Читать книгу Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus - James T. Hughes - Страница 6

In chapter 1, I noted that the range of meaning of ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus was contested, and that this challenge focuses on the preservation of the root meaning of ἐκκλησία as assembly, and therefore argues against the traditional conception of the church as “local” and “universal,”140 replacing it with the idea of the church as “local” and “heavenly.” Therefore, in this chapter I will reexamine some of the evidence for the usage of the term, looking at Greek literature, and then the Septuagint and related literature. I will then summarize these findings, before Paul’s use of ἐκκλησία is examined in chapters 3 to 6. In addition, in the last section of this chapter, I will review some of the work done in recent years on the size and location of first-century churches, so that ecclesial solidarity in Paul can be examined in historical context.

Greek Literature

Argument from Greek Usage for a Local-only Usage of ἐκκλησία

A key element of the argument for a restricted range for the word ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus (and in the NT more widely) is that in Greek literature outside the NT, the word means an assembly, actually assembled. The almost exclusive use of the term for an assembly of citizens is noted,141 and some argue that this indicates that the assembly only existed when assembled.142 For O’Brien this is significant, as it shows that ἐκκλησία means an assembly, not an “organization” or “society.”143 Perhaps the clearest statement of this position comes from O’Brien: “Attested from the fifth century BC onwards, ekklēsia denoted the popular assembly of the full citizens of the Greek city-state. This assembly, in which fundamentally political and judicial decisions were taken (cf. Acts 19:39; at vv. 32 and 41 an unconstitutional assembly is also called an ekklēsia), was regarded as existing only when it actually assembled.”144

This understanding of Greek usage is not unique to these authors,145 but can be traced back to the influential article by Schmidt in TDNT. Schmidt states that in secular Greek, ἐκκλησία denotes a popular assembly and relates it to the Greek polis.146 Schmidt’s stance is largely followed in other dictionary articles. For example, Roloff concludes: “in classical Greek as well as in Hellenistic literature, it became a technical expression for the assembly of the people, consisting of the free men entitled to vote.”147 Roloff does note wider applications for any public assembly.148 Trebilco draws the distinction between the ἐκκλησία and the βουλή; the ἐκκλησία only existed when assembled, the βουλή continued in existence.149

A second element of Greek usage is also noted: the derivation of the word from εκ-καλεω, being called out. So, Schmidt states that ἐκκλησία means the called-out ones, and sees this as significant for Christian usage: those called out of the world.150 Coenen also notes the etymology, the idea of calling out, and the use of the term originally as the summons of an army.151 However, as Roloff points out,152 the etymological origins of the term are lost in the shift in terminology to a technical expression for assembly. Campbell argues that ἐκκλησία is more often any assembly, rather than an assembly duly summoned, and that ἐκκαλεῖν is not used of convening an ἐκκλησία.153 Further, as Johnston notes, Schmidt’s point about the importance of the idea of being called out in the New Testament can be maintained, but it is not a part of the word ἐκκλησία.154 I do not therefore think that the etymology of the word is of any great significance for understanding Paul’s use of the term, and will focus my attention exclusively on Greek usage.

Ἐκκλησία in Greek Literature

Here I will provide a survey of the use of ἐκκλησία in Greek literature from the fifth-century BC to the first century BC. This survey seeks to be comprehensive enough in scope to challenge or confirm previous conclusions on the use of the term; however, it is not a complete survey of all usage: I am not looking at inscriptional or similar evidence, and this survey will focus on authors who use the term a significant amount. Here I will examine a sufficiently representative sample of Greek literature before the first century AD, from a variety of genres,155 beginning in the fifth century BC and working through to the first century BC.

Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War, still largely accepted as generally accurate if incomplete,156 was written from c. 431–c. 400 BC.157 As such, it is one of the first texts to extensively use ἐκκλησία, and therefore a good place to begin this study. In terms of genre, Thucydides writes history, although with literary skill.158 Three features of his use of ἐκκλησία emerge from a survey of his work.

First, ἐκκλησία is a political assembly, called together to make decisions.159 This may involve hearing the arguments of ambassadors from other places, such as History 1.31, where an assembly of the Athenians is called to hear the arguments of the Corcyraeans and Corinthians,160 deciding that a treaty has been broken,161 responding to popular unease,162 responding to attacks or threats,163 meeting in times of revolution,164 a leader defending his conduct,165 and getting ready for war.166 The overwhelming sense here is of the assembly as a place of persuasion and decision in time of war or conflict. The assembly mentioned by Thucydides in 3.36, and again in 3.41, is worthy of particular note, as it is often referred to as an example of the continuous existence of the βουλή, whilst the ἐκκλησία is temporary.167 Certainly 3.36 and 3.41 refer to an assembly which meets and refers back to the decrees of a former assembly, although in 3.36 the former assembly has to be inferred from the context, and the βουλή is not mentioned here. The distinction between βουλή and ἐκκλησία may be maintained, but not from these two references.

Second, the assembly is normally that of a Greek city-state, although there are occasions when an assembly of soldiers is in view.168 When the plural is used, it is used for a series of assemblies meeting consecutively.169

Third, there are some indications of the way in which the assembly operates. There are some observable distinctions between the role of the assembly and the council,170 and comments about the time for the assembly to meet,171 about reinstating the assembly,172 about voting methods,173 about why an assembly was not called,174 and about how the assembly was distracted.175 It is not my concern here to establish the mechanics of Greek city-state politics in the fifth century BC. However, these indications show the concern with the right ordering of and the role of the popular assembly.

Aristophanes also writes about the Athenian assembly, although with the satirical and critical edge of “Old Comedy.”176 In his earlier plays, the assembly gathers, or fails to gather,177 can be wronged or polluted,178 makes decisions,179 should be properly constituted,180and is dissolved.181 Later plays show a more satirical view of the assembly,182 which perhaps climaxes with Thesmophorizusae and Ecclesiazusae, both of which feature women in assembly.183 This suggests a shared understanding of the assembly by Aristophanes’ audience, as certainly not a place for women, which could then be satirized. One final reference in Aristophanes is worthy of note, as it implies the possibility of personification of the assembly: in Ecclesiazusae, Blepyrus misunderstands Praxagora as implying that the assembly has had a child.184 Too much should not be made of this individual reference, but it does suggest, along with Aristophanes’s general satirical tone, that there was flexibility in how ἐκκλησία might be used.

Xenophon, writing in the early years of the fourth century BC, uses ἐκκλησία in a similar way to Thucydides.185 The ἐκκλησία is a political assembly called to make decisions.186 Second, the assembly is that of the Greek city-state,187 although on a number of occasions an assembly of soldiers is in view.188 The plural is used for a series of assemblies.189 Third, there are indications about how the assembly operated,190 including offices, and relationships between ἐκκλησία and βουλή.191

There are comparatively few references to ἐκκλησία in Plato,192 and a similar pattern emerges from them.193 Two points of interests emerge. First, the use of ἐκκλησιασταί for assembly-men, which remains a very rare occurrence in the literature,194 and second, the plural used for assemblies conceived of in general.195

I will consider the ten Attic Orators together for convenience.196 Unsurprisingly, they have a particular focus on the Athenian assembly.197 As in Thucydides, the assembly is a place of decision-making and dispute,198 the place where laws are made,199 taxes raised,200 and where people come or are brought to explain their actions.201 They are concerned with the right operation of the assembly, and distinguish between the role of the ἐκκλησία and the βουλή. Arguably, Demosthenes provides one of the clearest distinctions between the two when he quotes the decree of Callisthenes: “In the archonship of Mnesiphilus, at an extraordinary assembly convened by the Generals and the Presidents, with the approval of the Council.”202 Demosthenes also appears at times to use ἐκκλησία and δῆμος interchangeably: the δῆμος has given authority to the βουλή, in the ἐκκλησία.203

The ten Attic Orators are also concerned with the following of due process and right conduct, particularly the failure of opponents to observe due process,204 such as when Aeschines accuses Ctesiphon of passing legislation when the assembly was on the point of adjourning, most people having left,205 or of calling the assembly on the day of the sacrifice to Asclepius, against previous custom.206

There are times when decrees and proceedings of previous assemblies are quoted,207 a notable example of this being the discussion of the role of the assembly in the crowning of Ctesiphon.208 They note how the assembly can become bored,209 corrupted by wicked orators,210 and otherwise wrongly influenced.211 It is a place of decision, but also of indecision and inconsistent decision, as Isocrates writes: “we are behaving so illogically that we do not have the same opinion about the same situation even on the same day. Rather, we condemn something before we get to the Assembly, and then once we get there, we vote for it; then a little later, after we leave the Assembly, we complain about the decisions we made there.”212 It is a political body, but nevertheless has “religious” content.213 The plural is used for consecutive assemblies.214

