers [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000]) where he notes a lack of references to offices in the Christ-group (176, n.11) and proceeds to argue that informal praise was given to Corinthian patrons in the form of boasting, with the implication that formal honorific rewards were not available (178).

4: Service and Recognition in Associations answers his question as follows: “there appears to have been no identifiable mechanism within the church by which such benefactions could be honoured.”275

4. Overview of the Chapter

The brief review of scholarship on honorific rewards in the Corinthian Christ-group reveals that many scholars maintain the ekklēsia was like a typical association in that it would only honour officers and distant patrons, but different from a collegium in that it had no officers, its patrons were not “distant”, and it therefore refused to exchange honorific prizes for whatever services it was able to obtain. This chapter exposes weaknesses in these assumptions by showing that ancient clubs, in fact, honoured affiliates on the basis of their services not their titles. Services could be provided at all levels of an association’s membership: patrons, officers, and ordinary members.276 Contrary to ekklēsia scholarship on the Corinthians, the distance at which one stood played no factor in whether or not an association would provide formal recognition; patrons, officers, and regular members could all be honoured.

While it is unclear what, if any, offices ekklēsia members held,277 we know they provided services regularly commended by analogous cultic groups (see chapter five). This chapter will set the stage for chapter five, where I explore whether or not the Christ-group’s members understood their services as part of exchange relationships that would result in formal honours.

275 Chester, Conversion, 240. Elsewhere Chester argues that the Corinthians’ desire for status and honour was satisfied by “a competition for honour which was no less intense, but which was a great deal less clearly channelled and regulated” (245). Chester’s examples of unstructured competition for honours include the rivalries for honour at the banquet and through public courts (245-256). 276 In discussions of associations, hierarchy is generally conceived as follows in descending order: patrons, officials, regular members. See, for example, Schmeller, Hierarchie, 37-42; and Verboven, “Associative order,” 883. 277 See chapter six for some possibilities.

100

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

5. Patterns of Recognition in Associations

Paul Foucart believed that it was “almost a right” for magistrates to be formally praised after completing their terms in office.278 He was followed by Erich Ziebarth, who claimed that “[d]ie

Ehrung ist nicht die Ausnahme, sondern die Regel am Abschluss jedes Amtsjahres eines

Beamten.”279 Franz Poland continued to speak of the “Ehrenrechte” of officials.280 Their language finds its way into recent studies.281 My argument that collegia voted honorific rewards for quality services, regardless of whether the honouree held a title, will be supported by four observations concerning practices of recognition in collegia.

I will first present examples of untitled regular members performing acts of generosity and receiving formal recognition from their associations. These inscriptions attest to untitled collegiati performing the same kinds of services untitled members of the Corinthian ekklēsia performed (see chapter five), and receiving formal honours, not just “respect.” Second, I show that associations scrutinized an officer’s job performance before rewarding them. This practice highlights how important it was even for an officer to provide good services if he or she wished to be commended. This scrutiny practice again suggests that service, not title, was paramount in association patterns of recognition. Third, officers could be fined if they misbehaved. Formal recognition would be denied to bad officers in such cases. And finally, collegia occasionally

278 Foucart, Des associations religieuses, 34. Foucart’s actual analysis of the data is more nuanced than this quote suggests (see Des associations religieuses, 36, 40-41). He acknowledges that some magistrates were fined for failing to fulfil their duties, which I will later show to be one reason to shift emphasis on discussions of associations’ honorific practices from titles to services. 279 Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, 164. While Ziebarth’s quote is too general a description of the data, he elsewhere recognizes that officers had to show accountability for their management of communal affairs (142). The associations’ practice of scrutinizing officers is reason to cease equating voted honours with office-holders. 280 Poland, Geschichte, 422. 281 Arnaoutoglou accurately states “titles were an essential part in the accumulation of symbolic capital of an individual” (“ ΡΧΕΡ ΝΙΣΤΗΣ and its Meaning in Inscriptions,” ZPE 104 (1994): 107-110, at 109; cf. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 105-18; and Verboven, “associative Order,” 883. I do not wish to challenge such an idea but, rather, to show that scholars of Pauline Christians have been too quick to suppose that a (supposed) lack of officers in Christ-groups means that ekklēsiai failed to provide honorific rewards to service-providers without titles.

101

4: Service and Recognition in Associations practice, what I call, “title-exclusion.” This term denotes the practice of excluding mention of titles held by an honouree in honorific inscriptions. Notably, instances of title-exclusion include reference to the commendable service provided by the incumbent but not their title, which further establishes services (not offices) as the main achievement for which commendations were rewarded.

These four practices each suggest that associations gave honorific rewards in return for good service, whether or not the honouree held a title. The argument put forward by some scholars of Pauline Christians that a (supposed) lack of magistrates in Christ-groups meant that ekklēsiai would not reciprocate services by regular members is misinformed. The ekklēsia’s honorific practices need to be considered more carefully; it is not enough to deny them on the grounds that the Christ-group had no officers.

5.1 Recognition Outside of “Official Hierarchies”

Several inscriptions show that even in the unlikely situation that the ekklēsia failed to elect officers, it would not have been unusual for it to have given formal commendation to ordinary members. A Philippian inscription, CIL III 633 I = GRA I 68 (Macedonia; II CE), for example, provides evidence of mostly non-officers contributing to their association and receiving formal commendation in return. This inscription was produced by a collegium devoted to the god,

Silvanus. It is a record of members who helped to build a temple for the association. We know from this cult’s other writings that it had officers: an aedile (CIL III 633 I.6), a pater (CIL III 633

IV.3), at least seven decuria (CIL III 633 III, Col.C, ll.3-4, 13-14), and probably two priests (CIL

III 633 II, Col.A, l.1; Col.C, l.3). But out of the nine or more members honoured in CIL III 633 I, only one, a priest (Alfenus Aspasius, l.18), was an office-holder – the rest were from the general

102

4: Service and Recognition in Associations membership: Domitus Primigenius, Gaius Horatius Sabinus, Nutrius Valens, Paccius

Mercuriales and his sons and freedman, and Publicius Laetus. The priest received no special honour that distinguished him from the other honourees; he was recognized just as were the others. Contributing to group building-projects or collections was one way for ordinary members to serve their association and gain recognition. It was a way for non-officers to elevate their positions in the complex hierarchical structures of collegia, and to receive the type of recognition commonly awarded to good magistrates.

A second example comes from a Sarapiastai association on the Aegean island of Ceos, which promises formal commendation for future service-providers:

So that we might have (the benefit) to treat other ambitious men it was resolved by the Sarapiastai to commend Epameinōn son of Sōmenēs on account of his excellence and the ambition he continues to accomplish for the thiasos, and to crown him with an olive crown, and to proclaim the crown during the Isis festival (IG XII/5 606.7-16; Iulis, Ceos, Aegean; unknown date).282

In this inscription, the Sarapiastai encouraged their socially-conscious membership to provide future services by promising them that serving generously would lead to the same reward given to Epameinōn – it did not matter whether the future service-providers held titles – what mattered was that they demonstrated their φι οτιμία.

We find a similar occurrence in a first-century synagogue from Berenice (SEG 17:823 =

AGRW 307; Berenice, Cyrenaica; 3 December 55 CE). Here, eighteen members voluntarily paid between five and twenty-eight drachmas for the renovation of the synagogue. Ten are ἄρχοντες, one is a ἱερεύς, and seven have no titles.283 Moreover, in Aphrodisias (SEG 6:970; early III CE),

282 The Greek reads: [ὅ]πως οὖν ἔχωμεν καὶ εἰς τὸ οιπὸν ἀνδράσιν φι οτίμοις χρᾶσθαι, δεδόχθαι τοῖς Σαραπιασταῖς ἐπαινέσαι Ἐπαμείνονα Σωμένου ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ φι οτιμίας, ἣν ἔχων διατε εῖ περὶ τὸν θίασον, καὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν θα οῦ στεφάνωι, καὶ ἀνακηρῦξαι τὸν στέφανον τοῖς Εἰσιδείοις (ll. 7-16). 283 For synagogue ἄρχοντες see Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 427-8.

103

4: Service and Recognition in Associations a long list of Judean contributors to the establishment of a monument include both officers

(προστάτης l.9, ἄρχων l.10, ἀρχιδέκανος l.13) and regular members, some of whom are identified by their professions (e.g., ll.54-6). The group responds with an honorific list of donors.

At the top of the list are ten individuals each with the title ἄρχων (ll.7-16). They are followed by

Kartisthenes, the priest (ἱερεύς). The archons and priest each voluntarily paid ten drachmas. The rest of the list consists of untitled individuals, some of whom contributed more than the leaders.

For example, a certain Lysanias gave 25 drachmas (l.18) while a certain Zenodoros contributed

28 drachmas (l. 19). While the title-holders are given privileged position in the list of donors

(named first), literate onlookers would notice the generosity of Lysanias and Zenodoros compared with the archons and priest.284

The epigraphic evidence indicates that collegiati were formally honoured by their associations, perhaps regularly. It should not continue to be assumed that the ekklēsia’s supposed lack of officers and distant patrons was cause for avoiding presentations of formal commendation to generous members.

5.2 Evaluating the Quality of an Officer’s Service before Recognizing it

5.2.1 Financial Audits

Since the quality of an officer’s service determined whether or not their association would deem them worthy of recognition, collegiati who held titles still needed to perform well in their position in order to win commendation. As a mechanism to check magistrates’ performance, many clubs audited their incumbents at the end, or sometimes even during, their term.

284 Other examples of honorific decrees from Jewish associations include MAMA VI 264 (Ecris, Phrygia, late I CE); CIJ III 1404 = AGRW 270 (Jerusalem; before 70 CE); the very fragmentary IGRR I 1077 (Alexandria, Egypt; 3 CE); and CIJ II 1450 (unknown location; Ptolemaic period?).

104

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

Associations designed this procedure especially to assess the honesty with which financial magistrates handled communal funds. For example, an association of thiasōtai in Salamis (SEG

2:9.5-6 = GRA I 21; Salamis, Attica; 243/2 BCE) honoured five years of supervisors, secretaries and treasurers after each of them “gave over their accounts” to the orgeonēs for examination (καὶ

τοὺς όγους ἀποδεδώκασι).285 A second group of thiasōtai from Salamis honoured several officials – three supervisors, a treasurer, a secretary and a priest – only after “they gave an account of the expenses [καὶ τοὺς όγους ἀπέδωκαν τῶν ἀνη ωμένων]” (SEG 2:10.6-7; Salamis;

Attica; 248/7 BCE).286 Another example is from an Athenian association, which attests to an auditing procedure to which officers were submitted before they received commendation:

Since the ones elected with the epimelētēs, Aphrodisios, for the renovation of the temple of Ammōn did good and worthy work for the god, supervised well and honorably, and handed over an account of the expenditure,287 (it was resolved by the thiasotai) to commend and crown each of them with an olive wreath according to the law, and to publically proclaim the crowns at the sacrifice of Amphiaraos after the libations (IG II2 1282.4-14; Athens; 262/1 BCE).288

This building committee was found to have used communal funds in an honest manner and therefore passed the financial scrutiny leading to honours. The fact that many associations scrutinized the financial dealings of their magistrates before rewarding them makes modern contentions of a direct linkage between holding office and receiving honours untenable.

285 A few lines later the same procedure is said to be required perhaps for regular, non-office-holding, members who were elected to provide a service (ll. 11-12). The association elected three members to carry out a writing service and needed them to render their accounts [ όγον ἀποδότωσαν] of the money spent, just as was required of the magistrates. 286 For the history of the two thiasōtai of Bendis at Salamis, see Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 117-21. 287 The Greek here reads: καὶ όγον ἀπέδω[καν τοῦ ἀνα ]ώματος. Emphasis added. 288 ἐπειδὴ οἱ προ[σ]αιρε[θ]έντες μετὰ τοῦ ἐπιμε ητοῦ [Ἀ]φροδ[ι]σίου? τῆς προσοικοδομίας τοῦ ἱερ[οῦ τοῦ] Ἄμμωνος τό τε ἔ[ρ]γον κα ὸν καὶ [ἄ]ξιο[ν τ]οῦ [θε]οῦ ἐποίησαν κ[α]ὶ ἐπεστάτησα[ν κα ῶς καὶ φ]ι[ ]οτίμως καὶ όγον ἀπέδω[καν τοῦ ἀνα ]ώματος, ἐπαινέσαι καὶ στεφ[ανῶσαι ἕκαστον] αὐτῶν θα οῦ στεφάνωι κ[ατὰ τὸν νόμον, κα]ὶ ἀναγορεῦσαι τοὺ[ς σ]τεφ[άνους τῆι θυσίαι τ]οῦ Ἀμφιαράου μετὰ τὰς [σπονδὰς — — —]ι[ον] τὸν [εὐσεβείας ἕνεκ]εν τῆς εἰς τοὺς θε[οὺς καὶ φι οτιμίας τῆς πρὸ]ς [τ]ο[ὺς θιασώτας].

105

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

Franz Poland presumes this examination practice was only customary in the oldest

Athenian associations.289 Indeed, the formulaic phrase, δεδώκασιν δὲ όγον καὶ εὐθυνας, is less popular after the 2nd century BCE in the Greek inscriptions but the later evidence highlights a continuing inclination to evaluate the honesty of an officer before formally recognizing them.

For example, an orgeōnes association from Piraeus honoured their priestess only after she presented the group with a report concerning the sacrifices offered “to Syrian Aphrodite and the other ancestral gods” (IG II2 1337.6 = GRA I 44; 97/6BCE). Moreover, in a newly published second century CE inscription written by a group of eranistai from Attica (discovered after

Poland’s 1909 Geschichte) we even find a reference to an auditing process during the Roman period (SEG 31:122.29-31 = GRA I 50; Liopesi, Attica; early II CE). Whoever was elected treasurer among these eranistai was required to appoint three auditors to check his or her accounting after a meeting when it was presented.290

Poland’s analysis requires still more attention. He described the financial auditing of officers in Hellenistic associations as more focused and less extensive than the full scrutiny

(sometimes called δοκιμασία) of behavioural attributes performed on new members in Greek associations.291 In this way, he put forward the notion that associations were simply concerned that leaders did not steal money rather than showing interest in truly scrutinizing the quality of their service. In my estimation it is misleading to distinguish between financial audit and full

289 Poland, Geschichte, 423. 290 Lines 29-31: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ταμίας ἀποδιδοῖ όγον ἀγορᾶς γενομένης καταστάνεσθαι ἐγ ογιστὰς τρεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἐγ ογιστὰς ὀμνύειν αὐτόν τε τὸν ‘Ηρακ ῆν καὶ ήμητρα κα[ὶ] Κόρην 291 Poland, Geschichte, 423. For more on the formal scrutiny of Greek civic officials, see Gabriel Adeleye, “The Purpose of the ‘Dokimasia,” GRBS 24 (1983): 295-306; John Kenneth Goodrich, Paul, the Oikonomos of God: Paul’s Apostolic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians and its Greco-Roman Context (PhD diss., Durham University, 2010) 63-72; and a forthcoming paper by John S. Kloppenborg entitled, “The Moralizing of Discourse in Graeco-Roman Associations.”

106

4: Service and Recognition in Associations scrutiny. Many administrators had access to their association’s common fund and proper management of these funds was one criterion by which associations gauged the quality of service provided by their officers. It was not the case that a magistrate could receive recognition simply for handling the communal funds properly, as the following section demonstrates.

5.2.2 Scrutiny of the Entire Job Performance

Collegia often evaluated an officer’s full performance before voting to commend them. For example, an association of thiasōtai in Salamis ensure their annual supervisors performed all their duties honourably: they handed over their accounts, they carried out the sacrifices zealously and they performed honourably “all the other matters which the law enjoins” (καὶ τῶν ἄ ων

ὅσων αὐτοῖς ὁ νόμος προστάττει) (SEG 2.9.4-6 = GRA I 21; Salamis, Attica; 243/2 BCE).

Reference here to a νόμος is matched elsewhere in similar contexts. It refers to group ordinances concerning the duties and honorific customs pertaining to officers who complete their responsibilities properly.292 Unfortunately, we know little about the exact content or extent of these νομοί. It is certain that in SEG 2:9.4-6 = GRA I 21 the duties of officers must extend beyond honest financial dealings since honesty is mentioned separately from other categories of scrutiny in SEG 2:9 = GRA I 21. The same association of thiasōtai refer to their law concerning the performance of officers in another honorific inscription:

Since the supervisors and the secretary completed the sacrifices to the gods as is customary, and (carried out) all the other things that the law prescribes (τῶν ἄ ων πάντων ὧν οἱ νόμοι προστάττουσιν), for good fortune, it was resolved by the thiasōtai to commend them and to crown each of them with an olive wreath on account of their excellence and honesty (SEG 44:60.3-7; Salamis, Attica; 248/7 BCE).293

292 See Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 125-8. 293 ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἐπιμε ηταὶ καὶ ὁ γραμματεὺς ἐπεμε ήθησαν τῶν θυσιῶν τοῖς θεοῖς καθ’ ἃ πάτριόν ἐστι, καὶ τῶν ἄ ων πάντων ὧν οἱ νόμοι προστάττουσιν, ἀγαθῆι τύχηι· δεδόχθαι τοῖς θιασώταις ἐπαινέσαι αὐτοὺς καὶ στεφανῶσαι ἕκαστον αὐτῶν θα οῦ στεφάνωι ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ δικαιοσύνης

107

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

Here, the association mentions sacrificial duties of supervisors and secretaries, as well as unstated “other things.” Financial services, sacrificial performances, and other services were scrutinized before honours could be rewarded to supervisors and secretaries in this association. A similar formula is found in the honorary decree of an orgeōnes association from Piraeus:

Whereas Eukleides, who was chosen as secretary has for many years managed properly and in an upright manner those matters that were made his responsibility by the laws (ὑ[πὸ τ]ῶν νόμων), showing himself to be blameless and gave an accurate account in regard to the things he managed; with good fortune, it was resolved by the orgeōnes to commend Eukleides… (IG II2 1284.21-28 = GRA I 22; 241/0 BCE).

There are many other inscriptions that, while not explicitly referencing any sort of full examination or νόμος nonetheless betray that some sort of scrutiny took place before resolving to commend magistrate. The following three honorary decrees mention so many specific deeds and qualities of the honourees that some form of monitoring the magistrate’s office must have occurred:

First, we have an orgeōnes association whose secretary’s services were listed extensively:

Whereas Chaireas has continually been well-intentioned to the orgeōnes on every occasion, having also been appointed as secretary … and many times he has been concerned about servicing the temple and has not failed in any contribution at all, but has introduced decrees for the benefit (of the association), so that the extremely inopportune expenses were cut down; and he also arranged that ordinary people should share in the benefactions given by the orgeōnes, and he has also continued to undertake service for the collection and for the sacred furnishings, and he has frequently advanced money for payments without charging interest when the treasurer happened to be absent, and has promised that in the future he will be ready to consider whatever matter the orgeōnes ask of him (IG II2 1329.3-19 = GRA I 37; Piraeus, Attica, 175/4 BCE).

Second, an association of thiasōtai voted to reward their ambitious treasurer:

108

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

Whereas Mēnis … continues to be well-disposed towards the thiasōtai and is ambitious with respect to the temple, and now having been chosen treasurer in the year that Euktemon was archon, undertook all his responsibilities honorably and ambitiously, and built both the portico and the pediment of the temple of Zeus Labraundos in a manner worthy of the god and managed the association’s affairs honorably and fairly without reproach, performing his duty for all the thiasōtai, both before and during the time he assumed office as treasurer, and he expended funds from his own income for the temple unflinchingly, displaying the favorable disposition that he had towards the thiasōtai, and worthily enacting the priesthood of the god…. (IG II2 1271.1-14 = GRA I 13; Piraeus, Attica; 299/8 BCE).

Finally, the orgeōnes of the mother of the gods at Piraeus list the many deeds of their treasurer:

Whereas Hermaios … having been treasurer for many years has continually acted piously towards the gods; and has proved himself generous both to the orgeōnes collectively and privately to the individuals, putting himself at the disposal of each; and (being) both zealous that the customary sacrifices to the gods be made and generously paying for these, often from his own resources; and also for some who had died, when the treasury had no money, he paid for the tomb so that they might be treated decently even in death; and (he) made expenditures for repairs and he was the one who organized the original collection of the common fund; and he continually takes about and advises what is best; and in all things shows himself to be well-intentioned (IG II2 1327.4-16 = GRA I 35; Piraeus, Attica; 175/4 BCE).

These inscriptions suggest that associations sometimes kept on-going written accounts monitoring the achievements of their officers.294

Other inscriptions are short and contain no specific information about what communal officers did but praise them for how well they did it.295 For example, IByzantion 31.1-9 = GRA I

90 (Rhegion, Thrace; 85-96 CE), reads as follows:

For good fortune. During the fifth year of hieromnemon Domitianus Caesar Augustus Germanicus, in the month of Bosporios, the mystai of Dionysos Kallōn honored Semnos of Lollia Katylle for acting as priest for two years exceedingly brilliantly and well.

294 Other detailed honorific decrees include: IG II2 1343 = GRA I 48 (37/6 or 36/5 BCE); IG II2 1301 = GRA 1:25 (Piraeus, Attica; 219/8 BCE); IKios 22 = AGRW 97(Bithynia, Asia Minor, late Hellenistic or early Roman period); IEph 4337 = AGRW 159 (Ephesos, Asia Minor; 19-23 CE). 295 IBeroia 22 =GRA I 63 (Beroia, Macedonia, 7 BCE); IMT Adram Kolpos 718 (Adramytteion, Asia Minor, 25-1 BCE?); ISardBR 22 = AGRW 122 (Sardis, Asia Minor, ca. 100 BCE); IJO I Ach 66 and 67 = AGRW 222 A-B (Delos, Asia Minor, ca. 250-175 BCE and 150-50 BCE); ILindos 285 = AGRW 252 (Lindos, Rhodes, 93 BCE).

109

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

The mystai’s commendations for Semnos should be understood in the broader patterns of recognition observed from lengthier inscriptions. The association determined that their priest served “exceedingly brilliantly and well” because they scrutinized Semnos’ service. The fact that the mystai commented upon the quality of Semnos’ job indicates they measured it somehow.

Evaluations of the honesty and quality of a magistrate’s term reflect the associations’ tendencies to reward based on service rather than title.

5.3 Bad Officers Being Denied Recognition

The previous sections established that associations delivered commendation in exchange for quality service: non-officers won the honours sometimes thought to be reserved for magistrates, while officers were regularly scrutinized for financial honesty as well as overall performance. If an officer’s service determined whether or not they would receive honorific inscriptions, crowns, and proclamations, is there evidence for denial of rewards to officers?

We find evidence that certain associations gave more rewards to some officers than to others. For example, when a thiasos from Athens honours three generous supervisors and a secretary, they allude to the possibility that not all magistrates receive equal honours:

[t]hey [i.e., Euklēs, Thallos, Zeno and Ktesias (the officers)] shall also receive from the koinon the other honors, as they deserve [οὗ ἂν δοκῶσιν ἄξιοι εἶναι], so that all who happen to be appointed to the role of supervisor might be ambitious towards the goddess and the koinon, knowing that they will receive appropriate thanks” (IG II2 1277.27-33 = GRA I 15; 278/7 BCE).

This inscription describes conferral of extra honours on the basis that these particular magistrates

“seemed to be worthy.” The “other honours” were delivered on the basis of merit. It is possible that past and future officers from this association would not win these “other honours.”

110

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

The practice of actually denying honour to bad officers is evidenced in rules of extracting special fines from misbehaving magistrates. For example, in an Athenian cult, the sacrifice makers (ἱεροποιοί) must pay a fine if they fail to announce the names of commended secretaries and supervisors during group meetings (a common responsibility of ἱεροποιοί), or if they fail to crown them at the appropriate time (IG II2 1292 = GRA Ι 26; Athens or Piraeus; 215/4 BCE). On

Delos, the association of the Poseidoniastai from Berytos inscribed the following regulations guiding the service of their officer, the archithiasitēs:

And likewise, the archithiasitēs who does not bring to pass what has been assigned will owe the same value (as the cost of the responsibility that he neglected) and be brought to trial for wrong-doing…. If the archithiasitēs should fail to do something, let there be a prosecution against him concerning these things when he becomes an ordinary member ([ἰδιώτ]ης γένηται) (IDelos 1520.66-8 and 88-9 = AGRW 224; after 153/2 CE; my translation).

The Poseidoniastai’s rules show how failure to provide quality service as an archithiasitēs will lead to punishments from the association. A similar law is found in the regulations of the collegium of Diana and Antinoüs in Lanuvium (CIL XIV 2112 = AGRW 310). Here, a neglectful magister cenarum owes thirty sesterces to the club’s common fund if the office’s requirements are not satisfied (II.8-9). Presumably, an officer who was fined while in office may not pass the scrutiny and be denied some or all commendation.

Associations could announce fines for bad officers and also explicitly prohibit formal recognition. An orgeonēs association in Piraeus (IG II2 1328 = GRA I 34; 183/2 or 175/4 BCE) stipulates that the occupant of the priestess position will not be recognized if she fails to fulfill the office’s obligations. Specifically, the priestess was expected to produce two high quality thrones and a silver ornament for those who take part in collecting communal funds. The priestess also needed to appoint a former priest to the role of attendant. The appointee had to be someone other than those who already held the position prior. If the priestess failed to serve the

111

4: Service and Recognition in Associations association in the required way, she is fined up to fifty drachmae. Moreover, she is denied formal commendation: “it is unlawful for anyone to confer upon them [i.e., the bad priestess] the customary honors (IG II2 1328.14-15 = GRA I 34; Piraeus, Attica; 183/2 or 175/4 BCE; emphasis added). This ordinance articulates what is usually just implied in threats of fines for underwhelming magistrates.

Officers and benefactors could even be stripped of honours after receiving rewards if new information surfaces concerning corruption. For example, part of the eranistai of Liopesi’s νόμος reads as follows: “Likewise, if a former treasurer has been proved to have put money away for himself let him be fined (ἀποτίνειν) three times (the value of the misappropriation)” (SEG

31:122 = GRA I 50; Liopesi, Attica; early II CE). The cause of a former treasurer caught in a misdeed after his or her term is unusual. Presumably, the treasurer’s service was already scrutinized, deemed fit for customary honours by the association, and reciprocated. The epigraph is silent on whether the reward would be retracted.

A situation in Asia Minor may help to clarify the eranistai’s response to disgraced former honourees. A collegium in Aphrodisias set up a relief displaying a bearded man with the following text: “[[name?]] emporiarch, to the syntechnia of the linen-workers and the passersby: fare well.”296 Onno Van Nijf tentatively suggests that the benefactor’s name had been “carefully erased” by the association in an act of damnatio memoriae, “that ultimate punishment for high- ranking individuals who have failed to live up to expectations.”297 If Van Nijf is correct then we have another example of a service-provider initially voted honours only to be found later by the collegium to be unworthy of them. This collegium retracted the honour in reaction to news of

296 Text from Van Nijf, Civic World, 94. 297 Van Nijf, Civic World, 126-7.

112

4: Service and Recognition in Associations poor service. Complacency or misbehaviour in office could jeopardize any symbolic capital the incumbent hoped to earn at the conclusion of his or her term.

5.4 Honorific Inscriptions for Officers with no Mention of Titles

I have argued that formal commendation was provided to service-providers from all ranks within associations. Holding an office did not guarantee reciprocal honours, but contributing a worthy service apparently did. If this accurately describes associations’ honorific practices, we should find clubs occasionally feeling no need to mention officers’ titles in honorific decrees. This would follow from a system where service (from officers or regular members) was perceived as a status achievement. Mention of service in an honorific decree, it would follow, would have generated significant symbolic capital.

In Roman Corinth we find a collegium of mostly freedmen and, perhaps, slaves (ICorinth

III 62; c.120 CE).298 The guild erected a, now damaged, monument crediting Titus Flavius

Antiochus and Tiberius Claudius Primigenius, collegiani[s] prim[s] (“outstanding members”), for the group’s establishment. This inscription contains the common expression curam agentibus, which implies that the service-providers held some kind of office while behaving in an “outstanding” manner.299 Notably, the Corinthian association does not include mention of the members’ titles.

