Edward Adams' "The Earliest Christian Meeting Places"

In this recent monograph in the LNTS series, Edward Adams suggests that the early Christians may have met in such places as shops, workshops, barns, warehouses, hotels, inns, bathhouses, rented dining rooms, gardens, watersides, open urban spaces, and burial sites. He explores literary evidence, archaeological evidence, and comparative evidence (meaning data on the meeting places of Jews, associations, and philosophical schools).

Some of the book is available online here.
Hurtado has summarized the book here.

Adams helpfully gathers together a lot of relevant data from a wide variety of sources, so the book is a valuable resource. However, I have some criticisms.

1. Adams claims that there is a consensus that the early Christians met almost exclusively in private houses (homes). His thesis is that this consensus is mistaken. The problem that I have with this is that it is much too vague to be useful. What exactly does Adams mean by "almost exclusively"? 99% of the time? 90%? 70%? He does not say. It is therefore not clear to me whether Adams actually disagrees with his opponents. Perhaps he and they merely have different understandings of what constitutes "almost exclusively". This is one of many cases were New Testament Studies suffers from lack of numeracy. Nowhere does Adams deny that the Christians met in private houses most of the time.

2. He does not make a clear distinction between meetings designed to spread the word to non-believers and meetings of established churches. Evangelistic proclamations will naturally occur in public spaces (e.g. the agora and Areopagus of Athens, Acts 17:17-19). Established churches, however, are more likely to meet in private houses for greater to avoid provoking hostility from the non-Christian population.

3. On page 13 he writes "During spells of persecution or intense harassment, to be sure, inns, restaurants, bathhouses, etc., are not really plausible as meeting places, but in such periods, even meeting in houses would have been difficult." and "the persecution of Christians was sporadic and local and not constant and empire-wide." Thus, Adams considers times when persecution was so intense that it was not safe for believers to meet at all, and times when persecution did not threaten at all, but he overlooks the much more common intermediate scenario. It is clear from the New Testament that there was an ever-present risk of persecution, but that the persecution was not so intense as to make it impossible for Christians to meet at all. Paul suffered frequent persecution (Rom 15:31; 16:4; 7; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 1:8-11; 4:8-10; 6:4-9; 11:23-26, 32-33; Gal 5:11; 6:17; Phil 1:7; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:2, 15; 3:4, 7; Phlmn 9, 13; Acts 9:6, 23-25, 29;13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:19-24; 17:5, 10, 13-14; 18:12; 19:26; 20:3, 23; 21:27-28:31) precisely because he proclaimed his message publicly in synagogues and public spaces. His converts suffered much less persecution (Phil 1:28-30; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 3:3; Acts 14:22; 17:6; 18:17), presumably because they took the precaution of not doing what Paul did. They met in private houses, and thus minimized the risk of provoking opposition. The relative lack of persecution of Paul's converts does not show that they had no need to restrict their meetings in private houses. Rather, it shows that they minimized their exposure to persecution by taking sensible precautions, such as meeting in private houses. Adams' logic seems flawed.

4. On page 29 Adams writes:

In 1 Cor. 11.22, Paul asks rhetorically, 'Do you not have homes (οἰκίας) to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God...?' In 11.34, he issues the instruction: 'If you are hungry, eat at home (ἐν οἴκῳ), so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation'. The rhetorical questions of 11.22 and the injunction of 11.34 would have less persuasive value if some th the congragants (the host and his family) were eating in their own house.

Adams makes a very important point there, and I am grateful to him for it. He is right to infer that 1 Corinthians was not addressed to a group that included a host and his household. However his is wrong to conclude that the church of Corinth had not host. Another option, which I have argued before on other grounds, is that the host and his household were Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who were with Paul at the time of writing and were therefore not part of the audience. So, while Adams makes much of this text, I am not convinced that he draws the right conclusion.

5. On page 72 he quotes the Martyrdom of Justin:

Rusticus the prefect said, 'Where do you (Christians) assemble?'
   'Wherever is chosen and it is possible for each one', said Justin, 'for do you think it is possible for all of us to gather in the same place (of assembly)?'
   Rusticus the prefect said, 'Tell me, where do you assemble, that is, in what place?'
   Justin said, 'I have been staying above the baths of Myrtinus for the entire period I have resided in Rome for this the second time. And I know no other meeting place except the one there. If anyone wishes to come to me there, I am accustomed to share with him the words of truth.'