Aristotle215 shows some similarities with the Attic Orators. In Athenian Constitution, he is concerned with attendance, offices, location, payments, and other rules for the assembly,216 as well as deception in the assembly.217 Politics gives further insights into the potential workings of the assembly: the responsibility of the richer citizens to attend,218 the designation of assembly members as officials,219 how the assembly works differently in oligarchy and democracy,220 how the assembly should be sovereign in democracy,221 as well as more examples of various practices in various places.222 Perhaps most interesting here is Aristotle’s discussion of the relationship between the individual “base” members of the assembly and collective sovereignty. In discussing the right of the assembly, despite being made up of common people, to judge, he argues that “although each individual separately will be a worse judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or at least as good judges,”223 and “it is not the individual juryman or councilor or member of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the people,”224 indicating that the assembly has a corporate existence, and that the whole is greater than the individual parts. Theophrastus225 deals with behavior in the assembly.226

Polybius227 uses ἐκκλησία in similar ways to those noted here; however, some differences of emphasis emerge: ἐκκλησία is used for an assembly of soldiers,228 and it is used for assemblies in various places.229 Notably, it is used for the Achaean or Aetolian general assembly or congress suggesting a representative function.230 In discussing the Roman state, ἐκκλησία is used for the popular assembly, as distinct from the Senate, a similar distinction to the ἐκκλησία and the βουλή distinction noted before.231

Diodorus of Sicily, probably writing between 56 and 30 BC,232 writes of assemblies in various places, and the number of times that assembly is used here (and the wide variety of places where assemblies are noted, well beyond the traditional Athenian orbit) should be noted.233 He also refers to assemblies of soldiers,234 and to the Second Panhellenic congress of 194 BC as an assembly.235 Still, the assembly does what it has always done: being summoned,236 listening to speeches and making decisions,237 responding to kings and rulers,238 and occasionally being rebellious,239 even when the historical context is not that of the Classical period.

Diodorus also refers to an assembly of priests in Egypt.240 The plural is used for a series of assemblies as elsewhere,241 although there is one example of the plural potentially being used for assemblies meeting concurrently.242 Diodorus also refers to a general or common assembly, a κοινῆ ἐκκλησία.243

The widening of the scope of assembly in Diodorus is noteworthy, and can also be seen in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose major work Roman Antiquities was published in 7 BC.244 He uses assembly in many of the ways noted previously.245 So assemblies are called and dispersed,246 they listen to speeches, envoys and defenses,247 they declare war,248 there is a concern with due process,249 and assemblies can be unruly and ill-advised.250 At particular moments of Roman history, Dionysius presents the assembly as having a crucial role in decision-making,251 and ἐκκλησία is used of meetings of various peoples in various places.252 There is a distinction between the assembly and a council, generally here the Senate.253 The assembly can be of soldiers.254 The plural is used for a series of assemblies, or assemblies in general.255

However, there are also particular features of Dionysius’s usage. First, he distinguishes between the centuriate assembly256 and the tribal assembly.257 The assembly is also described as being divided by curiae.258 He talks of the assembly of the people,259 of a general or common assembly,260 and often specifically states that the assembly is of the army/soldiers, rather than it being inferred from the context.261

There is also an occasion where he records rival assemblies being called, by Appius at the sanctuary of the Vulcan, and by Valerius at the Forum.262 This is the only example of concurrent assemblies in the same city recorded in the literature I have surveyed.

The plural is used a number of times.263 Often there are comments on the makeup of these assemblies: the inclusion of the baser elements, or their fractious nature.264 Assemblies are involved in the overthrow of the Senate,265and the distinction between centuriate and tribal assemblies also applies here.266 The plural can also be used for assemblies in general.267

Dionysius’s extensive and varied use of ἐκκλησία follows the general pattern and contours established here, from Thucydides onwards. However, the widening of the scope of assembly to include the history of the Roman Republic, and the tendency to be more explicit on what kind of assembly is meeting, show how usage in the first century BC was in some ways different from that in the fifth and fourth century BC. If Dionysius and Diodorus are included in the literature survey, it is no longer the Greek city-state that is primarily in view, and ἐκκλησία can be used for bodies which would not have been recognizable as assemblies by the Athenians and others.

Implications of Greek Literary Usage

In looking back over all the authors sampled here, several things can be noted. First, the broad contours of the standard definition of ἐκκλησία still stand: it is a temporary gathering of appropriate men called to decide on a variety of topics pertaining to the wellbeing of the city-state or area. It is a local body, although there are a few occasions noted above where a more representative body is in view.

Second, it is a political body.268 That is, the ἐκκλησία is concerned with decisions about war, taxes, and making decisions. It can be influenced, corrupted, misused, and manipulated. Even when it is the army that assembles, the decisions remain political: whether and when to attack or withdraw. This is a common thread throughout the literature and is significant for this investigation because it raises the question of how Paul can use such a clearly political word and apply it to a group which does not represent all, in fact which normally represents very few, of the eligible voters in any city, and which includes women.

Third, as the review above has shown, different authors have different emphases. These emphases can be related to genre; compare the austere decision-making of Thucydides’s assembly with the frivolous mockery of Aristophanes. However, the variety also lies in subject matter, so Dionysius and Diodorus’s inclusion of Roman history changes how they discuss ἐκκλησία and what can be included in the term. Similarly, Plato’s more philosophical discussion of the nature of the assembly introduces the term assemblymen, and Aristotle hints at the conception of the ἐκκλησία as a corporate body; the same may be true in Aristophanes’s idea of the assembly having a child. When considering Paul’s usage, it must be recognized that both the genre and subject matter of his writing are different. The literature I have surveyed does not include many epistles, tends to be for general consumption by an elite audience rather than to a particular community or communities, and has a high-political bias, the doings of great men.

Fourth, and critically for this study, it is legitimate to ask what role the use of the term ἐκκλησία between the fifth and first centuries BC has had in determining how Paul can use the term. Whilst the general contours are clear, there is enough variety here to suggest that the term can have a wider application, such as to a gathering of soldiers, and that the term can be applied in new ways, as noted above in the usage of Dionysius and Diodorus. The general contours of the term are as frequently described in the scholarly literature; however, there is significant flexibility in how ἐκκλησία is used. I would argue that this leaves scope for Paul, not writing about city politics, and writing in a different genre and with a different subject matter, to use the word differently. It is true that ἐκκλησία is generally used for an assembly in a city, but arguably the Greek background provides one semantic range for understanding ἐκκλησία which may or may not be followed and expanded by Paul.269

Ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint and Philo

In this section, I will examine the occurrences of ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint and Philo.270 In doing so, I will examine three issues. The first arises from the foregoing discussion of Greek literature, and from the discussion of whether Septuagint or Greek literary usage was most influential on NT authors: how the Septuagint related to Greek usage elsewhere. For example, Schmidt argues strongly that, whilst there is an analogy between NT and Greek usage of ἐκκλησία, the significance of the term comes from the Septuagint;271 in reexamining Septuagint usage, I will examine the relationship to the wider Greek literary tradition.

Second, there is a need to consider the arguments made about Septuagint usage by O’Brien, Robinson and others. There is the contention that the assembly is always assembled. So, Robinson states that ἐκκλησία was used “for the congregation of Israel. It did not apply to the members of the society of Israel whether assembled or not assembled, but to their actual meeting together.”272 There is the argument that certain assemblies have special significance for understanding the NT usage of ἐκκλησία; O’Brien states, “Of particular significance, however, are those instances of ekklēsia (rendering qāhāl) which denote the congregation of Israel when it assembled to hear the work of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.”273 There is also the question of who is involved in the assembly; whether it is an assembly of the whole nation, or a representative assembly.274

Third some comments will be made on ἐκκλησία as a translation of the Hebrew word קָהָל, and the relationship between עֵדָה and קָהָל’ in seeking to determine the range of meaning for ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint.

Ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint and Greek Literature

Ἐκκλησία is used to describe groups gathered together for various purposes, in a way which largely parallels Greek literary usage elsewhere, but with some differences of nuance related to the genre of the works being discussed. In all these occurrences, an actual assembly assembled is in view.

The cognate verb is used for the act of gathering, for a gathering of the assembly,275 of the people more generally,276 of elders and officials,277 a mustering for war,278 and a gathering of the Jews of Susa.279 This usage is similar to the general contours previously noted.

The noun ἐκκλησία is used to describe a gathering of prophets,280 a gathering of armies,281 an army confronted by a prophet and some leaders,282 and a gathering for a judicial function, such as in Nehemiah 5:7 and 5:13, where Nehemiah gathers an assembly to deal with the nobles.283 The reference in Nehemiah 5 may well be the closest of anything in the Hebrew Bible to the working of a Greek assembly, with the emphasis on holding the nobles to account, and a decision agreed upon by the whole assembly,284 although the covenant renewal element of this assembly and therefore its links with assemblies such as those in Deuteronomy should not be underplayed.285

In keeping with the different genre of writings here, ἐκκλησία is used where the setting of worship is more explicit than in Greek usage. For example, in Psalm 25,286 the assembly of the wicked in v. 5287 is contrasted with the regular assemblies in v. 12,288 whilst in Psalm 88:6, God is praised in an assembly of the holy ones in heaven,289 and the Holy Ones in view are most likely heavenly begins, not human.290 This is not a usage noted elsewhere in the Greek literature, however in all these instances, there is still an actual assembly in view.