In another association, an unspecified number of members were elected to work alongside the association’s supervisor to complete a building project (IG II2 1282; Athens; 262/1

298 See John Harvey Kent, Corinth: Results of excavations. The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Vol.8/3; American School of Classical Studies at Athens; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966) 35. 299 ICorinth III 62 (c.120 CE): [--- decernente] Collegio Larum Domus Divinae, curam agentibus Collegiani(s) primi(s) T(ito) Flavio Aug(usti) lib(erto) Antio(cho) et Ti(berio) Claudio Primigenio.

113

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

BCE).300 Since these affiliates were “elected,” they were likely officers – perhaps treasurers or secretaries, as were common in Attic associations. Notably, the electees’ titles were excluded from the inscription but their services were described in detail (see above).

Another example of “title exclusion” is from the thiasōtai of the mother of the gods from

Piraeus. A certain Soterichos was elected (αἵρεθεις) by the association, indicating that he held an office. Soterichos is honoured for his service without inclusion of his office name (IG II2

1273AB = GRA I 18; Piraeus, Attica; 266 BCE). William Scott Ferguson assumed that

Soterichos was a priest.301 More recently, John Kloppenborg suggested that Soterichos’ building ventures perhaps indicate a role more characteristic of a supervisor.302 The inscription describes him to have “managed honorably and ambitiously the building (οἰκοδομία) of the ‘house.’” The supervision and financing of construction projects was a common responsibility of supervisors.303

In an honorific decree written by an association of thiasōtai twelve untitled officers are commended for their “excellence and honesty” (ἀρετὴ καὶ δικαιοσύνη) (IG II2 2347 = GRA I 12;

Salamis, Attica; ca.300 BCE). These honourees were likely officers since praise for ἀρετὴ καὶ

δικαιοσύνη in Attic inscriptions is almost always explicitly linked to an elected or appointed officer with duties of financial administration, such as a secretary, treasurer or supervisor.304

In Macedonia, a certain Publius Hostilius Philadelphus is credited for the writing of the first two inscriptions. In the first case of recognition, he is noted as the association’s aedile:

300 οἱ προ[σ]αιρε[θ]έντες μετὰ τοῦ ἐπιμε ητοῦ [Ἀ]φροδ[ι]σίου 301 Ferguson,”Attic Orgeones,” 107, n.49. 302 Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 103. 303 For example, see IG II2 1324.2-10 = GRA I 32 (Piraeus, ca. 190 BCE); IG II2 1301.3-8 = GRA I 25 (Piraeus, Attica, 219/8 BCE); AM 66:228 no.4. 8-12 = GRA I 39 (Athens, Attica; 138/7 BCE). 304 For example: a secretary in IG II2 1263.22 = GRA I 11 (Piraeus, Attica, 300/299 BCE); a priestess with financial responsibilities in IG II2 1316.16-17 = GRA I 16 (Piraeus, Attica, 272/1 BCE); supervisors in SEG 2:10.9 (Salamis, Attica; 251/0 BCE); and supervisors with a secretary in SEG 44:60.7 (Salamis, Attica; 244/3 BCE).

114

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

Publius Hostilius Philadelphus, on account of the honor of the office of aedile, had inscribed at his own expense the names of the association members who gave funds (for the construction of the temple)…Hostilius Philadelphus had the rock asending into the temple quarried at his own expense (CIL III 633 I. 1-4, 24-6 = GRA I 68; Philippi, Macedonia, II CE).

In the second case of recognition, his title disappears:

Publius Hostilius Philadelphus, freedman of Publius (Hostilius), at his own expense, on the rock below cut out the frame and set the inscription, where he wrote and engraved the names of the worshipers (at the time that) Urbanus was the priest (CIL III 633 II [preamble] = GRA I 68; Philippi, Macedonia, II CE).

Both inscriptions were composed at the same time,305 and both recognize Philadelphus for the economic resources he expends on the group. Since Philadelphus commissioned the writings at the same time to be carved very close to one another (CIL III 633 III is between them), perhaps he felt it redundant to reference his aedileship in both inscriptions. However, he found it perfectly fitting to inscribe description of his service on both occasions.

Title-exclusion would occur because in associations the service, not the office, won recognition. 306 Instances of title-exclusion show that NT scholars have been too quick to make arguments from silence concerning the Corinthian ekklēsia’s lack of officers. Paul’s emphasis on the generosity of ekklēsia service-providers rather than their titles matches patterns of recognition in associations, his failure to name the titles of service-providers can be understood as a common practice I have called title-exclusion, which demonstrates that symbolic capital could be generated by naming the service alone even if the provider held an office.

305 See Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 323-4 for explanation and further bibliography. 306 See also IG XII/5 606 (Iulis, Ceos; unknown date), where an untitled Epameinōn is rewarded an olive crown for his arête and philotimia, two virtues often associated with the offices of supervisor, treasurer and secretary (IG II2 1291.25-6 = GRA I 19, mid III BCE; IG II2 1277.22 = GRA I 15, 278/7 BCE).

115

4: Service and Recognition in Associations

6. Conclusion

Collegia honoured all service-providers, including patrons, officers, and ordinary members. It would seem that association hierarchies were not as clearly defined as Schmeller as others have insisted. Rather, regular members achieved some of the same prizes won by officers, while the social value of holding an office could be nullified by bad behaviour.

It is within this nuanced model of honorific practices in ancient cultic groups that the

Corinthians’ services need to be re-assessed. In the next chapter, I turn to Corinth and show that there is a good prima facie case to suppose that the Christ-group there took part in honorific practices.

116

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

CHAPTER FIVE

Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group 1. Introduction

In various geographical regions and time periods, ancient Christians produced multitudes of inscriptions.307 Christian epigraphy was not devoid of honorific language, as the following example from IV or V CE Crete shows:

Ἡμετέρης κά ιστον ἔχεις, Λόγε Χ(ριστ)έ, | χορίης | άγνον ἐν εὐσεβίεσσι{ν} πανηγυρίεσσι | δικέων.| Τῷδε πόνος κ υτόκαρπος ἐπουρανίων | ἀνέῳξε | 5 τιμὴν ἀγγε όεσσαν ἐπὶ σέβας ἱερὸν ἔσχε, τιμὰς δ’ἑὴν μεγά ην βασι ηείδα τὴν θεότε|κνον | ἀειδίην θεότητα. Τὸ σὸν δ’ ὑπεδέχνυτο πν(εῦμ)α εὔσχο ον, ἐκτανύων ψυχῆς πο υχανδέα κό πον, εἷδος ὅπως θεïκὸν βροτοείκε ον ἀμφιβά| οιτο | σῆς, μάκαρ, ἀντο ίης θεεικὴν δόσιν | ἀγ <α>οφεγγές

You have, O Christ the Word, our best (κά ιστος), Magnos, from the pious assemblies of the just. Toil after celestial things, crowned with fruits of glory (κ υτόκαρπος), angelic honour (τιμή) has opened for him since he revered everything holy, and honoured (τιμή) your great Kingdom and eternal Divinity begotten of God. He received your tranquil spirit, extending the capacious bosom of his soul, in order that his mortal form might put on a splendidly shining divine one, a divine gift of your resurrection, O Blessed one.308

Any honorific inscription produced by the first-century Corinthian Christ-group remains lost to us. While this epigraphic silence helps drive the perception that the ekklēsia failed to recognize peer benefactors, it cannot go unnoticed that if the Christ-group inscribed honours on stone, scholars will never find them in useable condition. During the combined reigns of Claudius and

Nero (41-68 CE) only 38 inscriptions have been located in Corinth309 – this amounts to an

307 John S. Creaghan and A.E. Raubitschek, “Early Christian Epitaphs from Athens,” Hesperia 16 (1947): 1-51; Anastasius C. Bandy, “Early Christian Inscriptions of Crete,” Hesperia 32 (1963): 227-47; Giovanni Battista de Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores (Rome: Libaria Pontificia, 1822-1894). 308 Translation, with slight changes, from Bandy, “Early Christian Inscriptions,” 242. 309 Kent, Corinth, 18-19.

117

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group average of just over one extant inscription per year. Of the surviving Corinthian epigraphy, John

Harvey Kent bemoans its particularly-poor condition. He finds it “difficult to think of any other ancient site where the inscriptions are so cruelly mutilated or broken.”310

The unfortunate archaeological record does not present a blockade to exploring the ekklēsia’s honorific structure. Instructively, Paul reveals that the Corinthians performed services we frequently find praised in civic and association honorific inscriptions. Moreover, he employs honorific language while discussing some instances of Corinthian peer benefaction. The Christ- group’s honorific apparatuses, I will argue, are discernible in four representative services performed by its members. First, in the apparent absence of a clubhouse or temple, the Christ- group met in the houses of various ekklēsia members (e.g., 1 Cor 1:16, 11:22). Hosting a private cultic group was an honourable service, and it likely rotated among ekklēsia members – Gaius did not dominate this role as is often thought (e.g., Rom 16:23)311 and, in fact, may not have even been a host himself. Rather, opportunities to host ekklēsia banquets were available to most members, and affiliates who accepted the responsibility earned status achievements that were regarded as worthy of formal commendation.

Second, the Jerusalem collection was similar to voluntary collections made by associations for various construction and financial projects, especially the ογεία attested by

P.Oslo III 144 (Oxyrhynchus, 275 CE). Scholars often depict the Jerusalem ογεία as an act performed out of concern for the poor,312 as though charity were mutually exclusive from

310 Of 1,500 Roman period inscriptions, only fourteen remain intact. See Kent, Corinth, 17. 311 Horrell, Social Ethos, 96; Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 158; Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 38; Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,” 352. 312 For example, see Longenecker, Remember, 60-107; and James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context (WUNT 2:172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 323.

118

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group benefaction in the ancient world. The evidence suggests that status generation for the donors to the Jerusalem collection was a concern of the Corinthians, as well as of Paul.

Third, in 1 Cor 16:17-18, Paul discusses three members who travelled to Ephesus on behalf of the ekklēsia (1 Cor 16:17-18). It seems best to posit that the travelling of Stephanas,

Fortunatus, and Achaiacus was met with more than “respect” by the ekklēsia313; these emissaries performed acts that were commonly praised in honorific inscriptions and Paul explicitly encourages the ekklēsia to honour them in a proper manner, which, as was observed in the previous chapter, would have involved more than attitudinal changes.

Finally, the Corinthians who provided temporary administrative services during and in preparation for the Lord’s Supper (11:17-22) performed the same kinds of acts of peer benefaction that were commended by collegia with honorific inscriptions and other rewards. The

Christ-group’s banquet offered opportunities for peer benefaction that, according to Paul, should be met with ἔπαινος if performed properly (11:17, 22). It is unlikely that two or three deipnon- providers perpetually monopolized benefaction opportunities at the Corinthian banquets314, as has been shown in chapter three and as will be confirmed in this chapter. On the whole, this data shows that honorific behavior was ubiquitous in the Christ-group. Moreover, a small number of individual Corinthians did not monopolize opportunities for status achievements – the evidence suggests that peer benefaction came from throughout the ekklēsia’s ranks.

2. Hosting Club Meetings

313 Attitudinal changes are all that scholars typically suggest when discussing forms of reciprocity for service in the Christ-group. SeeThiselton, First Epistle, 1341-2; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 320; Schnabel, Der erste Brief, 1024; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4:458-9; Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 386; Fee, First Epistle, 832-3. 314 This is the assumption behind Theissen’s reconstruction. See chapter three.

119

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Exegetes regularly contend that the Corinthian group assembled the household of Gaius, whom

Paul calls the ξένος (“guest,” or “host”) of “the whole church” (Rom 16:23).315 Several

Corinthian householders are known to us (e.g., 1 Cor 1:16, 11:22), and it may be that the ekklēsia assembled in some of their houses too when they came together as a full Christ-group (1 Cor 5:4;

11:17; 14:23, 26), as did certain other associations (e.g., SB III 7182 Frag.1.III.31; P.Tebt. III/2

894, Frag.1 recto, III.28).316

2.1 Commendation for Hosts

By winning competitions to host club banquets, members achieved status-affirmation in a variety of ways. For instance, since seating arrangements reflected the status of dinner participants at ancient banquets,317 a social perk of hosting a club banquet was, perhaps, involvement in making the seating plan. At least, this was the host’s responsibility at private household dinners;318 in collegia that met in temples and clubhouses, seating arrangements may have been the responsibility of leading officers. Even if officials rather than hosts organized seating arrangements in modest household associations, it can be determined from the conflicts that arose at both private (Lucian, Symposium 13; Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 1.3) and club banquets

(e.g., P.Mich. V 243.5-6 = AGRW 300; CIL XIV 2112.II.59 = AGRW 310; IG II2 1368.72-75 =

GRA I 51) concerning the status implications related to participants’ seating placement that a

315 Adolf Jülicher, “Der Brief an die Römer,” in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments: neu übersetzt für die Gegenwart erklärt (4 vols.; ed. Wilhelm Bousset and Wilhelm Heitmüller; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917-20) 2:333; Paul Althaus, Der Brief an die Römer übersetzt und erklärt (NTD 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 137; James D. G. Dunn, Romans (2 vols.; WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988) 2:911; Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (ThNT 6; Leipzig: Evangelisches Verlagsanstalt, 1999) 329; Thomas Schreiner, Romans (BECNT 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998) 808; Meeks, First Urban, 57. 316 For other examples, see below. 317 Smith, From Symposium, 44. 318 Some hosts of private dinners even claimed the seat of honour (e.g., Ben Sira 12:12).

120

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group club host would be ranked highly by the officials in charge of that task. This would be preferable in order to avoid conflicts resulting from a lowly-ranked, disgruntled, host. In fact, the members from the modest Tebtynis association seem to have vied with one another for hosting duties, affirming the social benefit of serving in this capacity. This club’s hosts are recorded as follows:

ἐν Ἁρμιύσι[...] (P.Tebt. III/2 894 Frag.1 recto, III.28) ἐν ενοίτου (P.Tebt. III/2 894 Frag.2 recto, I.8) ἐν τοῖς Ἅρπα ος (P.Tebt. III/2 894 Frag. 2 verso, II.45) ἐν Λυσανίου (P.Tebt. III/2 894 Frag.9 verso, II.15)

We do not know what honours these hosts received. The crowns purchased by this association may have been awarded to hosts (e.g., Frag.1 recto, III.30).

Epigraphic honours for associations’ hosts survive in several genres. In a Judean association from Macedonia, a certain Claudius Tiberius Polycharmos, who was called the synagogue’s father (πατήρ), gave the synagogue part of his house while maintaining ownership of the upper rooms for himself (IJO I Mac 1 = GRA I 73; Stobi, Macedonia; II-III CE).319 In affirmation of Polycharmos’ status and generosity, an inscription was produced that recorded his deed.

Sometimes the service of hospitality won hosts special honours, as in the case of a

Roman-period association from Opus. Here, a homeowner, Sosinike, accepted Sarapis and Isis into her household association (IG X/2.1 255 = GRA I 77; Thessalonica, Macedonia; I-II CE).

Her name was inscribed into the association’s story of origins, two duplicates of which were composed.320 One copy was set up in Opus and the other was taken to Thessalonica where it was

319 See David Noy, Alexander Panayotov, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I: Eastern Europe (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 101; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2004) 69. 320 See Philip Sellew, “Religious Propaganda in Antiquity: A Case from the Sarapeum at Thessalonica,” Numina Aegaea 3 (1980): 15-20.

121

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group established publicly in the Sarapeion.321 In this manner, Sosinike’s act of hospitality led to an extension of her good reputation even beyond her polis.

A domestic association from second century Rome honoured their host, Pompeia

Agrippinilla (IGUR 160; Torre Nova, Campania; ca. 150 CE), by constructing a statue of her.

And, finally, while no honorific decree survives in honour of Dionysius, the host of a household association in Philadelphia (Lydia), an inscription from his association highlights his status in the group. The Philadelphia inscription (SIG3 985 = AGRW 121; Philadelphia, Lydia; I BCE) recalls how Zeus approached the host in his sleep and gave him the association’s ordinances as well as further instructions to complete customary purifications. Dionysius’ stated encounter with Zeus resembles the divine callings, encounters, and skills experienced leaders of other cultic groups.322

2.2 Were Hosting Duties Monopolized by Gaius?

One wonders if Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16), Phoebe (Rom 16:1), and perhaps others (11:22), were eager for opportunities to host Christ-group banquets. David Horrell understands most Corinthian households to be “smaller house-fellowships” that “combined on occasions when Gaius acted as host.”323 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, following Robert Banks, understands Corinthian houses as “sub-groups” of the whole ekklēsia that met in Gaius’ house.324

And Friesen contends, “Paul never mentions staying with Stephanas, nor does Paul ever mention an assembly meeting in the house of Stephanas”325, moreover, “Gaius had a larger house than

321 Laurent Bricault, “Les cultes isiaques en Grèce centrale et occidentale,” ZPE 119 (1997): 118-19 at 118; cf. Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 361. 322 See Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet; IG XI/4 1299 = AGRW 221 (Delos; 166 BCE); IG II2 1365 + 1366 = GRA I 53 (Laurion, Attica; late II or early III CE). 323 Horrell, Social Ethos, 96. 324 Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 158; cf. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 38. 325 Friesen, “Poverty,” 352.

122

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group others.”326 If Gaius were the ekklēsia’s only host, then opportunities to host ekklēsia meetings would not be widely available as a means for members to participate in their Christ-group’s honorific structure.

There is reason to doubt the theory that Gaius was the only host of the entire community.

For example, Thiselton argues that individual Corinthian households subscribed to “separate climates, or a separate ethos, which led to self-sufficient independence and even competitiveness over against others.”327 When discussing hosts of ekklēsia meals, James Walters believes that conflicts between competing households within the Christ-group meant that homeowners would share hosting duties: “[a]lthough Paul calls Gaius ‘host to me and to the whole church,’ he certainly would not have been the only meal host at Corinth (Rom. 16:23) – though Paul no doubt wishes he was!”328 This seems likely to me, especially given the evidence from P.Tebt.

III/2 894 suggesting that collegiati did vie with one another for hosting duties. Hosting represented a way to display and generate status even among modest collegiati whose abodes were not particularly impressive.

It would be especially tempting to suggest that hosting responsibilities rotated among ekklēsia members if Gaius was not a host himself. Paul seems clear that the “whole” Christ- group gathered (1 Cor 11:17-18; 14:23; Rom 16:23), perhaps weekly (16:2), but I am not convinced that he described Gaius as a host. The notion that Gaius was a host represents one of the longest-standing consensus opinions in social descriptions of the Corinthians and, as far as I

326 Friesen, “Poverty,” 356. 327 Thiselton, First Epistle, 118; cf. Murphy-O’Connor: “It seems likely that the various groups mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 1:12 would regularly have met separately. Such relative isolation would have meant that each group had a chance to develop its own theology, and virtually ensured that it took good root before being confronted by other opinions” (158). For diversity even within house-churches see Stowers, “The Concept of ‘Community,’”244-248. 328 James C. Walters, “Paul and the Politics of Meals in Roman Corinth” in Corinth in Context (ed. Friesen, Schowalter, Walters) 343-64, at 358.

123

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group know, has not been engaged critically.329 It can be traced back to Origen, who wrote the following:

Gaius is understood to be the man concerning whom he relates when writing to the Corinthians saying, ‘I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.’ He seems therefore to be indicating about him that he was a hospitable man who had received in hospitality not only Paul and each of the individuals who had come to Corinth, but he also offered his own house as a meeting place for the entire church. It is of course related in the tradition of the elders that this Gaius was the first bishop of the church of Thessalonica (Romans 10.41).330

Origen identifies Gaius as a host not on the basis of Paul’s description of him as a ξένος but, rather, from making a hypothetical connection between the Gaius in Rom 16:23 and the Gaius in

1 Cor 1:14. Modern scholarship has upheld Origen’s conclusion regarding Gaius as an ekklēsia host but abandoned his rationale. For example, Longenecker argues, “[t]he name ‘Gaius’ appears in two of Paul’s letters, and both occasions refer to someone based in Corinth. Although it is conceivable that both texts refer to the same person, this cannot be proved, since the name was exceedingly common in the ancient world.”331 Friesen provides reason to think that this is not the same Gaius as in 1 Cor 1:14: he observes that the supposed household of Gaius the ξένος (Rom

16:23) is never mentioned in the Corinthian letter and that “it is odd that Paul said he baptized

Stephanas’ whole house (1 Cor 1.16) but he did not say he baptized Gaius’s whole house (1 Cor

1.14).”332 On this point, it is peculiar that Paul never mentions Gaius’ service as a host in First

329 Some exegetes debate the exact nature of Gaius’ hosting role and posit that Gaius provided hospitality to Christian travellers: Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6; Leipzig: Deichert, 1910) 614; Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer (HNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928) 128; C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975- 79) 2.806-807 (Cranfield is undecided); Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 935; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2007) 980-1. 330 Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.;The Fathers of the Church 104; Washington, DC; The Catholic University of America Press, 2002) 2: 306. 331 Longenecker, Remember, 239. 332 Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,” 356, n.108.

124

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Corinthians, where he praises other service-providers (1 Cor 3:1; 16:15-18). Most commentators will voice at least some measure of doubt regarding the link between Gaius the ξένος (Rom

16:23) and the baptized Gaius (1 Cor 1:14).333

The most significant challenge to the “host theory” is the language Paul employs to describe Gaius. It is as follows: ὁ ξένος334 μου καὶ ὅ ης τῆς ἐκκ ησίας. Ὁ ξένος is a curious title to give to the host of a private cultic group. Association “hosts” are referenced in a variety of ways but never as ὁ ξένος. For example, Polycharmos, the Judean host of the Macedonian synagogue (IJO I Mac 1 = GRA I 73) is ὁ πατὴρ (l.4) not ὁ ξένος.335 Hosts could also be called,

ἑστιάτωρ.336 Other associations describe hosting duties in other ways but avoid using ξένος to do so.337 Some clubs avoided designating their hosts with any titles at all. For example, a certain

Sosinike, who invited an association into her house, was not called ὁ ξένος or any other title (IG

X/2.1 255 = AGRW 77).338 The Tebtynis association that met in the houses of Lysanios,

Harmiusios, and Menoitos (see above) certainly did not call their hosts ξένοι.

333 Fee, First Epistle, 62; Thiselton, First Epistle, 140-141; Barrett, First Epistle; one exception is Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1:155. Early Christian writings attest to several individuals named Gaius. For example, Paul’s travel- companion from Macedonia (Acts 19:29), a member of a church in Derbe (Acts 20:4), and a “beloved Gaius” (3 John 1). Cranfield notes that Gaius is “an extremely common Roman praenomen” (Romans 9-16, 807). Given this uncertainty, the most important information we have about the identity of Rom 16:23’s Gaius is Rom 16:23 itself. 334 The Vulgate translation of Rom 16:23 is similarly ambiguous, referring to Gaius as a hospes: Salutat vos Cajus hospes meus, et universa ecclesia. 335 Noy, Panayotov, and Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones, 64. 336 This term tends to denote the office-title of a rotating administrative position. For example, in an early III BCE inscription from Athens, the duties of the host are outlined (Agora 16:161.12-24 = GRA I 14; Athens) cf. Smith, From Symposium, 92; Ferguson, “The Attic Orgeones,” 82-6; Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 82; Geoffrey A. Woodhead, Inscriptions: The Decrees (Vol. 16 of The Athenian Agora; Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997) 231. 337 For example, see IG II2 1343.48 = GRA I 48 (Athens, 37-35 BCE): ἑστιάω; IEph 3080 (Ionia, Asia Minor; 167 CE):ὑποδέχομαι; IEph 951 (Ephesos, Asia Minor; unknown date): ὑποδέχομαι. 338 Sosinike performs the role of “offering sacrifices” (ἔθυε Σωσινείκα τας θεσίας χρόον τινα; IG X/2.1 255.19 = GRA I 77; Thessalonika, Macedonia; I-II CE) and perhaps held a status-conferring title such as ἱέρεια (priestess) or ἑστιάτωρ (host).

125

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Since Origen’s reason for identifying Gaius as a host has been rejected by scholarship, and since hosts of associations were not called ξένοι, what reason is there to continue imagining

Gaius as an ekklēsia host? Generally, commentators take it for granted that Gaius was a host without any argumentation at all.339 In a recent commentary, Robert Jewett at least acknowledges that the word carried several meanings in antiquity. Jewett contends that in Rom 16:23 “the

Greek term ξένος carries the connotation of the person granting hospitality rather than of

‘stranger.’340 While not offering any original support for this position, he cites Gustav Stählin’s thirty-six page TDNT entry on ξένος and cognates.341

Stählin is unable to show that Paul uses ξένος to mean host; he, rather, takes it for granted presumably because Paul uses φι οξενία earlier in the letter while urging the Romans to give

“hospitality towards strangers” (Rom 12:13). Though Stählin never explicitly betrays his understanding of how Rom 12:14 impacts an interpretation of Rom 16:23, he perhaps assumed that Paul must have meant “host” in Rom 16:23 since in the same letter he employed the cognate,

φι όξενος, to mean “hospitality towards a stranger” rather than one of its five other meanings in

Hellenistic Greek literature.342 If this is the implied argument, it is untenable. We do not even need to leave the NT to find another author who uses φι όξενος to mean “hospitality towards strangers” and ξένος to mean “stranger.” In Hebrews, the author makes an identical exhortation to the one found in Rom 12:13: “[d]o not neglect to show hospitality to strangers (φι οξενίας)”

(Heb 13:2). Only seven verses later, the adjective ξένος modifies “teachings” to mean “strange”:

339 For example, William Sanday asserts that Gaius “is described as the host of St. Paul and of the whole Church…. In all probability the Christian assembly met in his house” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [New York: C. Scribner’s sons, 1923] 432); cf. Cranfield, Romans, 2:806-807. 340 Jewett, Romans, 980. 341 Gustav Stählin, “ξένος κτ .,” TDNT 5 (1967): 1-36. 342 The five other meanings are: “guest-chamber” (e.g., Phlm.22); lodging (e.g., Acts 28:23); soldier’s quarters; inn, and monk’s cell. See Stählin, “ξένος κτ .,” 19.

126

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

“[d]o not be carried away by all kinds of strange (ξεναις) teachings” (Heb 13:7). Earlier in the same letter, the author used ξένος to mean strangers: “[t]hey confessed that they were strangers

(ξένοι) and foreigners on the earth” (Heb 11:13).

2.3 A New Reading of Rom 16:23

In addition to occasionally meaning “host,” ξένος more commonly denoted a group of related concepts that were similar in the sense that they designated individuals who were not at home: guest, foreigner, and stranger. Andrew Arterbury’s study of ancient hospitality explains the

Greeks’ usage of the word as follows:

the ancient Greeks seldom found it necessary to distinguish between the various roles in a hospitality interaction. This practice continued through the Roman period. Yet, by failing to demarcate the roles of the host and guest semantically, we can see the degree to which the Greeks (and Romans) considered this social convention to be based upon a fluid and reciprocal relationship. It should be noted, however, that when the Greeks were virtually forced to distinguish between the host and the guest, ‘they expressed the entertainer by the word ξενοδόκος, leaving ξένος for the person entertained’ (e.g. Homer, Od. 8.542).343

Since ξένος never referred to a member of a cultic group that invited the community into his or her house for a banquet (see Table 5.1), Rom 16:23 would be one of those special instances where Paul would need to use ξενοδόκος to refer to a host of a Christ-group. In all circumstances, Arterbury concludes that ξένος was more often employed to denote guests but

“occasionally used to refer to the host in a hospitality exchange (e.g. Homer, Od. 1.214, Il.

15.532; Xenophon, Anab. 2,4,15; Dio Chrysostom, Ven. 68).”344 He uncritically assumes that

343 Andrew Arterbury, Entertaining Angels. Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting (New Testament Monographs 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005) 22; quote from St. George Stock, “Hospitality (Greek and Roman),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (12 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908- 22) 6: 808-12, at 808. 344 Arterbury, Entertaining Angels, 104.

127

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Paul employed the word in its less-common sense in Rom 16:23: “Paul refers to Gaius as his host, as well as the host of the whole church.”345

Given the range of meanings the word held, it is necessary to set some controls when looking for lexicographical patterns that can illuminate the meaning of ξένος in Rom 16:23.