Adams (p74) writes:

An intriguing feature of this passage, and one that is constantly overlooked, is Justin's claim, in response to Rusticus's questioning, that the Christians gather, 'wherever is chosen and it is possible for one'. The answer implies that Roman Christians at the time utilized whatever space (not just domestic space) they could for meeting purposes.

But it is important not to overlook the fact that Justin is choosing his words carefully to avoid betraying other Christians. If Justin had replied, "we meet in the house of Claudia and the house of Vibius", Rusticus might have raided those houses and arrested the owners and the congregants. Rusticus was not asking about meeting places out of idle curiousity. He was considering arresting other Christians. Justin answers the question as vaguely as possible. His statement "I know of no other meeting place except the one there [above the baths]" is surely not true, but we can assume that Justin expected Rusticus to find it plausible. This, and the fact that Rusticus needs to ask where the Christians meet, suggests that there was no well-known public meeting place of the Christians in Rome. They met in private houses, it seems. The evasion, incidentally, continues in the next passage, where Rusticus asks Justin's co-accused who had taught them the faith. When they say "our parents" he asks them "where are your parents". They disclose no sensitive information: Euelpistus says that his parents are in Cappadocia (which is convenient) and Hierax says that his parents are dead (which is even more convenient).

6. Adams (p74) makes much of the words of Celsus. Celsus discusses Christian "wool-workers, cobblers, laundry makers, and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels", who encourage children to go to "the wooldresser's shop, or to the cobbler's or the washerwoman's shop" to receive Christian instruction. Adams (p138) concludes "Celsus identifies the wooldresser's shop, the cobbler's workshop and the fuller's workshop as settings in which Christian instruction typically takes place." However, it is not clear to me how he differentiates the workshops from the adjoining living spaces. If the washerwoman wanted the children to come to her house she would surely still direct them to "the washerwoman's shop", for that is the landmark that they would know. In any case, Celsus is not referring here to the main church meetings. These probably took place in large private houses, but Celsus does not mention them because he is trying to emphasize that the Christians were of low social status.

7. Adams tries to show that the word οἶκος (house) is not often used in the New Testament to refer to an assembly of Christians, and he includes the compound οἰκονόμος in his analysis. He writes:

The term οἰκονόμος refers in the first place to a household manager or estate manager, but it could also be used for the holder of a civic office, as in Rom. 16.23, with regard to Erastus, who is designated,  ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως, or more generally for someone entrusted with management.

But Adams assumes his own conclusion that οἰκονόμος in Rom 16:23 refers to a civic office. If οἶκος = church, then οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως can mean "manager of the church of the city". That is to say, Paul could be describing Erastus as the treasurer of the believers of Corinth, as Justin Meggitt has proposed. Paul nowhere refers to the secular role of any fellow-believer, so it is unlikely that he does so here.

8. On pages 25, 26, 31, 39, 65, 95, 111, 118, and 131 he uses arguments from  silence that seem week to me.

9. Adams does a fine job of assembling a lot of evidence that church meeting places were generally in houses. I therefore find it surprising that he comes down against the consensus view. From the evidence  that he cites, I would have expected a conclusion like "churches met in houses at least 70%-95% of the time".

My assessment, then, is that this book is a valuable resource, but its conclusion is misleading. Leave comments below if you disagree.

Erastus was the anonymous brother of 2 Cor 12:18

2 Cor 12:18

In 2 Cor 12:17-18 Paul argued that he had not exploited the Corinthians through Titus:

Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus to go, and sent (συναπέστειλα) the (τὸν) brother (ἀδελφόν) with him. Titus did not take advantage of you, did he?

The Corinthians probably suspected that Paul was trying to profit personally from the collection for Judea, that Titus organized (2 Cor 8:6).

The anonymous 'brother' here has puzzled commentators:

Who this brother was and why he is mentioned at this point is something of a mystery. (Belleville p320)

But it makes perfect sense if Titus was Timothy. The anonymous brother of 2 Cor 12:18 would then be Erastus, Timothy's traveling companion (see Acts 19:22). He was treasurer of Corinth and his mission was to help Timothy organize the collection (see Rom 16:23 and my last post here). Erastus was well known to the Corinthians and, presumably, trusted in the administration of money. He would have had oversight of the collection and his presence with Titus-Timothy would have guaranteed that there was no embezzlement. This explains why Paul mentions the anonymous brother (Erastus) in 2 Cor 12:18: Paul's decision to send Erastus with Titus-Timothy demonstrates to the Corinthians that Paul had no intention of using Titus-Timothy to cheat anyone out of money. This fits the wording well:

1. While Paul says that Titus had not defrauded the Corinthians, he does not say the same thing about the anonymous brother. This shows that the brother's integrity was not in doubt.

