1. Introduction: Ἐϰϰλησία as a Self-designation of the Hellenists in Jerusalem?
Recently, Paul Trebilco argued in this journal that the first Christians to use the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία were the Jewish-Christian Hellenists of Jerusalem, first referred to in Acts 6.1.Footnote 1 In his view, the term ἐϰϰλησία was chosen because of its strong background in the LXX, and it was used, rather than the alternative term συναγωγή, because the latter, which occurs more than twice as often in the LXX, was already in use by Jewish communities as a designation for their groups and their buildings. According to Trebilco, by choosing the equivalent term ἐϰϰλησία, the Hellenists ‘could use ἐϰϰλησία to claim theological continuity with the OT people of God, without thereby saying that other Jews were not the OT people of God’.Footnote 2 Trebilco is absolutely right in observing that none of the other (non-Christian) Jews ‘were using ἐϰϰλησία with reference to a contemporary “assembly” in the way they were using συναγωγή, and thus that ἐϰϰλησία was “free”’.Footnote 3
I will argue, however, that the background to the NT use of the term ἐϰϰλησία lies not primarily in the LXX but rather in the continuing importance of the civic assemblies of the Greek cities even in the Roman Empire. I will develop this alternative view from Section 3 onwards, but will first deal with two assumptions which Trebilco makes with regard to the supposed LXX background of ἐϰϰλησία. In the course of Section 2, I will also start to engage critically with another dominant view concerning Paul's understanding of ἐϰϰλησία, the anti-imperialist interpretation by Richard A. Horsley.
To begin with Trebilco's views, the first problematic assumption which he makes is that the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία can be demonstrated to predate its use in both Luke's Acts and in Paul's letters, and actually goes back to the Jewish-Christian Hellenists in Jerusalem (mentioned in Acts 6.1)Footnote 4 and to (the same Hellenists within) ‘the churches of Judea’ persecuted by Paul (referred to in Gal 1.22).Footnote 5 He argues that as they were the first to apply the self-designation of ‘ἐϰϰλησία’ and were steeped in the LXX, the origins of this term must lie in the LXX. In this regard, let me first say that I have no reason to doubt the historicity of the Hellenists as portrayed in Acts, yet unlike Trebilco I believe there is no evidence in Acts that the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία arose with them, nor is this claim made by Luke. In Acts it is claimed that the term ‘Χϱιστιανοί’ was first used in Antioch (11.26) but nothing similar is claimed with regard to the term ‘ἐϰϰλησία’, as if the Ἑλληνισταί in Jerusalem were the first to apply it as a self-designation.
There are several reasons why Trebilco's argument is not compelling, or even that it is unlikely that what he is suggesting was the case:
(1) To begin with, the first occurrence of ἐϰϰλησία in Acts does indeed concern the Christian ἐϰϰλησία in Jerusalem (5.11) before the Ἑλληνισταί are introduced (6.1–7). Yet the fact that, as Trebilco notes, ‘at first, Luke associates ἐϰϰλησία with Jerusalem, and the surrounding region’,Footnote 6 does not at all imply that the term arose in Jerusalem but could simply be due to Luke's geographical and chronological framing of Acts, and could even be his own terminology.
(2) Secondly, the actual term ἐϰϰλησία is not used in the passage on the Ἑλληνισταί in Acts 6.1–7, which is strange if they were the ones who developed this Christian self-designation.
(3) Thirdly, the only thing one could say is that in his defence speech before the Jerusalem council (7.2–53), Stephen, one of the seven Ἑλληνισταί chosen to serve the poor (6.5), does indeed refer to Israel's ‘ἐϰϰλησία in the wilderness’ (7.38). He does so in a description of Moses: ‘He is the one who was in the ἐϰϰλησία in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living oracles to give to us’ (7.38). However, in the grand narrative of Stephen's speech, the reference to the ἐϰϰλησία in the wilderness in the time of Moses is made without suggesting any parallel or identification with the Christian ἐϰϰλησία in the time of Stephen. In Stephen's speech the term occurs only once, and rather more as a designation of place, and it is not used again in this speech, nor in its narrative framework in Acts 7. I do not agree with the way in which Trebilco stretches the typological comparison between Moses and Christ in Acts 7 so as to include their respective assemblies: the assembly of Israel and the Christian assembly.Footnote 7 Hence, nothing urges us to see in Stephen's reference to Israel's ἐϰϰλησία in the wilderness a self-designation first applied by the Ἑλληνισταί to the Christian church, derived from the LXX. Interestingly, as Trebilco himself admits, Luke's use of the term ἐϰϰλησία in Stephen's speech is noteworthy because the LXX phrase referring to the assembly in the wilderness would rather have been συναγωγή.Footnote 8 According to Trebilco this substitution is necessary because Luke wants to avoid the term συναγωγή, which Jews contemporary with him used as a designation for their gatherings, whereas Luke wishes to emphasize the continuity between the Christian assembly and the assembly of Israel. In my view, however, Luke's preference for ἐϰϰλησία here is similar to what Trebilco admits to be the case for Josephus:
This is exactly what seems to be the case in Acts 7.38, and not only here but also in 14.27, where Luke, in his description of how, upon their arrival in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas ‘call the ἐϰϰλησία together’, applies normal technical terminology for calling a civic assembly (see, e.g., Appian Bell. civ. 2.1). Both the assembly of Israel in Acts 7.38 and the Christian assembly of Antioch in Acts 14.27 are described in the terminology of the Greek civic assemblies. This terminology also comes to the fore directly in Acts, in Luke's description of a spontaneously organized civic assembly in the theatre of Ephesus which did not meet the requirements of an ἔννομος ἐϰϰλησία and was hence unlawful (19.29–40).Footnote 10 On this basis there seems to be no evidence in Acts that ἐϰϰλησία was first used as self-designation by the Hellenists of Jerusalem, nor that this terminology derives from the LXX.He [Josephus] regularly uses phrases such as ‘calling the people together in assembly (συγϰαλέσας τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἐϰϰλησίαν)’, which recalls Graeco-Roman usage, and at times he adds ἐϰϰλησία to a text from the LXX. This suggests that in his use of ἐϰϰλησία, Josephus is reflecting the fact that the term is well known in the Graeco-Roman world, and so he is assisting his readers to understand events in Jewish history in terms that are familiar to them.Footnote 9
(4) Finally, it seems methodologically unsound when, in support of his view that the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία arose with the Jerusalem Hellenists, Trebilco suggests that Paul, both in his references to his persecution of ‘the ἐϰϰλησία [of God]’ (Gal 1.13; 1 Cor 15.9; Phil 3.6) and in his mention of ‘the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Judea that are in Christ’ in the period soon after his conversion (Gal 1.18, 22–23), recalls the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία used by the Jerusalem church, or—to be even more precise—by the Hellenists in the Jerusalem church.Footnote 11 However, as Paul uses the term ‘ἐϰϰλησία’ more than forty times in his surviving authentic letters (eight occurrences of which appear in the expression ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’), there is no reason why the three references to his persecution of ‘the assembly [of God]’ together with his reference to the post-conversion ‘assemblies of Judea’ should contain the original self-designation used by (the Ἑλληνισταί in) the Jerusalem church which Paul recalls, rather than a term of different origins that was also retrospectively applied by Paul to the Christian communities which he had persecuted.