Since Paul was a non-elite first-century writer, one might begin by asking how other non-elites used ξένος in the first century. In the NT, we find fourteen occurrences of ξένος, including Rom

16:23. Ten instances mean “strange, stranger346 and three mean “foreign, foreigner.”347 The fourteenth is Rom 16:23. In other non-elite writings, the noun and masculine adjective, ξένος, in all its declensions, appear in eleven first-century papyri from the Duke database of documentary papyri. Here, it never means host but, rather, means foreign(er), strange(r), or guest.348

The instances from these papyri where the word means guest (and guests) are from SB

XXIV 16224, an association account. It is striking how consistently ξένος refers to guests in sources produced by associations. Since Paul refers to Gaius as the ξένος of an ekklēsia, the following chart is instructive. It lists instances where the word, ξένος or πρόξενος, and some other words with a ξεν-root, appear in sources from 250BCE-250 CE that also contain an association designator (e.g., synodos, koinon, synagogos). This chart does not claim to be comprehensive but it is representative of the ways associations used these words and demonstrates the absence of the “host” meaning in this context.

345 Arterbury, Entertaining Angels, 104. 346 Matt 25:35, 38, 43, 44; Eph 2:12, 19; Heb 11:13; 13:9; 1 Pet 4:12; 3 Jn 1:5. 347 Matt 27:7; Acts 17:18, 21. 348 P.Oxy VIII 1154.10 (Oxyrhynchus, late I CE); SB XXIV 16224.60-61 (unknown provenance; 76-125 CE); O.Mich. II 712.1 (Karanis, Arsinoites; 8-7 BCE or 36-37 CE); P.Corn. 22.1, 30, 128, 129 (Philadelphia, Egypt; 1-50 CE); P.Oxy XIV 1672.4 (Oxyrhynchus; 37-40 CE); P.Tebt. II 401.22 (Tebtunis, Arsinoites; after 14 CE); SB XX 15130.3 (Tebtynis; 1-25 CE) – this text is toο fragmentary to translate.

128

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

5.1: The ξένοι of Associations

Date Type of Source Greek Translation Document 269-246 BCE Honorific OGIS 51.67-9 = πρόξενος349 guest (perhaps Decree and AGRW 298 honorary guest) Membership (269-246 BCE) List 210-195 BCE Regulation IG XII/3 330.140 οἶνος ξενικός imported wine = AGRW 243 (210-195 BCE) 170s BCE Account SB III 7182.24 ξένος guest

After 127 BCE Honorific IDelos 1528.11 = ξένος foreigner Decree AGRW 230 114 BCE Account P.Tebt. III/2 894 ξένος guest Frag.2 recto I.5,12 (etc.) 112-111 BCE Account P.Tebt. I 118.4, 12 ξένος guest = Sel.Pap. I 185 (112-111 BCE) 112/111 BCE or Account P.Tebt. I 177 (112- ξένος guest 76/5 BCE 111 BCE/ 76-75 BCE) 110-107 BCE Account P.Tebt. I 224, r.3 ξένος guest (110-107 BCE) Before 70 CE Honorific CIJ 1404.5 = ξενών guest room Decree AGRW 270 (before 70 CE) 76-125 CE Account SB XXIV ξένος guest 16224.60-61 II-III CE Lawsuit P.Giss. I 99, ll. 25 ξένος guest II-III CE II-III CE Account O.Narm. I 49.10 = θεῶν ξἐνοι guests of the gods SB XXVI 16373

The data from the NT, from first-century documentary papyri, and from association sources remain consistent with Arterbury’s conclusion that the word, ξένος, most often denoted someone

349 A πρόξενος was, in Athens, “a person who for some time has assisted visitors from a polis [other than Athens] and has shown himself as a friend of that polis in general, [who] is now appointed proxenos by the polis in question.” Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 98; quoted from Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 205.

129

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group who was not at home (i.e., guest, foreigner, stranger), and it always carried this connotation in situation that called for specificity such as in the writings of associations.350 I suggest that Rom

16:23 was one of those instances where, to use Arterbury’s words, Paul was “virtually forced” to call Gaius a ξενοδόκος if he were a host. Paul seemingly describes Gaius as a guest rather than a host.

If Paul refered to Gaius as the guest of both Paul and the entire Christ-group, this dual guest-function requires further investigation. It is understandable how a homeowner could host

Paul as well as an association, but how can a person be a guest in this double sense? As has been observed, guests were commonly invited to club banquets by individual members and it is likely,

I would suggest, that Gaius was invited to an ekklēsia meeting by Paul. This makes him both

Paul’s and the Christ-group’s guest: Paul’s guest because Paul invited him, and the ekklēsia’s guest because he attended one of their banquets. We do not need to imagine two separate occasions where Gaius was a ξένος – a personal ξένος to Paul, and later, a communal ξένος to the Christ-group. In fact, associations could record attendance of ξένοι both in a general manner and by the name of the invitee. In the slave association, we have two references to ξένοι. One attestation shows how an individual could be perceived as ξένος of the entire association:

… in the treasury of a temple when Hermias was the epimeletes, (the following were present): Hermias, Bacchos, Dēmas, Karpos, Kamax, Psammētichos, Dikaios. (They came to) 7. (Their) ξένοι (were) Thibrōn, and…son of Horiōn (SB III 7182, Frag.1, II.12-26).

350 When we turn to non-Christian, Jewish literature from the first-century, the results are similar to what we have already discovered. For example, Josephus and Philo use the noun and masculine adjective, ξένος, 82 times. The word holds a range of meanings including guest (e.g., Philo, Moses 1.275; Josephus, Ant. 5.145 [twice]), stranger (e.g., Philo, Moses 1.58; Josephus, Ant. 1.246), and foreigner (e.g., Philo, Virtues 1.173; Josephus, Ant. 3.214). Only once out of eighty-two usages does the term reference a host (Josephus, Ant. 5.243), but this is not in reference to the host of a private cultic group where the word most often means guest and never host.

130

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Here, Thribōn was invited by someone but identified as the entire association’s guest. Later in the papyrus we discover Thibrōn was promoted to a full member, as is indicated by his presence at subsequent meetings without ξένος status (ll. 65, 83).

In the Tebtynis papyrus, we also find individuals who are guests of the entire club:

ξένος α σ (Frag.2 recto, I.12; Frag 2 recto, II.37). One guest, 200 (drachmas)

This is an attestation to a guest who contributed 200 drachmas at the banquet they attended. The

Tebtynis association shows that ξένοι could also be recorded according to the member who invited them. At a meeting on Mecheir 1, the Tebtynis collegium records a certain Herakleidēs to have brought nine guests (ξένοι Ἡρακ είδ[ου]; Frag.4 recto, l. 8). That these were ξένοι of

Herakleidēs as well as the entire collegium is highlighted by the fact that another club member, a certain Patynis, paid for parts of the admission for three ξένοι (Frag.4 recto, l.3). In a second instance, four different members each invited one ξένος on Mecheir 14. The names are all lost except for Kagōs, a member who invited one ξένος. In an expense report, it would appear that a fellow member, a certain Pomous, put 60 drachmas towards each of their admissions (Frag.5 verso, II.11-20). These individuals were ξένοι of the member whom invited them as well as ξένοι of the entire congregation.

In summary, the data suggests that Walters is likely accurate concerning hosting duties in the Corinthian ekklēsia. Rather than being monopolized by Gaius – who was likely a guest, not a host – hospitality duties represented services over which members competed. If 1 Cor 16:2 indicates weekly meetings (see chapter three), then Corinthian householders had regular opportunities to provide hosting services to their Christ-group. Association hosts were compensated with (and could expect) high-ranking seats, crowns, and/or inscriptions.

131

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

3. The Jerusalem Collection

A second instance of honorific behaviour in the ekklēsia surrounds donations to the Jerusalem collection. Many studies prefer to discuss Paul’s understanding of the collection rather than dynamics surrounding the Corinthians’ decision to participate in it.351 Those who discuss

Corinthian involvement suggest a curious scenario. Longenecker, for example, understands charity and benefaction as mutually exclusive in the ancient world: the Corinthians’ donations were “charity”352 whereas benefaction and patronage “do not qualify as charitable.”353 A similar distinction is made by James Harrison. In Harrison’s work, a line is drawn between the ethos of civic benefaction and Paul’s description of the collection, even though Paul engages in the discourse of the former. Paul “feared” that the Corinthians would contribute to the ογεία “not because of any sense of gratitude for the divine grace revealed in the impoverished Christ … but more due to the silent demands of Graeco-Roman reciprocity system.”354 To be sure, the contributing Corinthians did behave as benefactors but, on Harrison’s theory, Jerusalem was not obligated to “return favour for the collection.”355 The Corinthians’ reciprocity would come from

God, who “in the disposal of His blessings upon the Corinthians (2 Cor 9:7-11), undergirds their beneficence by His grace … and as a result will reward both the Corinthians (9:10, 11a, 13a) and

351 For example, Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte (2 vols.; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1928-32) 2:44-67; Oscar Cullmann, “The Early Church and the Ecumenical Problem,” AThR 40 (1958): 181-89, 294-301; Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta: John Knox, 1959) 301-303; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 423; Victor Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 412; David Horrell, “Paul’s Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology,” Epworth Review 22 (1995): 74-83; Stephen Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2:124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 6-7; Longenecker, Remember, 135- 53. 352 Longenecker, Remember, 60-107. 353 Longenecker, Remember, 67-74. 354 Harrison, Paul’s Language, 313. 355 Harrison, Paul’s Language, 324.

132

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group their beneficiaries (9:12, 14a).”356 Harrison concludes that “the beneficence of believers is not motivated by the obligation to return favour or, conversely, the expectation of the return of favour.”357 Rather, in Harrison’s reconstruction, the Corinthians’ selfless participation in the collection differed from their otherwise self-interested behaviours and practices:

These multi-racial communities of Christ not only had established local expressions of beneficence, in the manner of traditional eastern Mediterranean euergetism, but the collaborative effort of [the] Jerusalem collection also demonstrated their ability to service fragile communities-in-need and the socially marginalised across the boundaries of empire and the rivalries of the Greek city-states.358

If Longenecker and Harrison are correct, then the contributors from the ekklēsia showed an interest in charity that ancient historians rarely find among Greeks and Romans.359 Gillian

Clark observes, “[n]o Roman cult groups, not even those that were primarily mutual groups, are known to have looked after strangers and people in need.”360 To be sure, the Corinthians were notionally connected to the Jerusalem group, if only through both groups’ ties to Paul, Peter, and

Barnabas, and therefore the two groups were not “strangers.” However, emphasis on the

Corinthians’ concern for them as “people in need” seems incomplete. Even if the Jerusalem

Christ-group did not reciprocate with material honours, the contribution signalled the

Corinthians’ achievement of superior status and honour with respect to the Jerusalem ekklēsia.

Moreover, formal commendation might have come from the Corinthian Christ-group, delivered to those members who contributed on behalf of the Corinthian ekklēsia. Recent re-examination

356 Harrison, Paul’s Language, 321. 357 Harrison, Paul’s Language, 324. 358 Harrison, “The Brothers as the ‘Glory of Christ’ (2 Cor 8:23) Paul’s Doxa Terminology in Its Ancient Benefaction Context,” NovT 52 (2010): 156-88, at 163. 359 William Woodthorpe Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization (New York: Plume, 1974) 110; Paul Veyne, Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London: Penguin, 1990) 31; Gillian Clark, Christianity and Roman Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 23-4; cf. Longenecker, Remember, 60-67. 360 Clark, Christianity, 23.

133

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group of the ancient data finds little evidence to overturn Clark’s statement.361 Evidence of Judean concern for the poor apart from benefaction exists but is still somewhat sparse362 and we find no analogies to the Jerusalem collection among post-70 synagogues.363

Richard Ascough’s lexicographical analysis of ἐπιτε εῖν in Paul’s directives for the

Corinthians to “complete” their contributions for Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6, 11) marks an original contribution. He presents inscriptional evidence of the word’s usage in both benefaction contexts

(e.g., IMagnesia 85.16; Caria; unknown date), as well as cultic contexts, such as regulations controlling sacred rites (SIG3 985; IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51). Ascough’s data shows that these two categories were not mutually exclusive. For example, an association member could “complete”

(ἐπιτε εῖν) a benefaction found to be “worthy of a god,” such as when a treasurer from a Piraean club made repairs to a Zeus temple (IG II2 1271.6-7 = GRA I 13; 298/97 BCE).364 He concludes that “money and benefaction were integral to ‘religious’ experience, not a peripheral aspect.”365

Ascough’s finding implies that Corinthian contributions for Jerusalem should not be contrasted with normative benefaction practices, as Longenecker and Harrison have done. This opens the possibility that donating money to the Jerusalem collection was regarded by the Corinthians as honorific behavior.

361 See Longenecker, Remember, 74-86. 362 Helena’s benefactions for Jerusalem in the form of food provisions during a famine (Josephus, Ant. 20.51-53) should not be isolated from acts of civic benefaction by Greeks and Romans. Evidence of valuing almsgiving is found in Tobit (1:3, 4:7, 10-11; 12:8-10); Philo, Joseph 144; Good Person 84-7; CD 7:5-6; etc. See Longenecker, Remember, 109-114. 363 The compulsory half-shekel temple tax paid towards temple sacrifices fails to significantly illuminate the dynamics behind the Corinthian ekklēsia’s collection for Jerusalem. For reasons that have been outlined elsewhere. See Downs, Offering, 10-11. Barclay argues the Jerusalem collection “was parallel not to the Jewish temple tax but to the payments for foodstuffs for famine-struck Judaea organised by Helena and Izates” (“Money and Meetings,” 121). However, this was an act of benefaction on the part of wealthy patrons to οἱ πρῶτοι (the elites) in Jerusalem (Ant.20.53) and did not involve a collection. Rather, the Queen of Adiabene “sent some of her attendants to Alexandria to buy grain for large sums and others to Cyprus to bring back a cargo of dried figs” (Ant. 20.511-53 [Feldman, LCL]). 364 Richard Ascough, “Religious Duty,” 584-99. 365 Ascough, “Religious Duty,” 596.

134

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

3.1 Analogies to the Jerusalem Gift

One of the obstacles to understanding the honorific dynamics behind the Jerusalem collection is the difficulty in locating analogies to this ογεία. Peter Arzt-Grabner et. al. assemble the various contexts in which the term, ογεία, appears in the papyri to denote collections. In one instance, after locals of a village submit monetary contributions to their komogrammateus, they charge him with extortion (P.Giss. I 61.1-11, 16-20; 119 CE): 366

To Apollonius, strategus of Apollonopolis Heptacomia, from Petemenecysis son of Ptolemenecysis and grandson of Ptiasis, Pheieus son of Petemenecysis, and … son of …, all from the village of Naboöi. Since we have suffered many injuries at the hands of Psais, village secretary (komogrammateus) of Naboöi, we are constrained to lay information against him of having levied contributions ( ογιαν) on the village of Naboöi. From some he has exacted 20 dr., from others 12 and 8 dr. … We request, my lord, that you investigate the matter so that the fiscus may not suffer any loss (translation from Johnson, Roman Egypt, 496).

It would appear that anxieties surrounding collections organized by relative “outsiders” were not unique to the Corinthians.

In terms of cult-related collections, Arzt-Grabner discusses four texts. One papyrus mentions a “holy collection” (ἰερὰ ογεία), probably for a public temple (O.Edfou II 244.3-4;

Apollonopolis; 104 BCE). Two others seem to be receipts from donations to public cults.367 One reads as follows (O.Wilck 413; Thebes; 4 Aug. 63 CE):

Ψεναμοῦνις Πεκύσιος φεννησιος ὁμο (όγῳ) Πιβούχι Πατεήσιος χ(αίρειν). ἀπέχω πα- ρὰ σοῦ (δραχμὰς) δ ὀβο (ὸν) τὴν ογίαν 5 Ἴσιδος περὶ τῶν δημοσίων (ἔτους) ἐνάτου Νέρωνος τοῦ κυρίου εσορὴ ια.

366 See Artz-Grabner et. al., 1. Korinther, 506. 367 PSI III 262 (58 CE); O.Wilck 413 (63 CE).

135

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Psenamounis Pekusios phennēsis, in unison with Pibouchis Pateēsios, greetings. I put aside [or, receive] from you 4 drachmas for the public Isis collection. 9th year of Nero the lord, 11th of Mesorē.

The notion of ἀπέχειν, “putting aside” or “keeping away from,” often translated as “receiving” in receipts, appears in Paul’s instruction that the Corinthians keep their donations aside (παρ’

ἑαυτῷ, 16:2) from any other financial activity that happens in the ekklēsia (see chapter three).

Arzt-Grabner et. al. discuss another of Psenamounis’ receipts mentioning a ογεία.368 Here,

Psenamounis employs ἀπέχειν again to convey the notion of receiving or putting aside (PSI III

262; unknown provenance; 31 May 58 CE):

Ψεναμοῦνις Πεκύσιος προστάτ[ης θεοῦ] ὁμο όγῳ Ἐπονύχο(υ) το(ῦ) Πρεμσένου χ[αί-] ρειν· ἀπέχω τὴν ογέαν τοῦ θεοῦ (δραχμὰς) δ ὀβο (οὺς) ι· (ἔτους) δ Νέρω νος Κ αυδίου Καίσαρος 5 Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ ὐ τοκράτορος Παῦνι ϛ

To be sure, the verb seems synonymous with other verbs of receiving, such as ἔχειν (O. Wilck

420; Thebes, 68 CE):

Ψεναμοῦνις Πεκύσιος φεν- νῆσις καὶ προστάτης τοῦ θεοῦ Πιβοῦχις Πετεήσιος χαίρειν. ὁμο ογῶι ἔχειν παρὰ σοῦ (δραχμὰς) δ (πεντώβο ον) 5 ὑπὲρ τῶν δημωσίων τῆς φεννησίας τοῦ ιδ (ἔτους) Νέρωνος τοῦ κυρίου Φαμενὼθ κ.

These texts help to clarify some of the dynamics behind Paul’s discussion of the Jerusalem collection, such as anxieties on the part of contributors, as well as acts of “putting aside” donations.

368 And I have located an additional one: O.Wilck 415 (Thebes, 4 July 64 CE).

136

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Ascough, followed by David Downs, locates analogies within economic practices of associations, and shows that Paul’s organization of such a collection was not entirely unique among private cultic groups. On one occasion, an ethnic and occupational collegium of Tyrian merchants living in Puteoli received funds from a Tyrian-merchant collegium in Rome (OGIS

595 = AGRW 317; Campania, Italy; 174 CE).369 The transfer of funds was to help the Puteolian association pay the rent of their clubhouse.370 This trans-local economic relationships between collegiati perhaps demonstrates that concern for the poor was not as unique as Clark presupposes, however, charity was not the driving force behind this donation.

Ascough observes that the involvement of the Tyrian civic council in the situation had the effect of making the gift from the Tyrian merchants in Rome mandatory.371 The Tyrian civic body decided that the donations should be made because it was for the good of their city that devotion to Tyrian deities continued to be observed by the Puteolian club.372 The Tyrian analogy carries a level of compulsion unattested in the exchange between Corinthian and Jerusalem

Christ-groups (2 Cor 9:7). Moreover, the Tyrian “gift” made to the Puteolian association was offered yearly, whereas the Jerusalem collection was a one-time, “extraordinary” event.

Nonetheless, this example of economic relations between two associations shows that Paul’s idea of asking Christ-groups from Achaia and Macedonia to contribute funds to a Jerusalem Christ- group was not entirely new.

3.1.1 P.Oslo III 144 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; 272-75 CE)

369 See La Piana, “Foreign Groups,” 257-58. 370 CIG 5853; cf. La Piana, “Foreign Groups,” 257-8. 371 Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 151. 372 Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 95; cf. La Piana, “Foreign Groups,” 258.

137

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

A text that has yet to be explored in studies of the Jerusalem collection is P.Oslo III 144. This papyrus can provide exegetes of the Corinthian correspondence with a new perspective on the

Corinthians’ voluntary donations. It attests to various collegiati making “one-off” contributions to an external association. The right side of the fragmentary papyrus is unfortunately missing.

The remaining portion reads as follows:

…A list of the ones who have made gifts [to the association] of sacred victors [Λόγος τῶν δεδωκότ ω[ν ] ἱερονικῶν] during the…year of Aurelianos Augustus. (The contributors) are as follows: Aurelioi: Neilos, a carpet weaver [(gave) ? artabas of wheat], Pammenēs, a perfume dealer (gave) … Ammōnios, a dyer (gave) … Ammōnios, son of Sarapa the dyer (gave) … Philosarapis, a goldsmith (gave) … Sarapammōn, a copper worker (gave) … Hōras, an oil merchant (gave) … sons of Syros, a baker (gave)…Theodōros son of Sakaōn, a manufacturer of oil (gave)…Eros from Seryphis (of the Oxyrhynchite nome) [who is currently residing in] Hypsēlē (in the Thebaid gave) … Papontōs, a craftsman (gave) … son of Dēmē from the Arsinoite nome (gave) … wine merchant … Plōteinos from Hippeos (gave) … Souchammōn, a forwarding- agent (gave) … Laskarios son of Souchammōn, a baker (gave) … a broiderer (gave) … son of Phainolēs the daughter of Harendōtes (gave) … Hierax son of Epimachos, an ex-exegetes (gave) … Papontōs in Kerk… (gave) … son of Diogenis, a huckster (gave) … son of Kephalōn, a collector (gave) … the son of Achilles (gave) … an ex-exegetes (gave) … a purple-dyer (gave) … son of Mono…, a forwarding agent (gave) … son of Pausanios from Pa… (gave) … son of Sarapion … (gave) … son of Nemesiōn … (gave) … seller …

This list keeps a record of individuals making donations to an association with which they were not affiliated. The beneficiary is an Oxyrhynchite guild of sacred victors (hieronikai). Owing to the lacunae, we do not know if these victors were artists or athletes. Clarence A. Forbes observes, “[t]he term hieronikai was equally applicable to athletic victors and to winners in the musical and dramatic festivals where the contestants were members of the centuries-old guild of the Artists of Dionysus.”373 There is some sustenance to both options. In support of these being artistic victors, at least one member of the worldwide artists and hieronikai lived in Oxyrhynchus around the time of this text – a certain Aurelius Hatres (P.Oxy XXVII 2476, ll.12-17; 289 CE).

373 Clarence A. Forbes, “Ancient Athletic Guilds,” CP 50 (1955): 238-52, at 240.

138

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Slightly earlier, a papyrus attests to “Tiberius Claudius Didymus … from the Dionyseum and the sacred synodos of victors (τῆς ἱερᾶς συνόδου ἱερονεικῶν)” (P.Oxy VI 908, ll.4-10; 199 CE).

Given its connection to the Dionyseum it is perhaps appropriate to imagine this association as having consisted exclusively of artistic hieronikai.

On the other hand, in BGU IV 1074.19 (Oxyrhynchus, 273/4 CE), there is attestation to an Oxyrhynchite guild of athletes (ξυστόν) who are urged to attract as many victors as possible to compete in the games. If the beneficiaries were athletes, perhaps we should understand these donations directed towards assisting members from a guild of athletic victors to compete in the games.374

A little more can be said about the contributors. These donors likely had no prior affiliation with the association. A less plausible alternative is that they were honorary affiliates such as the φι οτεχνῖται or πρόξενοι mentioned in the Ptolemais Hermou chapter of Dionysiac artists (OGIS 51, ll.67, 75 = AGRW 298; 269-246 BCE), but since the donors are often identified by their profession and never by an honorary designation such as φι οτεχνίτης or πρόξενος as in

OGIS 51 = AGRW 298 it seems they are unaffiliated with the association. If this is so, then

P.Oslo III 144 may be our only list of benefactions to an association from non-members.375

3.1.2 The Significance of P.Oslo III 144 for Understanding Corinthian Donations to the Jerusalem Collection

This papyrus holds value for imagining the steps involved in completing the Jerusalem collection. S. Eitrem and Leiv Amundsen describe the association of hieronikai as recipients of

374 The editors of this papyrus, S. Eitrem and Leiv Amundsen, understand the association of hieronikai to have been involved somehow with the Capitoline games, which came to Oxyrhynchus in 274 or 275 CE for the first time. Both artists and athletes competed in these games. 375 Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen 160-162; Eitrem and Amundsen, Papyri osloenses, 3:224.

139

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

“an extraordinary collection of contributions … [from] non-members.”376 The Jerusalem collection was likewise extraordinary in that it was a one-time donation to an external group.

Many of the contributors to the hieronikai association were from Oxyrhynchus but others were not: Eros was originally from the Oxyrhynchite nome but was living in the Thebaid when he made his contribution (ll.16-17), another contributor was from the Arsinoite nome (l.19), and

Plōteinos was living παρεπίδημος in Hippeos’ house (l.22). In what follows, I suggest three insights that this papyrus provides for an understanding of the mechanics of making a collection for Jerusalem in the Corinthian ekklēsia.

3.2. Keeping Track of Contributors

P.Oslo III 144 does not list a specific date on which all collections arrived, which would indicate that the hieronikai guild (or someone else who organized the collection) completed this list as the donations came in. This is similar to other voluntary collections (see P.Athen. 41 and chapter three). Whether the Corinthian donations to the Jerusalem collection arrived in Jerusalem with the contributions from Macedonia (Rom 16:31; 2 Cor 9:4) or separately with a letter from Paul

(1 Cor 16:3), exegetes have overlooked the fact that Jerusalem may have liked to know, specifically, from where the donations came – and the donors may have wanted to offer this information in the first place. Eitrem and Amundsen suggest that the function of this list was for the hieronikai guild to keep track of the donors so that they could remunerate them somehow,377 as a way to signal the honour and status achieved by contributors. Their suggestion seems plausible since voluntary collections such as this often merited reciprocity (e.g., IGLSkythia III

35 = AGRW 73, Kallatis, late III BCE; CIL III 633 I = GRA I 68, Philippi, Macedonia, II CE).

376 S. Eitrem and Leiv Amundsen, ed. Papyri osloenses, (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1925 -) 3:224. 377 Eitrem and Amundsen, Papyri osloenses, 3:224.

140

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

While the Corinthians likely kept their own list of contributors so that their Christ-group could reciprocate donors somehow, it is unclear if they would have made a copy for Jerusalem given the relative novelty of the collection. Perhaps the co-workers whom Paul’s sent to the Corinthian

Christ-group to “prepare” (προκαταρτίζειν) the collections were assigned the task of writing the names of Corinthian donors onto a master list that would be presented to the Jerusalem community along with the gift (2 Cor 9:5).

There is, in fact, indication that a list would be a logical necessary. In light of the fact that

Paul encourages the Corinthians to “complete” (ἐπιτε εῖν) the contribution that some had begun earlier, Kloppenborg has analyzed how a Christ-group would know when the collection was completed. He suggests, “[t]he simplest way to signal that the collection was completed is to produce a contributor list with or without the contributions of each member.”378 He shows that clubs often recorded the names of all members who contributed their subscription payments at banquets, as well as those who failed to pay and owed their fee at the next meeting.379 P.Oslo III

144 also fits the strategy proposed by Kloppenborg and shows that associations could make contributor lists even when the payments were for an external group.

3.3. A Gift from Individuals

Since at least some of the donors to the hieronikai guild were members of associations, it is instructive that their donations are listed individually rather than according to their association.

By the early fourth century just about every profession was organized into a guild – from tavern- keepers to “potters of earthenware pottery” (see P.Oxy. LIV 3731-3740, 3742-2745, 3747-3753,

378 Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices,” 23. 379 For example, P.Cairo dem. 30606 = AGRW 299 (158/57 BCE); P.Mich. V 246 (43-49 CE); IEph 20 = AGRW 162 (54-59 CE); SB III 7182 (early II BCE); P.Tebt. III/2 894 (114 BCE); P.Athen. 41 (I CE); P.Lund. 11 (169/70 CE); cf. Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices,” 23.

141

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

3755, 3760-3763, 3765-3766, 3768, 3772, 3776). The donor, Pammenēs the perfume-dealer

(μυροπώ ης, l.7), was in a profession organized around an Oxyrhynchite guild (P. Oxy. LIV

3744, 318 CE); while Souchammōn and a contributor whose name is lost were both forwarding- agents (ἐκδοχεύς, ll.23, 38), another profession organized around a guild (P.Oxy. LIV 3772, 338

CE).

Since there seem to have been at least one pair of donors from the same association (the forwarding-agents), the papyrus highlights how odd it would have been for donors from the same guild to have their donations listed together. In the papyrus, the forwarding-agent (ἐκδοχεὺς)

Souchammōn (l.23) and the forwarding-agent in l.38 (whose name is lost) do not make a joint gift; rather, they are listed as individuals and their different contributions are identified separately. Would the Corinthians hand over a gift without indicating who contributed what? If some Corinthians donated more than others, they would likely want both their own Christ-group as well as the Jerusalem community to know the breakdown of the total donation. It is probably best not to assume that Paul and other delegates presented Jerusalem with one gift from all ekklēsiai, nor one gift from each Christ-group, without some manner of informing Jerusalem from where, specifically, the donation came.