2. Paul does not write "I sent the brother", or "I sent Titus and the brother". Instead he writes, "I sent the brother with [him]", using the verb συναπέστειλα. It is the brother's presence alongside Titus that is in view.

3. The article, τὸν, probably suggests that the brother was well-known to the Corinthians. Harris (p891) writes,

The article ... is more probably anaphoric ("the well-known brother" or "the brother whom you know")

4. The root verb sent (apesteila), was "a technical term for the dispatch of an emissary" (Belleville p320), so it is unlikely that the brother was just returning home to Corinth. Paul had given him a role (to help with the collection). The brother's role in the collection is confirmed by his anonymity, which serves to protect the collection from theft or confiscation (see my earlier post here).

Strachan (p35), while unaware that Titus was Timothy, comes close to identifying the anonymous brother as Erastus:

Our brother refers to some unknown individual whose character was so well known to the Corinthians that no question could be raised regarding his complete honesty. His presence would guarantee Titus' integrity.

The absence of Timothy and Titus from 2 Cor 12:18 and Acts 19:22 respectively

If Titus and Timothy were different men it is slightly surprising that Timothy is absent from 2 Cor 12:18 and Titus from Acts 19:22. Indeed, Plummer (p365) wrote,

The fact that Timothy is not mentioned here makes it probable that he never reached Corinth.

Concerning Acts 19:22 Dunn (p262) asks, "why no mention of Titus?". Haenchen (p569) came close to realizing that Titus was Timothy when he observed that:

a journey of Timothy has taken the place of the journey of Titus

Conclusion

The mission of Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22) matches the mission of Titus and the 'brother' of 2 Cor 12:18. This supports the case that Timothy was none other than Titus renamed.

For more on 2 Cor 12:18-19, see this earlier post.

Any comments?

Erastus (Rom 16:23) was Erastus (Acts 19:22)

Was the Erastus of Rom 16:23 the same man as the Erastus of Acts 19:22?

The rarity of the name Erastus

NT scholars have inexcusably failed to quantify the frequency of the name. The table below gives comments that people have made on the rarity or otherwise of the name. They range from "very rare" to "very common". 9 commentators say the name was common, 6 say it was rare, and 2 take an intermediate position. Why such contradictory assessments? And why such imprecision? What is meant by 'common'? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? It's very vague.

Author	Reference	Date	Comment
Cadbury	"Erastus of Corinth" JBL 50 p56	1931	The name Erastus belongs neither to the commonest nor to the most uncommon of names of the Hellenistic world
F.F. Bruce	The Acts of the Apostles p414	1965	The name was quite common
Cranfield	ICC The Epistle to the Romans p807	1979	The name was common enough
G.A. Lee	The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia p126	1982	Erastus was a common name
V.P. Furnish	Biblical Archaeology Review Vol XIV No 1 p20	1988	the name itself is not common
C. Hemer	The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic History p235	1990	this name is perhaps less common than sometimes suggested, but is attested in Ephesus
J. Fitzmyer	Anchor Bible Romans p750	1992	The name Erastus is well attested in inscriptions
A.D. Clarke	Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth	1993	the name Erastus is relatively uncommon
J. MacArthur	Romans 9-16 p379	1994	his was such a common name
Bruce Winter	Seek the Welfare of the City p191-192	1994	The name Erastus was rare in Corinth
Justin Meggitt	Nov. Test. Vol 38 p222	1996	A relatively common name for our period
Quinn & Wacker	The First and Second Letters to Timothy p832	2000	otherwise not found in Corinthian inscriptions
Ben Witherington III	The Acts of the Apostles p590	1998	The name Erastus was in any case a very common one
Barton & Muddiman	The Oxford Bible Commentary p1110	2001	a very rare name in Corinth
Darrell Bock	Baker ECNT Acts p606	2007	The name is common
R. Jewett	Romans p981	2007	The name does not appear frequently
David Peterson	PNTC The Acts of the Apostles p544	2009	The name was common

The table below gives the statistics from the 6 volumes of the LGPN so far published, which conveniently cover the Aegean region.