2. The Origins of the Terminology of Ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ
The second assumption by Trebilco which I find questionable is that the full phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία of God’ (ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ)—which occurs frequently in the Pauline letters—is an adaptation of the LXX terminology of ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου. While Trebilco claims that the self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία derives from the Jerusalem Hellenists, he seems to imply that it was probably primarily Paul who coined the whole phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’.Footnote 12 According to Trebilco, ‘the phrase “assembly (or assemblies) of God” was highly evocative for Paul in that it clearly connects the “gatherings” or “assemblies” of Christians with God's people of the OT, in a way that “the ἐϰϰλησία of Christ” would not’.Footnote 13 In his view, Paul based the phrase on the frequently used LXX phrase ‘assembly of the Lord’ (ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου), substituting θεοῦ for ϰυϱίου:
Paul preferred ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ over ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου because the latter would have been confusing with regard to the referent of ϰύϱιος. To ensure that the rich element of continuity with the OT and its use of ‘the assembly of Yahweh/the Lord’ was preserved, ϰύϱιος would need to be taken to refer to Yahweh, yet apart from places where he quotes Scripture, Paul always uses ϰύϱιος to refer to Christ. If Paul and others before him did find a helpful precedent in the use of ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου in the LXX, they substituted θεοῦ for ϰυϱίου, and in so doing emphasised the initiative and centrality of God in their experience of ‘gathering’. We can suggest that it was more straightforward to use ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, which also continued to underline continuity with the OT assembly, without introducing confusion about to whom ϰύϱιος referred.Footnote 14
In Trebilco's view, the Pauline term ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’ is Paul's adaptation of the LXX's ‘ἐϰϰλησία of the Lord’, from which the title ‘Lord’, susceptible to Christological misinterpretation, was removed and replaced with ‘God’. In his emphasis on the LXX background of this phrase Trebilco signals a great improvement, as he criticizes the view long held by scholars such as J. Roloff, K. P. Donfried, J. A. Fitzmyer and, we may add, R. A. Horsley, who believe that ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ is the Greek translation of qahal El or qahal YHWH.Footnote 15 Nevertheless, Trebilco's own interpretation seems too ingenious and strained. As Trebilco himself concedes, ‘This connection with the OT is not something for which Paul argues; nowhere does he quote a passage related to the qahal Yahweh / ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ ϰυϱίου, and say “this relates to us”, or “now we are the assembly of God”’.Footnote 16 Hence, I would rather take a different approach. The phrase ‘assembly of God’ (ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ) occurs twelve times in the NT—eleven times in the Pauline letters and once in Acts—but only once in the Septuagint, in 2 Esd 23.1 (Neh 13.1).Footnote 17 Conversely, the phrase ‘assembly of the Lord’ (ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου) occurs seven times in the LXX, notably in Deuteronomy, but this phrase is nowhere to be found in the NT writings. For these reasons, I would argue that the phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου’ is not the exemplar on which Paul modelled his depiction of the Christian congregation, especially because Paul does not argue anywhere for such a continuity.
The approach I want to explore is based on the assumption that Paul wishes to contrast the Christian ‘assembly of God’ with the civic assemblies (ἐϰϰλησίαι) of the Greek cities in the Roman Empire, as a parallel, alternative organization existing alongside the latter. This wish to distinguish the church as an alternative to the earthly state could be seen as part of a line leading to Tatian, Origen and Augustine. According to Clifford Ando, these three figures posit ‘the Christian community as an alternative political structure to contemporary municipalities and even to the Roman empire’. Ando differentiates this line from another line of development which includes the majority of Christian authors, who ‘argued that God himself had favoured the foundation of a world empire by Augustus in order that Christianity might spread more easily through its homogeneous population’, and in this way actually reveal ‘the power exercised by Augustan ideology in reshaping popular narratives of Roman history’.Footnote 18 In a sense, one could argue, the Pauline writings belong to both lines. On the one hand, Paul views the Roman State as God's servant (Rom 13.1–7) and—as is perhaps the view of the author of 2 Thessalonians—Rome's current emperors or political forces as still inhibiting the arrival of ‘the lawless one’ (2 Thess 2.3–6).Footnote 19 On the other hand, Paul's preferred Christian self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ might well fit the first line of development exemplified by Tatian, Origen and Augustine. According to Tatian, the Christian community realizes a single form of government for all humanity under a single code of law, in clear competition with the Romans (Tatian Ad Gr. 28). Origen similarly contrasts the earthly πατϱίς, for which Celsus argues, with ‘another sort of πατϱίς, created by the Logos of God’ (Origen Cels. 8.75), while Augustine, in his De civitate Dei, develops the contrast between the heavenly and the earthly civitas.Footnote 20 This critical attitude towards the political organizations can also be recognized in Paul's writings. Augustine's differentiation between the earthly and the heavenly civitas or πολίτευμα is also made by Paul, and it is very probable that both their writings reflect the Stoic notion of two kinds of citizenship, and the existence of two commonwealths.Footnote 21 Paul speaks of the citizenship of Christians, which is not a citizenship of earthly cities but of a heavenly nature. Instead of setting their minds on earthly things, Christians possess a citizenship of heaven (Phil 3.20) and are consequently encouraged to live as free citizens of that heavenly government (Phil 1.27). This is fully in line with the Stoic doctrine of dual citizenship, according to which humanity was at the same time a citizen of a particular political constellation and also, at least in the case of the philosophers, a citizen of the cosmic city. In Stoic political theory there was a tension between these two forms of citizenship, to the extent that Seneca acknowledged that the wise man has a problematic relationship to the cities of the earth (Seneca De otio 8.1–3). However, he also notes that normally one would stress that people can serve both commonwealths at the same time (cf. Seneca De otio 4.1). In the same way, Paul's call to peaceful coexistence with society (1 Cor 10.32–33) and loyalty to its government (Rom 13.1–7) could be reconciled with his establishment of assemblies which were loyal to the heavenly πολίτευμα.
With regard to the present topic, I want to argue that Paul's differentiation between the two πολιτεύματα finds its most frequent expression in his characterization of the Christian community as the ἐϰϰλησία of God. This self-designation is not found in the LXX (with the sole exception of 2 Esd 23.1), and seems to be contrasting terminology provoked by the frequently used contemporary terminology referring to the civic assembly of the Greek cities. The only occurrence of the phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’ in the NT writings outside the Pauline corpus also seems to reveal this mechanism. In his meeting with the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20.28, Paul entrusts them with the guidance of ‘the assembly of God’, not that of the civic assembly of Ephesus on which Luke had just reported (19.29–40). Both Paul and Luke, then, use the phrase ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ to distinguish the Christian assembly from the earthly civic assemblies. I disagree with Trebilco, who downplays the political overtones of Paul's use of ἐϰϰλησία terminology when he states that ‘in Paul's writings there is no explicit discussion of the alternative ideas associated with the Greco-Roman usage of ἐϰϰλησία, Paul never associates the word with other political language, and he sets up no explicit antithesis of one ἐϰϰλησία against another—all of which suggests that its Greco-Roman meaning was not critical for its adoption by Paul’.Footnote 22 In fact, it is possible to argue the opposite and say that Paul's differentiation between two πολιτεύματα is further expressed in his frequent use of the phrase ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ which, as I wish to emphasize, refers to a parallel, alternative organization existing alongside the civic assemblies of the Greek cities in the Roman Empire.