3.4. A Long List

Another insight gained by this papyrus is the possibility that Paul’s concern was that the length of the lists from each Christ-group was sufficiently long to warrant an exchange relationship with the Jerusalem community. Previously, interpreters have focused on the monetary amount of the collection. Fee, for example, argues, “[a]lthough [Paul] does not say as much” his objective is that “by their weekly setting aside from their ‘success’ of that week, there will be a sum worth

142

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group the effort of sending people all the way to Jerusalem.”380 This theory cannot be maintained: Paul repeatedly insisted that it did not matter how much each individual contributed as long as they participated in the gift (1 Cor 16:2, 2 Cor 8:3; 8:11-12). The more participants, the longer the list.

The Christ-groups’ donations, along with individual contribution lists from each Christ- group and master list written up by “the brothers” (2 Cor 9:5), would all together reflect the generosity of the donation – the length of the lists would be an important feature of the gift for all parties involved. This material would have been carried to the Jerusalem community by Paul and by Corinthian members whom the ekklēsia would elect (1 Cor 16:3). Upon their return, the

Corinthian emissaries may have been commended for travelling on behalf of the ekklēsia. If the

Christ-group had enough funds – or decided to go without staple features of typical meetings in order to save up enough funds – they may have inscribed the names of donors and travelers, and the honorific inscription would resemble CIL III 633 = GRA I 68. Contributing to the Jerusalem collection, it would seem, was an opportunity to achieve a status accomplishment open to all members of the Christ-group.

4. Travelling on behalf of the Ekklēsia (1 Cor 16:17-18)

A third instance of honorific behaviour in the ekklēsia is travel. Did Stephanas, Fortunatus, and

Achaicus travel Ephesus to meet with Paul for personal reasons, or was theirs a service on behalf of the ekklēsia? The information provided by Paul suggests that the travellers served on behalf of the entire Christ-group: their presence with Paul functioned to ἀναπ ηροῦν (“fill in for”) the absence (ὑστέρημα) of the other members (16:17). Moreover, since Paul believes the Corinthians hold the responsibility, if they see fit, to recognize the emissaries (ἐπιγινώσκειν οὖν τούς

380 Fee, First Epistle, 814.

143

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

τοιούτους, 16:18), it is logical to conclude that they were travelling on behalf of the congregation rather than doing it exclusively out of private motivations.

In Paul’s report to the Christ-group concerning the travellers, he recommends that the ekklēsia honour (ἐπιγινώσκειν, 16:18) them. Paul’s reason for thinking they deserve commendation is consistent with honorific patterns more generally in the ancient world. Paul speaks not about their status381 but about the quality of the travellers’ service. Specifically, he relates that their presence at Ephesus refreshed (ἀνεπαύειν) his spirit and did the same for the entire congregation. As probably the primary recipient of the emissaries, Paul’s judgement would factor large in any scrutiny the Christ-group performed of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaiacus’ service before voting to, in Paul’s words, “recognize” them. Paul wanted the ekklēsia to commend (ἐπιγινώσκειν, v.18) the travelers and gave them the information that an ancient private cultic group needed in order to approve honorifics. It is especially illuminating that Paul felt no need to explain how to recognize the travellers. Since Paul is so concerned with them receiving proper honours, it is hard to explain this omission if he knew the Christ-group often failed to properly recognize its other service-providers.

To be sure, much scholarship agrees that Stephanas, Fortuantus, and Achaicus would have received some form of commendation. But, oddly, scholars often insist on the informality of the reward. For example, Thiselton recently contended:

The Corinthian church should show due recognition [to the travelers], then (ἐπιγινώσκετε οὖν), in the sense of appreciation (NJB), of people such as these…it is a live issue in the church today to what extent, if at all, Christian congregations wish to “honor” leaders in the Christian sphere. Such respect or recognition has more to do with attitude than financial provision…However it is shown, Paul urges its propriety; indeed, he directs that it be shown. This may

381 It is on an unrelated note that Paul mentions Stephanas’ position as “first in Achaia” (16:15) and Stephanas’ history of contributions (16:15).

144

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

apply at any level of service to the church, where often loyal hard work is simply taken for granted rather than publicly and consciously recognized.382

Thiselton prefers to call the ekklēsia’s reciprocity for service “appreciation” and “respect” rather than formal recognition; it is an “attitude” rather than a material reward. Likewise, Witherington remarks, “[t]he Corinthians are urged to ‘recognize’ these men, which likely means to obey them and accept their leadership and work.”383 Eckhard Schnabel insists that “[d]ie “Anerkennung” in v.18 should be equated with v.16’s “Unterordnung.”384 Wolfgang Schrage draws a parallel between Paul’s general usage of ἐπιγινώσκω in 1 Cor 14:37 and here in 16:18, despite the different context: in 14:37 anyone who is a prophet (προφήτης) or “of the spirit” (πνευματικός) is to “recognize” a thing (i.e., the nature of Paul’s writing), whereas in 16:18 the community is to recognize three people.385 Several other scholars draw similar conclusions.386

Despite the rejection by many NT interpreters that Stephanas’ travelling team was formally honoured by the Christ-group, it was seemingly customary to recognize the service of travel performed on the behalf of others. In Hellenistic Corinth we find a civic example of this

(ICorinth I 65, mid II BCE). Here, an honorific decree was discovered, having originated from another state. It commends Corinthian ambassadors deployed to the foreign polis to solve by arbitration a dispute involving the city of Corinth somehow.387 Though the inscription is fragmentary, the spelling of δῆμος gives away its foreign provenance – δᾶμος was typical in

382 Thiselton, First Epistle, 1341-2. Original emphasis. 383 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 320. 384 Schnabel, Der erste Brief, 1024. 385 Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4: 458-9. Schrage stops short of saying that Paul’s meaning is the same in both verses but provides no elaboration on the word’s function in 16:18. 386 For example, Weiss concedes that the travellers “receive prestige” without elaboration (Der Erste Korintherbrief, 386). See also Fee, First Epistle, 832-3. 387 Kendall K. Smith “Greek Inscriptions from Corinth II,” American Journal of Archaeology 23 (1919): 331-94, at 344.

145

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Corinth until the Roman period.388 Kendall Smith summarizes the basic point behind the epigraph as follows:

The preservation of such records on stone is commonly due, as I assume was the case in the present instance, to the publication in this manner of honors conferred on the visiting commission by the state whose citizens have thus been laid under obligation. The place of discovery is not necessarily the city which promulgates the decree. It is as likely to be the home of the arbitrators.389

In this case, the Corinthian travelers received recognition for their service in another polis.

We find another civic example from Athens. Here, the shipper and benefactor

Heracleidēs of Salamis is honoured by Athens for many things, including speedy travel to the port during a grain shortage, where he honourably sold items at less than market value (Syll3 304;

325 BCE). Heracleidēs is praised for being πρῶτος τῶν καταπ ευσάντων ἐνπόρων (“the first

[i.e., most distinguished] of the maritime merchants”).

It is also apparent that collegiati travelled on behalf of their associations. In Dibio, Gaul, two altar inscriptions were established by the ferrarii Dibione consistentes and the lapidarii pago

Andomo consistentes for the travelling exploits of the patron, Ti. Flavius Vetus (CIL XIII 5474;

CIL XIII 4375). These associations give thanks to Jupiter and Fortuna Redux for Flavius’ successful return. Since Flavius’ travel was likely partially on behalf of the collegia,390 we might expect that the associations rewarded him somehow.

In another instance, an association of Tyrian Herakleistai ship-owners and traders in

Delos honours a certain Patrōn, son of Dorotheos, for several services, one of them being completion of a travel assignment as part of the association’s embassy to Athens to ensure a

388 See Smith, “Greek Inscriptions,” 345. 389 Smith, “Greek Inscriptions,” 344. 390 See Verboven, “Magistrates,” 166.

146

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group grant of land for the guild (IDelos 1519.10-16 = AGRW 223; 153/2 BCE). A description of

Patrōn’s travelling was placed into an honorific decree his association awarded him:

Being elected (αἱρεθεὶς) ambassador to the Council and the People of Athens, he sailed, readily taking upon himself the expenses from his own resources and demonstrating the goodwill of the synod toward the People. In this way he accomplished the will of the association members (thiasitai) and increased honor for the gods, just as it suited him (ll.16-21).391

These are only some examples of travelers rewarded by associations and ancient cities.392

The data suggests that it should not be assumed that Stephanas and his travel-mates were compensated exclusively with “respect” for their service. As Arnaoutoglou argued, attitudinal changes resulted from receiving customary honorific rewards, they do not replace honorifics.393

Moreover, Paul seemingly assumes the ekklēsia had the organizational apparatus in place to honour the travelers properly, and does not need to provide further directives on what this requires (e.g., crowns, proclamations).

Service in the form of travel, to be sure, was not a regular occurrence in the Christ-group.

As with construction and financial projects in associations and synagogues, this was an exceptional, rather than ordinary, opportunity for some affiliates to display honorific behavior on behalf of their group.394

5. The Ekklēsia’s Banquet Administrators

391 I altered the AGRW translation slightly by rendering αἱρεθείς as “being elected” rather than “being chosen”; see chapter six. 392 Others include: IG XI/4 1299 = AGRW 221 (Delos; ca. 200 BCE) where a certain Apollonius’ travel from Egypt to Delos is commemorated as the central event in the community’s origin; and IG X/2 255 = GRA I 77 (Thessalonica, Macedonia; I-II CE). 393 Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion,” 80-81. 394 Other examples of unordinary opportunities to provide services to one’s club include: IGLSkythia III 35 = AGRW 73 (Kallatis, Scythia Minor; late III BCE); CIL III 633 = GRA I 68 (Macedonia; II CE); SEG 17:823 = AGRW 307 (Berenice, Cyrenaica; 3 December 55 CE); IG II2 1282 (Athens; 262/1 BCE); and 1 Cor 16:2.

147

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Finally, the common meal likely required the temporary services of rotating leaders – we observed in chapter three that it would have been too expensive for only the ES4 members to perpetually fund Christ-group dinners. Based on analogous data, leadership services at the

Corinthian banquet included bringing the menu items to the meeting-place, occasionally paying for food out of pocket (they may have expected reimbursement from the treasury), and ensuring good order during the symposium. The data from the Corinthian correspondence confirms that

Christ-group banquet administrators distributed portions of food (11:21-22).395 Paul further mentions in passing that many ordinary members “had nothing” (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες, 1 Cor 11:22). It was normal for regular members (i.e., non-officers) to bring no food to club meals when temporary administrators controlled food supply (see below). Occasionally, associations even failed to ensure that all members would receive portions of food. Before exploring this new interpretation further, the traditional exegesis of οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες deserves attention.

5.1 “Those with Nothing” as Non-Officers

The members “with nothing” could not have consisted of the poorest affiliates in the ekklēsia as is often assumed.396 Such an interpretation is untenable when read alongside other economic indicators concerning the Corinthians. Membership in a Christ-group is an oft-overlooked economic indicator; individuals living at the level of subsistence397 would find the fee schedule overly cumbersome. Moreover, in his directives concerning the Jerusalem collection (1 Cor 16:2;

395 This is according to the reports from Chloe’s people (see chapter six). 396 Horrell (Social Ethos, 95) argues, “1 Cor 11.17-34 clearly shows that some in the community could afford lavish amounts of food and drink, in a way which contrasted them with other community members who are described as τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας, ‘the have-nots’ (1 Cor 11.22).” See also Theissen, First Epistle, 150; Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 161; Bruce Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,” RTR 37 (1978): 73-82. 397 οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες are often described as “the have-nots” living near the level of subsistence. For example, Barrett describes the member from this sub-group as “[t]he poor man, who can bring little or no supper with him” (First Epistle, 263); cf. Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth,” 73-82; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999) 418; Thiselton, First Epistle, 865.

148

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

2 Cor 9:7), Paul requests that all ekklēsia members donate money to Jerusalem. This presupposes that they all had modest amounts of surplus resources, not “nothing.” Reconciling the supposed presence of Corinthians living at or below the level of subsistence (i.e., the traditional description of οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες) with 1 Cor 16:2 is rarely attempted. It is usually addressed by interpreting the temporal aspect of Paul’s directive in 16:2 (see chapter three) to indicate that “those who suffer deep poverty” were able to contribute to the Jerusalem collection only by putting aside a little money each week, as Paul recommended.398 This does not adequately address the challenge of

16:2 to interpretations of οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες as financially-destitute individuals since 16:2 requires supposed “have-nots” to accrue surplus income every week.

Friesen likewise fails to properly fit 16:2 into an economic category that would allow the traditional interpretation of “those having nothing” to stand. He filters previous exegetical conclusions through his economic scale: Paul’s “instructions to the Corinthian saints about how to save up money for the poor among the Jerusalem saints presuppose people in categories 5 or 6 of the poverty scale…. These instructions provide a stark contrast to the contemporary practices of benefaction by patrons: rather than an individual or family giving a large sum of money, all in the group are asked to set aside on Sundays whatever they can spare.”399 Since Friesen understands the Lord’s Supper as a potluck dinner,400 those who brought nothing likely had no food for themselves at home that evening. If subsistence (“category 6”) meant procuring 1,500-

3,000 calories per day, as Friesen argues,401 then Corinthians who could not afford dinner at least once a week certainly were not there. Having no food to eat at least one evening every week fits

398 Thiselton, First Epistle, 1324. 399 Friesen, “Poverty,” 350-351. 400 See Friesen, “Poverty,” 349, n.83. 401 Friesen, “Poverty,” 343.

149

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group more properly in his category 7, which denotes “below subsistence.”402 Moreover, even if

Friesen wishes to insist that his sixth category accommodates people with no dinner on at least one day a week, it is difficult to understand why or how an individual would pay weekly subscription fees to a Christ-group, as well as put aside weekly contributions to the Jerusalem collection if they often had nothing to eat. Friesen’s reconciliation of 1 Cor 11:22 and 16:2 is unconvincing.

It is more tenable to interpret “those with nothing” (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες) as members who have nothing at the banquet – 1 Cor 11:17-22 is about the banquet, after all – because it was not their turn to bring anything. In club banquets, the responsibility of bringing food to house, temple, or clubhouse meetings often rotated among officers. For example, the hestiator in an Athenian association of orgeōnes is described as having done the following:

He must render an account of whatever he has expended and must not spend more than the income. Let him distribute (shares of) the meat to the orgeōnes who are present – and up to a half-share to their sons – and to the women of orgeōnes, giving to free women the same share and up to a half share to their daughters and up to a half-share for one attendant. Let him hand over the woman’s share to the man” (Agora 16:161.16-23 = GRA 1:14; Athens; III BCE).

This association specifies that the ἑστιάτωρ must not spend more money than he is given from the treasury (ll.16-17) and possibly even references its common fund (ll.3-5). Arnaoutoglou observes that hesitator and hieropoioi commonly shared responsibilities such as these.403

Kloppenborg, furthermore, demonstrates that treasurers, as well as epimelētai, were often commended in honorific inscriptions for carrying out financial responsibilities and suggests that

402 Friesen, “Poverty,” 347. 403 See, for example, IG II2 1255.4-6 = GRA I 2 (Piraeus, Attica; 337/6 BCE), where hieropoioi distribute meat; cf. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 107-108.

150

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

“collection and disbursement of funds was within the purview of their responsibilities.”404 In P.

Oslo III 143.4 (Oxyrhynchus, I CE), a treasurer is reimbursed 5 drachmas for services that may have included buying banquet items.

A variation to the practice of reimbursing officers who are assigned to bring food to the banquet is to require magistrates to pay out of pocket without compensation for the length of the office’s term.405 This situation would also be consistent with the dominant view that only a minority of Corinthian members controlled food supply and distribution. An example is found in the rotating magistri cenarum of the Lanuvium association who should not expect reimbursement (CIL XIV 2112.II.14-16 = AGRW) for the six meals they provide at the club’s banquets. Another example is from the association of hymnodoi in Pergamon (IPergamon II 274

B-D = AGRW 117; 129-138 CE), who inscribe materials (bread, crowns, incense, table settings, sacrifices) that magistrates (εὔκοσμος, ἱερεύς, γραμματεύς) are expected to supply to the group without reimbursement during their terms in office. In an association of eranistai from second century Attica, mention is made of οἱ ἐργο αβήσαντες (“the ones who work for hire” or “the ones who contract for the execution of work”) in an eranos club from Attica (SEG 31:122 = GRA

I 50; Liopesi, Attica; early II CE). They “contract” to obtain pork and wine for a year. Any member who assumes such a role and fails to bring the items to the club will be fined (ll.21-22), which suggests that they may be officers rather than patrons. Since the association does not require them to hand over their financial records, they perhaps used their own resources for the food and wine rather than the association’s.

404 These officers are often praised δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκα (“on account of their honesty”), which indicates their handling of common funds. See Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 38; cf. David Whitehead, “Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens,” Classica et Mediaevelia 44 (1993): 37-75. 405 The following examples are from Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 38-42.

151

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

We have at least one example of an officer actually retrieving menu items for club banquets. Perhaps the clearest example is from papyrus written by a civic brewery’s scribe in early first-century Tebtynis. The brewery kept records of the deliveries it made to customers and one of them was an association:

Ψοσνεῦς Φωμνάσις δ(ιὰ) Ὀρσενο(ύφιος) ἡγ(ουμένου) κώμης συνο( ) χό(ες) ϛ,

Psosneus Phōmnasis, through Orsenouphis, leader of a village synodos, (purchased) 6 chöes. (VI. 23)

It would seem as though Psosneus Phōmnasis made the order and Orsenouphis, a club’s

ἡγουμενος, went to the brewery to pick up the 6 chöes order. Other entries in the papyrus specify that deliveries were made to the houses of customers. For example:

Πετεῆσις κηπορὸς εἰς οἶκον χο(ῦς) α, Ἄ ν φις οἰκωδώμος εἰς [ο]ἶκων χο(ῦς) α Ἀ ῆς ποιμ(ὴν) κώμ(ης) δ(ι)ὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ εἰς ο[ἶ]κον χό(ες) γ, (col. vi., lines 9-11)

Peteēsis, a gardener, to (his) house, 1 chous Anphis, a builder, to (his) house, 1 chous Alēs, a village herdsman, through his son to (his) house, 3 chöes

Since the delivery was not made to the association it would seem that the club’s ἡγουμένος picked it up. The orders could not be delivered perhaps because the club did not know in advance which member would offer their house or shop for upcoming banquets. The relation of Psosneus to Orenouphis is, unfortunately, unstated. Psosneus is seemingly a fellow club member – perhaps he was a former or current club treasurer who made the initial contact with the brewery. While

Psosneus’ identity remains obscure, it is significant that Orsenouphis, an officer, retrieves the order. Orsenouphis may have paid for it out of his pocket as was done by the officers in P.Oslo

III 143 or he may have spent funds from the treasury.406

406 Six chöes is the largest order that survives on this document – most others are between one and two chöes. One chous is equal to 3.12 litres, making the association’s order 18.72 litres, perhaps enough for one banquet if the group was approximately 18-23 members; six chöes is the quantity of wine purchased for 18-23 people in another modest 152

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

Since “having nothing” cannot be an economic descriptor of a group of ekklēsia members, it is probably best to understand οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες as having nothing because at the banquet they were not expected to bring anything. There is one immediate issue with this reading. Namely, associations’ distribution policies often ensured that each participant would receive a portion, even if they were regular member (i.e., if they brought nothing) and if officers received double portions.407 Why, then, did some Corinthian ordinary members “have nothing”?

It was not always the case that ordinary members were promised food at banquets (e.g., IG II2

1368.117-125 = GRA I 51 [Athens, 164/5 CE]). And since Paul does not specify that officers received only double portions, the magistrates’ shares of food may have been unregulated, allowing them to προ αμβάνειν however large a portion they saw fit. Paul seems to suggest that each of the officers προ αμβάνειν their share in a way that leaves others hungry:

ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ διον δεῖπνον προ αμβάνει ἐν τῶ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει. μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκ ησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί ε πω ὑμῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ.

For each (leader) takes their own dinner first when it comes time to eat, and someone is hungry, and someone becomes drunk. Do you not have homes where you are able to eat and drink or do you despise the ekklēsia of god and dishonour the ones who have nothing? What should I saw to you? Should I commend you? For this, I do not commend you.

Since some members had no food and were hungry, Paul cannot mean in v.21 by ἕκαστος that all members took portions. This is further clarified in v.22 where Paul refuses to ἐπαινεῖν the ones association (P.Tebt. I 118). The price of the association’s order seems well within the means of the modest associations whose accounts we have explored above. On line 25 of the brewery’s account (P.Tebt. II 401), we are given a total reckoning: (γίνονται) χό(ες) σκε (δραχμαὶ) οε (ὀβο ὸς) (col.vii, line 25) (“It came to 225 chöes (sold) for 75 drachmas, 1 obol”). The papyrus seems to be reckoned according to a six-obol drachma, making one chous approximately 2 obols. 407 For example, the Lanuvium inscription attests to all members receiving portions, even though larger portions were taken by the quinquennalis and messenger (CIL XIV 2112.17-19 = AGRW 310; 136 CE). An association of eranistai mentions a double portion for their priest and regular allotments to everyone else (SEG 31:122.16-20 = GRA I 50; early II CE).

153

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group who προ αμβάνειν. Ἕπαινος would be expected only from officers in charge of food procurement and distribution, not all participants. The act of “taking first” (προ αμβάνειν) was performed by the current leaders.

If the problem was in the way that some leaders προ αμβάνειν, namely that it was done in a manner that left some people hungry, then the food distribution policy at the Iobacchoi’s winter feast on the 10th day of Elaphebolion is instructive. This group met on several occasions throughout the year (ll. 43-44, 120), but the inscription contains information concerning food distribution at just the Elaphebolion meal. The inscription reads:

The archibakchos shall sacrifice the victim to the god and make a libation on the tenth day of Elaphebolion. When the parts (of the sacrificial victims) are distributed, let them go to the priest, the vice-priest, the archibakchos, the treasurer, the one playing the cowherd (boukolikos), “Dionysos,” “Kore,” “Palaimon,” “Aphrodite,” “Proteurythmos.” Let these roles be apportioned among all by lot.

Here, only the officers and specified role-players are guaranteed shares of food. Smith is probably right that the other members took what was left after the officers selected their own portions.408

Unregulated food portions are also probably attested in the Egyptian association of Zeus

Hypsistos, where the president (ἡγούμενος) is responsible for making (ποιεῖσθαι) a monthly banquet for “all the contributors” (συνεισφόροις δὲ πᾶσι) (P. Lond VII 2193.8 = AGRW 295;

Philadelphia, 69-58 BCE). The papyrus provides no information concerning shares of food but, notably, the club’s two officers, the president and the attendant, have the authority to make all decisions concerning food distribution at the banquet and therefore could take as much as they thought fit: “[a]ll are to obey the president and his servant in matters pertaining to the corporation” (ll. 11-12).

408Smith, From Symposium, 116.

154

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group

To summarize, a reconstruction of the food distribution issue in 1 Cor 11:19-34 which avoids the problems of previous exegeses, is that the ekklēsia lacked regulations surrounding officials’ extra food portions, as in IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51, and possibly, P.Lond. VII 2193 =

AGRW 295. Each ekklēsia officer took their unregulated portion first (προ αμβάνειν), failing to show restraint, according to Chloe or Stephanas.409 This left subscription-paying regular members without food. Since Paul provides no information about the economic status of the so- called “have-nots,” there is no reason to assume the Corinthian banquet procured food in rare or unattested manners to compensate for members without resources to bring their own food. In fact, “the haves,” as they were formerly known, are best seen as rotating officers whose service to the ekklēsia could earn ἔπαινος in return, not as the wealthier ekklēsia members.

For the Athenian group, the problems that might have resulted from their policy of deregulated food shares among officers were resolved by inscribing a bylaw stating that most of the offices that come with unregulated portions at the Elaphebolion banquet rotated and thus everyone would eventually get a chance to indulge (ll. 125-7, 146-7).410 Unlike the bylaw of the

Athenian group, Paul’s response is not to validate the lack of regulations placed on the officers’ shares but, rather, to encourage the magistrates to restrain themselves even though their portion size is unrestricted – they should eat at home if that will make it easier to leave more food for the

409 Interpreters remain almost unanimous in the opinion that Paul learned of the banquet problems through an oral report rather than from the Corinthians’ letter. There are a few reasons for this. For one, Barrett has observed that the divisive banquet situation would have been an embarrassment for the Corinthians and therefore left out of their letter to Paul (First Epistle, 261). A second reason to suppose an oral report is that when Paul begins his instructions about the common meal he tells the Corinthians that he “hears (ἀκούειν) that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor 11:18). This gives the impression that some of his audience was unaware that Paul knew this information. Thiselton supposes, “Paul’s redescription of what he understands to be taking place at the Lord’s Supper … indicates that he is not responding to a question first raised by the addressees, but initiates the raising of an urgent matter for censure and re-education. This is prompted by oral reports of occurrences and practices at Corinth” in First Epistle, 849, emphasis added). Two emissary teams reached Paul prior to the composition of 1 Cor 11:17-34: Chloe’s people (1:11), and the group of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (16:17). It is impossible to determine which travellers made the report. 410 τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν συνκ ηρούσθω πᾶσι (ll. 125-7)…ταμίαν δὲ αἱρείσθωσαν οἱ ἰόβακχοι ψήφῳ εἰς διετίαν (ll. 146-7).

155

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group others (11:22). The other part of Paul’s solution consisted of elections of new officers that might not abuse the ekklēsia’s banquet regulations (see next chapter).

5.2 Honours for Banquet Administrators

As with services of hospitality, financial benefaction, and travel, leadership offices at a club banquet could generate formal recognition for incumbents. Some inscriptions written in honour of hieropoioi provide references to their banquet tasks and strong emphasis on the quality of their service.411 If the ekklēsia’s banquet administrators held titles, then the multitude of honorific inscriptions dedicated to club officers attests to how commonplace it was for leaders such as the Christ-group’s to conclude their terms with honorific ceremonies.

Customs for reciprocating banquet benefactions were known in first-century Corinth.

Here, we find an honorific inscription for the public benefactor, Lucius Castricius Regulus, who organized a public feast for everyone in Corinth (ICorinth III 153; 22/23 CE). Given the inclusiveness and date of Regulus’ feast, it is even possible that some of the older members of the Christ-group attended.

Was the service of the current Corinthian banquet leaders of a high enough quality to earn them commendation? The criterion by which Paul judges the issue resembles the scrutiny procedures attested within association inscriptions. He scrutinizes the ekklēsia’s leaders as follows (1 Cor 11:22): “do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend (ἐπαινεῖν) you? In this matter I do not commend (ἐπαινεῖν) you!” Paul focused his scrutiny around the banquet administrators’ service. And the quality of their service failed to earn ἔπαινος from Paul. As observed in the

411 See IG II2 1261B and C = GRA I 9 (Piraeus, Attica, 301/0 BCE and 300/299 BCE); IG II2 1291.21-7 = GRA I 19 (Piraeus? Attica, mid III BCE).

156

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group previous chapter, the rank alone of a peer benefactor did not win ἔπαινος. Rather, commendation was awarded for quality service. A comparable dynamic is articulated by an association that decides: “it is unlawful for anyone to confer upon [poorly-performing priestesses] the customary honors” (IG II2 1328 A.14-15 = GRA I 34; 183/2 or 175/4 BCE).

In Paul’s estimation, the meal organizers failed to contribute valuably to the church.

Instead, they exerted their authority to prop themselves up and “humiliate” those currently ranked lower than them in the Christ-group. As a result, he deems them unworthy of recognition despite their current status in the Christ-group and despite the fact that they paid up front for the meal items (later to be reimbursed) or funded the meal while in office. Ancient associations did not hesitate to deny commendation to officers just as Paul does here and by the same criteria.

What makes the honorific element of the Christ-group’s banquet even clearer is that Paul uses terminology found in civic and association honorific inscriptions when discussing the issue of reciprocity. Kloppenborg observes that Paul’s choice of ἐπαινεῖν for “to commend” is employed regularly, even stereotypically, in Greek epigraphy to denote commendation.412

Ἔπαινος denotes formal commendation such as crowns, proclamations, and honorific inscriptions. In Paul’s estimation, the current meal administrators deserve none of this. These verse illuminiate well honorific structures behind he organization of Christ-group dinners.