In those works in the Septuagint which are not part of the Hebrew Bible, the relationship with the use of ἐκκλησία in wider Greek literature, and yet the distinctive character of these assemblies can be seen. Perhaps clearest is Judith,291 where four times the assembly of the people of Bethulia is mentioned.292 Here we have a local assembly after the Greek pattern, and the assembly here questions, laments, and summons.293 However, in two of the four occurrences in Judith, there are explicit requests to God for help, from or associated with the assembly.294 So here we have a Greek assembly of the polis, but one with a particular character because the population are Israelites.

In 1 Maccabees, assembly is used in a number of ways. In 1 Maccabees 2:56, assembly refers to the testimony of Caleb in the assembly of Numbers 13:26, and thus the whole assembly of Israel in the wilderness is in view.295 It is also used for a body of faithful soldiers,296 for a theoretically comprehensive gathering after the restoration of the altar in the temple,297 for a great assembly, whose precise composition is unclear, but which looks in its behavior to follow the general pattern of a Greek polis assembly,298 and for diplomacy at the assembly in Jerusalem.299 With the exception of 1 Maccabees 2:56, these occurrences follow the pattern observed here: local assemblies with particular Jewish characteristics.

The book of Sirach contains several references to the assembly. In many of them, a specific assembly is not in view, but the assembly in general, where wisdom exalts,300 where the acts of the righteous will be recognized,301 or where the adulteress will be punished.302 One use relates closely to the Greek assembly, where Sirach discusses how craftsmen are not sought for the βουλή or the ἐκκλησία303 and Sirach calls upon the people and the leaders of the ἐκκλησία to listen.304 ἐκκλησία is also used for a gathering of a mob.305 Du Toit argues that Ben Sira is important given the marks of interculturality in the document, that Sirach has “the meeting of a Greek δῆμος in mind,” and that a local assembly is in view here.306 However for a number of reasons, I don’t think Du Toit’s conclusion can be established with such certainty. First, in Sirach 50:13 and 20, the assembly in view is the assembly of all Israel at Sinai,307 and in Sirach 46:7, the assembly in the wilderness.308 Although these are past occurrences, at 39:10, Sirach parallels the praise of the scribe by the assembly and by nations, suggesting that an assembly of all Israel may be in view here too. Second, most of the references in Sirach are general in nature, which, allied with the poetic genre of the work, makes it impossible to be certain that Sirach generally has a local assembly in view. He certainly sometimes has an assembly of all Israel in view and may have that assembly in view on other occasions, however theoretical it might be in Sirach’s historical setting.

Looking at the references from Judith, 1 Maccabees, and Sirach as a whole, the influence of the Greek polis is discernible. However, I do not detect a straightforward line of development towards a local assembly. Instead, in all the occurrences mentioned here, we have an actual assembly assembled, which shares many characteristics with the assembly of the polis, but which also has a particular Jewish character.

Turning to Philo, a similar pattern can be observed. There are times when Philo has in mind the Greek polis assembly,309 other occasions when the assembly in view is more general but owes more to Moses and Sinai,310 and one occasion when Philo refers to a divine assembly of the gods, referring back to Plato in the Timaeus.311 Here we see Greek usage with a particular Jewish character, and in the final example, a particular usage driven by the context.

There are then marked similarities between Greek literary usage of ἐκκλησία and the Septuagint, although those similarities vary depending on the genre of the literature and its historical origins. Certainly, the idea of an assembly actually assembled remains prominent. At the same time, usage in the Septuagint and Philo has distinctive characteristics, as outlined previously.

The ἐκκλησία of all Israel

We now turn to examining those occurrences of ἐκκλησία, which are said to have particular significance, the gathering of the whole congregation of Israel, a comprehensive assembly. There are several occasions when a comprehensive assembly gathers. The first such assembly is at Horeb and is discussed in Deuteronomy.312 Knox highlights Deuteronomy 4:10 as a key text in identifying this assembly,313 and here Moses refers back to Horeb, speaking to a people who did not stand there as if they did,314 and calls them to remember what they saw and heard. This highlights both the foundational nature of the assembly at Horeb, but also its inclusiveness, which seems to extend beyond those who were there. Deuteronomy 5:22 is similar, and further establishes the essential characteristic of this assembly: the people are (vicariously) addressed by God.315 Also in Deuteronomy, there are a number of occasions when those who are excluded from the assembly are noted.316 As Du Toit notes, the existence of entry conditions suggests a closed group, and therefore an ongoing entity, not restricted to the time of meeting, an idea which is seen more clearly still in Nehemiah 13:1–3, where those of foreign descent are not just excluded from assembling, but are excommunicated from the people.317 Finally, Deuteronomy 31:30 recognizes that there is an assembly on the edge of the promised land who hear about Horeb, and who are to put the commands from Horeb into practice.

Deuteronomy then establishes a pattern for the assembly of all Israel as the place where God’s word is heard, and as a gathering. However, the crossgenerational nature of the assembly in Deuteronomy 4, and the exclusions in Deuteronomy 23, suggest that, whilst Deuteronomy deals with an actual assembly, that assembly represents an ongoing reality. The assembly has some kind of existence when not assembled.

Later assemblies follow a similar pattern to those in Deuteronomy.318 The comprehensiveness of the assembly at Mizpah is emphasized by the penalties enacted on those who fail to turn up.319 In Ezra 10,320 the call to the assembly includes the explicit injunction that those who fail to attend will be expelled. This injunction only makes sense if those involved are considered to be part of the assembly even in their absence, suggesting a persistent reality. Nehemiah 8 emphasizes that all the exiles have assembled,321 and how this assembly includes women and children.322

The Psalms present a challenge for interpretation here, as the generalized nature of many of the references to ἐκκλησία make precise identification of the assembly in view difficult, but it is possible that some of the references in the Psalms to the great assembly,323 or blessed assembly,324 or to an assembly of the people,325 are comprehensive, 326 as also in Joel’s call for all to come to a sacred assembly at Zion.327

The comprehensive assembly, patterned after the example of Sinai, is a recurring theme in the usage of ἐκκλησία in the OT. However, some of these references are not wholly comprehensive, for ἐκκλησία is also used for a representative assembly. Significant here are the references to the assembly that gathers for the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8. In 1 Kings 8:1–2, the composition of the assembly is described: it is made up of the elders, heads, and chiefs (v. 1), and all the men of Israel (v. 2).328 However, this group is then referred to as the whole assembly of Israel in 1 Kings 8:14, 22, and 55, and the size of this assembly of all Israel is emphasized in 1 Kings 8:65.329 Other examples of this usage are the assembly David calls to establish Solomon’s succession,330 the assembly at Gibeon,331 and the assembly described in 1 Chronicles 13:2 and 4, where an assembly which does not include all Israel is described as the whole assembly of Israel,332 suggesting that here again there is a representative role: some can be considered in lieu of the whole.333

A similar pattern can be seen in other assemblies in 2 Chronicles. Their comprehensive nature is emphasized, but that comprehensive nature does not mean all Israel was present. So, in 2 Chronicles 20:5,334 Jehoshaphat’s assembly is of Judah and Jerusalem, although the chronicler notes that people came from every town of Judah,335 suggesting that not everybody came. A similar dynamic is at work in 2 Chronicles 23:3, where the whole assembly makes a covenant, but it is clear that those present are representatives of the people.336 Even the assembly which Hezekiah calls in 2 Chronicles 30337 is not completely comprehensive, because some refuse to come.338 These are comprehensive assemblies in that they represent the will of the people, even when not everybody is present. They are assembled, but they also represent people who are not there.

One feature of a number of these assemblies is a reference back to the gathering at Horeb.339 This is explicit in 1 Kings 8, where the temple as the successor to the tabernacle and new home for the ark of the covenant is noted. It is also a feature of 2 Chronicles 29–30, where the invitation to the whole of Israel is noted,340 as is the fact that nothing like this had happened since the days of Solomon,341 and what is being celebrated is the Passover.342 The assemblies in later Israelite history may have become representative, as the tribes no longer traveled together; however, the aspiration remained for a united people gathered together. This desire can perhaps also be seen in the use of ἐκκλησία to describe the traveling company of returning exiles—one of the things being celebrated here is the exiles returning together as a company.343

Philo quotes the exclusion from the assembly of Deuteronomy 23 regularly,344 underlining the foundational character of this assembly for Jewish self-identity, even after the return from exile.

I agree with O’Brien and others that the Sinai assembly is significant for understanding ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint. However, part of that significance lies in two features of the comprehensive assembly which need to be noted. First, the assembly has some form of existence, even when it is not assembled. Second, people can be considered part of the assembly, even when they are not there, whether that is because they should have been there, or because others are representing them.

Other Terminology for the Assembly

Turning now to examine the relationship between עֵדָה and קָהָל’ and ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, two issues are relevant to this study.