It is highly relevant that this double meaning of ἐϰϰλησία (as the civic, political assembly and as ‘the church’) is explicitly alluded to in Origen's Contra Celsum from c. 249 CE, where he describes the Christian and the civic political organizations as two contrasting but potentially overlapping assemblies. His comparison offers an interesting insight into how Christianity defined itself vis-à-vis the political forces of the time. According to Origen:
…everywhere in the world in order that men might be converted and reformed He [i.e., God] made the gospel of Jesus to be successful, and caused assemblies (‘churches’) to exist in political opposition to the assemblies of superstitious, licentious, and unrighteous men (ϰαὶ γενέσθαι πανταχοῦ ἐϰϰλησίας ἀντιπολιτευομένας ἐϰϰλησίαις δεισιδαιμόνων ϰαὶ ἀϰολάστων ϰαὶ ἀδίϰων). For such is the character of the crowds who everywhere constitute the assemblies of the cities. And the assemblies of God which have been taught by Christ, when compared with the assemblies of the people where they live, are ‘as lights in the world’… The assembly of God, say, at Athens is meek and quiet, since it desires to please God. But the assembly of the Athenians is riotous and in no way comparable to the assembly of God there. You may say the same of the assembly of God at Corinth and the assembly of the people of the Corinthians, and of the assembly of God, say, at Alexandria and the assembly of the people of Alexandria. If the man who hears this has an open mind, and examines the facts with a desire to find out the truth, he will be amazed at the one who both planned and had the power to carry into effect the establishment of the assemblies of God in all places, living beside the assemblies of the people in each city. (Origen Cels. 3.29–30; trans. H. Chadwick, with alterations)
After Origen construes this antithesis between the Christian and the civic assemblies, and even characterizes the relationship of the former to the latter as one of political opposition, he opens up the possibility that both assemblies are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
And so also, if you compare the council of the assembly of God with the council in each city, you will find that some council members of the [Christian] assembly are worthy to hold office in a city which is God's, if there be any such city in the world. (Origen Cels. 3.30)
Here, and elsewhere, Origen draws the full consequences of the view that Christianity is an assembly of God which parallels the political assembly of the Greek cities of the ancient world (see further 8.5 and 8.74–75). In this, I believe Origen belongs to the same line of development as Paul. The political meaning of ἐϰϰλησία must have been the first to spring to people's minds. This has been noted by some scholars, such as Dieter Georgi, Wayne A. Meeks and Richard A. Horsley. According to Meeks:
The commonest use of ἐϰϰλησία was to refer to the town meeting of free male citizens of a city of Greek constitution, and it continued to be so employed even though the Hellenistic and then the Roman monarchies had robbed the voting assemblies of much of their power.Footnote 23
Although, as we will soon see, Meeks is wrong in downplaying the importance of the assembly in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (which only makes sense if compared to the assembly's prerogatives in the Classical period but fails to do justice to its widespread and continued existence as an institution in Hellenistic-Roman times), he rightly opposes the habitual translation of the term as ‘church’ and emphasizes that the meaning ‘assembly’ is the primary meaning of ‘ἐϰϰλησία’. Some scholars have also recognized the potentially political character of the implied opposition between the civic and Christian assemblies. According to Dieter Georgi, the Christian assembly constitutes ‘a concrete alternative social utopia’.Footnote 24 Richard Horsley goes further, and in doing so exactly mirrors Origen's depiction of the Christian assemblies as standing ‘in political opposition to the assemblies’ of the cities (Origen Cels. 3.29–30), although he does not seem aware of this passage. According to Horsley:
Paul evidently understood the ἐϰϰλησία of a Thessalonica or Corinth…as the political assembly of the people ‘in Christ’ in pointed juxtaposition and ‘competition’ with the official city assembly… Paul, moreover, understood that in catalyzing local assemblies among the peoples and cities, he was building an international political-religious movement also known by the political term ἐϰϰλησία, in either singular or plural. Paul's ἐϰϰλησίαι are thus local communities of an alternative society to the Roman imperial order.Footnote 25
Apart from this important insight, Horsley does not further explain this at any length using the ancient sources, although he does remark that ‘the “assembly” of the Greek polis…involved praise, acclamation, and discussion of issues of concern to the citizenry, which were also some of the principal activities that Paul's communities carried on at gatherings of the “assemblies”’ and that ‘a key aspect of Paul's mission strategy by which he was building an alternative society was the way in which he used the basic forms and key terms of Greco-Roman political rhetoric in order to persuade his assemblies to maintain their solidarity’.Footnote 26
In the present essay I wish to demonstrate and discuss the parallels between the Christian and the civic assemblies based on the sources. The picture which arises fully confirms Horsley's characterization of the Christian assembly as ‘an alternative society’, yet, as we will see in the course of this essay, it has different emphases. In line with my criticism of Trebilco's position above, and given the continuing importance of the civic ἐϰϰλησία in the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods (the topic of the next section), I am less convinced than Horsley that Paul's alternative society ‘is rooted in the history of Israel’ and that ‘the underlying foundation’ of Paul's terminology of ‘the ἐϰϰλησία of God’ is ‘the qehal yhwh, the “assembly of the LORD”, the assembly of historical Israel’.Footnote 27 Rather, I regard Paul's terminology as consciously used as an antithesis to the civic assembly of his time.
I will now first comment on the continuing importance of the civic assemblies of the Greek cities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Section 3), before demonstrating how Paul's actual use of the ἐϰϰλησία terminology hints at a competition with the Greek civic assemblies and the Roman State (Section 4), and finally showing how Paul's description of the Christian assemblies is very similar to descriptions of the functioning of the civic assemblies (Section 5).
3. The Continued Existence of the Civic Assembly in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods
The ἐϰϰλησία as the political assembly of the city not only existed in Classical Greece, the Hellenistic period and in pre-imperial Rome (where the Latin rendering of ἐϰϰλησία was ‘comitia’, designating an institution that existed alongside the senate, which was summoned by a magistrate who possessed the formal right to convoke the Roman people),Footnote 28 but also continued to exist in the Roman period, both in the Greek cities of the East and in Rome itself. With regard to the city of Rome, for example, Josephus reports that after the murder of Gaius Caligula and before the election of Claudius ‘a meeting of the senate was convened; and the people also met in the Forum, where they customarily hold their assemblies (ἐϰϰλησιάζειν)’ (A.J. 19.158–159).