6. Conclusion

The Christ-group’s honorific structure is partially discernible through an examination of the services its members provided. Instances of peer benefaction in the Christ-group consistently

412 Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 213; cf. McRae “Eating with Honor,” 213-14. For examples of associations’ usage of the term, see: SEG 2:10.8 (Salamis, Attica; 248 BCE); IG II2 1291.11, 16, 21, 27 = GRA 1:19 (Piraeus? mid III BCE); IG II2 1337.11-12 = GRA 1:44 (Piraeus, Attica; 97/6 BCE); IG II2 1334.14 = GRA 1:45 (Piraeus, Attica; after 71/70 BCE).

157

5: Service and Recognition in the Christ-Group resemble the honorific behavior of collegiati who received tangible rewards for their efforts. Not only did the Corinthians behave as though their ekklēsia had the apparatus to reciprocate, but

Paul also seems to assume the Christ-group had the mechanisms to recognize Stephanas,

Fortunatus, and Achaiacus in ways they would find pleasing. Moreover, his denial of ἔπαινος to the current banquet officers suggests that ἔπαινος was normally available to Christ-group administrative officers. This strengthens the likelihood that the ekklēsia properly honoured other deserving service-providers, such as hosts, and contributors to the Jerusalem ογεία. In the next chapter, I will explore the place of ekklēsia officers, which further sharpens the picture Paul provides of the Christ-group’s honorific structures.

158

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

CHAPTER SIX

The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

1. Officers in the Corinthian Congregation

Were there officers in the Corinthian ekklēsia? On the whole, past scholarship has found no evidence for such413 and some pivotal works over the last century argue that the Corinthians did not elect temporary, rotating, officers as the thiasoi and collegia did.414 In the 1970s, Gerd

Theissen showed that portrayals of an egalitarian ekklēsia by Rudolf Sohm and others415 did not adequately account for the dominance of leadership roles enjoyed by a minority of socially- powerful Corinthians. Although Theissen finds hierarchy among the Corinthians, he

413 Some interpreters have briefly considered the possibility of officers in 1 Cor 12:27-28. See McLean, “The Agrippinilla Inscription,” 259; and McRae, “Eating with Honor,”172-3, 181. 414 Before the 1970s, scholars such as Johannes Weiss, Edwin Hatch and Eduard Schweizer contrasted the Corinthians’ supposed lack of officers with the associations’ flat hierarchies of elected and appointed magistrates. Hatch found many parallels between early Christian and Greco-Roman forms of organization, but nonetheless argued that there was relatively little structure in Pauline Christ-groups: “The distinctions which St. Paul makes between Christians are based not upon office, but upon varieties of spiritual power…Now while this sense of the diffusion of spiritual gifts was so vivid, it was impossible that there should be the same sense of distinction between officers and non-officers which afterwards came to exist. Organization was a less important fact that it afterwards became” in Organization, 119-120. For similar conclusions in comparisons with synagogues and association see Johannes Weiss Der Erste Korintherbrief, xxiv-xxvi; 386; and Schweizer, Church Order, 99. 415 Before Theissen – and to some extent after the 1970s, as well – scholars characterized the Corinthians as entirely egalitarian thanks to the presence and equalizing effect of the spirit. Rudolf Sohm described the structure of the early churches as “charismatische Organisation” – a designation inspired by 1 Cor 12:4 (Kirchenrecht [2 vols.; Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1892-1923]1.26). See also idem. “Wesen und Ursprung des Katholizismus,” Abhandlungen der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909) 333- 390, esp. 384. Adolf von Harnack argued that the first-century Corinthian church, unlike the Macedonian churches, had “no organization whatsoever…for a decade, or even longer. The brethren submitted to a control of ‘the Spirit’ ” in his The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2 vols.; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904-1905) 2.51 n.1. In 1969 Hans Conzelmann stated that “[t]here is no organization of the whole church, but only minimal beginnings of organization in the individual communities…There is no hierarchy of ministries, no priestly state…no separation of clergy and laity, no firm regulating of the cult, but only the occasional instruction when the ‘management’ threatens to get out of control” in his Theology of the New Testament, 267-8, cf. 303. Hans von Campenhausen argued that “[i]t is love which is the true organising and unifying force within the Church, and which creates in her a paradoxical form of order diametrically opposed to all natural systems of organization” in his Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1969) 46. Schweizer posited, “[there existed] no fundamental organization of superior or subordinate ranks, because the gift of the Spirit is adapted to every Church member…the enumerations of the different kinds of gifts are quite unsystematic, with no sort of hierarchical character” in Church Order, 99-100. Recent, Jan Bremmer argues, “everything we know about early Christianity indicates that the early congregations were relatively egalitarian and supplied important bridging and bonding opportunities,” in “Social and Religious,” 276.

159

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group distinguishes its form from what he observes in associations. He describes the Christ-group’s order in the following way: “[w]hen, by contrast [to the associations], everything is left to the free sway of the ‘Spirit’ [as it is in the Corinthian group], those who are of privileged status are much more likely to have things their way.”416 More recent works by Bengt Holmberg, Wayne

Meeks, Thomas Schmeller, Eva Ebel and many others, follow Theissen in acknowledging social hierarchy while simultaneously insisting that the Corinthians’ organizational structure was less defined than what is found in the collegia.417

Whether interpreters prefer Corinthian egalitarianism by means of diverse permanent gifts or hierarchical order based on social status, they agree that leadership roles in the Christ- group did not have annual expiry dates. On this point, Theissen draws a conclusion resembling the confidence of many scholars’ determination that the ekklēsia did not collect subscription fees: “[f]ortunately it is obvious that the officials in early Christianity were permanent

416 Theissen, Social Setting, 155. 417 Meeks observes, “Acts and the Pauline letters make no mention of formal offices in the early Pauline congregations. This fact is striking when we compare these groups with the typical Greek or Roman private association” in First Urban, 134. Holmberg is open to the existence of offices in Pauline churches. Like others, though, he downplays their significance: “[t]he general impression we get when reading Paul’s letters is that the local offices were rather unimportant.” For Holmberg, this was apparently especially true in Corinth, since Paul is here able to regularly intervene to establish disciplinary guidelines. See Paul and Power, 113-117, cf. 205. Stanley Stowers recently suggested, “[i]n my estimation, it is very unlikely that ‘the Corinthians’ ever had any more social organization than households that may have had previous ties with other households” in “Kinds of Myth,” 109. Schmeller (Hierarchie) compared the Corinthians with voluntary associations in order to answer the question: “Gibt es nur hier (auf der christlichen Seite) Egalität und nur dort (auf der nichtchristlichen Seite) Hierarchie?” (9-10). He found that both the associations and Corinthians had a bit of egalitarianism and hierarchy. Regarding hierarchy in the Christ-group, he contends that it existed in the form of patrons, but a leadership structure between patrons and general membership was absent. He ultimately concludes that “Alles in allem war die Struktur paulinischer Gemeinden vage” (77) and draws a popular conclusion: “Es existierte in den Paulusgemeinden zwischen Patronen und einfachen Mitgliedern keine klar definierte Schicht von Amtsträgern…die den Gegebenheiten in Vereinen auch nur in etwa entsprach” (78). For Schmeller, this lack of local structure is due to Paul’s dominant role as the founder, the first preacher of the gospel to the Corinthians, and a central contributor to disciplinary matters (77). For other recent comparative works on the Corinthians and associations that reject the idea that officers existed in the Christ- group, see Witherington, Conflict & Community, 243-7; 453-8; Chester, Conversion, 227-66, esp. 240; and Ebel, who argues “Immerhin bieten die Gemeinden zwar noch nicht unbedingt zur Zeit des Paulus, aber schon bald danach wie die Vereine für einsatzbereite Menschen Ämter mit wohlklingenden Titeln an” (Attraktivität, 220).

160

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group officials.”418 In other words, once a leader (i.e., a teacher, a prophet, one of the socially strong) always one – there were few opportunities to become a recognized leader if not one already.

One might expect that clear evidence exists confirming the absence of rotating, elected officers in the congregation, but no such data has been offered. The most commonly-cited validation of the communis opinio is Paul’s supposed silence on the issue:419 he fails to mention titles held by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus when he recognizes them (1 Cor 16:17-18); and he remains silent on titles held by banquet leaders (1 Cor 11:17-34).420 The present chapter contends that, despite instances of occasional silences, Paul does provide evidence of the group’s practice of electing officers. It will be demonstrated that in 1 Cor 11:19, Paul uses three terms and concepts commonly found in formulaic descriptions of civic or association elections:

αἱρέσεις, οἱ δόκιμοι, and φανεροί. The existence of a flat hierarchy of temporary and rotating magistrates in the Corinthian group helps to clarify the otherwise awkward sentence in 1 Cor

11:19.

2. The Problem of “Factions” (αἱρέσεις) in 1 Cor 11:19

First Corinthians 11:19 is traditionally rendered in a way that defies logic and obscures Paul’s technical terminology. The full verse reads as follows: δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα

[καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. A common translation is, approximately, “[i]t is necessary for there to be factions (αἱρέσεις) among you, for only so will it become (γένωνται)

418 Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure,” 78. Theissen is informed by Thomas Schmeller’s theory that permanent offices were characteristic of the wealthiest associations while rotation was used in associations of lower social registers as a way to share the financial cost of magistracy responsibilities. This attests to Theissen’s continued departure from the “old consensus” on the social status of Pauline Christians.” See Schmeller, Hierarchie, 36-38. 419 For example, Conzelmann, Theology of the New Testament, 267-8; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 113-17; Meeks, First Urban, 134; Schmeller, Hierarchie, 77; Bremmer, “Social and Religious,” 276; and Harrison, Paul’s Language, 323. 420 Chapter four’s description of “title-exclusion” in associations’ honorific practices weakens the ex silentio theory.

161

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group manifest (φανεροί) who among you are genuine (οἱ δόκιμοι).” Denoting αἱρέσεις as “factions” or

“Parteien” is nearly unanimous in standard Bible translations,421 commentaries422 and social- historical studies.423 While “factions” is a possible interpretation for αἱρέσεις, it requires interpreters to contend with a difficult question about the meaning of the verse: how can factions make it clear who is genuine among the Corinthians? R. Alastair Campbell has spoken of the

“enormous psychological difficulty” of the standard interpretation.424 Strategies for salvaging the

αἱρέσεις-as-factions translation have been nearly identical for over a century: the verse apparently makes sense once it is assumed that Paul was alluding to a well-known Jesus saying about αἱρέσεις at the end of the age.425 While Jewish apocalyptic literature widely attests to the idea that hardships accompanied the coming of the eschaton426, 1 Cor 11:19 shares neither the language nor the eschatological tone of these texts. For this reason, scholars have searched for closer analogies from Jesus tradition that might be able to clarify the meaning of the verse.

421 For example, “heresies” in KJV; “factions” in NRSV, RSV, ESV and NASB95; and “differences” in NIV. 422 See Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 279-80; Barrett, First Epistle, 261; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 194; Fee, First Epistle, 538; Thiselton, First Epistle, 859; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3.21-22; Jean Héring, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 113; Richard Horsley, 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 158-9; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (Anchor Bible Commentary 32; New Haven and London: Yale University, 2008) 433. 423 Meeks, First Urban, 67; Theissen, Social Setting, 168; Lampe, “Korinthische,” 211 n.78; Smith, From Symposium, 197; Chester, Conversion, 218; Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Madison: InterVarsity, 2011) 318; Horrell, Social Ethos, 150-51; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 80. The only exception of which I am aware is R.Alastair Campbell, “Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper,” NovT 33 (1991) 61-70. Campbell’s translation is “choices.” It is odd that he does not consider “elections” since he admits that his “choices” rendering makes for an “unusual use of αἱρέσεις.” See “Acquiesce,” 66. 424 Campbell, “Acquiesce,” 70. 425 See Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (2nd edition, London: SCM, 1964) 76-77; Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 279-80; Henning Paulsen, “Schisma und Häresie. Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11:18, 19,” ZTK 79 (1982) 180-211; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 248; Thiselton, First Epistle, 858-9; Fee, First Epistle, 537-9; Barrett, First Epistle, 261-2. 426 See W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew 8-18 (ICC; vol. 2 of The Gospel According to Matthew; London and New York: T&T Clark, 1991) 217-24.

162

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

The search for a Jesus parallel has been unsuccessful. To be sure, scholars do observe that Q records a possibly authentic saying where Jesus claims that he will be responsible for inter-generational familial disruption (Matt 10:34-39=Luke 12:51-53, 14:25-27 cf. Mic 7:6). But the problem is that none of the key terminology from 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows up (e.g., σχίσματα,

αἱρέσεις, δεῖ, οἱ δόκιμοι, φανεροὶ) in the Q saying. In fact, the words used by the gospel writers for “divisions” are διχάζειν (Matt 10:35) and διαμερισμός (Luke 12:51-3) whereas Paul uses

σχίσματα (1 Cor 11:18) and αἱρέσεις (11:19) to supposedly mean “divisions” and “factions.”

There are also no ideas in common between the two texts unless the prior decision is made to translate Paul’s αἱρέσεις as “factions.” Even with this allowance there stands only one common element between Q and Paul: strife between people who already know each other. Q neither describes factions as necessary nor as phenomena that will generate knowledge of genuineness, while 1 Cor 11:19 lacks Q’s eschatological content.

Matthew 24:9-13 (cf. Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17-18) is also sometimes cited as a parallel.

Here there is mention of betrayal (παραδιδόναι), false prophets (ψευδοπροφῆται), lawlessness

(ἀνομία) and salvation for the ones who endure this hardship. Relating this text to 1 Cor 11:18-

19 raises all the problems of Q’s supposed parallel and, in addition, brings the added issue of the text’s redactional history which post-dates 1 Corinthians.427

Approximately one hundred years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Justin records Jesus to have predicted σχίσματα and αἱρέσεις (Dial. 35.3), but αἱρέσεις is used by Justin to mean heresies, which represents a later development of the word’s usage.428 Further, the search for a

427 See David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996) 160-69. 428 In Justin, the Jesus saying appears in a conversation where Trypho observes that many Christians believed that they could eat idol meat and still be Christians. Trypho continues to explain that these people are regarded by others as real Christians despite their lax dietary code (Dial. 35.1). Justin proceeds to explain that true Christians, when they witness heretics eating idol meat, actually have their faith strengthened. This is because Jesus predicted that 163

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group genealogical relationship between the αἱρέσεις in Cor 11:19 and Justin’s Dial. 35.3 is fruitless; as

Gordon Fee and Campbell have already pointed out to varying degrees, it is difficult to make sense of 11:19 even if Paul did borrow from Justin’s very late saying, which leads to my next point.

The most serious problem with the “factions” translation, is not the lack of logic within the isolated verse. Rather, the primary difficulty is explaining why Paul would tell the

Corinthians that “factions are necessary” anywhere in the Corinthian correspondence – and especially in 11:17-34 where he combats the problem of divisions that have destroyed the Lord’s

Supper. To date there is no satisfying explanation.429 Fee, like many others who translate

αἱρέσεις as “factions,” is astounded by the verse. For him, 1 Cor 11:19 is “one of the true puzzles in the letter. How can he who earlier argued so strongly against ‘divisions among you’ (1:10-17;

3:1-23) now affirm a kind of divine necessity to ‘divisions’?”430 Dale Martin observes

“[t]hroughout the section, Paul emphasizes that the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be the common

false believers would appear. Witnessing a Jesus prediction come true, Justin explains, even if it is disturbing, is actually a good thing for true Christians. He explains some of Jesus’ predictions that have come true as follows: ‘Indeed, he [Jesus] foretold, ‘Many shall come in my name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’ And ‘There shall be schisms and heresies’ [Ἔσονται σχίσματα καὶ αἱρέσεις]. And ‘Beware of false prophets who come to you in clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’ And ‘There shall arise many false Christs and false apostles, and they shall deceive many of the faithful’ (Dial. 35.3). Translation from Thomas B. Falls, St. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho (Vol. 3 of Selections from the Fathers of the Church; Washington: Catholic University of America, 2003) 54 (my italics). cf. Syriac Didascalia 6.5.2; and Clement, Hom. 16:21.4. 429 Hans Lietzmann argued that “v.19 ist entweder resigniert oder ironisch gemeint” in An die Korinther I/II (5th edition; HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969) 56. Lietzmann’s theory, that Paul did not mean what he said in 11:19 in a literal sense, is offered prematurely. While I agree with Lietzmann that Paul could not have possibly endorsed factions, his theory will only be a viable option after all attempts at reading 11:19 plainly have failed. Even then his historically-untestable suggestion will not be preferred: why did Paul treat with irony an issue (communal factions) addressed straight-forwardly in other small group settings across the Mediterranean? Thiselton, alternatively, suggests that Paul quotes a Corinthian saying rather than create it himself. This would involve accepting that the saying existed about a century before Justin first attests to it and that there is a genealogical relationship between Justin’s and Paul’s text, which is impossible to prove. See Thiselton, First Epistle, 858-9. 430 Fee, First Epistle, 538.

164

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group meal of the church and hence that it is the worst time to have divisions surface.”431 James Dunn agrees that factional strife was a serious source of disorder in the congregation: Paul speaks of quarrels (1:11), jealousy (3:3), arrogant members (4:19), boastfulness (5:6), legal proceedings between two affiliates (6:1) and disorder (14:33).432 To this list we might add divisions at the

Lord’s Supper (11:18) and drunkenness (11:21). In 1 Cor 11:17-34 Paul attempts to provide solutions for divisions not reasons for the Corinthians to accept them as necessary.

3. Σχίσματα in 1 Cor 11:18

A better strategy for interpreting 1 Cor 11:19 is to follow the lead of scholarship on 11:18. In this verse, Paul describes divisions at the Lord’s Supper with the word σχίσματα. Colin Roberts,

Theodore Skeat and Arthur Nock’s 1926 study shows that an Egyptian Zeus association used this word433 to refer to its own divisions (P. Lond VII 2193.13 = AGRW 295, Philadelphia, Egypt;

69-58 BCE).434 This papyrus provides few details concerning the nature of its σχίματα but, instructively, its officers are indicted. The text clarifies that factions are prohibited (l.13), and charges the leader (ἡγούμενος) and his assistant (ὑπηρέτης) with responsibility over the behavior of members during the feast: “all are to obey” the officers in all matters pertaining to the association (ll. 10-11).435 When factions (σχίσματα) occur, therefore, they signal poor leadership

– either the president and assistant pushed ahead with unpopular policies regarding banquet

431 Martin, Corinthian Body, 74. Martin’s quote is from a brief summary of Theissen’s work. While the context is a review of scholarship, Martin nonetheless closes in agreement with Theissen’s conclusions. 432 See James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 27; cf. Chester, Conversion, 218. 433 The guild misspelled the word as σχίματα. 434 Colin Roberts, Thodore C. Skeat, and Arthur Darby Nock, “The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos,” HTR 29 (1936): 39-88. 435 The Greek reads: ὑπακούσειν δὲ πάντας τοῦ τε ἡγουμ ένου κα ὶ τ [οῦ] τούτου ὑπηρέτου ἔν τε τοῖς ἀ ν ήκουσι τῶι κοινῶι.

165

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group proceedings or they were unable to fulfill the duties of their offices by preventing σχίσματα in the first place. Evidence from other cultic groups suggests the former was more common (see below); but both possibilities reflect negatively on the officers.

It was not irregular for leaders to be verbally or physically abused due to their management or etiquette at banquets. For example, in a papyrus from Tebtynis (P. PragueDem.

1; 137 BCE), factitious behavior involving officers is explicitly referenced. Here, it is agreed that fines will result for officers who strike members, for members who hit officers, for officers who threaten members, for anybody who threatens officers, and for anybody who insults officers. The fee for striking an officer is twice as high (100 deben) as the fee for striking a regular member

(50 deben).436 The Lanuvium inscription (CIL XIV 2112 = AGRW 310; 136 CE) also alludes to magistrate involvement in factitiousness. As in the Egyptian associations, this society’s leaders performed administrative duties at the banquet and its quinquennalis received a double portion at the meal (II.17-19, 29-31).437 This group specified that “any member who uses any abusive or insolent language to a president (quinquennalis) at a banquet shall be fined twenty sesterces” (ll.

2.27-28) – a bylaw possibly attesting to officers’ tendencies to become involved in factitiousness. Similar problems of misbehavior disrupted the banquets of associations in

Greece.438 Like their Egyptian and Italian counterparts, these cults charged officers with responsibilities for facilitating banquets and meetings in orderly fashions.

436 See Andrew Monson, “The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations,” Ancient Society 36 (2006): 221-36. For another association bylaw that explicitly distinguishes between offense against officers and offenses against regular members, see P. LilleDem. 29; Qus; 223 BCE. 437 It was very common for officers to enjoy control over cult banquet proceedings and receive more food than regular members. See, for example, SEG 31:122 = GRA I 50 (Attica, early II CE); P.Lond VII 2193.8, 11-12 = AGRW 295 (Philadelphia, Egypt, 69-58 BCE); P.Mich VIII 511 (unknown provenance, early III CE); IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51 (Athens, 165/4 CE). 438 For example, IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51(Athens, 164/5 CE); IG IX/12 670 = GRA I 61(Physkos, mid II CE).

166

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

That officers would be targets and perpetrators of ill-will at Egyptian, Italian, and Greek banquets is partially a manifestation of heightened status concerns that accompany association common meals. At these events, participants were visibly ranked and officers enjoyed status distinctions in the form of bigger food portions, better couches on triclinia, and roles presiding over the evening’s proceedings.439 Given the authority and pretension of some officers, it is not surprising to find them participating in, and sometimes even to blame for, factitious behaviour.440

The Corinthian banquet encountered the type of σχίσματα characteristic of meetings of thiasoi and collegia.441 When Paul moves from σχίσματα in 1 Cor 11:18 to elections (see below) in 11:19 his line of thought remains continuous.442 Elections represent, in Paul’s mind, the solution to banquet σχίσματα, which amounts to an accusation that the current leaders with responsibilities over food distribution (11:20) are at fault for the σχίσματα.443 Given the involvement of officers in factitious behaviour throughout ancient Mediterranean association

439 Verboven, “Associative order,” 885. 440 Officers were not only at the centre of banquet factions, but also could foster controversies during award ceremonies. Disgruntled members sometimes tried to prevent voted honours (e.g., olive wreaths, honorific inscriptions) from being rewarded to magistrates. In response, some associations felt it necessary to assume officers that their voted honours would be announced in front of their peers even if their enemies plotted against them. See AM 66 228 no.4.18-20 = GRA I 39 (Athens, 138/7 BCE); IG II2 1273AB.22-23 = GRA I 18 (Piraeus, Attica, 265/4 BCE); IG II2 1292.16-17= GRA I 26 (Attica, 215/4 BCE); IG II2 1297.17-18 = GRA I 24 (Athens, 236/5 BCE); cf. Kloppenborg, “Greco-Roman Thiasoi,” 209-213. See also the fines threatened to prevent disgruntled members from snubbing officers by means of intentional absenteeism when magistrates were awarded gifts of honour or displayed status in other ways. IG II2 1339.7-8 = GRA I 46 (Athens, 57/6 BCE); IG II2 1368.96-99 = GRA I 51 (Athens, 164/5 CE); IG IX/12 670.13-15 = GRA I 61 (Physkos, Central Greece, mid II CE); cf. Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices”; and Verboven, “Associative order,” 885. 441 This conclusion is drawn by several scholars. See, for example, Dennis E. Smith and Hal E. Taussig, Many Tables. The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 32; Mitchell, Paul, 72; Chester, Conversion, 245-5. 442 The γάρ in v.19 expresses continuity of thought from the previous verse (see Barrett, First Epistle, 261; Thiselton, First Epistle, 858; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:21). Fee remarks that γάρ καἰ sets up v.19 as an explanation for why Paul trusts his informant’s report of σχίσματα in v.18 (First Epistle, 538 n.33; cf. n.32). Here, on my reading, Paul argues in v.19 that reports of factions at the common meal (v.18) are believable in part because of what he has heard concerning the way the leaders προ άμβανειν. 443 This conclusion counters Schweizer’s (Church Order, 187): “This ministry [of the Lord’s Supper] never appears as a special gift of grace, nor as an office. In I Cor 11.17ff. Paul cannot appeal to anyone who is responsible for the proper conduct of the Lord’s Supper.”

167

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group banquets, it is not surprising to find ekklēsia magistrates involved in Corinthian σχίσματα, and at fault, in Paul’s mind. With new elections, Paul hopes, the Christ-group will have competent and balanced officers managing the common meal, who will steer the community with sensitivity to the needs of all members. As has been shown, the dominant theory that Paul endorses “factions” does not work within the context of v.19 or with Paul’s advice against factions more generally

(e.g., 1 Cor 1:10-31; 6:1-19). Endorsing elections, on the other hand, is comprehensible. The following section of this chapter provides support for this new reading of 11:19 that avoids all the problems associated with the older translations of αἱρέσεις as “factions.”

4. Elections among the Corinthians

ἱρέσις is a technical term that, along with its cognates, is commonly used in civic and association sources to describe the election of a magistrate. The noun derives from αἱρέω, which, when in middle and passive forms, refers to elections of officers. For example, the Iobacchoi of

Athens elected their treasurer every two years: ταμίαν δὲ αἱρείσθωσαν οἱ ιόβακχοι ψήφῳ εἰς

διετίαν (IG II2 1368 = GRA I 51; Athens, 164/5 CE).444 Likewise, an association of thiasōtai honoured their elected secretary: “Demetrios, who was elected (αἱρεθεὶς) secretary by the thiasōtai … took care of all of the affairs of the association honorably and justly” (IG II2 1263.5-

10 = GRA I 11; Piraeus, Attica; 300/299 BCE). In another Greek association, a certain Mēnis was elected (αἱρεθεὶς) to become the group’s treasurer (IG II2 127=GRA I 13; Attica; 299/8

BCE). Sometimes members were elected to complete special tasks. The thiasōtai of Bendis in

Salamis (Attica) elected a writing team:

444 “The Iobakchoi shall elect a treasurer by vote every two years.” This is a slight adaptation of the GRA I translation. Emphasis of the middle and passive meaning of αἱρέω as “elect” is my own.

168

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

(The association resolves) to elect [ἑ έσθαι] three men who, after receiving the money that has been set aside for this purpose, shall set up a stele in the temple and shall inscribe it with this decree and with the names of each of those who have been thus crowned; and those elected [αἱρεθέντες] (to do this) shall render an account of the money that was set aside for the votive plaque. The following were elected [εἱρέθησαν]: Batrachos, Dokimos and Krates (SEG 2:9.8-13 = GRA I 21; Salamis, Attica; 243/2 BCE).445

We also hear of ones “additionally elected” such as in IG II2 1282 (Athens; 262/1 BCE), where an unstated number of members were elected to help the supervisor perform a building task: “the ones elected with (οἱ προ[σ]αιρε[θ]έντες) with the supervisor Aphrodisios for the building additions to the temple of Ammon.”446 Ancient historians commonly draw attention to the frequency with which αἱρέομαι is used to denote the act of electing a magistrate.447

While the verb αἱρέομαι refers to the act of electing, the cognate noun Paul uses refers to the actual election itself. Liddell and Scott list “choice or election of magistrates” as one of the translations of αἱρέσις.448 We encounter this meaning well before Paul’s composition of 1

Corinthians. In the fifth century, Thucydides writes about an important difference between being defeated in a democracy and being denied promotion in an oligarchy: ἐκ δὲ δημοκρατίας

αἱρέσεως γιγνομένης ῥᾷον τὰ ἀποβαίνοντα ὡς οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐ ασσούμενός τις φέρει

(8.89).449 Pseudo-Aristotle speaks frequently about the αἱρέσεις of various officials in Athens’

445 Emphasis of the middle and passive mean of αἱρέω as “elect” is my own. 446 See also IG II2 1258.12-13 where three men are elected (ἑ έσθαι) to assist a certain Polyxenos in a legal matter. 447 For example, see Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 104; and Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, “The Election of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Egypt,” JEA 24 (1938): 65-72 at 71. 448 Henry Stuart Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (revised edition; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) 41. 449 “[W]hereas under a democracy an election is held and every man acquiesces more readily in the result because he feels that those to whom he owes his defeat are not his equals” (Loeb translation [Charles Forster Smith]). The accompanying LCL note clarifies how Thucydides could speak of democratic election candidates as ‘unequal’: “in an oligarchy all are of the same class, and the promotion of one is a slight upon the rest; but in a democracy the defeated candidate may claim that the electors were ignorant or prejudiced, that he was not beaten on his merits, and so pass the matter over” (352).