The first is the relationship between ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή. ἐκκλησία is used to translate קָהָל, which is generally translated “convocation” or “assembly.”345 However, קָהָל is not only translated ἐκκλησία, but also συναγωγή.346 In particular in Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers, קָהָל is translated by συναγωγή twenty-one times, and in Ezekiel and Jeremiah nineteen out of twenty times.347 This suggests a terminological overlap between ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, and this has raised the question as to why Paul and other New Testament authors chose to use ἐκκλησία, when other terms, such as συναγωγή, were available. Schmidt348 argues that ἐκκλησία was a wider and more significant term than συναγωγή, while Giles349 argues that there is significant overlap between the two terms. It could also be argued that ἐκκλησία helps to draw a distinction between Jewish and Christian gatherings,350 or that the comparative neutrality of the term allowed the early Christians considerable scope to define what it meant for them. At this remove and without any explicit New Testament guidance, it is difficult if not impossible to answer this question with any certainty, and certainly any necessarily tentative conclusions regarding why ἐκκλησία was chosen should not direct how the term should be understood in its New Testament and, specifically here, Pauline context. It may well be as simple as the fact that συναγωγή was a word already in use by others.

Second, עֵדָה is also used to refer to the assembly or congregation, and is usually translated in the LXX συναγωγή, and never ἐκκλησία.351 A distinction in meaning is sometimes made between עֵדָה and קָהָל. So Ward argues that עֵדָה is used of the society itself, the people of God, whereas עֵדָה denotes the actual assembly,352 and Campbell argues that this can be seen in how five-sixths of the occurrences of עֵדָה are found in the books concerned with the journeying of Israel to the promised land: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua.353 Coenen draws a distinction between עֵדָה as the summons to assembly, of the people or the עֵדָה,354 and עֵדָה as the community assembled, and the community as a people.355 He argues that עֵדָה is the word for “community,” and קָהָל the word for the ceremonial expression that results from the covenant.356 Giles argues for the assimilation of the עֵדָה idea of community to the קָהָל idea of assembly. Giles argues that there are places where קָהָל is used instead of עֵדָה such as in Deuteronomy,357 or where קָהָל replaces עֵדָה, such as in 2 Chronicles 23:1–3.358 Therefore, קָהָל can be used in much the same way as עֵדָה, for the community, whether gathered or not.359 Giles argues that the best translation for ἐκκλησία as it is used in the New Testament is “community,” noting the “pedigree” of this translation stretching back to Luther and Tyndale.360

However, I would argue that trying to find a clear distinction between the terms עֵדָה and קָהָל which can then inform the discussion of ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, seeks to read too much into the evidence for two related reasons.

First, קָהָל can be translated by both ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, and therefore there is an interchangeability of terms here, as the translation choice seems to depend on which biblical book is being considered.361 Similarly, עֵדָה and קָהָל’ overlap in meaning, for the assembly described as עֵדָה in Exodus is rendered by קָהָל in Deuteronomy. The interchangeability of terms is confirmed by the references to Numbers 13:26 in 1 Maccabees 2:56 and Sirach 46:7, which both use ἐκκλησία to describe an assembly originally rendered συναγωγή, as a translation of עֵדָה, and Philo refers to the Sinai gathering as ἐκκλησία, in passages where the Septuagint does not use ἐκκλησία.362

Second, the meaning of ἐκκλησία is not inherent to the word, but is determined by the context. My analysis of occurrences from both the Septuagint and Greek literature has shown that ἐκκλησία is an assembly, but what kind of assembly, or whether the assembly is representative, or whether it overlaps in meaning with other terms depends on the context of the usage. This is a similar observation to that made about the afore-mentioned ek-kaleo idea; the significance of being called out in the NT is determined contextually, not etymologically; the precise nuance of ἐκκλησία in any given author should also be determined from their contextual usage, where usage elsewhere is a guide but not determinative.

Conclusion

Three things should to be noted here from the use of ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint and Philo. First, I have argued above that there is considerable overlap between usage in the Septuagint and wider Greek literature, and that in both cases the meaning of the term is driven by the context. Therefore, the distinctions that are drawn between ‘Greek’ and ‘Jewish’ usage should not be drawn too sharply.363 The Septuagint represents a contextual nuancing of a term capable of a range of meanings in Greek literature.364

Second, several interesting contextual interpretations emerge from the Septuagint. There is the generalized idea of the assembly found in the Psalms and Sirach, where the precise composition is elusive. There is the representative assembly idea, which emerges particularly in the later historical books. Finally, the exclusions of Deuteronomy 23 and other strictures on attendance suggest that people are members of the assembly even when the assembly is not assembled. There are also some unique uses, such as for an assembly of heavenly beings or an assembly of gods, which indicate the flexibility in the possible application of ἐκκλησία.

Third, in my discussion of עֵדָה and קָהָל’ and ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, I have emphasized the importance of the context, not a set of ideas considered inherent to the term, in determining meaning.

Ἐκκλησία in Greek Literature and the Septuagint

From this study on Greek literature, I noted the overwhelmingly political dimension of ἐκκλησία, and the primary usage as a local body which assembles to make decisions. I also noted some flexibility of usage depending on author, and some unusual uses. I concluded that Paul, writing in a different genre and with different concerns, could make use of the flexibility of the term in an analogous way to Polybius, Diodorus, and especially Dionysius, as they extend the Greek polis to include Roman assemblies of various kinds.

From my examination of the Septuagint, I noted the significant commonality between Septuagint and Greek literary usage, genre-related differences, and the importance of the assembly of all Israel. I further noted the idea of a representative assembly, and some indications that the assembly existed even when not assembled. I have emphasized the importance of context in determining meaning.

There are three implications for understanding ecclesial solidarity in Paul from my examination of Greek literature and the Septuagint, about what might be expected from the Pauline corpus.

First, it is to be expected that ἐκκλησία will be used for a local church in a given city or other similar geographical area. If Greek usage is followed, then the plural might be used to refer to a series of consecutive assemblies or churches; it would be unusual for it to be used for different assemblies in the same location. Septuagint usage might suggest that sometimes representative assemblies are in view, and that there would be an ongoing concern for the comprehensive assembly.

Second, a certain level of flexibility might be expected from the Pauline corpus, as a political term is applied to a group which functions in a different way. Whilst the Septuagint usage might be instructive here, the comprehensive assembly seen above was an assembly of Israel, and when other assemblies are in view, such as at Bethulia, they are often political in nature and owe much to Greek literature. There needs to be a recognition that the context into which Paul writes, to groups in various geographical locations around the Mediterranean which nevertheless have some form of commonality, would impact his use of ἐκκλησία in ways similar to, but not necessarily restricted to, Septuagint usage, or that of Dionysius and Diodorus, as compared to Thucydides.

Third, these two observations underline the importance of context in understanding Pauline usage. Therefore, in examining occurrences of ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus, I will seek meaning first from the context of the letter and Paul’s use elsewhere, neither ignoring nor prioritizing usage in Greek literature and the Septuagint.

In coming to Paul, we come with a term used for an assembly assembled, but which is also capable of related but different usage.

Contextualizing ἐκκλησία in the First-century World

In the final section of this chapter, I will seek to summarize some of the findings of recent studies of the first-century world as they relate to how ἐκκλησία should be understood, to ensure that the exegetical examination of the Pauline context takes account of relevant historical and social information.

For the purposes of this study, there are two key questions to be answered. First a question of location: where did early Christians meet? Second, the question of size: how large were these gatherings?

It is generally assumed that ἐκκλησίαι in the mid-first century met in houses, or domestic spaces. Edward Adams has challenged this consensus, arguing that early Christian meetings were not almost exclusively in houses365 by casting doubt on the certainty with which the NT evidence is normally approached,366 before providing evidence for the possible usage of other places such as shops, workshops, warehouse cells, barns,367 hotels and inns, rented dining rooms and bathhouses,368and gardens, watersides, urban open space, and tomb sides.369 He wants a wider perspective “which acknowledges the importance of houses as Christian meeting places during this period, but insists that Christian groups could plausibly have met in a variety of other available places too.”370 As I noted in chapter 1, this is a necessary observation and corrective. However, most of the settings outlined by Adams would still present the same challenges of size and possible patronage; the church would be meeting in a shop or a warehouse with an owner, and someone would need to be responsible for renting the dining room or bathhouse. Even in the Mediterranean climate, none of the outdoor settings suggested by Adams would be suitable as a permanent meeting place. Granted that the meeting places for the early church were not almost exclusively houses, the fact remains that a room where size restrictions and ownership were potentially relevant remain the overwhelmingly picture.