	Vol 1	Vol2a	Vol 3a	Vol 3b	Vol 4	Vol 5a
	Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica	Attica	Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily, Magna Graecia	Central Greece	Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Shores of the Black Sea	Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to Ionia	Total
Erastus	2	14	12	0	4	8	40
All persons	66489	62361	43261	43456	33724	51293	300584

Therefore we have just 40 Erasti out of a total of 300584 entries. The frequency of the name Erastus was therefore 1 in 7500. However, I estimate that only about 12000 entries in the LGPN database can be dated securely to the first century, and 11 of these were called Erastus. Therefore, restricting ourselves to the first century, the frequency of the name can be estimated at 1 in 1100.

Now, both Erasti were Christians in the Aegean region. If we assume (generously) that there were 750 Christians in the Aegean region, the chances of having a second Erastus in that group is about 50%. However, I will now show that further considerations make the two-person hypothesis very unlikely.

"Both" were well-known believers

The Erastus of Acts 19:22 travelled with Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia. Now, as is commonly agreed, 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11 shows that Timothy went from Ephesus to Macedonia and was to proceed to Corinth. Assuming that this was the same journey, there is every chance that Erastus accompanied Timothy to Corinth. So, by the time Romans was written, the Erastus of Acts 19:22 was probably known by believers Corinth, and, in any case, was known in Ephesus and Macedonia. Also, the fact the Luke mentions him at all suggests that he was prominent.

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 was also probably well known among the churches, for this explains why Paul sends greetings from him. Minor characters such as Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4) (who was recognized only by others from Asia (Acts 21:27)) were probably with Paul in Corinth when he wrote Romans, but do not send greetings. Greetings are sent from the prominent believers who were well known to members of the churches who had returned to Rome after the death of Claudius. For more on Paul's selection of greeters in Rom 16:21-23 see my blog post here.

So, both the Erastus of Acts 19:22 and the Erastus of Rom 16:23 were probably well known Christians in the Aegean region. In my judgement there can have been only about 30 such people. The chances of having a second Erastus in a group of 30 people is only about 30/1100 =2.7%. So it is very unlikely that the two texts refer to different men.

"Both" were administrators of money

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 is described as οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως. The exact meaning of the term is disputed, but it is agreed that Erastus must have been an administrator of money.

The Erastus of Acts 19:22 travelled with Timothy to Macedonia and commentators have rightly suggested that their mission was to organize the collection for Judea (Bock p606, Witherington 590, Peterson p544, Albert Barnes 1950). This is because:

1) Timothy and Erastus are described as τῶν διακονούντων (helpers) and the similar term, διακονία, is used 5 times (Acts 11:29; 12:25; Rom 15:31; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1) regarding those who help to take up the collection for Jerusalem (Bock Acts p606).

2) Dunn (p262) remarks about Acts 19:21-22, "The two verses go oddly together: Paul resolves to depart, but then sends others ahead and stays put". The oddity is removed if we suppose that the mission of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22) was to organize the collection, which was the purpose of Paul's trip to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 19:21. Luke may have expected his intended audience to know about the collection. The collection was probably declared illegal, particularly in Achaia, so it is not surprising that Luke does not mention the it directly, and neither is it surprising that he does not say that Timothy and Erastus proceeded to Achaia. He had to steer well clear of the collection from Achaia to avoid getting the church into trouble with the authorities (see here).

So, both Erasti were probably administrators of money. As Barnes notes, "the treasurer of the city ... was ... a very proper person to be sent with Timothy for the purpose of making the collection for the poor at Jerusalem".

Counter-arguments

In my judgement, this last point alone is enough to neutralize the rather week counter-arguments.

Some have suggested that the Erastus of Rom 16:23 is unlikely to be the Erastus of Acts 19:22 because the office of οἰκονόμος would have prevented him from traveling (e.g. Morris p544). However, οἰκονόμος here refers to Erastus's role in administering the collection in Corinth, rather than to a civil office (see Meggitt). In any case, Erastus could have taken his office of οἰκονόμος after returning from his mission to Macedonia. On my chronology there was a full year between Erastus's return to Corinth and the writing of Romans, and Aediles were elected to office for a one year term (Winter 195).

As well as this chronological clumping, we must also reckon with the possibility of social clumping. The name may have been more common in the sections of society to which the Christians belonged, than in the general population. This will change the odds, but not nearly enough to bring the two-person theory back into play.

Conclusion

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 and the Erastus of Acts 19:22 were both probably prominent, well travelled, believers with financial roles. This, and the relative rarity of the name, can leave little doubt that we are looking at just one person. In a future post on the Titus-Timothy hypothesis I will argue that Titus and the 'brother' (2 Cor 12:18) are Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22).