169

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group democratic institutions.450 For example, in one instance he discusses the social-economic elites

(elected archons) who were members of the Areopagus: ἡ γὰρ αἵρεσις τῶν ἀρχόντων ἀριστίνδην

καὶ π ουτίνδην ἦν, ἐξ ὧν οἱ ’ ρεοπαγῖται καθίσταντο (Ath. Pol. 3.37).451 The word continued to be used in such a manner in the initial centuries of the common era. A third century CE report of proceedings of the senate from Egypt (P. Oxy. 1414.17-23; 270-5 CE) demonstrates this quite well. In this text αἱρέομαι and αἱρέσις are used interchangeably two lines apart to refer to elections of public servants:

A communication from Terentius Arius, strategus, having been read, concerning the election (αἱρεθῆναι) of…it was decided to postpone the matter until the next meeting. A communication from the stategus having been read, concerning the election (αἱρέσεως) of other convoyers of animals, after the reading the prytanis said, “…especially the convoyers of the animals transported…I collected some senators who were present and nominated one, Sarapion…in order that there should not be (any delay)…” The senators said, “Invaluable prytanis; save yourself for us, prytanis; excellent is your rule; excellent…” The prytanis said … “is in the counting-house.” The senators said, “The prytanis has done right” (translation by Grenfell and Hunt).

Sometimes Greeks employed the synonymous verb, χειροτονεῖν, to refer to elections or appointments.452 The usage of this word in several first and second century Christian sources suggests that standard Greek and Roman ordination practices were known and used within the

Christ-groups.453 The Athenian orator, Demosthenes, who quite consistently prefers χειροτονεῖν over αἱρεθεὶς, provides us with a parallel to Paul’s “elections among you” (αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν) construction: “But have you not been electing from among yourselves ten brigadiers and ten

450 For example, Ath. Pol. 26.14 (ἀρχόντων αἵρεσιν), 31.9-10, 44.4 (αἵρεσιν/ἀρχαιρεσίας τῶν στρατηγῶν). 451 “For there was an election of archons according to birth and wealth, from which the ones of the Areopagus were appointed.” 452 Associations: IRhamnous II 59= GRA I 27 (Rhamnous, Attica; after 216/15 BCE). Literary works: Ps.-Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 54.5; 61. 4, 5, 7; Demosthenes, Against Meidias 15; and Demosthenes, Against Boeotus II, 34. 453 2 Cor 8:19; Acts 14:23; Did. 15:1. For more, see Edwin Hatch, ‘Ordination’, in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Comparising the History, Institutions, and Antiquities of the Christian Church from the Time of the Apostles to the Age of Charlemagne (2 vols.; ed. W. Smith and S. Cheetham; London: J. Murray, 1908) 2.1501- 1520, esp. 1501.

170

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group generals and ten squadron-leaders and a couple of cavalry-commanders?” (Demosthenes, 1-4

Philippic 1.26 (Loeb translation [J.H. Vince]).454

Election is not the sole manner of ordination in Greco-Roman associations. Often, individuals are appointed (καθίστημι) to their office.455 Other times, an affiliate achieved office through allotment ( αχάνειν), a method generally reserved for sacerdotal positions.456 In still other cases, our inscriptions give us less information about the origins of the assignment.

Commonly, an individual is said to have simply “become” (γενόμενος) an officer with few other details about how they obtained their title.457 Paul uses this verb (γένωνται) in 11:19 to describe the transformation from regular member to officer, acknowledging that it is through elections

(αἱρέσεις) that this process happens in the Christ-group.458 Sometimes, a member is not even said to have “become” an officer – they are simply mentioned as a magistrate who earned commendation, supposedly at the end of their term.459 When the words αἱρέομαι/αἱρέσις are employed, they refer specifically to the election method of selecting a magistrate.

A second term from 1 Cor 11:19 that is found in formulaic descriptions of Greek elections is οἱ δόκιμοι. This substantive unlikely refers to divine eschatological testing since the verse is otherwise devoid of apocalyptic terminology and, moreover, οἱ δόκιμοι fits well with the

454 οὐκ ἐχειροτονεῖτε δ’ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν δέκα ταξιάρχους καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ φυ άρχους καὶ ἱππάρχους δύο; 455 IG II2 1278.6 = GRA I 17 (Attica; 272/1 BCE); IG II2 1277.5 = GRA I 15 (Athens; 278/7 BCE); SEG 2:10.4 (Salamis, Attica; mid III BCE); Acts 6:4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 2.1; cf. Ps.-Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 3.37. 456 IG II2 1263.39 = GRA I 11 (Piraeus, Attica; 300/299 BCE); IG II2 1273A.13= GRA I 18 (Piraeus, Attica; 265/4 BCE); SEG 2.9.5 = GRA I 29 (Piraeus, Attica, 211/0 BCE). 457 IG II2 1261A.4 = GRA I 9 (Piraeus, Attica; 302/1 BCE); IG II2 1297.12 = GRA I 24 (Athens; 236/5 BCE); IG II2 1298.14 = GRA I 20 (Athens; 248/7 BCE). 458 For usage of the term in the context of association elections, see IG II2 1261A.4 = GRA I 9 (Piraeus, Attica; 302/1 BCE); IG II2 1297.12 = GRA I 24 (Athens; 236/5 BCE); IG II2 1298.14 = GRA I 20 (Athens; 248/7 BCE). This is a very common verb appearing in a range of contexts. Paul uses it (γένωνται) in 11:19 to describe the transformation from regular member to officer, acknowledging that it is through elections (αἱρέσεις) that this process happens in the Christ-group. 459 For example, see IG II2 1291= GRA I19 (Piraeus? Attica; mid III BCE) and IG II2 1298 = GRA I 20 (Athens, Attica; 248/7 BCE).

171

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group sentence’s other election terminology.460 In the immediate context the adjective describes the status of the Corinthians who will take up offices after election. Civic institutions used related terms to denote a scrutiny of elected or appointed officers of the boulē and other public officials.461 This procedure, called the δοκιμασία (“scrutiny”), occurred between the time when an officer was appointed (through election or sortation) and the time of their actual assumption of the office. The scrutiny consisted of an examination of the candidate’s full life to determine if the individual was a “good and patriotic citizen.”462 Gabriel Adeleye summarizes, “[i]t was a comprehensive examination which took into consideration a candidate’s legal qualifications, both as a citizen and for the office in question, and the probity of his life and past political activities.”463 The related term, δοκιμάζειν is very frequently used to mean “to approve after scrutiny as fit for a civic office.”464 Paul’s reference to “the approved ones” (οἱ δόκιμοι) probably betrays a vetting practice adopted by the Corinthians in the manner of the civic institution. After a Corinthian is elected they must undergo scrutiny before taking their new promotion. This would amount to a similar usage of the adjective as we find in Philo (Joseph 201) when he

460 Interpreters almost unanimously read this term to have an eschatological meaning. See, for example, Johannes Munck, “The Church without Factions: Studies in 1 Corinthians,” in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959) 135-67; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:21-22; Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7; Göttingen and Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994) 148;Thiselton, First Epistle, 858-9; Barrett, First Epistle, 261-2; Héring, First Epistle, 113; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 248. Some of the problems with this assumption have been discussed above. 461 Gabriel Adeleye, “The Purpose of the Dokimasia,” GRBS 24 (1983): 295-306, esp. 295. 462 Douglas Maurice MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1978) 168; quoted from Adeleye, “Purpose,” 295. The thorough nature of the δοκιμασία is treated in a forthcoming paper by Kloppenborg entitled, “The Moralizing of Discourse in Graeco-Roman Associations.” 463 Gabriel, “Purpose,” 305. 464 Lysias, For Mantitheus, 15.6; Plato, Laws 759d; Ps.-Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 45.3. Acts records an election process that includes all the components of standard elections: the seven were elected by the general assembly and then “appointed,” and therefore approved, by the apostles thereafter (Acts 6:3-5).

172

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group references certain high-standing Egyptians who were possibly elected officers: συνεξιστιῶντο δὲ

καὶ ἄ οι τῶν παρ’ ἰγυπτίοις δοκίμων.465

The scrutiny to which the Corinthians submitted their officers finds an analogy in Greek civic organizations, but were individuals regularly scrutinized by private cultic groups as 1 Cor

11:19 indicates was done in the Christ-group? John Kloppenborg shows that some associations vetted incoming members before allowing them to become official members.466 These associations attest that the δοκιμασία was used not only in civic institutions but also in thiasoi and collegia. The references to scrutiny by the Athenian Iobacchoi are particularly helpful since they document the same key components of the Corinthians’ ordination procedure. For example, they stipulate that a new member in the association must be approved through an election in order to join the group: “If a brother of an Iobakchoi should join, having been approved by a vote, he shall pay fifty denarii” (ll. 53-55).467 The process of becoming approved after a vote is the procedure to which Paul alludes in 11:19. It is not unexpected that the ekklēsia should adopt the civic practice of the δοκιμασία upon electing officers. Ancient private cultic groups, as has been shown, frequently mimicked civic nomenclature and procedures.

5. Corinthian Officers as φανεροί

Given the social capital of office-holding,468 Paul’s construction ἵνα [καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ

γένωται ἐν ὑμῖν makes most sense as: “in order that the approved ones become persons of

465 “Other Egyptian dignitaries feasted with them” (Loeb translation [translated by F.H. Colson]); cf. Campbell, “Acquiesce,” 68. 466 This is from the forthcoming paper, “Moralizing of Discourse.” 467 ἐὰν δὲ ἰοβάκχου ἀδε φὸς ἰσέρχηται ψήφῳ δοκιμασθείς, διδότω δηνάριον ν΄. 468 H. L. Royden, The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy: From the First to the Third Century A.D. (Bibliotheca di studi antichi 61; Pisa, Giardini, 1988); Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status, 114-118; Arnaoutoglou, “Between koinon and idion,” 80-81.

173

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group distinction.” Rendering φανεροί as “persons of distinction” fits well within the adjective’s range of meanings in antiquity.469 We find the cognate adjective, ἐπιφανής, in superlative form in our earliest association price declaration to describe Constantine and Maximus as ἐπιφανεστάτων

Καισάρων (“distinguished” or “notable” Augusti).470 Several NT authors use this word elsewhere as a marker for a notable object or person. For example, Luke speaks of a “notable sign” (σημεῖον ... φανερόν) in Acts 4:16; while Paul speaks of his imprisonment as something notable by agents who spread the gospel (φανεροὺς ... ἐν ὅ ῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ καὶ τοῖς οιποῖς

πάσιν).471 As well, the notion that approved Corinthians would become “persons of distinction” after being elected matches ancient behavior suggestive that holding a private office could provide social enhancement if performed honorably. If these persons are elected magistrates,

“notable” or “distinguished” is a likely translation. The longstanding alternative, that “becoming manifest” (φανερὸς γίγνομαι), holds eschatological meaning, seems forced. These are, individually, very common words that need to be interpreted within the context each author places them. Moreover, they are often placed together without eschatological significance. For example, Amphilochios Papathomas recently pointed out that the expression often held legal connotations in 1st century papyri.472

The language in 1 Cor 11:19 is what we should expect when reading about real elections within an ancient Greek institution. Traditional translations encounter unsolvable issues result

469 See, for example, Thucydides (War 1.17) who speaks of ‘being held back from achieving something notable’ (κατείχετο…φανερὸν...κατεργάζεσθαι); and Philostratus (Apollonius, 2.20) who comments on persons with social capital, or ‘persons of distinction’ (τοὺς φανερωτέρους). 470 P. Ant. I 38.25 (Antinoopolis, Egypt; 301 CE). 471 The word carries similar implications in Matt 12.16; Mark 3.12, and 6:14. 472 “Man sollte jedoch den Umstand nicht außer Acht lassen, dass der Ausdruck im I. Jh. N. Chr. Auch eine ausgeprägte juristische Konnotation hatte, da er um diese Zeit vorwiegend als Klauselteil in Ammenverträgen und in Eingaben an die Behörden verwendet wurde.” Arzt-Grabner, et. al., 1. Korinther, 152.

174

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group from rendering αἱρέσεις as “factions.”473 A less problematic translation of the entire verse reads approximately: “There need to be elections among you in order that the approved ones become known.”

Paul does not feel the need to spend more than a few words on the topic, which suggests that the Corinthians did not require lessons on how to elect their officers. Greeks had been electing magistrates into civic and associative orders for hundreds of years before Paul wrote 1

Corinthians so we should not suspect that Paul would need to convince them to adopt the practice, either. We can also be relatively sure that the Corinthians respected the process of electing and scrutinizing communal servants since Paul tells them in 2 Cor 8:16-24, in an attempt to garner their trust, that the transfer of the Jerusalem collection will be done by elected and scrutinized dignitaries. One of the emissaries was elected (χειροτονεῖν) by the congregations for administrative purposes and the other was scrutinized (δοκιμάζειν). Apparently Paul thought that this process was valued by the Corinthians.474

In 1 Cor 11:18-19 Paul is suggesting to the Corinthians that the real answer to their banquet problems (i.e., σχίσματα) is elections when the time is right. In other words, he explicitly lays responsibility for the banquet issues on the shoulders of the current magistrates responsible for banquet accommodations, food distribution, and the overall structure of the

473 Campbell’s solution sidesteps this charge but his translation of αἱρέσεις in 11:19 is, even according to him, awkward. See “Acquiesce,” 66. 474 Edwin Hatch (“Ordination,” 1501-20) has assembled a vast amount of data showing consistency between civic modes of ordination and those found within the early Christian literature. His article is light on Christian data from the first-century and unfortunately neglects the usage of αἱρέσις / αἱρέομαι in public ordinations. However, Hatch’s proposal that Christians ordinated leaders the same way as did Greeks and Romans is very effectively supported with much data.

175

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group meal.475 Elections are necessary because elected and scrutinized officers (not social elites) ran the banquet, as was done in typical associations throughout the ancient Mediterranean.

6. Re-visiting the Problems at the Corinthian Banquet

For the past four decades, the majority of social-historical interpretations of the letter contend that the Christ-group’s hierarchy was established on the basis of social status. That is, the authority figures were fixed leaders and no mechanisms existed to democratize leadership through annual elections or other means of choosing rotating leaders. First Corinthians 11:17-34 represents a primary location for demonstrating the interpretive power of the fixed hierarchy theory. For example, Theissen famously suggested, “the wealthy Christians not only ate by themselves and began before the regular Lord’s Supper, but also had more to eat”476; Thiselton recently posited that the divisions were mostly between “first-class and second-class guests at dinner”477; Fee contended that the divisions result from the wealthy “acting merely as the rich would always act with poorer guests in their homes”478; and Jerome Murphy O’Connor proposed

It became imperative for the host to divide his guests into two categories: the first class believers were invited into the triclinium while the rest stayed outside. Even a slight knowledge of human nature indicates the criterion used. The host must have been a wealthy member of the community and so he invited into the triclinium his closest friends among the believers, who would have been of the same social class. The rest could take their places in the atrium, where conditions were greatly inferior.479

475 This conclusion directly opposes Schweizer’s (Church Order, 187): “This ministry [of the Lord’s Supper] never appears as a special gift of grace, nor as an office. In I Cor 11.17ff. Paul cannot appeal to anyone who is responsible for the proper conduct of the Lord’s Supper.” 476 Theissen, Social Status, 155. Emphasis added. 477 Thiselton, First Epistle, 858. 478 Fee, First Epistle, 539. 479 Murphy O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 159. While Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis remains influential, Horrell provides a convincing alternative in “Domestic Space,” 349-69.

176

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

In such a system, the same few Corinthians would always derive social benefits from the structure of the meal. Since this theory fails to account for the language in 11:19, it is more likely that it is the Christ-group’s officers whom Paul explicitly challenges in 11:17-34 because in a flat hierarchy it would mostly have been them who had control over the structure of the banquet and also the privilege of taking larger portions of food than the general assembly.

The dominant theory concerning Corinthian hierarchy fails to make sense out of 1 Cor

11:19. Paul’s language in this verse becomes comprehensible when it is understood alongside formulaic descriptions of Greek elections in Hellenistic and Roman epigraphic and literary documents. The verse provides evidence that the Corinthian group elected administrative officers whose duties were partially to organize the Lord’s Supper. Since elections would take place on a regular – perhaps annual – basis, the opportunities to win office titles were regularly available to those who desired to hold them.

7. Conclusion

Economic differentiation impacted even rotating hierarchies of associations480 – and scholars of the Corinthian correspondence have illuminated well how issues of the Christ-group’s socio- economic heterogeneity affected the scandal surrounding the incestuous man,481 Corinthian attitudes towards the body482 and eating meat,483 litigation practices,484 and slogans.485 However,

480 See Verboven, “Associative order,” 861-93. 481 Clarke, Secular and Christian, 74-88. 482 Martin, The Corinthian Body. 483 Theissen, Social Setting, 121-43. 484 Bruce W. Winter, “Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8,” NTS 37 (1991): 559-72; Alan C. Mitchell, “Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11,” NTS 39 (1993): 562-86; John S. Kloppenborg, “Egalitarianism,” 247-63. 485 Martin, Corinthian, 70-73.

177

6: The Election of Officers in the Christ-Group

Paul’s description of the administrative leaders of the Christ-group suggest that they were elected as temporary magistrates. Greek administrative structures in civic and private organizations democratized leadership by allowing leaders to be elected or appointed in turns. This democratization of power is key in Thucydides’ comparison between democracies and oligarchies (8.89). In thiasoi and collegia, a flat hierarchy would in theory ensure that all members could enjoy administrative positions of authority, not just the most wealthy.486 In the final chapter, I will shift from 1 Cor 11 to 1 Cor 14 and explore information Paul provides concerning ekklēsia economic and honorific structures there.

486 For the democratic nature of public offices in Athens see Adeleye, “Purpose,” 295. For the structure of leadership in Greek associations see Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 89-118.

178

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

CHAPTER SEVEN

Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

1. Corinthian Ordinary Members (ἰδιῶται)

This chapter highlights some ways in which the Christ-group’s economic and honorific organization enhanced the permeability of the ekklēsia. On four occasions in 1 Cor 14:16-25,

Paul betrays the presence of ἰδιῶται at Christ-group meetings. In associations, the term, ἰδίωτης, was used to denote regular members as opposed to club officers (ἄρχοντες) and non-members

(i.e., ξένοι, ἄπιστοι, ἀμύντοι). Paul, I will argue, may have employed this meaning of the word since alternative suggestions, namely, proselyte and outsider, are unworkable. For Paul, the word seemingly denoted Christ-group members as opposed to guests who participated in Christ-group banquets. Paul’s usage of this term suggests the presence of guests at Corinthian banquets, especially in 14:16. Extending invitations to guests was done for economic and honorific reasons that will be explored below. Before discussing insights provided by these verses, some corrections need to be made to previous scholarship on the identity of Corinthian ἰδιῶται. In what follows, I provide my translation of Paul’s Greek:

ἐπεὶ ἐὰν εὐ ογῇς [ἐν] πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμήν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, ἐπειδὴ τί έγεις οὐκ οἶδεν; ….ὥστε αἱ γ ῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀ ὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀ ὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. ἐὰν οὗν συνέ θῃ ἡ ἐκκ ησία ὅ η ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες α ῶσιν γ ώσσαις, εἰσέ θωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι, οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ὅτι μαίνεσθε; ἐὰν δὲ πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέ θῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἐ έγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, καὶ οὕτως πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον προσκυνήσει τῶ θεῶ, ἀπαγγέ ων ὅτι ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν.

when if you praise in spirit, how will the one who fills (ἀναπ ηροῦν) the place of the regular member [ἰδιώτου] say the ‘amen’ upon your giving of thanks since

179

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

he [the ἰδιώτης] does not know what you said? … And so, tongues are not a sign for the ones who believe but unbelievers, and prophecy is not for unbelievers but for the ones who believe. If, therefore, the whole assembly should come together in the same place, and all should speak in tongues, and ordunary members [ἰδιῶται] or unbelievers [ἄπιστοι] should enter, would they not say that you are mad? But, if all should prophecy, and some unbeliever or ordinary member [ἰδιώτης] should enter, he is put to shame by all and examined by all, the secrets of his heart become manifest and, in this way, having fallen before God, he will make obeisance toward God, proclaiming that God is truly among you (1 Cor 14:16, 22-25).

2. Previous translations of ἰδιώτης

Recent interpretations of the ἰδιῶται in 1 Cor 14:16-24 are derived from the work of Johannes

Weiss, Hans Lietzmann, Walter Bauer, and Heinrich Schlier. These scholars put forward three theories that are regularly supported in modern commentators. They are as follows: ἰδιῶται as (1) proselytes; (2) non-believing outsiders; and (3) full members in v.16 and outsiders in vv.23-4.

Each theory will be discussed in the next sub-sections.

2.1 The Proselyte Theory

Weiss described Corinthian ἰδιῶται as ekklēsia novices who lacked qualities of “spirit- possession” enjoyed by full members. In his words, the ἰδιῶται were not yet baptised but occupied a “Mittelstellung” between “Gemeindegliedern” and ἄπιστοι.487 According to Weiss, baptism was reserved for potential recruits who showed “Zeichen des Geistes,”488 and was denied to the ἰδιῶται until they showed the signs of the spirit. Walter Bauer largely followed

Weiss by characterizing ἰδιῶται as neither outsiders nor “full-fledged Christians.”489 Several

487 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 330. 488 Weiss (Der erste Korintherbrief, 330) argues, “[s]ie waren aber noch nicht getauft, und dies wird seinen Grund darin gehabt haben, daß an ihnen bisher die Zeichen des Geistes noch nicht beobachtet waren.” 489 BAGD, 371.

180

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour recent commentaries support Weiss’s and Bauer’s idea of ἰδιῶται as proselytes.490 An immediate lexicographic challenge for Weiss’s proselyte theory is that the term, ἰδιώτης, does not mean

“proselyte” or “novice.”491

When the proselyte theory is prodded, its weaknesses become exposed. What did it mean to lack the signs of the spirit in the Corinthian Christ-group? Schlier contends that Corinthian

ἰδιῶται lacked spirit-possession in the sense that they did not “possess the charisma of speaking with tongues or interpretation of tongues.”492 As an analogy to the idea that Corinthian ἰδιῶται were people who lacked abilities in virtuosity, Weiss cites a text from Pausanias. The passage reads as follows:

Behind the market-place is a building which the Philiasians name the House of Divination (μαντικός). Into it Amphiarus entered, slept the night there, and then first, say the Philiasians, began to divine (μαντεύεσθαι). According to their account Amphiarus was for a time an ordinary person (ἰδιώτης) and no diviner (οὐ μάντις)” (LCL [W.H.S. Jones]).

In this text, Pausanias distinguishes Amphiarus’ status as a prophet from his status before achieving powers (ἰδιώτης). The ἰδιώτης is not a novice, but a person “untrained” in divination.

It is difficult to reconcile this text with either the notion that Corinthian ἰδιῶται failed to speak

490Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, 1 Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911) 313-14, 317-18; cf. Héring, First Epistle, 151; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 517; Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 185; Thiselton, First Epistle, 1114-15. 491 Since Weiss’ idea is that these were proselytes of the Christ-group, it is informative that novice members of cultic associations could be described with a variety of words but ἰδιώτης does not appear to be used for this purpose. An example of a novice group within a collegium is found in Roman Campagna (IGUR 160), where we have a lengthy mid-second century membership list of the Dionysiac collegium of Pompeia Agrippinilla. The inscription categorizes members under various titles, including ἀρχιβάσσαροι (II.3); ἀμφιθα εῖς (II.6); βάκχοι ἀπὸ καταζώσεως (V.1-2); and at the very bottom, the σιγηταί (X.33). These “novices” consist of twenty-three individuals (X.34-56). The σιγηταί title seems to refer to “silent ones.” See also P.Mich. VIII 511.3-4 (Karanis, 200-250 CE), which uses σιωητικός for a novice, cf. Herbert Chayyim Youtie, “The Kline of Sarapis,” HTR 41 (1948): 9-29 at 20. Note also the σει ηνοί in IPergamon II 485.29 = AGRW 115; and the “uninitiated boy” (παῖς ἐξωτικός) in IG II2 1368.55 = GRA I 51. 492 TDNT, 3:217.

181

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour tongues or the idea that Corinthian ἰδιῶται failed to understand tongues given Paul’s other details about virtuosity in the Christ-group.

In terms of the former, Paul never specifies that the ἰδιῶται were unable to speak in tongues. In fact, since ἰδιώτης did not mean “novice” in antiquity, Weiss’ evidence presents the possibility that ekklēsia ἰδιῶται were full members “untrained” in powers of divination, not novices who lacked this power. Even this corrected reconstruction seems unlikely. In 14:23 Paul can assume that “all” (πάντες) ekklēsia banquet attendees had abilities to speak in tongues.

Ordinary members (ἰδιῶται) would have been among the tongue-speakers here. It is striking how commonly exegetes take the data as indicating that the ἰδιῶται could not speak in tongues:

Lietzmann argued that ἰδιῶται lacked the ability to speak in tongues493; Horsley argues that

ἰδιώτης refers to someone who “is not adept at ‘speaking in tongues’”494; and Fitzmyer suggests the word might be “someone without any experience or acquaintance of the gift of speaking in tongues.”495 In fact, Paul only states that the ἰδιῶται were not impressed with glossolalia (14:23) and, depending on how we translate 14:16, indicates that they could not understand glossolalia.

It is to the idea that ἰδιῶται were defined as those who could not comprehend tongues that I turn next.

Understanding and speaking glossolalia are two very different abilities. Paul makes this clear: all (πάντες) ekklēsia members could speak in tongues (14:23) but nobody (οὐδείς) could understand them (14:2, 6, 9). The general bewilderment of tongue-speaking in the Christ-group becomes apparent in several places. For example, Paul observes, “[f]or the one who is speaking in a tongue does not speak to men but, [rather], to God; for no one understands [him] (οὐδεὶς

493 Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 73. 494 Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 185. 495 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 517.

182

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

γὰρ ἀκούει), he speaks mysteries in the spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). Later, he makes an equally- challenging statement for proponents of the proselyte definition:

Now, brothers and sisters, if I should come to you (as) one who speaks in tongues, how will I be of service (ὠφε ήσω) for you unless I speak with you, in a revelation or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or with a teaching?.... So with yourselves, if you should produce unclear speech through a tongue, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air (1 Cor 14:6, 9; italics added).

It would seem that the ἰδιῶται shared in everyone’s confusion over how to understand the activity (on the standard reading of v.16). Officers, non-officers, guests, and anyone else present at ekklēsia meetings could not understand tongues (14:2, 6, 9). Since such a deficiency was characteristic of no sub-group in the ekklēsia, the definitive feature of Corinthian ἰδιῶται was not their lack of training in understanding tongue-speaking. Rather, they must have been defined in some other way. Given these difficulties in reading ἰδιώτης as “non-charismatic novice,” Weiss’ translation cannot be maintained.

2.2 Outsiders

The “outsiders” translation is widely-supported in scholarship on the Corinthian correspondence.496 It can be traced back to Schlier, and to a lesser extent, Lietzmann and Conzelmann (see below), who cites one association inscription (IG II2 1361=GRA I 4; Piraeus; 330-324/3 BCE) in

496 Recently, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:410;Witherington, Conflict and Community, 283-4; Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerAcademic, 2012) 162; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 517, 521-2; see also Chester who states: “Paul regards both the ἄπιστος and ἰδιώτης as standing in need of conversion, and in this article the term ‘outsider’ will subsequently be used to cover both” (Stephen J. Chester, “Divine Madness? Speaking in Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:23,” JSNT 27 [2005]: 417-46, at 418-9, n.2). Some proponents neglect consideration of Paul’s language. For example, George H. Van Kooten [“ ‘ Ἐκκ ησία τοῦ θεοῦ: The ‘Church of God’ and the Civic Assemblies (ἐκκ ησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire: A Response to Paul Trebilco and Richard A. Horsley,” in NTS 58 (2012): 522-48] recently assumed ἰδιῶται were outsiders and presented as analogies “non-citizens and visiting strangers” permitted into civic political assemblies. Van Kooten’s evidence, along with the relevant Greek terminology, includes the following (343-5): Dio Chrysostom, Or.51.2 [ξένος]; cf. 34.21; and Philo, Spec. 1.325 [τῶν μοχθηρῶν ... τοὺς ἀναξίους]. None of Van Kooten’s analogies use the word, ἰδιώτης.