Gehring has traced the importance of houses for Christians from the ministry of Jesus based in Peter’s house in Capernaum,371 through the “upper room church” of early Christianity in Acts 1–5,372 to the extensive evidence for ἐκκλησίαι meeting in houses in the Pauline mission,373 noting the likely size and shape of a number of the houses that may have been used by early Christians for gathering and worship.374 Other studies show that to talk of a “house” as the location for the ἐκκλησία means recognizing the variety of houses in the first-century world. Jewett argues that the appropriate setting for at least some of the ἐκκλησίαι that met in houses in Rome is the blocks of insulae: small rented apartments where the poor lived a precarious existence.375 In his study of houses in Pompeii, Oakes demonstrates a variety of different housing types within one block,376 and then indicates how a “craftworker” house in Pompeii may indicate the kind of houses that people would have met in in Rome.377 Horrell examines some buildings east of the theatre in Roman Corinth, suggesting that they might, with the judicious use of a “disciplined imagination” provide a context for understanding the kind of dwellings that Christians could have met in in first-century Corinth.378 As noted, Adams adds further spaces. The precise location of the ἐκκλησίαι to which Paul wrote is almost certainly beyond us; however, these studies indicate both that Christians generally met in domestic spaces in the Greco-Roman world, defining domestic as a privately-owned space which was not just used for church meetings.379

The variety of domestic spaces leads naturally into the second question: that of size. How big were Christian ἐκκλησίαι in the first century? A variety of answers have been given to this question, but the element they share is that the size of the ἐκκλησία was sometimes limited by the size of the space in which it met. Oakes estimates that his “craftworker church” from Pompeii could accommodate around forty individuals,380 and that the same ἐκκλησία in Romans, where property was generally smaller, would have accommodated around thirty.381 It is likely that in many situations, this size of meeting space may well have accommodated everybody, and was not therefore a limitation. De Vos estimates the Christian community in Thessalonica at around twenty-five members, who would have met in an insula,382 and thirty members in Philippi who met in an insula.383 However, it appears that in some situations, the size of meeting space limited or adversely affected the ἐκκλησία. Thus, Murphy-O’Connor argues, based on his analysis of the space in a villa at Anaploga that some of the problems in the ἐκκλησία in Corinth stemmed from the fact that there was not a building available that could hold the forty to fifty (or more) people that made up the ἐκκλησία there.384 Other authors have noted that there appear to have been a variety of “house churches” in Rome, and that this appears to have contributed to some of the issues Paul addresses in his letter.385 On the other hand, Gehring argues that there would have been wealthy Christians able to rent an upper room in Jerusalem able to contain the whole ἐκκλησία, around 120 individuals,386 whilst De Vos argues that the whole ἐκκλησία of around one hundred met in Corinth perhaps once per month in a “club room” provided by Gaius.387

For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to decide between these alternatives; rather, to recognize the issue that this discussion of size raises, the distribution of the early ἐκκλησίαι within particular geographical locations. We also see here a clarification as to what is meant by a domestic church: a domestic church is likely to be a gathering where size is ultimately restricted by space, and where a size of forty to fifty was probably much more common than spaces that could accommodate a hundred or more.

Although provisional and somewhat speculative, this understanding of local and/or domestic ἐκκλησία will help inform the investigation of ἐκκλησία in later chapters.

140. That the universal church exists is a theological commonplace. See for example Calvin, Institutes of the Christian, 1012–13.

141. See also here Hoehner, Ephesians, 287, who states that the word is always used for an assembly in secular Greek, citing Aristotle, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Polybius. Winter, “The Problem,” 205–7, argues that the word is transliterated into Latin and used in the semantic field of politeia.

142. O’Brien, “The Church,” 89. See also Knox, Selected Works Volume II, 19; Campbell, “The Origin and Meaning,” 132; Ward, “Ekklesia,” 165.

143. O’Brien, “The Church,” 89; Knox, Selected Works Volume II, 20–1; Robinson, Selected Works Volume 1, 231.

144. O’Brien, “Church,” 90. See also Robinson, Selected Works, 222, 231; Banks, Paul’s Idea, 27–28, (supported by four references to Thucydides and two to Philo).

145. See for example Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 560; Becker, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 427.

146. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 513, citing Acts 19:32 and 19:39f.

147. Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” 411. See also Coenen, “Church,” 291

148. Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” 411.

149. Trebilco, Self-designations, 165–66; also Ward, “Ekklesia,” 165; Campbell, “Origin and Meaning,” 132. See also Clarke, Serve the Community, 15–16 for general distinctions between ἐκκλησία and βουλή.

150. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 513. See also Knox, Selected Works, 10, who makes the calling of God a link between the church in the New and Old Testaments.

151. Coenen, “Church,” 291.

152. Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” 411.

153. Campbell, “Origin and Meaning,” 131. See also Ward, “Ekklesia,” 165.

154. Johnston, Doctrine, 35–36.

155. I have used Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) as the basis for this survey. TLG lists 1,074 occurrences of ἐκκλησία before the first century AD. By excluding spurious and fragmentary works, and treating the Septuagint and Philo separately in this discussion, I am left with a sample of approximately eight hundred occurrences in Greek literature across more than a dozen authors ranging from the fifth to the first century BC. I take this to be a sufficient sample for this investigation.

156. For a recent brief discussion of this, see Rusten, “Thucydides and His Readers,” 3–4.

157. See Denniston, “Thucydides,” 1516–17 for likely dating.

158. See for example Dover, “Thucydides,” 44–59, for recognition of the literary character of the work, and Dihle, History of Greek Literature, 164–69, for Thucydides as historian.

159. See Thucydides, History 2.13; 3.41; 4.29; 4.118; 5.46; 5.77; 6.72; 8.69; for examples of assemblies being called and passing resolutions. “Political” here is taken to be that which concerns the city, the polis, or wider political entity.

160. See also Thucydides, History 1.44 where a second assembly is called to decide on what they had heard at assembly of 1.31, or 6.88 where the assembly is a place of appeal for envoys from other places, similarly 6.8.2.

161. Thucydides, History 1.87, where an assembly of the Lacedaemonians decides that a treaty had been broken.

162. Thucydides, History 3.36, where an assembly of the Athenians is convened because of popular unease about actions against the Mytilenaeans.

163. Thucydides, History 6.36, an assembly at which Hermocrates speaks about attacks from Athens. See also 6.51, an assembly of the Catanaens votes to side with Athens (with an army at the gates).

164. Thucydides, History 8.86, an assembly where envoys of the four hundred spoke on purpose of the revolution.

165. Thucydides, History 2.60.

166. Thucydides, History 6.8–9.

167. See Campbell, “Origin and Meaning,” 132n3; Ward, “Ekklesia,” 135n7; Trebilco, Self-designations, 166n11. Both Campbell and Ward refer to 3.46 here, but the reference they cite is found in 3.41.

168. Thucydides, History, 8.81 (three times), an assembly where the majority of soldiers are won to a certain course of action, and where Alcibiades spoke. See also 8.67, 76.

169. Thucydides, History 6.6.

170. It is here in 5.45 and 46 that the distinction between the βουλή and ἐκκλησία can be clearly seen, as the βουλή in 5.45 call the δῆμος into assembly. Thucydides writes that, due to the machinations of Alcibiades, the Lacedaemonians expressed different views in council and in assembly.

171. Thucydides, History 8.94.

172. Thucydides, History 8.97.

173. Thucydides, History 1.87.

174. Thucydides, History 2.22, because of Pericles’s fear of the decision that the assembly would make.

175. Thucydides, History 6.51.

176. See Harsh, Handbook of Classical Drama, 264–66, for brief comments on Aristophanes’s style. Harsh dates his productive period between 427 and 388 BC.

177. Aristophanes, Ach. 19, where it is the day of assembly, but the Pnyx is deserted; Ach. 28, where the protagonist is first into the assembly whilst other lag; Eq., 936, where the assembly waits.

178. Aristophanes, Ach. 56; Eq., 305, where the chorus sings of the pollution of the assembly.

179. Aristophanes, Ach. 169, where the assembly about the Thracians pay; see also Plut. 725, where the assembly as place of Athenian business, and Plut. 950, where the assembly contrasted with council.

180. Aristophanes, Eq. 746, where Demos is exhorted to convene an assembly.

181. Aristophanes, Ach. 173.

182. See for example Aristophanes, Vesp. 32, where the verb is used of assembling of sheep, in the Pnyx, to be addressed by a pig.

183. See Aristophanes, Thesm. 277, an assembly of women at the festival (to try Euripides); also 301–4, 376. In Eccl., the women are planning to sneak into the assembly to ensure proper decisions are made; see, for example, 89. The same assembly is in view in 20, 270, 289, 352, 376, 490, 501, 548 (with comments about payment), and 740.

184. Aristophanes, Eccl. 549–50.

185. See Tuplin, “Xenophon,” 1628–29, for Xenophon’s life between c. 430 and c. 362 BC.

186. Xenophon, Hell. 1.7 the assembly is the place for deciding disputes; in 1.4 and 6.5, it is the place for decision making; 1.7, assembly called (also 2.2 and 6.5); 1.7 and 5.2, testimony before assembly; 1.7, assembly being persuaded; 2.4, assembly dismissed.

187. Xenophon, Hell. 6.4, Lacedaemonian assembly; 1.6 Milesian assembly.

188. Xenophon, Hell. 1.1 (twice), assembly of troops. Xenophon, Anab. 1.3, 4; 5.6.

189. Xenophon, Mem. 4.4; Apol. 20.6.

190. In Xenophon, Hell. 1.7, the assembly is the place for sorting disputes, but decision-making is delayed because of the lateness of hour, and a new proposal from the Senate is considered for the following day. Also, in 1.7, decisions of a former assembly are referenced (similarly in 2.1 and 2.2), and supporters are being sneaked into the assembly. 2.2 also sees the assembly in action, and in 3.2, Xenophon describes the assembly as angry; in 6.5.36.6, there is uproar in the assembly. In 3.3, Xenophon notes when the “little assembly” was not called. See also Xenophon, Mem. 3.7, where the assembly is made up of tradesmen.