It is true that the Greek cities feared the abolition of their ἐϰϰλησίαι. Athens, for example, was concerned that the Roman State ‘shall decide what form of government we are to have. And let us not permit our holy places to be kept locked against us, our gymnasia in squalid decay, our theatre deserted by the assembly, our courts voiceless, and the Pnyx, once consecrated to sacred uses by divine oracles, taken away from the people’ (Athenaeus Deipn. 5.51). In the aftermath of the Battle of Actium, Augustus indeed punished the cities which had supported Antony ‘by levying money and taking away the remnant of authority over their citizens that their assemblies still possessed’ (Cassius Dio Hist. rom. 51.2.1). Moreover, in 29 BCE Augustus ordered that ‘the populace should have no authority in any matter, and should not be allowed to convene in any assembly at all; for nothing good would come out of their deliberations and they would always be stirring up a good deal of turmoil’ (Cassius Dio Hist. rom. 52.30.2).
Nevertheless, the assemblies of the Greek cities continued to exist in imperial times, although they were clearly dependent upon Roman approval. For example, in 102 CE, after the right of assembly had been abrogated in Prusa, the newly appointed proconsul of Bithynia, Varenus Rufus, granted the populace of Prusa their right of public assembly once again, as Dio Chrysostom reports in his speech to the inhabitants of Prusa: ‘In the first place, my friends, we ought to feel grateful to the most noble Varenus, not only for the general goodwill he has displayed toward our city, but also because, when we wished to hold an assembly once more, he gave his permission, not only readily but even gladly’ (Or. 48.1). Even if Dmitriev is correct in saying that the ‘evidence points to a gradual decline of the importance of the status of Greek cities of Roman Asia Minor’, that the ‘administration of such cities became more open to the authority of the governor’ and that proconsuls are known to have consented to requests to hold assembly, convened such assemblies and approved of the assemblies’ decisions, his analysis implies that the assemblies continued to meet.Footnote 29 There is ample evidence that this occurred in cities such as Antioch in Syria (Tacitus Hist. 2.80; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.38), Tarsus (Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.14), Parium, a small Greek town on the Hellespont (Lucian De morte Peregrini 15) and Athens (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.561). Philo, in his treatise Quod omnis probus liber sit, comments on the aspirations of the cities of his time: ‘The councils and assemblies meet almost every day to discuss more than anything else how to confirm their freedom if they have it, or to acquire it if they have it not’ (Prob. 138).
Such is the omnipresence of the political assemblies even in the Roman period that Josephus, in his integration of the Jewish Scriptures into his Jewish Antiquities, also mentions Samuel the prophet calling an Ἐϰϰλησίαν … τῶν Ἑβϱαίων, ‘an assembly of the Hebrews’ (A.J. 6.86), while the term is lacking in the Masoretic text and in the LXX (1 Sam 12.1 MT: ‘Samuel said to all Israel’; LXX: ‘Samuel said to all the men of Israel’). In his Jewish history of the imperial period, Josephus also reveals that Herod the Great called assemblies of the people in both Jerusalem and Jericho.Footnote 30 Likewise, during the Jewish war against Rome, after the insurrection against the zealots by Ananus and following their occupation of the temple in Jerusalem and selection of a new high priest, the senior Jewish chief priests are described as ‘leaders of outstanding reputation’ who held public addresses ‘in the ἐϰϰλησίαι’ in order to influence the situation (B.J. 4.159). In his description of Ananus's speech to the general assembly of Jerusalem, Josephus clearly invokes the atmosphere of a meeting of the ἐϰϰλησία: ‘And now, the populace being convened to a general assembly…Ananus arose in the midst and…spoke as follows’ (B.J. 4.162).
Whatever the case with regard to the existence of civic assemblies in specific Jewish-Israelite cities such as Jerusalem and Jericho, what we have seen at large is that even in the Roman imperial period the ἐϰϰλησία remains an institution, in Rome itself and in the cities of the Eastern Mediterranean.Footnote 31 In Rome, together with the senate and the law courts, the assembly constitutes the fabric of public life (Cassius Dio Hist. rom. 38.19.1). In Athens, the life of the city is dominated by ‘the ecclesiasts’ (the members of the popular assembly), the jurymen and the clerks (Dio Chrysostom Or. 7.108). In Philo's vivid descriptions of the cities of his age, worthless, restless men haunt ‘market-places, theatres, law-courts, council-halls, assemblies (ἐϰϰλησίαι), and every group (σύλλογοι) and gathering (θίασοι) of men’ (Abr. 20; cf. Spec. 1.55 and 2.44). In Philo's words, ‘those who spend their days in the heart of the city’ include those who ‘also sit as councillors, jurymen, and members of assembly, and sometimes undertake the burden of administering the market, or managing the gymnasium and the other public services’ (Prob. 6). Thus, in the Roman period the assembly is still omnipresent and it is no wonder then that people must have understood the Christians’ predominant self-designation as ἐϰϰλησία in a political or para-political way. As I will show in the next section, the way Paul applies the ἐϰϰλησία terminology throughout his letters reveals that he regards the Christian communities as an alternative political structure existing alongside the Greek civic assemblies and the Roman State.
4. The Competitive Nature of Paul's Use of Ἐϰϰλησία Terminology
First, it is remarkable that while Jewish writers never seem to describe the meetings in their synagogues as assemblies, Paul does so very often. The source book on the Jewish synagogue by Runesson, Binder and Olsson only refers to the term ἐϰϰλησία in a few instances, mostly in Philo, and even in these few instances I believe the authors are mistaken in their assumption that this term is applied to the synagogue.Footnote 32 Some of these passages adopt the ἐϰϰλησία terminology from the LXX but do not prove that their authors technically described the Jewish synagogue meeting as an ἐϰϰλησία.Footnote 33 Only one such passage may refer to the synagogue but, as we will see later, Philo refers to the political ἐϰϰλησία as a counter-example to the synagogue. He notes that whereas the political ἐϰϰλησίαι are in practice open to all since access cannot be controlled, the holy congregation should take precautions so that all of the unworthy are precluded from entering.Footnote 34 The observation that ἐϰϰλησία is not used as a self-designation by non-Christian Jews is also made by Trebilco, who notes: ‘Of course other (non-Christian) Jews could have used ἐϰϰλησίαι for their gatherings, as well as συναγωγή; it simply seems that, as far as we know, none of them were using ἐϰϰλησία with reference to a contemporary “assembly” in the way they were using συναγωγή, and thus ἐϰϰλησία was “free”’.Footnote 35 Indeed, as he concludes with reference to Donald Binder's monograph on the ancient synagogue, ‘ἐϰϰλησία does not feature among the terms used by Jewish communities for themselves and their buildings’.Footnote 36 If this is the case, and Jewish parallels for naming the synagogue an ἐϰϰλησία are lacking, it is all the more remarkable that Christians applied the term ἐϰϰλησία so frequently.