183

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour support of the theory. This fourth century BCE inscription was produced by the orgeōnes of

Bendis in Piraeus. The relevant lines are as follows:

If any of the orgeōnes who have a claim in the sanctuary should sacrifice to the goddess, they shall be immune from charges. However, if a private individual (ἰδιώτης) should sacrifice to the goddess, s/he shall pay the priestess, for a suckling pig: 1.5 obols, along with the skin and the entire right thigh; for a mature animal: 3 obols, along with the skin and the thigh on the same conditions; for an ox: 1.5 obols and the skin. They shall give the priestly portion of females to the priestess and of males to the priest. No one is permitted to sacrifice anything in the sanctuary beside the altar (ll. 2-7).

The main lexicographical challenge to the “outsider” theory is that ἰδιώτης does not mean,

“outsider,” in IG II2 1361. When IG II2 1361 is analysed alongside comparable material, it appears to denote, as Kloppenborg and Ascough have translated it, a private individual who wants to perform a sacrifice at a public temple.

In the following texts, ἰδιώτης is the word public priests use to describe a private individual who wants to perform a sacrifice at their sanctuary. From Ionia, Asia Minor, survives a fragmentary inscription of rules governing a cult of Asklepios and Apollo (IErythrai 1;

380/260 BCE). Regarding sacrifices from ἰδιῶται, the cult’s law states:

Whenever the city should make a sacrifice to Asklepios, the things of the city should be sacrificed first [προτεθύσθαι = a preliminary sacrifice before the main one] on behalf of all, and let not one private person [ἰδιώτης] make a preliminary sacrifice [προθυέτω] during the feast; thereupon let him make a preliminary sacrifice [προθύετω] at another time according to what was written before (ll. 25-30).

Here, the ἰδιῶται were non-priests. They were individuals who did not work at the temple of

Asklepios and Apollo but wanted to participate, as private individuals, in a sacrificial ritual.

From the Aegean, we have another cultic group who mentions ἰδιώτης in this way. At a temple of Herakles, the following rules apply (IChios 7 = Syll3 1013)

Whenever they should sacrifice, the family (γένος) will give to the priest of Herackles the tongues and inward parts…If a private person [ἰδιώτης] should

184

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

sacrifice, he will give to the priest the tongues and inward parts … let him announce to the priest what was sacrificed (ll. 1-10).

In all three inscriptions, ἰδιώτης is the subject of the verb θύω.497 Schlier misrepresents the association’s usage of the term.498 The orgeōnes did not refer to an “outsider” but, more accurately, to a private individual wanting to sacrifice at a cultic site, as the two other inscriptions clarify. Outsiders who come to a public temple to sacrifice to its god seem irrelevant to 1 Corinthians 14.

To my knowledge, the usage of ἰδιώτης in IG II21361 = GRA I 4 to mean “sacrificing private individual” is not found in other association sources.499 Its usage in IG II2 1361 = GRA I

4 results from the fact that these orgeōnes met at a public temple where ἰδιῶται (private individuals; non-priests) periodically came to sacrifice.500

2.3 The Two-Definition Theory

The third position seemingly holds majority status. Many commentators believe that Paul designated two categories of persons with the same word (ἰδιώτης) in 1 Corinthians 14. They contend that the ἰδιώτης of v.16 was a full member and the ἰδιῶται a few lines later were unbelievers.501 According to proponents of this model, two definitions are necessitated by the following data. First, since nobody in the ekklēsia understood tongue-speaking (1 Cor 14:2, 6, 9), the ἰδιώτης from v.16 (who also does not understand glossolalia) cannot have been from a

497 See also IErythrai 3 (ἰδιώτης θυῃ, ll. 7-8). 498 TDNT, 3:216. 499 Using the PHI database, I found no other instances of inscriptions containing ἰδιώτης and association name (e.g., orgeōnes, thiasos, synodos, koinon) where ἰδιώτης refers to a private individual wishing to sacrifice on the club’s premises. For examples of the word’s meaning in associations, see below. 500 See the note on l.3 of the inscription in Kloppenborg and Ascough, Attica, 35. 501 Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/II, 68-75. According to Conzelmann, the ἰδιῶται in v.16 are “all nonecstatics, Christians and non-Christians” (1 Corinthians, 239), whereas in vv.23-4 they are “unlike [in] v 16, … complete newcomer[s], who as yet know … nothing of the phenomenon of speaking with tongues” (1 Corinthians, 243).

185

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour marginal subgroup. I happen to agree on this point. Failure to understand glossolalia would have placed the ἰδιώτης in v.16 in the majority, not the minority,502 and they were, therefore, not different from full members in this respect. Proponents of the two-definition theory propose that

ἰδιώτης in 14:16 denotes any full member listening in ignorance to a peer speaking in tongues.

Barrett prefers the translation “simple listener.”503

Lietzmann, followed by Barrett, contends that 1 Cor 14:21-25 speaks of a different kind of ἰδιῶται. These were ἄπιστοι, or at least equated with them in terms of cultic devotion. They cannot have been full members like the v.16 ἰδιώτης since they were supposedly unbelievers.

Given their cultic tendencies, Lietzmann interprets them as outsiders.504 However, the notion that vv.23-24 speak of ἰδιῶται who were ἄπιστοι505 is highly problematic since the ἰδιῶται in these verses are contrasted with ἄπιστοι, not equated with them. Paul’s Greek speaks of ἰδιῶται ἢ

ἄπιστοι (“ἰδιῶται or unbelievers”). It is not at all clear why Conzelmann and others believe the ἢ

(“or”) represents no “proof of a difference” between the individuals behind the two nouns.506 In fact, as Thomas Kraus has pointed out, ἰδιώτης is usually explicitly contrasted with its opposite by Greek authors (see below).

The fact that the “two definition theory” is probably the majority opinion highlights the inadequacies of the previous two explanations when tested against the details Paul provides about the ἰδιῶται. The most serious challenge to the two-definition theory is its inconsistency, which is so problematic that it is the least plausible position. It requires Paul to have used the

502 Barrett, First Epistle, 321; see also Fee, First Epistle, 672-3. 503 Barrett, First Epistle, 321. Lietzmann describes the ἰδιῶται in v.16 as any non-ecstatic “Zuhörer,” meaning any full member who listens to a tongue-speaker and does not understand them. Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 71-2. 504 Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 73. Barrett agrees, contending that ἰδιώτης in v.16 denotes believers while the ἰδιῶται in vv.23-24 refers to “outsiders.” Barrett, First Epistle, 324; see also Fee, First Epistle, 684-5. 505 TDNT, 3:217. 506 Conzelman claims to follow Schlier (TDNT) on this point but Schlier fails to provide a reason for discounting the “or,” as well. See Conzelman, 1 Corinthians, 243 n.28.

186

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour same word just a few verses apart to mean two very different things when there were a variety of different terms he could have employed to make his point clearer.507 Moreover, the two- definition theory is vulnerable to the critiques against the “outsider” theory (namely, ἰδιώτης did not mean “outsider”) since it upholds this translation in vv.23-4.

In summary of previous descriptions of the Corinthian ἰδιῶται, it is not semantically viable to regard Corinthian ἰδιῶται as proselytes, outsiders, or “simple listeners.” Such theories fail to account sufficiently for the term’s meaning in antiquity and are unable to incorporate

Paul’s full description of their identity. The “non-charismatic” novice translation does not work because all banquet attendees (officers, regular members, guests, novices, etc.) could speak in tongues (14:23) yet not understand them (14:2, 6, 9). The ἰδιῶται, on this theory were like all others with respect to their virtuosity abilities (or lack thereof) yet described as novices. In no context does the word, ἰδιώτης, mean “outsiders,” and this translation should be rejected, as well.

There are not a multitude of translations left once “untrained in virtuosity” and “sacrificing private individual” are eliminated. One remaining possibility is “ordinary member.”

3. The ἰδιῶται of Associations

Examples of associations using the word, ἰδιώτης, in reference to ordinary members abound. For instance, in a mystery association from Andania, various levels of group membership are distinguished (IG V/1 1390 = Syll3 736; 92 BCE). These include οἱ τε ούμενοι τὰ μυστήρια (“the ones being initiated into the mysteries,” l. 15), αἱ γυναῖκες (“the women,” l. 16), αἱ παῖδες (“the daughters,” l. 17), αἱ δοῦ αι (“the female slaves,” l. 17), and αἱ ἱεραι (“the sacred women,” l. 18), and it is within this context that we also hear of αι ἰδιώτιες (ll. 16-17). These lines appear as

507 One option for “outsiders” is ἐξωτικοί. See, for example, IPergamon II 374.11 = AGRW 117 (Pergamon, 129-138 CE).

187

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour follows: καὶ αἱ μὲν ἰδιώτιες ἐχόντω χιτῶνα ίνεον καὶ εἱμάτιον μὴ π είονος ἄξια δραχμᾶν ἑκατόν

(“and the ἰδιώτιες should wear a linen chiton and a himation worth not more than one hundred drachmas”). These participants were not novices: about twenty lines later, the group explicitly references uninitiated novices using a different word: “[l]et no uninitiated person (ἀμύητος) creep secretly into the place (εἰς τὸν τόπον) which (the sacred men) mark off.” Ἀμύητος is a relatively standard term for uninitiated affiliates.508 The ἰδιώται are being distinguished here from individuals who have not yet been initiated: οἱ τε ούμενοι τὰ μυστήρια (those being initiated). Thus, αἱ ἰδιώτιες were themselves already initiated and full, ordinary members. The term, ἰδιώτης, marks ordinary members, as opposed to individuals not yet initiated. Associations also employed this word to distinguish between ordinary members and officers. An association of immigrants in Delos distinguishes between an ἰδιώτης and an ἄρχων (IDelos 1520.58 =

AGRW 224; Delos, 153/2 or 149/8 BCE). Later in the same inscription, the group distinguishes between a member’s status while an officer and when they become an ἰδιώτης (ordinary member) again after their term expires (l. 89).

The distinction is again made between officers (ἄρχοντες) and regular members (ἰδιώται) in an honorific inscription for a leader of an association of Haliasts and Haliads from Rhodes (IG

XII/1 155.97-8 = AGRW 255; Rhodes; II BCE); and in an inscription from the Amorgos region of the Aegean where an association draws a distinction between an ἄρχων and an ἰδιώτης (IG

XII/7 69; Amorgos, Aegean; late IV or early III BCE); and, moreover, in an Egyptian inscription where the term denotes laymen as opposed to the “office of the priest” (ἰερατεία) (OGIS 90;

Bolbitine, Egypt; 196 BCE). It would appear that in private cultic groups, ἰδιώτης was used for full members, not for novices.

508 See also LSS 75 and LSS 75a: Ἀμύντον μὴ εἰσιέναι (“The uninitiated shall not enter”).

188

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

4. A New Translation of ἰδιώτης/ἰδιῶται

Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer argue, “it is unlikely that … these [i.e., the ἰδιῶται] were laymen as distinct from officials.”509 These commentators would find support among a majority of scholars such as Weiss who minimize the level of structural sophistication attained by the Christ-group. However, the Christ-group was more sophisticated structurally than

Robertson and Plummer believed, and identifying the ekklēsia’s ἰδιῶται as “laymen” or,

“ordinary members” avoids the semantic problems that deem previous translations untenable.

Moreover, there is some evidence from 1 Cor 14:16-24 that Paul contrasted ἰδιῶται with non- members.

Thomas Kraus has argued that ἰδιώτης is always employed with a contrast in the author’s mind.510 We have already observed this phenomenon in the association sources where the contrast was often explicitly either an officer (ἄρχων) or a non-member (ἀμύητος). In light of this pattern, Kraus argues that the ἰδιὠτης in 14:16 “describes somebody as being the opposite of one who is blessed with the spirit (εὐ ογῇς [ἐν] πνεύματι).”511 Kraus is correct that there is a contrast between the one who blesses and someone else, but Paul’s Greek indicates that the non-

ἰδιὠτης party is the individual who fills in (ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν) for an absent ἰδιῶται (cf. 1 Cor 16:17).

The opposite of the ἰδιώτης in this verse is the one who replaces (ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν) the ἰδιώτης (i.e., the guest). This argument will be made below in detail.

509 Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 313; cf. Thiselton, First Epistle, 1115. 510 Thomas J. Kraus,” ‘Uneducated’, ‘Ignorant’, or even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of ΓΡ ΤΟΙ (and Ι ΙΩΤ Ι) in Acts 4.13” NTS 45 (1999): 434-449, at 437. 511 Kraus, “ ‘Uneducated,’”437.

189

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

A pattern emerges when one analyses whom Paul contrasts with ἰδιῶται in 14:16-24. It would seem that Paul had in mind non-members as the opposite of ἰδιῶται, which strengthens the theory that Corinthian ἰδιῶται were ordinary members.

Table 7.1 The Opposite of a Corinthian ἰδιώτης Source Greek Opposite of an ἰδιώτης 1 Cor 14:23 ἄπιστοι and ἰδιῶται unbeliever 1 Cor 14:24 ἄπιστοι and ἰδιῶται unbeliever 1 Cor 14:16 ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν and ἰδιώτης guest

Guests were certainly non-members by the standards of both Paul’s and the ekklēsia. It is a bit more complicated to identify unbelievers as non-members in the minds of the Corinthians. But since these contrasts reflect Paul’s own determination of group-boundaries, it seems clear that unbelievers were not ordinary members of the ekklēsia Paul has in mind (1 Cor 1:1-2; 12:2).

Paul’s need to distinguish between ordinary members and non-members at Christ-group banquets is not surprising. Some Christ-group ἰδιῶται (i.e., members) apparently had ἄπιστοι in their social networks. These ἄπιστοι invited Christ-group ἰδιῶται (i.e., members) to private banquets (1 Cor 8:27-30) and shared other social ties with them (2 Cor 6:14). Perhaps Paul knew that ekklēsia members returned the favour by inviting them to Christ-group banquets (14:16, 23-

24). It is to this point that I now turn.

5. A Guest within the Christ-Group (1 Cor 14:16)

Regardless of how one translates ἰδιώτης in 1 Cor 14:16, the verse suggests that members of the ekklēsia sent invitations to guests when ἰδιῶται were absent. The verse reads, again, as follows:

ἐπεὶ ἐὰν εὐ ογῇς [ἐν] πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμήν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, ἐπειδὴ τί έγεις οὐκ οἶδεν;

The NRSV translation of this verse is often adopted by exegetes. It appears as follows:

190

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying?

The NRSV takes the phrase, ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, as synonymous with the word,

ὁ ἰδιώτης. As a result, many of Paul’s words remain un-translated. Peter Arzt-Grabner and Ruth

Elisabeth Kritzer hint at a better translation. They observe that ἀναπ ηροῦν often represents the action of an individual replacing “eine abwesende Person.”512 As an example, they cite P.Mich

VIII 498.11-12 (II CE), a letter from a certain Gemelus to Apollinarius, his “most honorable brother” (τιμιωτάτω ἀδε φός, l.2-3). In this letter, Gemelus mentions that Apollinarius’ friend

τὴν ἀπουσίαν σου ἀναπ ηρῶσαι (“replaced your absence”).513 In Apollinarius’ absence, his friend introduced Gemelus to a certain Aemilianus (l.13) for an unstated reason that seems to have had social significance for Gemelus. The word carries this meaning in several other texts, as well.514 Most tellingly, Paul himself, in 1 Cor 16:17, states that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and

Achaiacus ἀναπ ηροῦν (“filled in for”) for the absence (ὑστέρημα) of other ekklēsia members in

Ephesus. In another papyrus, we encounter a letter-writer who apparently wants his recipient take his place working on a newly-planted vineyard. The beginning of the text is very fragmentary but in the relevant lines, the author seems to ask his recipient to look after the vineyard and to make up for his absence. The term, ἀναπ ηροῦν, appears in the following sentence in this papyrus: τα{ο}ῦτα μέν σοι γράφω, ἵνα τὴν χώραν μου ἀ[ναπ] ηρώσῃς (“I write these things to you in order that you might take my place,” ll.19-20). If ἀναπ ηροῦν carried this meaning in 14:16, then the nominative participle, ὁ αναπ ηρῶν, would refer to a person who filled in ὁ τόπος τοῦ ἰδιώτου, the seat of an ἰδιώτης

512 Arzt-Grabner, et al., 1. Korinther, 455. 513 See also SB XII 11009.8-9 (late III – early IV CE). 514 For example, Plato, Symposium 188e; Timaeus 81b.

191

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

The advantage of this translation is that it accounts for all of Paul’s language in v.16.

Many interpreters would contend that certain terms do not deserve to be translated. For example, leaving “place” (τόπος) basically un-translated is often justified because exegetes believe it is a figurative, not literal, place515 – it means, “the one who occupies the role of the ἰδιώτης,” or, in other words, simply ὁ ἰδιώτης. In support of this reading, Barrett cites a text from Epictetus

(2.4.3). In this passage, Epictetus claims that an adulterer creates havoc in his neighbourhood, state, and friendships. He wonders what transformation the adulterous man undergoes after committing the deed, and how he ought to be treated given his new “position” (χώραν) in society. Epictetus suggests that though a man, the adulterer does not fill up the position (χώραν) of a man:

but if, although a man, you cannot fill a man’s place (οὐδεμίαν χώραν δύνασαι ἀποπ ηρῶσαι ἀνθρωπικήν), what are we going to do with you? For, assuming that you cannot hold the place of a friend (φί ου οὐ δύνασαι τόπον ἔχειν), can you (hold that of) a slave? (2.4.5; LCL with my revisions).

Given the metaphorical usage of this word by Epictetus, Barrett concludes “there is no ground for thinking of a specific location within the assembly, assigned e.g. to catechumens.”516

The Epictetus text is problematic as an analogy to 1 Cor 14:16. For Epictetus’ purposes, there is a difference between the “man” and the person “occupying the place of a man.” The former is biological while the latter is behavioural. This leads to Epictetus’ distinction between the person of the adulterous man, and various “positions” in social networks and hierarchies such as friends and slaves. The same is true in a text cited by Arzt-Grabner (BGU IV 1141.8-9;

Alexandria, Egypt; 14-13 BCE):

515 Conzelmann, in support of the figurative reading, cites Philo, Som. 1.238: τὸν ἀγγέ ου τόπον. See also Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3.401-402; and Arzt-Grabner et. al., 1.Korinther, 454. 516 Barrett, First Epistle, 321.

192

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

ο ὐ δ ὲ [γ]ὰρ〚ε ἰ μ ὶ ἐνφ〛ἔργον ἐπιτε ῶι ἐνφανιστοῦ, οὐδὲ σὲ γὰρ δοκῶι εἰς ἐνφα[ν]ιστοῦ τόπον με ἔχειν.

I do not do the work of an informer, and I do not believe that you dare me to possess the role of an informer.

Here, the author contrasts himself with an informer. The author does not do the work of an informer and believes that he cannot be made into an informer, even if he is asked to take the role of one for a time. The difference is subtle but important to the author. In other words, it is understandable why the writer did not just say “I do not believe that you dare me to be an informer” – the writer cannot be an informer even if coerced into behaving like one temporarily.

In contrast, there is no distinction made by Conzelmann, Barrett, Schrage, and others, between

“the one occupying the place of the ἰδιώτης” and “the ἰδιώτης.”517

In defense of Conzelmann and others’ rendering, it is not impossible that Paul simply used more words than he needed in v.16. But Paul dropped the business of “filling the role of an

ἰδιώτης” in vv.23-24, where he spoke, simply, of the ἰδιώτης. There was, therefore, seemingly a difference between “filling the place of an ἰδιώτης” and an “ἰδιώτης” for Paul.

It seems best to render, ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν (“the one who fills”), as filling the τόπος τοῦ

ἰδιώτου (“seat of the ἰδιώτης). This person is not an ἰδιώτης but replaces an absent ἰδιώτης.518

This phrase suggests that the person who fills the couch519 of the ἰδιώτης (ordinary member) is a

517 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 238-9; Barrett, First Epistle, 321; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:401-402. 518 I thank John Kloppenborg for this suggestion. Arzt-Grabner et. al. reject the idea – though they provide good papyrological support for it – in favour of the more traditional interpretation of the τόπος as figurative, and in favour of a reading of the ἰδιῶται as individuals defined by their lack of “gifts.” Their conclusion encounters the problems identified above. 519 In associations and synagogues, τόπος almost always refers to literal structures. Sometimes it denotes an entire structure (e.g., temple, house), other times a place within a structure (e.g., couch on a triclinium, area where honorific inscriptions will be displayed). At a kline (banquet) of Sarapis (P.Mich. VIII 511; Karanis, Egypt, III CE) mention is made of a fee payment to secure a τόπος at a banquet (l.4). In Luke’s gospel (Luke 14:7-11), the place of an invitee to a banquet is called a τόπος. An inscription concerning reserved seating for various groups in a theatre reads as follows:” (a) Place (τόπος) of the blue goldsmiths. (b) Place of the goldsmiths. (c) Place of the victorious goldsmiths. (d) Place of the emperor-loving goldsmiths. (e) Place of the younger ones. (f) Place of the Judeans who are also god-fearers. (g) God-fearer. (h) Place of the blue Judeans. (I) Place of Diodotes. (j) Thelymitres” (IMilet 193

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour

ξένος (guest) who was invited to fill in for an absent ordinary member in order to replace lost income as a result of the absent ἰδιώτης.520 Witherington is basically right when he posits,

“perhaps the idiōtēs was a guest of the one hosting the household assembly.”521 Of course, ξένος, not ἰδιώτης, is the word that associations use for guests, but Witherington’s interpretation is entirely workable.

6. Economic and Honorific Dimensions to Inviting Guests

The presence of invited guests at ekklēsia banquets highlights economic and honorific dynamics related to Christ-group attendance matters. The strategy of inviting guests to Christ-group banquets finds analogies in the club accounts explored in chapter three.522 In that chapter, I

940 = AGRW 183; Miletos, Ionia, Asia Minor; II-V CE). A word search of the digital association database assembled by Kloppenborg, Ascough, and Harland produces, by my count, twenty-eight instances of τόπος in all its conjugations. Twenty-seven denote physical locations, while only one speaks of a leader’s figurative “role” in the group’s hierarchical structure (P.Lond. VII 2193.6 = AGRW 295 [Philadelphia; Egypt; 69-58 BCE]. Examples of τόπος referring to a physical space in association writings include: IRhamnous II 59 = GRA I 27: “Now, after the citizens of Rhamnous who had been appointed wrote in respect to a place (τόπος) that belonged to him, wishing to purchase it so that they could build a temple to Sarapis and Isis …”; IG II2 1324 = GRA I 32: “Further, it is resolved that a place τόπος for a statue be given to him in the temple, wherever seems to be appropriate …”; IG II2 1325 = GRA I 33:“and that they might have a place (τόπος) in which they gather each month to participate in the sacred rites See also: IPerinthos 49.11 = AGRW 63 (Perinthos, Thrace; I CE); IGLSkythia III 44.42=AGRW 74 (Skythia, Danube and Black Sea areas; 12-15 CE); IPergamon 374 face B, line 22 = AGRW 117 (Mysia and the Troad, Asia Minor; 129-138 CE); IJO II 146.1 = AGRW 134 (Thyatira, Lydia, Asia Minor; II CE-early III CE); IJO II 191.1= AGRW 149 (Hierapolis, Phrygia, Asia Minor; ca.200 CE); IJO II 205.1 = AGRW 150 (Hierapolis, Phrygia, Asia Minor; ca. 150-200 CE); IJO II 206.1 = AGRW 151 (Hierapolis, Phrygia, Asia Minor; ca. 150-200 CE); IHierapJ 195.1 = AGRW 154 (Hierapolis, Phrygia, Asia Minor; ca. 138-212 CE); IHierapJ 227.1 = AGRW 155 (Hierapolis, Phrygia, Asia Minor; ca. 190-250 CE); IEph 20.7-8= AGRW 162 (Ephesos, Ionia, Asia Minor; 54-59 CE); OGIS 573.26 = AGRW 213 (Elaeussa Sebaste area; Cilicia, Asia Minor; late I BCE-I CE); IDelos 1519.13=AGRW 223 (Delos, Aegean; 153/152 BCE); IDelos 1520.25,26 = AGRW 224 (Delos, Aegean; 153/2 or 149/8 BCE); IG XII/8 643.3,5 = AGRW 260 (Mytilene on Lesbos, Aegean; imperial period). For Josephus’ use of τόπος while describing the temple of Onias, see Richard Last, “Onias IV and the ἀδέσποτος ἱερός: Placing Antiquities 13.62-73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” JSJ 41 (2010): 494-516. 520 If one understands Corinthian ἰδιῶται as novices, despite the seemingly unresolvable problems of such a rendering, it would be necessary to assume that ekklēsia novices had places at Christ-group banquets. The “outsider” translation, which is untenable on semantic grounds, does not work at all with my new translation of ὁ ἀναπ ηρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου. 521 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 283. 522 Dennis Smith has shown that, in light of Paul’s description of the activities in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14 happening “when you come together” (11:17, 18, 20, 33-34, 14:26) , the activities described in 1 Cor 14 likely took place directly after the meal and probably even “at table” (From Symposium, 201). They would “have a logical connection 194

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour showed that the presence of guests was an economic benefit as it brought additional income to the club – and, in the case of the ekklēsia, replaced lost income due to absenteeism. The fact that the Christ-group invited guests highlights, again, the level of economic organization with which the ekklēsia was equipped. Income for the Christ-group was not an arbitrary matter but, rather, represented a necessary component of the group’s continuing survival. In the Christ-group, the absence of an ordinary member would mean less subscription dues collected. It would have been important – or even necessary – for the ἰδιώτης to be replaced. It would seem that in this verse,

Paul takes for granted that attendance at Christ-group banquets were porous. The explanation is partially economic.

A further implication of inviting guests is honorific. In chapter six, I argued that Christ- group officers enjoyed larger portions of food than others. If this is accurate, then current ekklēsia hierarchy was partially symbolized by differentiated food portions. For the officers, attendance would be important since they needed an audience in order for their enjoyment of a larger food portion to generate status for themselves. Kloppenborg has shown how much of a concern this was for some officers. As an example, he discusses an association of Dionysiac artists from Ptolemais Hermou (OGIS 51; 269-246 BCE), which allowed their benefactor,

Lysimachos son of Ptolemaios, to invite five guests (πρόξενοι) to a meeting where he would be commended for his services “precisely to witness the honors accorded” to him.523 Kloppenborg also shows that associations’ practice of making attendance lists (see chapter three) was related to honorific practices that took place at meetings since attendance numbers needed to be

with the meal, for they would take place ‘after supper’ … and during the symposium, at a time when meal customs designate an extended period of entertainment or conversation” (201). 523 Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals,” 22.

195

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour maintained when honours were delivered and status was displayed.524 If an ἰδιώτης (i.e., member) were absent from a banquet, one reason to invite a guest to take their place

(ἀναπ ηροῦν) would be to ensure a good audience for those who were displaying their status.

7. Ἰδίωται, Elected Officers, and Charismatic Activity (1 Cor 14:22-25)

If ἰδίωται were ordinary members, then 14:22-25 provide hints about leadership and charismatic activities at Christ-group banquets. In vv.23-24, Paul speaks about the “whole ekklēsia coming together” (συνέ θῃ ἡ ἐκκ ησία ὅ η) and all (πάντες) speaking in tongues (v.23) and prophesying

(v.24). Since ordinary members were part of the “whole” Christ-group, ekklēsia leaders could not have been the only ones with the ability to practice virtuosity. Gordon Fee has drawn a similar conclusion: “all of the believers could potentially do so [i.e., speak in tongues, and prophesy].”525

Caution is required before positing that all ekklēsia members actually did speak in tongues, despite the common ability to do so. If 14:23 suggests that all members had the ability to speak in tongues, 12:30 makes clear that not every member acted on the ability: μὴ πάντες γ ώσσαις

α οῦσιν.