191. Xenophon, Hell. 1.4, βουλή, and ἐκκλησία

192. Annas, “Plato,” 1190–91, notes that the precise order and dating of Plato’s writings is difficult; however, they can be dated to the first half of the fourth century BC, as Plato lived c. 429–347 BC.

193. TLG lists seventeen, of which at least three are probably spurious, for which see also Annas, “Plato,” 1190. In addition to those mentioned here, see Plato, Gorg. 456b, 481e; Plato, Prot. 319b; Plato, Leg. 764a, 850b; Plato, Apol. 25a.

194. So Plato, Apol. 25a; Plato, Gorg. 452e. See Liddell et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 509, for two occurrences in Aristotle: Pol. 1275a and Rhet. 1354b.

195. Plato, Euthyd. 290a; Plato, Resp. 492b.

196. The ten Attic Orators are Aeschines, Andocides, Antiphon, Demosthenes, Dinarchus, Hypereides, Isaeus, Isocrates, Lycurgus, and Lysias, and cover a period of approximately 120 years, the “Golden Age” of Greek rhetoric. See Carey, “Attic Orators,” 212.

197. Although note Demosthenes, Cor. 213, assembly of Thebans; Aeschines, Tim. 180, assembly of Lacedaemonians.

198. See, for example, Demosthenes, Cor. 143; Demosthenes, Fals leg. 53; Demosthenes, Mid. 13, 197; Demosthenes, Timocr.11; Demosthenes, Exord. 6.1; 14.1; 34.1, 2; 47.3. See also Isocrates, De pace 25, 66, 68; and Isocrates, Big. 7; Andocides, On the Mysteries, 11, 82; Aeschines, Tim. 81, 180; Aeschines, Fals. leg., 82–83, 85; Dinarchus, Demosth. 95.

199. Demosthenes, Timocr. 23; 1 Aristog. 50.4.

200. Demosthenes, Timocr. 97 records the need for tax for the expenses of assembly, of religious services, and of the βουλή.

201. In Demosthenes, Aristocr. 31, the assembly is the place of arrest, whilst in Demosthenes, 3 Philip. 1, the assembly is the place for denouncing wrongs of Philip. See also Demosthenes, Cor. 132; Demosthenes, Mid. 163, 193–94, 197. Finally, see Aeschines, Tim. 60, where deeds are exposed before the whole town in the assembly.

202. Demosthenes, Cor. 37 (see Demosthenes, Demosthenes). Emphasis added. The same distinction can be seen in Demosthenes, Cor. 73, 169 (where the council goes to the council houses, and the assembly to the place of assembly). See also Demosthenes, Timocr. 11; Aeschines, Ctes. 125.

203. Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 154.

204. See for example Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 19, 34–35, 58, 185; Demosthenes, Mid. 8–9; Demosthenes, Cor. 122–23; Demosthenes, Aristocr. 97; Demosthenes, Timocr. 21–22, 25–26, 80; Demosthenes, Chers. 32–34; Demosthenes, 3 Philip. 4, 6; Aeschines, Tim. 22, 26, 33, 35; Aeschines, Fals. leg. 60, 68; Aeschines, Ctes. 149; Dinarchus, Aristog. 16.

205. Aeschines, Ctes. 126.

206. Aeschines, Ctes. 67.

207. Demosthenes, Cor. 7, 29, 55, 73, 75; Demosthenes, Halon. 19; Demosthenes, Mid. 10; Demosthenes, 1 Aristog. 20; Aeschines, Ctes. 24, 27.

208. Aeschines, Ctes. 32, 34–36, 43–44, 47–48, 204.

209. Demosthenes, Mid. 154.

210. Demosthenes, 1 Aristoge. 9.

211. Demosthenes, Mid. 162.5. Lysias, Against Erarosthenes 71, 73, 75, 77; Lysias, Against Agoratus 17; Aeschines, Tim. 86.

212. Isocrates, De pace 52, see also 59. Quoted from Isocrates, Isocrates II, 147.

213. “Political” should not be read as “secular” and therefore taken to exclude religious in the ancient world. See for example Aeschines, Fals. leg. 158, where the assembly needs to be purified; Dinarchus, Demosth. 47, where Demosthenes is cursed at the assembly; Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 70, for an imprecation read at the assembly. See also Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 514n28 for other references.

214. Sometimes this is translated distributively, as in “every assembly,” or with the singular. See Demosthenes, Cor. 191, 207, 234, 273; Demosthenes, Mid. 153; Demosthenes, Lept. 94; Demosthenes, Andr. 68; Demosthenes, 1 Aristog. 13, 41–42, 47, 64; Isocrates, Panath. 13; Aeschines, Tim. 121, 178, 180; Aeschines, Fals. leg. 145; Aeschines, Ctes. 69, 146, 175; Dinarchus, Demosth. 99.

215. Nussbaum, “Aristotle,” 165, dates him to 384–322 BC, with his writing period beginning after 367 BC.

216. Aristotle, Ath. pol. 4.3; 7.3; 41.3 (twice); 42.4; 43.4; 44.4; 62.2.

217. Aristotle, Ath. pol. 15.4; 34.1.

218. Aristotle, Pol. 1266a.

219. Aristotle, Pol. 1275a (twice), 1275b.

220. Aristotle, Pol. 1292b (twice), 1293a, 1294b, 1297a (eight times), 1298b, 1300a, 1318b, 1319a, 1320a.

221. Aristotle, Pol. 1317b (three times).

222. For places, see Aristotle, Pol. 1272a, Crete; 1275b, 1285a, Sparta. For practices see Aristotle, Rhet. 1354b and 1358b for the role of the assembly in judging cases, and 1418b for the Messinian assembly as a place of rhetoric.

223. Aristotle, Pol. 1282a (in Aristotle, Aristotle).

224. Aristotle, Pol. 1282a (in Aristotle, Aristotle).

225. Theophrastus (c. 371–c. 287 BC) is included as a successor of Aristotle. See Sharples, “Theophrastus,” 1504–5.

226. Theophrastus, Char. 4.2; 26.5; 29.4a.

227. Derow, “Polybius,” 1209–11, dates him between c. 200 and c. 118 BC. The move from Theophrastus to Polybius here is significant, representing the move from classical to Hellenistic Literature and the increasing significance of Rome as subject matter for Greek authors. See Dihle, History of Greek Literature, 290–92.

228. Polybius, Histories 1.45.2; 1.69.9; 3.34.9; 3.45.1, 5; 4.72.7; 6.39.2; 11.31.1; 11.32.1. See also 11.27.6 and 11.27.7 for an assembly of mutineers summoned and surrounded.

229. Polybius, Histories 2.4.1, Medionians; 16.31.1, 4, Abydus; 22.5.10; 29.11.2, 4, Rhodes; 5.74.4; 5.75.10; 5.76.3, Selge; 16.26.1, Athens; 27.1.12, Thebes; 28.5.1.2, Arcania.

230. Polybius, Histories 4.15.8; 4.7.2; 5.1.7, 9; 21.3b.2; 22.12.5, 7; 22.10.10, 12; 23.5.17; 28.3.7; 28.4.1, 2; 38.11.7.

231. Polybius, Histories 3.85.8; 4.34.7; 6.12.4; 23.14.4.

232. Sacks, “Diodorus Siculus,” 472–73. For brief remarks on purpose and style, see Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 291–92.

233. Diodorus of Sicily, History 9.20.1; 11.42.1, 6; 12.33.2; 12.39.2, 5; 13.5.1; 13.69.1; 13.73.6; 13.101.6; 14.3.5; 17.15.1, 2; 18.64.3; 18.65.6, Athens; 11.72.2; 11.92.2; 13.19.4; 13.28.3; 13.87.4, 5; 13.88.1; 13.91.3, 4; 13.92.4; 13.94.4, 5; 13.95.2, 6; 13.96.3; 14.45.2; 14.46.1; 14.64.5; 14.70.3; 15.74.5; 16.10.3, 4; 16.20.6; 19.9.1, 5; 20.4.6; 20.7.2; 26.15.2, Syracuse; 12.9.4, Croton; 12.17.2, 5; 12.19.1; 13.4.4, Catania; 12.55.10, Mytilenaeans; 13.83.4, Centoripa; 14.38.4, Heracleia; 15.75.1, Scotussa; 15.7.9; 15.78.4, Thebes; 16.27.2, Delphi; 16.25.1, Boetians; 13.94.5, Geloan; 26.10.1, Capua; 31.5.3, Rome; 31.42.1, Arevaci; 33.5.4, Aradus. This expansion is in keeping with his desire to look at world history from a Roman perspective.

234. Diodorus of Sicily, History 11.26.5 (twice); 11.35.2; 14.21.6; 15.54.1, 4; 16.4.3; 16.18.2, 3; 16.79.2; 17.94.5; 18.30.2; 18.39.2.6; 19.25.7.4; 20.42.3; 30.20.1. See also 17.74.3; 17.109.2 for the Macedonians on campaign with Alexander; 19.61.1.4; 19.81.2.2, assembly under arms.