The earliest example of this is Paul, who used the term both frequently and consistently. Indeed, as Origen rightly noted, the term often occurs in the phrase ‘the ἐϰϰλησία of God’, a phrase that occurs in letters as diverse as 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and Galatians. In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul addresses ‘the ἐϰϰλησία of God that is in Corinth’ (1 Cor 1.2; 2 Cor 1.1). Also, in 1 Corinthians, he continues to speak of the ἐϰϰλησία of God, in this context of course pointing to the ἐϰϰλησία of God in Corinth (1 Cor 11.22). He also makes a more general statement in his injunction in 1 Corinthians to ‘[g]ive no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the assembly of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do’ (1 Cor 10.32–33), coming close to a differentiation between the non-Christian Jews and the non-Christian Greeks on the one hand, insofar as they do not attend the meetings of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία, and the Christian assembly on the other (1 Cor 10.32). Similarly, in both 1 Corinthians and Galatians he talks in a general way about the ἐϰϰλησία of God that he used to persecute (1 Cor 15.9; Gal 1.13). Although at the local level of cities, Paul's use of the term ἐϰϰλησία already seems to stand in contrast with the political assembly when he speaks of ‘the ἐϰϰλησία of God that is in Corinth’ (1 Cor 1.2; 2 Cor 1.1), the ἐϰϰλησία at Cenchreae (Rom 16.1) and the ἐϰϰλησία of the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1.1; cf. 1 Thess 2.1), this antithesis becomes even more apparent when he speaks of the ἐϰϰλησίαι of God in the plural (1 Cor 11.16).
Here there seems to be a further competitive edge to the way in which Paul applies the terminology of ἐϰϰλησία. First, the ἐϰϰλησίαι are combined at a provincial level. Throughout his letters, Paul emphasizes the collective nature of ἐϰϰλησίαι at the provincial level. Thus, he speaks of ‘the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Galatia’ in both 1 Corinthians and Galatians (1 Cor 16.1; Gal 1.2). Likewise, he speaks of ‘the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Asia’ (1 Cor 16.19), ‘the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Macedonia’ (2 Cor 8.1) and ‘the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Judea’ (Gal 1.22; cf. 1 Thess 2.14: ‘the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea’). He also comes very close to speaking of the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Achaia, although in this case the phrase is slightly different as he talks about ‘the assembly of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia’ (2 Cor 1.1). This way of referring to the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, Judea and Achaia at the provincial or, in the case of Judea, sub-provincial level, seems to hint at a conscious paralleling of the Roman provinces which points to an alternative structure of the Roman Empire. The Greek political system also had supra-local provincial assemblies.Footnote 37 However, here Paul seems to combine the supra-local assemblies with the Roman provincial system. Even though the ἐϰϰλησίαι of a particular province do not merge into a single ἐϰϰλησία, it is noteworthy that these ἐϰϰλησίαι cohere at a provincial level.
Secondly, the political overtones become even stronger when, beyond the provincial level, Paul, at the end of his letter to the Romans, talks of ‘all the ἐϰϰλησίαι of the nations’, πᾶσαι αἱ ἐϰϰλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rom 16.4). This universal, even global notion of ἐϰϰλησίαι, was unparalleled in the Greek world and the Roman Empire. In all likelihood, the genitive ‘of the nations’ is to be understood here as a genitive of separation: ‘all the ἐϰϰλησίαι of the nations’ are the ἐϰϰλησίαι from the nations, in line with what Paul had said before, ‘… us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the nations (ἐξ ἐθνῶν)’ (Rom 9.24; cf. 1 Cor 12.2). Thus, it seems that Paul intended to forge an alternative, non-ethnic, global community, which takes the form of a collective of assemblies from the nations.
These political overtones cannot be missed, as not only the Greek cities but also the city to which Paul writes, Rome, possesses a political assembly, the comitia. The ἐϰϰλησία in the house of Prisca and Aquila in Rome, to which Paul subsequently sends his greetings (Rom 16.5), is clearly part of this universal network of the ἐϰϰλησίαι of the nations. These universal ἐϰϰλησίαι are then further defined as ‘all the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Christ’ (Rom 16.16). Thus, the worldwide ἐϰϰλησίαι are not only set apart as the ἐϰϰλησίαι of God, but also as the ἐϰϰλησίαι of Christ (cf. further Gal 1.22, ‘the assemblies of Judea that are in Christ’ and 1 Thess 2.14, ‘the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea’). Along the lines of Origen, these ἐϰϰλησίαι of the nations, which are materialized at both the provincial and local levels, really seem to be of a different kind from the ordinary, political, civic ἐϰϰλησίαι: they are, ultimately, ‘ἐϰϰλησίαι of the saints’ (1 Cor 14.33), who are—in Pauline thinking—opposed to ‘the unrighteous’ (cf. 1 Cor 6.1–2, 9). Interestingly, the term ‘ἐϰϰλησίαι of the saints’ seems to have a LXX ring to it, since Psalm 88.6 also speaks of the ‘assembly of saints’. It may well be that Paul's primarily political ἐϰϰλησία terminology, which he applies in order to contrast the earthly and heavenly πολιτεύματα and ἐϰϰλησίαι, is subsequently further coloured by this phrase from the LXX Psalms. As a matter of fact, this phrase serves to sharpen the difference between the Christian and the civic assemblies.
Indeed, against the contemporary background of the political ἐϰϰλησία, Paul's frequent and consistent use of ἐϰϰλησία assumes a clearly political meaning. This is particularly evident in the way in which Paul characterizes the Christian ἐϰϰλησίαι as ἐϰϰλησίαι of the nations, ἐϰϰλησίαι of God, ἐϰϰλησίαι of Christ and ἐϰϰλησίαι of the saints. As we have seen, for Origen it is but one step to contrast these assemblies explicitly with the ἐϰϰλησίαι of ‘superstitious, licentious, and unrighteous men’, to which the Christian ἐϰϰλησίαι stand in political opposition (Cels. 3.29–30). For this reason I agree with Horsley's contrast between the Christian and the civic assemblies. From Origen's perspective, the Christian assemblies embraced higher ethical standards in such a way that they—in Paul's terminology—constituted ‘ἐϰϰλησίαι of the saints’. Yet, I disagree with Horsley when he pushes this contrast further, claiming that Paul's alternative society ‘is rooted in the history of Israel, in opposition to the pax Romana’, ‘stood sharply against the Roman imperial order’, and that ‘“Acceptance and integration into society at large” would have been the last thing Paul wanted for his assemblies’.Footnote 38 This view conflicts with Paul's exhortation to the Corinthian assembly to ‘[g]ive no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the assembly of God’ (1 Cor 12.32), and with his appeal to the Christians in Rome to subject themselves to the civic authorities (Rom 13.1–7).
Moreover, Paul's implicit criticism of the morality of the civic assemblies is not unparalleled. A similar criticism of the popular, civic assembly is also undertaken by philosophers. According to Dio Chrysostom, the philosopher holds council chambers, theatres and assemblies in low esteem (Or. 80.2). Also, Apollonius of Tyana, according to Philostratus, refused to attend the assembly of the Athenians because they gathered at a place where gladiatorial events were also staged. According to Philostratus, Apollonius ‘attacked these practices, and when the Athenians invited him to attend the assembly of the Athenians, he refused to enter a place so impure and reeking with gore. And this he said in an epistle to them’ (Vit. Apoll. 4.22).