Paul’s point in 14:23 seems to be that a regular member (ἰδιώτης) or guest (ἄπιστος) entering the ekklēsia while all attendees were practicing glossolalia would think that they are all

“mad” (μαίνεσθαι) in a pejorative sense.526 Paul prefers that members prophecy (vv.24-5) rather

524 Kloppenborg, “Membership Practices,” 202-206. 525 Fee, First Epistle, 684. 526 For discussions of Judean and Greek usages of μαίνεσθε, see Arzt-Grabner, 1.Korinther, 459; and Thiselton, First Epistle, 1126. Stephen Chester suggests an alternative reading. He argues that the verb “would best be translated not as ‘You are mad’, but as ‘You are inspired.’” He realizes that the “obvious objection to such a translation is to ask why, if the outsider evaluates tongues positively, does Paul prefer prophecy?” Chester’s answer is inadequate: “although the response of the outsider is positive in its own terms, from Paul’s perspective it is less than satisfactory. It is something of a pyrrhic victory for an outsider to recognize the activity of the Holy Spirit as equivalent to manifestations of divine presence in the cults of idols. As a sign, tongues do not signify nearly enough. Precisely because they are incomprehensible, uninterpreted tongues do not communicate the gospel.” Paul does not 196

7: Ἰδιῶται, Economics, and Honour than pursue individualized practices of worship that cannot build up the ekklēsia, and attempts to persuade the ekklēsia to take his advice by commenting on the appearance of glossolalia to members and non-members alike.

Although leadership structure was not Paul’s concern in these verses, he nonetheless provides information concerning Christ-group leaders here. Specifically, 14:23-24 “exclude the option that [gifts of glossolalia and prophecy were] limited to a group of authoritative people.”527

This coincides with chapter six’s argument that ekklēsia leaders were those who were elected into temporary offices, not ones with the ability to perform charismatic practices (e.g., glossolalia, prophecy). Charismatic abilities did not raise one’s status within the group by a significant margin since such practices were seemingly rather generalized.

8. Conclusion

The details from 1 Cor 14 fit well within this dissertation’s new perspective on ekklēsia economic and honorific organization and, in fact, make better sense in this dissertation’s reconstruction than they do in previous models that take for granted the Christ-group’s lack of economic and honorific organization. There appear to have been economic and honorific reasons for Christ-group members (ἰδιῶται) to continue associating with ἄπιστοι. Contrary to Paul’s suggestions, the ekklēsia would benefit from continued linkages on several levels.

say any of this in v.23 but, rather, moves onto v.24 as though prophecy is preferable to glossolalia simply for the reason that onlookers would think tongue-speakers “mad.” See idem, “Divine Madness?” 430. 527 Fee, First Epistle, 685.

197

Conclusion

CONCLUSION

This dissertation offered a new perspective on the structural organization of the Corinthian

Christ-group. By studying ancient associations heuristically, I highlighted economic and honorific dynamics behind practices common to the Corinthians and various other private cultic groups. The major outcome of my study was that the Corinthian ekklēsia was equipped with the standard structural elements (e.g., elected officers, honorific rewards, mandatory subscription fees) exhibited within contemporary, analogous, communities. While it seems obvious that this would be the case, much previous scholarship has, in fact, described the ekklēsia’s uniqueness in structural matters as an “obvious” reality. At the least, this study has demonstrated that such convictions – usually based on arguments ex silentio – are no longer clear.

Before proposing new descriptions of any aspect of the Christ-group’s organizational structure, I considered previous attempts to explain away curious details indicative of structural elements. This was my method of procedure in chapter three when considering 1 Cor 16:2 and the presence of a common fund in the ekklēsia; in chapter five when analyzing Gaius’ role as a

ξένος (Rom 16:23) and the possibility that hosting responsibilities were objects of competition; chapter six’s study of 1 Cor 11:19 and elections (αἱρέσεις) of Corinthian officers; and chapter seven’s interpretation of Corinthian ἰδιῶται (14:16, 23-4). In each instance, past scholarship proceeded on the assumption that the Christ-group had “no real organization”528 and encountered exegetical hurdles. My reconstructions avoided the problems met by many previous interpreters and showed how Paul’s language could be better understood within the context of similar

528 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 298.

198

Conclusion discourse found in association sources. This approach led to new conclusions concerning the ekklēsia’s economic and honorific features.

In other chapters, my objective was to correct misunderstandings some scholars held concerning association practices. These misunderstandings, I showed, led to false presuppositions concerning the absence of economic and honorific organization in the Corinthian ekklēsia. For example, in chapter two, I demonstrated that some associations were from low economic registers – economic categories in which Friesen and Longenecker place most Pauline

Christians. Since these modest associations (e.g., SB III 7182; P.Tebt. III/2 894) collected subscription dues, appointed or elected officers, and rewarded peer benefactors with crowns, it can no longer be assumed that the Corinthian ekklēsia lacked organizational sophistication due to the so-called poverty of its members. In chapter four, I attempted to correct the assumption that only officers received crowns, honorific inscriptions, and proclamations for their services. The data shows that all members (patrons, officers, and ordinary members) were eligible for honours if they provided appropriate services. Scholars who believe that the Christ-group had no officers cannot assume a priori that service-providers were not reciprocated with formal commendation for their generosity.

In mid-first-century Corinth, Christian identity did not demand or motivate members of the ekklēsia to create new honorific practices, or find unique ways to fund their cultic activities.

In fact, the Christ-group’s fiscal organization likely helped the community remain relatively debt-free and, therefore, sustainable: it collected subscription dues at the beginning of every

Sunday banquet, recruited members who could invite paying guests to banquets, and attracted affiliates at a stable-enough economic status that they could participate in voluntary collections for materials beyond what membership fees could fund.

199

Conclusion

Its honorific structures likely accounted partially for its success in the 50s. Joining the

Christ-group provided opportunities to hold communal offices, contribute voluntary services as a peer benefactor, and win ἔπαινος in return for generous behaviour. The Corinthian ekklēsia fit very well into its Roman Corinthian culture characterized by an “obsessive concern to win reputation and status.”529

529 Thiselton, First Epistle, 21.

200

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adeleye, Gabriel. “The Purpose of ‘Dokimasia.’” GRBS 24 (1983): 295-306.

Althaus, Paul. Der Brief an die Römer übersetzt und erklärt. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

Arnaoutoglou, Ilias N. Thusias Heneka Kai Sunousias: Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens.Yearbook of the Reseaerch Centre for the History of Greek Law 37/4. Athens: Academy of Athens, 2003.

Arnaoutoglou, Ilias. “Between Koinon and Idion: legal and social dimensions of religious associations in ancient Athens.” Pages 63-83 in Kosmos. Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens. Edited by Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett, and Sitta von Reden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Arnaoutoglou, Ilias N. “ ΡΧΕΡ ΝΙΣΤΗΣ and its Meaning in Inscriptions.” ZPE 104 (1994): 107-110.

Arterbury, Andrew. Entertaining Angels. Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting. New Testament Monographs 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005.

Arzt-Grabner, Peter, Ruth Elisabeth Kritzer, Amphilochios Papathomas, and Franz Winter. 1. Korinther. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg, ed. Associations in the Greco-Roman World. A Sourcebook. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2012.

Ascough, Richard S. “Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Churches: Addressing the Objections.” Pages 149-83 in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Edited by Andreas Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch. STAC 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Ascough, Richard S. “The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor 8.1-15.” NTS 42 (1996): 584-99.

Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. WUNT 2/161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Ascough, Richard S. “Associations, Voluntary.” Pages 117-8 in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David N. Freedman. Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 2000.

Ausbüttel, Frank. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches. FAS 11.

201

Bibliography

Kallmünz: Michael Laßleben, 1982

Bailey, Kenneth E. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Madison: InterVarsity, 2011.

Bandy, Anastasius C. “Early Christian Inscriptions of Crete.” Hesperia 32 (1963): 227-47.

Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980.

Barrett, Charles Kingsley. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s; London: Hendrickson, 1968.

Barclay, John M.G. “Money and Meetings: Group Formation among Diaspora Jews and Early Christians.” Pages 113-27 in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Edited by Andreas Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch; STAC 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Barclay, John M.G. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen.” JSNT 26 (2004): 363-66.

Barton, S.C., and G.H.R. Horsley. “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 24 (1981): 7-41.

Bendlin, Andreas. “Associations, Funerals, Sociality, and Roman Law: The collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) Reconsidered.” Pages 207-96 in Das Aposteldekret und das antike Vereinswesen. Edited by Markus Öhler and Hermut Löhr. WUNT 1/280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Bendlin, Andreas. “Gemeinschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Identität: Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom. Pages 9-40 in Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike: Unversuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung. Edited by Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser and Alfred Schäfer. STAC 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

Bernard P. Grenfall, Bernard P., Arthur S. Hunt, and J. Gilbart Smyly, ed. Tebtunis Papyri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902-1938.

Bremmer, Jan N. “The Social and Religious Capital of Early Christians,” Hephaistos 24 (2006): 269-78.

Bricault, Laurent. “Les cultes isiaques en Grèce centrale et occidentale.” ZPE 119 (1997): 118- 19

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the

202

Bibliography

Earliest Christian Communities. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Campbell, R. Alastair. “Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper.” NovT 33 (1991): 61-70.

Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1969.

Chester, Stephen J. “Divine Madness? Speaking in Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:23.” JSNT 27 (2005): 417-46.

Chester, Stephen J. Conversion at Corinth. Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003.

Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Clarke, Andrew D. Serve the Community of the Church. Christians as Leaders and Ministers. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 18; Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill, 1993.

Clark, Gillian. Christianity and Roman Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. 2nd edition. New York, Harper & Row, 1969.

Countryman, William L. “Patrons and Officers in Club and Church.” Pages 135-43 in Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. SBLSP 11. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 volumes. ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975-79.

Creaghan, John S., and A.E. Raubitschek. “Early Christian Epitaphs from Athens.” Hesperia 16 (1947): 1-51.

Crook, Zeba A. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the

203

Bibliography

Religions of he Ancient Mediterranean. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2004.

Cullmann, Oscar. “The Early Church and the Ecumenical Problem.” AThR 40 (1958): 181-89, 294-301.

Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison. The Gospel According to Matthew. 3 Volumes. ICC London and New York: T&T Clark, 1988-2004.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Greco-Roman World. Revised edition. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.

De Rossi, Giovanni Battista. Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores. Rome: Libaria Pontificia, 1822-1894.

Donahue, John. The Roman Community at Table During the Principate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Downs ,David J. The Offering of the Gentiles. Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts.WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Drexhage, Hans-Joachim. Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991.

Duncan-Jones, Richard P. Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Dunn, James D. G. 1 Corinthians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans. 2 volumes. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Ebel, Eva. Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel grichisch-römischer Vereine. WUNT 2/178. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Edgar, C.C. “Records of a Village Club.” Pages 369-76 in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1844-1925). Pubblicazioni di “Aegyptus.” Serie scientifica 3. Milan: Aegyptus, 1925.

Eitrem, S., and Leiv Amundsen, ed. Papyri osloenses. Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1925–.

Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990.

Falls, Thomas B. St. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 3 of Selections from the Fathers

204

Bibliography

of the Church. Washington: Catholic University of America, 2003. 54.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987.

Ferguson, William Scott. “The Attic Orgeones.” HTR 37 (1944): 61-140.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. Anchor Bible Commentary 32. New Haven and London: Yale University, 2008.

Foucart, Paul. Des associations religeuses chez les Grecs: thiases, éranes, orgéons, avec le texte des inscriptions rélative à ces associations. Paris: Klingksieck, 1873.

Forbes, Clarence A. “Ancient Athletic Guilds.” CP 50 (1955): 238-52.

Friesen, Steven J. “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis.” Pages 231-56 in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society. Edited by Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010.

Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus.” JSNT 26 (2004): 323-61.

Furnish, Victor. II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 32A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

Gäckle, Volker. Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom: zu Herkunft und Funktion der Antithese in 1 Kor 8,1-11,1 und in Rom 14,1-15,13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Gager, John. Review of Social Aspects of Early Christianity by Abraham Malherbe. RelSRev 5 (1979): 174-80.

Garnsey, Peter, and Greg Woolf. “Patronage of the rural poor in the Roman world.” Pages 153- 70 in Patronage in Ancient Society. Edited by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. London: Routledge, 1989.

Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Garnsey, Peter. Cities, Peasants, and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Goodrich, John Kenneth. Paul, the Oikonomos of God: Paul’s Apostolic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians and its Greco-Roman Context. PhD diss., Durham University, 2010.

Gutsfeld, Andreas, and Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed. Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden in

205

Bibliography

kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. STAC 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. ThNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelisches Verlagsanstalt, 1999.

Hanges, James C. “1 Corinthians 4:6 and the Possibility of Written Bylaws in the Corinthian Church.” JBL (1998): 275-98.

Hansen, Mogens Herman, and Thomas Heine Nielsen. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Harl, Kenneth W. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003.

Harland, Philip A. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians. Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities. New York and London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Harnack, Adolf. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. 2 volumes. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904-1905.

Harrison, James R. “The Brothers as the ‘Glory of Christ’ (2 Cor 8:23) Paul’s Doxa Terminology in Its Ancient Benefaction Context.” NovT 52 (2010): 156-88.

Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. WUNT 2/172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Hatch, Edwin. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight lectures delivered before the University of Oxford in the year 1880 on the foundation of the late John Bampton. London: Rivingtons, 1881.

Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity. Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin. “Ordination.” Pages 1501-20 in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities Comprising the History, Institutions, and Antiquities of the Christian Church from the Time of the Apostles to the Age of Charlemagne. Edited by W. Smith and S. Cheetham. 2 Volumes. London: J. Murray, 1908.

Heinrici, Georg. “Die Christengemeinden Korinths und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen,” ZWT 19 (1876): 465-526.

Héring, Jean. The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. London: Epworth, 1962.

Hodges, Charles. 1 Corinthians.Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1995.

206

Bibliography

Holl, Karl. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte. 2 volumes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1928-32.

Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Horrell, David. “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre.” NTS 50 (2004): 349-69.

Horrell, David. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthains to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Horrell, David. “Paul’s Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology.” Epworth Review 22 (1995): 74-83.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Horsley, Richard A. “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society.” Pages 371-95 in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Edited by Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Jeremias, Joachim. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. 2nd edition, London: SCM, 1964.

Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2007.

Johnson, Allan Chester. Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian. Volume 2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1936.

Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin. “The Election of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Egypt.” JEA 24 (1938): 65-72.

Joshel, Sandra R. Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.

Joubert, Stephen. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. WUNT 2:124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

Judge, Edwin A. “Did the Churches Compete with Cult Groups?” Pages 501-24 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White. NovTSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Judge, Edwin A. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some

207

Bibliography

Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale Press, 1960.

Kautsky, Karl. Der Ursprung des Christentus. Hannover: J.H.W. Dietz, 1910.

Kayser, François. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines, non funéraires, d'Alexandrie imperial: Ier-IIIe s, apr. J.-C. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, 1994.

Kent, John Harvey. Corinth: Results of excavations. The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Volume 8/3. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Klinghardt, Matthias. “The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statues of Hellenistic Associations,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Colllins, and Dennis G. Pardee; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 251-70.

Kloppenborg, John S., and Richard S. Ascough, eds. Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace. Volume 1 of Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 2011.

Kloppenborg, John S., and Stephen G. Wilson, ed. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership.” Pages 16-30 in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Steven G. Wilson. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Kloppenborg, John S. “The Moralizing of Discourse in Graeco-Roman Associations.” Forthcoming.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Membership Practices in Pauline Christ Groups.” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 183-215.

Kloppenborg, “Associations and their Meals.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Chicago, IL, (2012): 1-54.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Greco-Roman Thiasoi, The Ekklēsia at Corinth, and Conflict Management.” Pages 187-218 in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians. Early Christianity and Its Literature 5. Edited by Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Egalitarianism in the Myth and Rhetoric of Pauline Churches.” Pages

208

Bibliography

247-63 in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honouring Burton L. Mack. Edited by Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig; Valley Forge, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Edwin Hatch, Churches and Collegia.” Pages 212-38 in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd. Edited by Bradley H. McLean. JSNTS 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Knudtzon, Erik Johan. Bakchiastexte und andere Papyri der Lunder Papyrussammlung. 4th volume of Aus der Papyrussammlung der Universitätsbibliothek in Lund; Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1946.

Kornemann, Ernst. “Collegium,” Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1901): 380-479.

Kraus, Thomas. “‘Uneducated’, ‘Ignorant’, or even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of ΓΡ ΤΟΙ (and Ι ΙΩΤ Ι) in Acts 4.13.” NTS 45 (1999): 434- 49.

Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Lampe, Peter. “Das korinthinische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11,17-34).” ZNW 82 (1991): 183- 212.

Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Korinther. NTD 7. Göttingen and Züruck: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

Lampe, Peter. “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Cor. 11:17-34).” Affirmation 4 (1991): 1-15.

La Piana, George. “Foreign Groups in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire.” HTR 20 (1927): 183-403.

Last, Richard. “The Election of Officers in the Corinthian Christ-Group.” NTS 59 (2013): 365-81.

Last, Richard. “Onias IV and the ἀδέσποτος ἱερός: Placing Antiquities 13.62-73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure.” JSJ 41 (2010): 494-516.

Le Guen, Brigitte. “L’association des technites d’Athènes ou les resorts d’une cohabitation réussie” in Individus, groups et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate. Edited by Jean-Christophe Couvenhes; Perspectives Historiques 15. Tours: Presses Universitairres François Rabelais, 2007.

209

Bibliography

Leiwo, Martti. “Religion, or Other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens,” in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change (ed. Jaakko Frösén; Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens; Helsinki: Finnish Institute at Athens, 1997) 103-17.

Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Lewis, Naphteli, and Meyer Reinhold. Roman Civilization. 2 volumes. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

Liddell, Henry Stuart, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lietzmann, Hans, with W.G. Kummel. An die Korinther I/II. 5th edition. HNT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969.

Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928.

Lindemann, Andreas. Der Erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9/1. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000 [1945-7].

Liu, Jinyu. Collegia Centonariorum. The Guilds of Textile Dealers in the Roman West. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 34. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009.

Liu, Jinyu. “Pompeii and collegia: a new appraisal of the evidence.” AHB 22 (2008): 53-69.

Liu, Jinyu. “The Economy of Endowments: the case of Roman associations.” Pages 231-56 in 'Pistoi dia tèn technèn’. Bankers, loans and archives in the Ancient World. Studies in honour of Raymond Bogaert. Edited by Koenraad Verboven, Katelijn Vandorpe and Véronique Chankowski-Sable. Studia Hellenistica 44. Leuven, Peeters, 2008.

Liu, Jinyu. Occupation, Social Organization, and Public Service in the Collegia Centonariorum in the Roman Empire (First Century BC-Fourth Century AD). PhD Diss.; Columbia University, 2004.

Longenecker, Bruce W. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids, Mich. And Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010.

MacDowell, Douglas Maurice. The Law in Classical Athens. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1978.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Second edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Mason, Steve N. “Philosophiai: Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian.” Pages 31-58 in Voluntary

210

Bibliography

Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Steven G.Wilson. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Mayerson, Philip. “The Monochoron and Dichoron: Standard Measures of Wine Based on the Oxyrhynchition.” ZPE 131 (2000): 169-72.

McLean, Bradley H. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C. – A.D. 337). Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

McLean, Bradley H. “The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Church Formation.”Pages 239-70 in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd. Edited by Bradley H. McLean. JSNTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

McRae, Rachel M. “Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary Association Meal Practices.” JBL 130 (2011): 165-81.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003 [1983].

Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Meritt, Benjamin Dean. Corinth: Results of excavations. Greek Inscriptions 1896-1927. Volume 8/1. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Mitchell, Alan C. “Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.” NTS 39 (1993): 562-86.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Mommsen, Theodor. De Collegis et sodaliciis romanorum. Kiliae: Libraria Schwersiana, 1843.

Monson, Andrew. “The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations.” Ancient Society 36 (2006): 221-36.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Atlanta: John Knox, 1959.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth. Texts and Archaeology. Good News Studies 6. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983.

211

Bibliography

Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.

Noy, David, Alexander Panayotov, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, eds. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I: Eastern Europe. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 101. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2004.

Oakes, Peter. “Methodological Issues in Using Economic Evidence in Interpretation of Early Christian Texts.” Pages 9-34 in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009.

Öhler, Markus. “Antikes Vereinswesen.” Pages 79-86 in Neues Testament und antike Kultur II: Familie, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft. Edited by Kurt Scherberich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005.

Öhler, Markus. “Die Jerusalemer Urgemeinde im Spiegel des antiken Vereinswesens,” NTS 51 (2005): 393-415

Öhler, Markus. “Iobakchen und Christusverehrer: Das Christentum im Rahmen des antiken Vereinswesens.” Pages 63-86 in Inkulturation: Historische Beispiele und theologische Reflexionen zur Flexibilität und Widerständigkeit des Christlichen. Edited by Rupert Klieber and Martin Stowasser. Theologie Forschung und Wissenschaft 10. Vienna: LIT, 2004.

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 volumes. The Fathers of the Church 104. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002.

Osiek, Carolyn, and Margaret Y. MacDonald. A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Otto, Walter. Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. 2 volumes. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1905.

Parker, Robert. Athenian religion. A History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

Patterson, John R. Landscapes and Cities: Rural Settlement and Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Paulsen, Henning. “Schisma und Häresie. Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11:18, 19.” ZTK 79 (1982): 180-211.

Perkins, Pheme. First Corinthians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerAcademic, 2012.

Pilhofer, Peter. Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996-2001.WUNT

212

Bibliography

2/145. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

Poland, Franz. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig: Teubner,1909.

Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. TSAJ 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

Rajak, Tessa. “Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?”JRS 74 (1984): 107-23.

Rathbone, Dominic. Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century AD Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Reekmans, Tony. “Monetary History and the Dating of Ptolemaic Papyri.” Studia Hellenistica 5 (1948): 15-43.

Reekmans, Tony. “The Ptolemaic Copper Inflation.” Pages 61-118 in Ptolemaica. E. van ’T Dack and Tony Reekmans. Studia Hellenistica 7. Leiden: Brill, 1951.

Richardson, Peter G. “Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine.” Pages 90- 109 in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson; London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Richard, Peter, G. “An Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations.” Pages 90-117 in The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins Until 200 C.E.: Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University October 14-17, 2001. Edited by Birger Olson and Magnus Zetterholm. CBNT 39. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2003.

Roberts, Colin, Thodore C. Skeat, and Arthur Darby Nock, “The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos.” HTR 29 (1936): 39-88.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. 1 Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911.

Rordorf, Willy. Sunday, The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church. London: SCM Press, 1968.

Royden, Halsey L. “The Tenure of Office of the Quinquennalis in the Roman Professional Collegia.” AJPh 110 (1989): 303-315.

Royden, Halsey L. The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy: From the First to the Third Century A.D. Bibliotheca di studi antichi 61. Pisa, Giardini, 1988.

Runesson, Anders. Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001)

Sanday, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New

213

Bibliography

York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1923.

Sanday, William. “The Origin of the Christian Ministry II.” The Expositor 3.5 (1887): 97-114

Sandnes, Karl Olav. “The Role of the Congregation as a Family within the Context of Recruitment and Conflict in the Early Church.” Pages 333-45 in Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Peder Borgen, Vernon K. Robbins, and David B. Gowler. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998.

San Nicolò, Mariano. Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. 2 volumes. Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 2; Munich: Berk, 1972.

Scheidel, Walter, and Steven J. Friesen. “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire.” JRS 99 (2009): 61-91.

Schmeller, Thomas. Hierarchie und Egalität: eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung paulinischer Gemeinden und griechisch-römischer Vereine. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.

Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006.

Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 4 volumes. EKKNT 7. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991-2001.

Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. BECNT 6. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983.

Schweizer, Eduard. Church Order in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1961.

Sellew, Philip. “Religious Propaganda in Antiquity: A Case from the Sarapeum at Thessaloniki.” Numina Aegaea: Newsletter of the Research Team for Religion and Culture of New Testament Lands 3 (1980): 15-20.

Sim, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996.

Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Smith, Dennis E., and Hal E. Taussig. Many Tables. The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990.

214

Bibliography

Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 14. London: The School of Oriental and African Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Smith, Kendall K. “Greek Inscriptions from Corinth II.” American Journal of Archaeology 23 (1919): 331-94.

Schuman, Verne B. “The Seven-Obol Drachma of Roman Egypt.” CP 47 (1952): 214-18.

Sohm, Rudolf. Kirchenrecht. 2 volumes. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1892-1923.

Sohm, Rudolf. “Wesen und Ursprung des Katholizismus.” Abhandlungen der Philosophisch- historischen Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909): 333-390.

Solin, Heikki. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen: Ein Namenbuch. 3 volumes. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996.

Solin, Heikki. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch. 3 volumes. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982.

Stählin, Gustav. “ξένος κτ .,” TDNT 5 (1967): 1-36.

Stock, St. George. “Hospitality (Greek and Roman).” Pages 808-12 volume 6 of Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 12 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908-22.

Stowers, Stanley K. “The Concept of ‘Community’ in the History of Early Christianity.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 23 (2011): 238-56.

Stowers, Stanley K. “Kinds of Myth, Meals, and Power: Paul and the Corinthians.” Pages 105-49 in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians. Early Christianity and Its Literature 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Theissen, Gerd. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” JSNT 84 (2001): 65-84.

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Thiselton, Anthony. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Tran, Nicholas. Les membres des associations romaines. Le rang social des collegiate en Italie et en Gaules, sous le Haut-Empire. Rome: École française de Rome, 2006.

Trümper, Monika. “Negotiating Religious and Ethnic Identity: The Case of Clubhouses in Late

215

Bibliography

Hellenistic Delos.” Hephaistos 24 (2006): 113-40.

Van Kooten, George H. “ ‘ Ἐκκ ησία τοῦ θεοῦ: The ‘Church of God’ and the Civic Assemblies (ἐκκ ησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire: A Response to Paul Trebilco and Richard A. Horsley.” in NTS 58 (2012): 522-48.

Van Nijf, Onno M. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997.

Van Nijf, Onno M. “Collegia and Civic Guards. Two Chapters in the History of Sociability.” Pages 305-40 in After the Past: Essays in Ancient History in Honour of H.W. Pleket. Edited by Willem Jongman and Marc Kleijwegt. Mnemosyne Supplement 233. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Venticinque, Philip. “Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 273-94.

Verboven, Koenraad. “The associative order, status and ethos of Roman businessmen in Late Republic and Early Empire.” Athenaeum 95 (2007): 861-93.

Verboven, Koenraad. “Magistrates, Patrons and Benefactors of Collegia: Status Building and Romanisation in the Spanish, Gallic and German Provinces.” Pages 159-67 in Transforming Historical Landscapes in the Ancient Empires. Proceedings of the First Workshop Area of Research in Studies from Antiquity, Barcelona 2007. Edited by I.B. AntelaBernárdez and T. Ñaco del Hoyo; British Archaeological Reports; International Series 1986; Oxford: John and Erica Hedge, 2009,

Veyne, Paul. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. London: Penguin, 1990.

Von Reden, Sitta. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt. From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Walters, James C. “Paul and the Politics of Meals in Roman Corinth.” Pages 343-64 in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society. Edited by Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010.

Waltzing, Jean-Pierre. Étude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’empire d’Occident. 4 volumes. Mémoires Couronnés et Autres Mémoires Publié par l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 50. Bruxelles: F. Hayez, 1895-1900.

Watts Henderson, Suzanne. “ ‘If Anyone Hungers…’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17- 34.” NTS 48 (2002): 195-208.

Weiss, Johannes. Der Erste Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910.

216

Bibliography

Whitehead, David. “Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens.” Classica et Mediaevelia 44 (1993): 37-75.

Wilcken, Robert L. “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology.” Pages 268-91 in The Catacombs and the Colosseum: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity. Edited by Stephen Benko and John J. O’Rourke. Valley Forge: Judson, 1971.

Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001

Winter, Bruce W. “Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.” NTS 37 (1991): 559-72.

Winter, Bruce. “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction.” RTR 37 (1978): 73-82.

Witherington III, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995.

Woodhead, Geoffrey A. Inscriptions: The Decrees. Volume 16 of The Athenian Agora; Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997.

Woodthorpe Tarn, William. Hellenistic Civilization. New York: Plume, 1974.

Yavetz, Zvi. Julius Caesar and his Public Image. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Youtie, Herbert Chayyim. “The Kline of Sarapis.” HTR 41 (1948): 9-29.

Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6. Leipzig: Deichert, 1910.

Ziebarth, Erich. Das griechische Vereinswesen. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel, 1969.

217