235. Diodorus of Sicily, History 28.13.1; this assembly is of the leading men of all Greece. As such, it is of a different nature than the normal Greek pattern, as those present represent others, rather than all eligible men being present.

236. Diodorus of Sicily, History 4.53.1 by Jason; 30.16.1 by Ptolemy; 31.11.1 by Aemilius.

237. Diodorus of Sicily, History 18.74.1.

238. Diodorus of Sicily, History 20.24.4; here the king is Eumelus.

239. Diodorus of Sicily, History 34/35.2.15, a rebellious assembly where the citizens of Enna are put to death; 36.4.4, slaves and rebels hold and assembly.

240. Diodorus of Sicily, History 1.58.4.

241. Diodorus of Sicily, History 13.63.6; 16.3.1; 17.108.3; 20.63.2; 21.9.1. Perhaps clearest here is 36.16.1, which records a series of assemblies over two years.

242. Diodorus of Sicily, History 30.1.1.

243. Diodorus of Sicily, History 11.50.3.1, Sparta (a general assembly distinct from the council of 11.50.2); 16.32.2, 16.68.5, Delphi; 16.78.2.3, Rhegium; 19.5.1, Susiane; 19.51.1, Macedonian; 19.67.4, Acarnaians.

244. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.3.4. For a brief survey of Dionysius’s Atticism and Greek presentation of Roman history, see Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 292–94.

245. Note that at over two hundred occurrences, his Roman Antiquities contains the greatest number of uses of ἐκκλησία of the literature cited.

246. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.6.1, called by Romulus; 2.56.5, dispersed by Romulus; 10.3.3, 6, called and dismissed by Tribunes; 10.13.7; 10.15.3; 10.16.1, called by Verginius against the Senate and consuls. See also 6.43.2; 7.7.5; 7.38.1; 7.57.4; 8.72.4; 10.18.2; 10.19.4; 10.25.3; 10.40.3; 11.61.1.

247. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.48.2, where the assembly is the place to call for trial; 4.17.3; 4.48.3, assembly against Tarquinas; 7.26.1, place for Marcius’s defence; 7.36.4, place that will decide punishment of Marcius Coriolanus. See also 5.11.2; 6.82.3; 6.88.1; 7.14.2; 8.75.1; 9.37.2; 9.54.5, 6; 10.5.2; 10.15.7; 10.47.3; 10.55.1; 10.56.1, 11.5.4; 11.46.3; 11.53.3; 11.54.5.

248. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.11.1, 2.

249. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.77.1, 2, the quaestor has the right to assemble the people; 6.67.2; 7.17.2, the sanctuary of Vulcan as place where assembly met; 8.6.2, Marcius complains over the failure of due process in the summoning of the tribal rather than the centuriate assembly; 11.10.4, poorest not summoned to assemblies under Decemvirate.

250. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.23.3, unruly assembly; 9.25.3, tribunes incite people against Patricians; 9.48.1, fight breaks out in the assembly after Appuis refuses to leave.

251. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.71.5; 4.76.4; 7.14.5, in relation to Brutus and Valerius; 4.71.2, 6; 4.75.1–2, 4; 4.78.1; 4.84.5; 4.85.1, assembly in Rome summoned against the power of Tarquin. See also 4.8.3; 4.9.6; 4.10.1–2, 6; 4.20.3; 4.23.1; 4.34.1; 4.35.3; 4.37.2; 5.1.2; 5.4.1; 5.10.1; 5.17.2.

252. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.47.4, Achaeans; 3.2.4; 3.22.2; 3.30.2, 5; 3.31.1, Albans; 4.56.4; 4.57.2; 4.58.3, Gabini; 5.3.2, Tarquinii; 3.36.2; 4.57.1; 5.57.2–4; 4.58.4, Romans; 8.4.2, 3, Volscians; 5.52.5, Latins; 5.60.1.2, Fidenae; 5.34.2.2; 5.34.4.2 Tyrrhenians.

253. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.87.1; 10.43.3, where a decree of the Senate is read in assembly; 7.15.4; 7.16.1, 4; 7.7.1; 7.17.2, 6; 7.27.1; 7.27.3; 10.31.1, where the role of the Senate, assembly, consuls and tribunes is discussed; 8.43.7; 9.48.3, decree to Senate first and then to assembly; 10.33.4, 6; 10.34.2; 10.35.4, the role of the assembly in power struggles between consuls and tribunes. See 6.16.1; 6.30.2; 6.40.1; 6.43.3; 6.69.4; 6.70.2; 6.81.2; 6.83.2; 6.89.2; 6.96.2, for times when the Roman assembly of people (not the Senate) make decisions.

254. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.13.1; 3.27.3; 4.85.3; 6.6.1; 6.94.1; 7.6.4, 5; 8.54.5; 9.8.4; 9.10.5; 9.13.3; 9.50.6.

255. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.8.4.6, calling of the Plebians in Rome with the horn to assemblies in general.

256. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.82.6; 8.90.5; 10.32.4; 10.50.1; 10.56.2; 10.57.6; 11.45.1.

257. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.59.1; 7.59.2.1; 11.45.2.7. Section 7.59 contains a discussion of the workings of the centuriate and tribal assemblies and notes the novelty of what happens in the trial of Marcius Coriolanus. Similar discussions of the relationship can be found in 9.41.2, 4; 9.46.4; 9.49.3 highlights tribal assemblies as the place where tribunes and aediles chosen. See 2.7 for an explanation of the relationship between tribes and curiae as instituted by Romulus.

258. See for example Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.57.3; 2.58.3; 2.60.3.1.

259. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.11.4; 7.15.4; 7.58.4; 8.70.1; 9.1.3; 9.54.1; 10.28.1; 11.50.1.

260. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.1.2, here of the Tyrrhenians.

261. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.6.4; 9.13.3.

262. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.39.1–3.

263. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.39.1–3; 10.26.5; 10.54.6; 12.1.11.

264. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.23.6; 8.14.4; 8.58.3; 8.71.4, 5; 8.72.1; 8.73.1; 9.17.5.8.

265. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.43.4.

266. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.45.1, 3; 11.53.1 for centuriate assemblies; 11.45.1–3 for tribal assemblies.

267. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 40.20.1, the rights granted to the rich in the assembly. See also Dionysius, Isocr. 2; Dionysius, 1 Amm. 11; Dionysius, Thuc. 48–49.

268. I will designate this usage a “polis assembly” or “polis” to distinguish from other uses.

269. For a similar position, see Giles, What on Earth, 230.

270. I have chosen not to examine Josephus, as his writings do not predate the Pauline corpus. For a comment on his use of ἐκκλησία, see Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus,” 134n68.

271. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 514. He notes how ἐκκλησία became a technical term transliterated into Latin, and how the church avoided describing itself as a cultic society, despite the popularity of the term. See also Trebilco, Self-designations, 166–67. See also Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus.”

272. Robinson, Selected Works, 231. See also Knox, Sent by Jesus, 55.

273. O’Brien, “Church,” 90. For the same argument, see O’Brien, Colossians, 57–58. So also, Knox, Selected Works, 24, who argues that the key text is Deuteronomy 4:10. He also links the rock in Matthew 16:18 to Deuteronomy and Numbers 20:10.

274. O’Brien, “Church,” 90, argues that the whole nation is involved in Deuteronomy 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 31:30; Judges 20:2, but that chief representatives are present in 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55.

275. Lev 8:3, 4; Num 20:8, 10; Josh 18:1; Judg 20:1. Note that in all these cases it is a gathering of the συναγωγή. See also Jeremiah 33:9; 43:9; 1 Maccabees 6:19 (assembling the people) and 1 Maccabees 12:35 (assembling the elders).

276. Deut 31:12; 1 Chr 13:5; 15:3; 2 Chr 15:9; 24:6.

277. Deut 31:28; 1 Kgs 8:1; 1 Chr 28:1; 2 Chr 5:2, 3.

278. 2 Sam 20:14, 1 Kgs 12:21, 2 Chr 11:1.

279. Esth 4:16. See Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 527–28.

280. 1 Sam 19:20.

281. 1 Sam 17:47. See O’Brien, “Church,” 89, the gathering of an army in preparation for war.

282. 2 Chr 28:14. See O’Brien, “Church,” 89, who includes this reference with 1 Samuel 17:47, although the assembly here happens after returning from battle.

283. Neh 5:7, 13; see also Mic 2:5. Giles sees Nehemiah 5:13 as a reference to Israel as “a religio-political entity” (Giles, What on Earth, 234). However, an actual assembly is summoned in 5:12. It may then be a representative assembly.

284. Summers, “Nehemiah 5:1–13,” 184–85, notes the town-meeting elements of the passage, and how this is a political gathering because it is concerned with the affairs of the polis, the city or community.

285. On covenant renewal see, for example, Levering, Ezra and Nehemiah, 158.

286. Eng: 26.

287. Ps 25:5 (Eng: 26:5). “The ‘coming together’ of an unruly and potentially dangerous crowd” (O’Brien, “Church,” 89–90). As Gray, I & II Kings, 206–7 notes, also citing Qumran, the use of ἐκκλησία in this way shows that the word does not have specifically religious connotations.

288. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 226, notes the implicit contrast with wicked assembly in v. 5.

289. Ps 88:6 (Eng: 89:7).

290. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 409, 420.

291. Wills, “Book of Judith,” 1075, dates Judith to around 100 BC, which would fit with a widespread understanding of the Greek polis, and its extensive application outside Greece, for which see Diodorus and Dionysius.

292. Jdt 6:16, 21; 7:29; 14:6.

293. Jdt 6:16; 7:29; and 14:6 respectively.

294. Jdt 7:29; 6:21.

295. Note here use of ἐκκλησία for the assembly, and συναγωγἡ, in Numbers 13:26, further indication of overlap of terminology.

296. 1 Macc 3:13.

297. 1 Macc 4:59. See Doran, “First Book of Maccabees,” 72, noting a number of links between this passage and earlier sacred assemblies. For later associations of the festival here, see Bartlett, 1 Maccabees, 74.

298. 1 Macc 5:16. Doran, “First Book of Maccabees,” 77, notes how the Maccabees are constantly portrayed as consulting the people.

299. 1 Macc 14:19.

300. Sir 15:5.

301. Sir 31:11. For similar uses of the assembly in general, see Sir 21:17; 39:10; 44:15. A similar generalized reference can be found in Psalms of Solomon 10:6.

302. Sir 23:34.

303. Sir 38:33, and see the passage in general, Sir 38:24–34. See also Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 451, who underline this by noting that the craftsmen lack qualifications for the assembly.

304. Sir 33:19.

305. Sir 26:5.

306. Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus,” 135–36

307. Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus,” 136, does recognize this cultic occasion. Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 316, notes the Greek panegyric tradition here, but how this is still an assembly of all Israel. This underlines the mixed nature of Sirach, and the need to avoid sharp division between Septuagint and Greek literary usage.

308. The same assembly to which 1 Maccabees 2:56 referred, Numbers 13:26.

309. Philo, Abr. 20; Philo, Ios. 73; Philo, Decal. 39; Philo, Spec. 1.55; 2.44; Philo, Prob. 6, 138.

310. Philo, Deus 111; Somn. 2.187.

311. Philo, Aet. 13.

312. Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16. This assembly, of course, features in Exodus, although it is not translated with ἐκκλησία.

313. Knox, Selected Works, 24.

314. McConville, Deuteronomy, 105–6, notes that only Moses stood before the Lord at Horeb.

315. See McConville, Deuteronomy, 131–32, for the foundational nature of this assembly.

316. Deut 23:2–4, 9.

317. Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus,” 135. See also McConville, Deuteronomy, 131.

318. Josh 9:2 (Eng: 8:35).

319. Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8.

320. Ezra 10:1, 8, 12, 14.

321. Neh 8:2, 17. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 85, notes the emphasis on community here, emphasized seven times in these verses with five different expressions.

322. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 104–5.

323. Ps 21:26 (Eng: 22:25); 39:10 (Eng: 40:10). In context, perhaps also Psalm 21:23 (Eng: 22:22) can be included here, as well as the assembly of the many of Psalm 34:18 (Eng: 35:18). A similar usage can be detected in some of the Sirach references noted earlier.

324. Ps 25:12 (Eng: 26:12); Ps 67:27 (Eng: 68:28). See also Psalm 149:1, the assembly of the saints. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 648, talk of a cultic community here.

325. Ps 106:32 (Eng: 107:32). Note the parallel here with the elders. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 108, argue that the elders here are not an official body.

326. The same can be said of Proverbs 5:14 and Job 30:28, which may have a more localized assembly in view.

327. Joel 2:16.

328. Whether or not all the men of Israel is to be taken as an expansion of v. 1, or whether those listed in v. 1 are counted as all the men of Israel is not essential here, as either way this is not an actual assembly of all Israel. O’Brien notes this representative use, of a “congregation of tribal leaders, or patriarchal chiefs” in 1 Kings 8 (“Church,” 90). See also Gray, I & II Kings, 207 who regards the presence of tribal representatives at the ceremony as possible.

329. See also 2 Chr 6:3, 12, 13; 7:8.

330. 1 Chr 28:2, 8; 29:1, 10, 20. This assembly is not comprehensive (28:1), yet functions in 20:8 as all Israel, the assembly of the Lord.

331. 2 Chr 1:3, 5.

332. This assembly is clearly not comprehensive, as it sends out for the “rest of our brothers.”

333. 2 Chr 10:3 may be an exception to the general pattern of representative assemblies, as there are no indications that the assembly is representative. However, the logistics of gathering all Israel, and the way in which they can be sent away and reconvened in three days (10:5), may indicate that it was functionally representative.

334. See also 2 Chr 20:14.

335. 2 Chr 20:4.

336. 2 Chr 23:2. A similar dynamic is at work in 2 Chr 29:23, 28, 31, 32; 30:2, 4, where a more limited assembly is in view.

337. 2 Chr 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23–25.

338. 2 Chr 30:10–11.

339. Examples of a tendency to refer back to the wilderness wanderings in general can be seen in 1 Maccabees 2:56 and Sirach 46:7, which both refer back to Numbers 13:26.

340. 2 Chr 30:6.

341. 2 Chr 30:26.

342. See also Japhet, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 913–15, who notes that these chapters contain material not in the 2 Kings account, and highlights the frequency of קָהָל in the Hezekiah periscope (928). Both these observations indicate the importance of Horeb, as Hezekiah’s idealized kingship climaxes in a restoration of the assembly.

343. Ezra 2:64; Neh 7:66. Giles, What on Earth, 234, sees here references to Israel as “a religio-political entity,” arguing that the note of assembly is absent. I think it is better to see these two references as a record of the company of the traveling exiles as they returned, a company that was assembled as it traveled.

344. Philo, Leg. 3.8, 81; Philo, Post. 177; Philo, Ebr. 213; Philo, Conf. 144; Philo, Migr. 69; Philo, Somn. 2.184. Implicit references: Philo, Mut. 205; Philo, Virt. 108. Spec. 1.325 builds more general applications to assemblies from Deuteronomy 23.

345. See Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 527 for the four occasions when the translation is from the stem קהל. See Johnston, Doctrine, 36 for a sample summary of usage.

346. According to Giles, What on Earth, 233, קָהָל appears 123 times in the Old Testament; seventy-three times it is translated by ἐκκλησία, and thirty-five by συναγωγή.

347. Coenen, “Church,” 292.

348. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 517, although he also notes on 518 that συναγωγή can be used of the Christian community.

349. Giles, What on Earth, 237–38.

350. Best, Ephesians, 623; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 560.

351. Coenen, “Church,” 292.

352. Ward, “Ekklesia,” 166.

353. Campbell, “Origin and Meaning,” 133.

354. Coenen, “Church,” 292

355. Coenen, “Church,” 294.

356. Coenen, “Church,” 295. He finds similar usage in the Qumran on 296. For a similar distinction see Johnston, Doctrine, 36–37.

357. Giles, What on Earth, 233.

358. Giles, What on Earth, 234.

359. Giles, What on Earth, 235.

360. Giles, What on Earth, 241–43. For a more general critique of this view, see Peterson, “Locus,” 212–13.

361. See Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” 529.

362. Philo, Post. 144; Philo, Her. 251; Philo, Decal. 32, 45.

363. Compare Du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus,” 132–43.

364. Compare Schmidt, who describes ἐκκλησία as “a wholly secular term,” given meaning by the context, by who constitutes the assembly (“ἐκκλησία,” 527).

365. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 9–15

366. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 18–44.

367. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 156.

368. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 179–80.

369. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 196–97.

370. Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 200.

371. Gehring, House Church, 35–42.

372. Gehring, House Church, 63–69.

373. Gehring, House Church, 131–54.

374. Gehring, House Church, 31–35, 65–69.

375. Jewett, Romans, 53–55.

376. Oakes, Reading Romans, 1–45.

377. Oakes, Reading Romans, 69–97. Note that Oakes argues against Jewett’s tenement churches, as does Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 259.

378. Horrell, “Domestic Space,” 367–68.

379. See the survey of various views on size and location in Adams, “First-century Models,” 63–68. See also Linton, “House Church Meetings,” 234–38.

380. Oakes, Reading Romans, 80–84.

381. Oakes, Reading Romans, 89–97.

382. De Vos, Church and Community Conflicts, 154.

383. De Vos, Church and Community Conflicts, 250–61.

384. Murphy-O’Connor, “House-Churches,” 129–34. See also Banks, Paul’s Idea, 35–36, who argues for a church size of around thirty to forty-five people, and Richards, Paul and First-century, 41, who estimates church size at forty to fifty based on “the house of the tragic poet” in Pompeii.

385. Watson, “Two Roman Congregations,” 203–15, argues for separate Jewish and gentile congregations, whilst Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 216–30, identifies seven or eight congregations and divisions. See also Jewett, Romans, 61–62.

386. Gehring, House Church, 66, 68.

387. De Vos, Church and Community Conflicts, 195–205.