In some instances, Horsley's views on Paul's critical attitude towards the civic assemblies seem to be nuanced, for example when he writes that ‘Paul is a “radical” in his rejection of the established order, although not a “revolutionary” who attempted to overthrow it’.Footnote 39 However, this nuance is usually lacking. For example, Horsley incorrectly contrasts the semi-separate πολίτευμα of certain Jewish diaspora συναγωγαί, which, he says, was ‘officially or tacitly approved by the Roman authorities’, with Paul's insistence that ‘our πολίτευμα is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a σωτήρ’ (Phil 3.20). In Horsley's understanding, Paul's words amount to ‘both an alternative constitution or form of government and an alternative emperor for an alternative society’.Footnote 40 Whereas the πολιτεύματα of the diaspora Jews were ‘semi-independent ethnic communities that ran their own affairs according to ancestral Israelite traditions rather than according to the laws of particular cities’, according to Horsley, Paul, who seems to ‘be following what was a standard practice of self-governance among diaspora Jewish communities’, goes much further:
Paul's concern here is more than simply a parallel to the practice whereby Jewish diaspora communities conducted their own internal affairs independently, insofar as the Roman authorities would allow. Paul's insistence that the community handle its own disputes internally [1 Cor 6.1–11] seems to be a more complete declaration of independence and autonomy from the established (Roman imperial) order.Footnote 41
Horsley is certainly right in combining Paul's use of the term ἐϰϰλησία with his notion of a Christian πολίτευμα, and I disagree with Trebilco's view that ‘Paul never associates the word [ἐϰϰλησία] with other political language, and he sets up no explicit antithesis of one ἐϰϰλησία against another’.Footnote 42 Both terms are part of the same political vocabulary. Paul's characterization of the Christian community as an ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ which functions as an alternative organization existing alongside the civic ἐϰϰλησίαι of the Greek cities in the Roman Empire can be regarded as his most frequent expression of the idea that there are two πολιτεύματα, an earthly πολίτευμα and a heavenly one, of which Christians are citizens. Indeed, together with Tatian, Origen and Augustine, Paul belongs to that line of thought which understands the Christian community as an alternative political structure to contemporary civic ἐϰϰλησίαι and earthly πολιτεύματα. It seems, however, that Horsley overemphasizes the political opposition between the Christian and public assemblies. As we have already seen in Section 2 above, it is precisely the analogy with the Stoic doctrine of dual citizenship and two commonwealths that shows that people can belong to both spheres at the same time. There is no reason thus to assume that Paul's views are inherently subversive to the political institutions of his time. The way in which Paul exhorts the members of Christian communities to ‘[g]ive no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’ (1 Cor 10.32–33) and to respect and honour the governing authorities (Rom 13.1–7), shows that in principle his views are as constructive as those of Seneca.
5. The Functioning of Christian and Civic ’Εϰϰλησίαι
The way in which Paul uses the term ἐϰϰλησία should not only be understood as a conscious adoption of the terminology of the public assembly. As it transpires from Paul's description of the Christian assembly, the actual functioning of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία also mirrors the operations of the civic assemblies. Otherwise well-known but separate features of the Pauline communities could acquire a new coherence when read in the light of the civic ἐϰϰλησία. Both the civic and the Christian ἐϰϰλησία function as places of instruction, they are both almost naturally fraught with factions and divisions, they are considered as places where the use of ratio should be endorsed and the influence of ‘mania’ should be restrained and both are accessible to all citizens, although in both types of community, women, if present at all, should not be allowed to speak.
5.1. The ἐϰϰλησία as a Place of Instruction
In Paul's understanding, the ἐϰϰλησία is a place of instruction. In 1 Cor 4.17 he exhorts his Corinthian readers to become his imitators and tells them that he will send Timothy for this reason, ‘to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, ϰαθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐϰϰλησίᾳ διδάσϰω: as I teach them everywhere in every assembly’ (1 Cor 4.17; cf. Acts 11.26). Similarly, Dionysius of Halicarnassus talks about the way in which particular speakers in the meetings of the civic assembly (ἐν ταῖς ἐϰϰλησίαις) attempt to instruct the people present (διδάσϰοντες τὸν δῆμον) and to change their minds about the laws which are being introduced (Ant. rom. 8.71.5).
Furthermore, and more specifically, the ἐϰϰλησία proves to be the place of moral instruction. Plutarch, for example, describes how Lycurgus, the reputed founder of the Spartan constitution, ‘wishing to recall the citizens from the mode of living then existent, and to lead them to a more sober and temperate order of life, and to render them good and honourable men’, used the public assembly as a place of moral instruction (Apoph. lac. 225F-226B). Similarly, the ἐϰϰλησία is the setting in which individuals must respond to criticisms of their way of life. According to Plutarch, for example, Polycharmus, an otherwise unknown Athenian popular leader, was challenged to give ‘in the assembly an answer to criticism of his way of life’ (Quaest. conv. 726 B). Such criticism could be so painful that people refused to reply to accusations, even rising from their seats and leaving the ἐϰϰλησία (Plutarch Praec. ger. rei publ. 799E-F).
5.2. Factions and Divisions within the ἐϰϰλησία
As scholars have already noted, the factions and divisions present in the Christian assembly at Corinth (1 Cor 11.18–19) particularly mirror the factions and divisions which seem to characterize the political civic ἐϰϰλησίαι everywhere.Footnote 43 Assemblies are continuously thrown into confusion by fiery orators who disturb the assembly (Dio Chrysostom Or. 2.22; Lucian Pseudol. 16; Plutarch Praec. ger. rei publ. 810D).Footnote 44 However, even Demosthenes, the greatest Athenian orator, could be booed out of the assembly (Plutarch Vit. X orat. 845A-B). Citizens needed to be reminded to be ‘temperate and well-behaved in assembly’ (Dio Chrysostom Or. 48.2). Such was the potential for disturbance and unruliness in the ἐϰϰλησία meetings, that Plutarch, in his discussion of the responsibilities of the symposiarch (who presides over a symposium), remarks that ‘such a man will keep our party temperate and will not allow it to become now a “democratic assembly”, a rabble-ruled assembly, now a sophist's school, and again a gaming-establishment, and then perhaps a stage and a dancing-floor’ (Quaest. conv. 621B). According to Cassius Dio, the public assembly of Rome was also a place where people banded together and indulged in bitter abuse and conflict (Hist. rom. 24.83.5). One of them, Publius Furius, was even slain by the Romans ‘in the very assembly’ in the year 98 BCE: ‘He richly deserved to die, to be sure, for he was a seditious person, who after first joining Saturninus and Glaucia had veered about, deserted to the opposing faction, and joined them in attacking his former associates’ (Cassius Dio Hist. rom. 28.95.3). Sometimes the divisions within the assembly are understood as the direct result of the behaviour and tactics of the Roman ruler. According to Philostratus, it was Apollonius of Tyana who tried to convince the citizens of Antioch to stop their feud into which the Ruler of Syria had plunged them ‘by disseminating among the citizens suspicions such that when they met in assembly they all quarrelled with one another’ (Vit. Apoll. 6.38). Similarly, Philostratus also reports on the quarrels in the Athenian ἐϰϰλησία, this time between the Athenian citizens and the sophist Herodes the Athenian, who is accused of acting like a tyrant. In this case the citizens appeal to the Roman rulers in Greece, the Quintilii, in the hope that they would report the situation to the Emperor (Vit. soph. 2.559).
The cases of Antioch and Athens suffice to show that the assemblies of Greek cities were caught up in the political strife and competition between different factions, and that Rome could be the cause or the solution to such strife. According to Philostratus, the meetings of an assembly could become more prudent and moderate when a city—such as Smyrna—was much frequented by important foreign visitors, ‘because it will be on its guard against being convicted of wrongdoing in the presence of so many eminent persons’ (Vit. soph. 2.613).
All the passages demonstrate that, generally speaking, the civic ἐϰϰλησίαι were known for their factions and inner strife. Plutarch not only confirms this when he, as we have already seen, emphasizes that a good symposiarch will not allow a symposium gathering to become a rabble-ruled ‘democratic assembly’ (Quaest. conv. 621B), but also does so in another passage where he draws attention to the ease with which discussions at symposia can move πρὸς ἀγῶνας ἐϰϰλησιαστιϰούς, that is, in the direction of ‘ecclesiastical strife’, the kind of strife which characterizes the meetings of the ἐϰϰλησία (Quaest. conv. 713F). The best way to prevent a meeting from developing in this direction, according to Plutarch, is musical entertainment, a function which could be fulfilled by the singing of hymns in a Christian meeting (1 Cor 14.26; Col 3.16).
Finally, an interesting passage from Strabo shows that in the period immediately preceding Paul, the civic ἐϰϰλησία of Tarsus was also infected by a particular faction, so Augustus sent his court philosopher, the Stoic Athenodorus of Tarsus, friend of Cicero and of Strabo himself, who brought ‘accusations in the assembly against the faction’ (Geogr. 14.5.14). Thus, the ἐϰϰλησία is inextricably linked with strife, factions and disorder, and from this perspective the disturbances within the Christian ἐϰϰλησία at Corinth are no surprise.
5.3. The Use of ratio in the ἐϰϰλησία and the Criticism of ‘Mania’
Against this background it is no wonder that rather than adding to the already existing confusion characteristic of ἐϰϰλησία meetings Paul is not keen to allow members of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία at Corinth to speak in tongues without any restriction (1 Cor 14). Instead, he strongly endorses the use of reason in the meetings of the Christian assembly. As he says, ‘in the assembly I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue’ (1 Cor 14.19). The reason why Paul wants to restrict the practice of speaking in tongues is, as he says: ‘If…the whole ἐϰϰλησία comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?’ (1 Cor 14.23). Thus, by endorsing the use of ratio, he tries to ban ‘mania’ from the Christian assembly. As Stephen Chester has shown, the practice of speaking in tongues is paralleled by the phenomenon of divinely gifted madness within Graeco-Roman religion and would therefore not necessarily alienate outsiders.Footnote 45 Uninterpreted tongues, however, Chester argues, are rather evaluated negatively by Paul inasmuch as they fail to communicate the gospel to outsiders.Footnote 46
It is noteworthy, I would add, that Paul shares this feeling with the more general view in the Graeco-Roman world that divine madness should not have a place in the meetings of the civic assembly. As we know from Greek sources, the accusation of ‘mania’ was easily brought against people in the assembly. For example, in one of Plato's dialogues, Euthyphro tells Socrates that just as Socrates is being indicted for making innovations in religion, so people also laugh at him, ‘and say I am crazy (μαινόμενος) when I say anything in the assembly about divine things and foretell the future to them’ (Plato Euthyphr. 3B-C). ‘Mania’ is thus to be avoided when gathered in an assembly. Perhaps somewhat similar is a practice in the assembly in Rome: should someone ‘with the disease called the sacred disease’, that is, epilepsy, collapse during the assembly, the meeting of the ἐϰϰλησία would be postponed (Cassius Dio Hist. rom. 46.33). Likewise, childish behaviour in the assembly was censured. According to Lucian, someone was criticized because ‘he acted in the assemblies as children do on the seventh day of the month, joking and making fun and turning the earnestness of the people into jest’ (Pseudol. 16).
5.4. Accessibility of ἐϰϰλησία Meetings
Paul's belief that speaking in tongues conflicts with the particular context of an assembly meeting is particularly important to him because, as mentioned above, outsiders were able to attend the meetings of the Christian assembly. Unlike a private association, entry to which required special permission or even initiation, the meetings of the Christian assembly were in principle open to the wider public. This is fully in line with the practice of the civic assemblies. Although theoretically only the male citizens of the city could attend the meetings of the assembly, in practice, as many passages in Greek literature attest, this rule was not enforced and non-citizens and visiting strangers also attended the civic meetings. Dio Chrysostom, in a speech to the assembly of Prusa, refers to the possibility of a stranger attending a meeting of the assembly, who will then notice the discrepancy between the many eulogies given in the assembly and the different reality of the market place (Or. 51.2). Another example appears in Dio Chrysostom's speech delivered before a public gathering of the citizens of Tarsus. In this speech, Dio addresses the tensions between the citizens of Tarsus and those who are ‘outside the constitution’. Dio criticizes the ambiguous relationship between the citizens and outsiders and argues that this destabilizes a city. In his description of these circumstances it seems to be implied that in periods where citizens adopt a favourable attitude towards outsiders, the latter are even admitted to the popular assemblies (Or. 34.21).Footnote 47
An interesting example of non-citizens attending the meeting of the civic assembly is also given by Josephus when he describes the tensions between the Greeks and Jews in Alexandria. According to Josephus:
On one occasion, when the Alexandrians were holding a public assembly on the subject of an embassy which they proposed to send to Nero, a large number of Jews flocked into the amphitheatre along with the Greeks; their adversaries, the instant they caught sight of them, raised shouts of ‘enemies’ and ‘spies’, and then rushed forward to lay hands on them. (B.J. 2.490)
Thus, as we have also seen in the previous case of the outsiders attending the meetings of the assembly in Tarsus, in practice such meetings were open, and only in times of crisis were strict rules enforced. As another passage in Josephus's writings shows, the meeting of the assembly was also the place where one could come to renounce one's adherence to Judaism. According to Josephus, at the beginning of the Jewish war, a certain Antiochus, the son of the chief magistrate of the Jews in Antioch, ‘entered the theatre during an assembly of the people and denounced his own father and the other Jews’ (B.J. 7.47). In times of crisis the assembly meetings were clearly and understandably restricted to citizens only. In less tumultuous periods, however, the assembly, at least in practice, could also be attended by non-citizens and foreigners.
This practice is also described by Philo, according to whom ‘in assemblies (ἐν ταῖς ἐϰϰλησίαις) there are not a few worthless persons who steal their way in and remain unobserved in the large numbers which surround them’, and for that reason, Philo says, Jewish law precludes the unworthy from entering the ἱερὸς σύλλογος, the holy congregation (Spec. 1.325). Unlike Runesson, Binder and Olsson's source book on the Jewish synagogue,Footnote 48 I do not believe that Philo identifies the synagogue in this passage as an ἐϰϰλησία. Rather, as I understand it, Philo here refers to the civic assemblies as a counter-example to the holy congregation. Whereas access to the meetings of the civic assemblies is not controlled effectively, the Jewish law explicitly expels from the ‘holy congregation’ those ‘whose generative organs are fractured or mutilated’ (Deut 23.1) and ‘banishes not only harlots, but also the children of harlots’ (Deut 23.2; Spec. 1.325–326).Footnote 49 Thus, Philo attests to the fact that the meetings of civic assemblies might be attended by non-citizens, strangers and outsiders.Footnote 50 Like the civic assemblies, the Christian assemblies are also attended by outsiders, and as we have seen above it is for this very reason that Paul is keen to maintain the public convention regarding the meetings of the assembly: ‘mania’ should be banned and speakers should use reason in order to instruct.
The open accessibility of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία meetings holds true regardless of the locations where they took place. As Edward Adams shows, during the first two centuries Christians did not exclusively meet in houses, but gathered in a range of settings, both domestic and non-domestic.Footnote 51 These different settings, however, are not incompatible with an ἐϰϰλησία meeting. Meetings of the civic political assembly were not restricted to a fixed type of building and could take place anywhere, including temples, theatres and the Forum. In Classical Athens they took place in the Pnyx, in Rome either in the Capitol or the Forum, and in other Greek cities, normally, but not necessarily, in a theatre.Footnote 52 As an institution the ἐϰϰλησία was not dependent upon a particular architectural setting. Thus, it is possible to regard meetings of Christians as meetings of an ἐϰϰλησία which, whatever their actual location, were also open to outsiders. What rendered such a meeting an ἐϰϰλησία was probably the fact that it was formally called (cf. Acts 14.27).
Similarly, civic assemblies were also formally called. In Rome, the civic assembly was called by a tribune (δήμαρχος) through the means of heralds (Appian Bell. civ. 2.1.3). In Greek cities, in order to convene a lawful assembly (an ἔννομος ἐϰϰλησία, as Luke calls it in Acts 19.39; cf. Lucianus Deor. conc. 14), either the city fathers (οἱ πρυτάνεις; Lucian, Men. 19), the magistrates (οἱ ἄρχοντες; Pausanias Descr. 7.14.2), or the Roman proconsul summoned the citizens to an assembly (Dio Chrysostom Or. 45.15).Footnote 53 Similarly, in the Christian assembly those who called the meeting would have been the ἐπίσϰοποι and the διάϰονοι of the assembly (Phil 1.1; Rom 16.1), or according to the later Pauline epistles, the πρεσβύτεροι (1 Tim 5.1–2, 17, 19; Titus 1.5).
For a civic assembly to take place it was, as a rule, not necessary that all citizens were present; the meeting of an assembly was not dependent on a fixed number of people attending. With regard to Rome, this is nicely illustrated in a story by Appian about a fake meeting of the ἐϰϰλησία in the Forum. It was arranged by a certain Milo (who was charged with murder) and consisted of a crowd of hired slaves and rustics, chaired by one of the tribunes who had been bought with the aim of acquitting Milo, thus allowing him to avoid a regular trial (Appian Bell. civ. 2.3.22). This incident offers us an interesting insight into the actual running of the ἐϰϰλησία in Rome, and shows that an assembly meeting could proceed with whoever was present. In Rome, it was only necessary to attend the meeting if one wished to seek office, as we learn from Cassius Dio, according to whom, in 53 BCE, ‘Pompey revived the law about elections that commanded those who seek an office to present themselves without fail before the ἐϰϰλησία, so that no one who was absent might be chosen’ (Hist. rom. 40.56.1). Nevertheless, in the Graeco-Roman world, even notable figures could remain absent from the assembly. According to Philostratus, for example, Isocrates the Sophist did not attend the political assemblies in Athens, one of the reasons being the political opposition within the assembly ‘towards those who had a talent above the average for public speaking’ (Vit. soph. 1.505). Only by way of exception did particular cities expect all citizens to be present. Pausanias mentions the local practice of the Thebans, who ‘were wont to conduct their assemblies with every voter present’ (Descr. 9.1.5).
Thus, neither with regard to the organizational form nor to the quorum of those present in the actual meetings is there a difference between the Christian and the civic assemblies. As we have seen, just as a civic assembly was not restricted to a particular type of building, but could be convened in a temple, a theatre or the Forum (even haphazardly, as we understand from Appian), a Christian assembly could also take place anywhere.
5.5. The ἐϰϰλησίαι and the Status of Women
Finally, it is also possible to compare the civic and Christian assemblies with regard to their views on women's participation in the life of the ἐϰϰλησία. On the one hand, the status of women differs greatly in this respect. In the civic ἐϰϰλησία women were not welcome, whereas Paul does admit them to meetings of the Christian assembly. On the other hand, however, Paul's refusal to allow them to speak in the ἐϰϰλησία is in accord with widespread feelings outside the Christian community. If the following passage in 1 Corinthians 14 is authentic, Paul holds the following view: ‘As in all the assemblies of the saints, women should be silent in the assemblies (Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐϰϰλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, αἱ γυναῖϰες ἐν ταῖς ἐϰϰλησίαις σιγάτωσαν). For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly (αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναιϰὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐϰϰλησίᾳ)’ (1 Cor 14.33–35). Paul here seems to refer to a common view in society.Footnote 54 We do indeed have proof of this in an interesting passage from Appian about taxes being imposed upon women in Rome and the response to this by a particular woman, Hortensia, who spoke out against it publicly. According to Appian, ‘[w]hile Hortensia thus spoke the triumvirs were angry that women should dare to hold a public meeting (ἐϰϰλησιάσουσι) when the men were silent’ (Bell. civ. 4.5.34).
Other authors also confirm that the civic assembly is a male institution. Even if there were instances where, in exceptional cases, women are said to have had their own ἐϰϰλησία meeting, this is not the same as evidence for women coming into the regular civic assembly. Plutarch, for instance, tells a story of how, during a war between the Thessalians and the Phocians, the women of Phocis held an ἐϰϰλησία meeting, and agreed with the plan proposed in the normal, exclusively male civic assembly that should the men of Phocis be beaten and destroyed by the Thessalians, the Phocian women and children, already assembled in one particular place, should then also be killed by those guarding them (Mulier. virt. 244 C-D). This story is extraordinary, but nonetheless confirms that the normal assembly was restricted to male citizens alone. An exception to this rule occurs in a novel by Chariton, when he describes how the hero and heroine, Chaereas and Callirhoe, safely return to Syracuse and all citizens, men and women alike, assemble in the ἐϰϰλησία—which is held in the theatre—and sing their praises, ‘the men uttering praise of Chaereas, and the women of Callirhoe’ (Chaer. 8.7.1–2). Apparently, women might be allowed access to the assembly, and might even speak and make decisions (cf. 8.8.13); however, as a rule, civic assembly meetings were not open to women and even if, in the case of Paul's Christian assemblies, they were structurally allowed to take their place in the ἐϰϰλησία, their right to speak was nevertheless curbed.
6. Concluding Reflections
Both the terminology and the phenomenon of the civic assemblies of Greek cities help us to understand the way in which the Christian community understood itself as ἐϰϰλησία. However, this does not mean that the model of the civic ἐϰϰλησία is the one and only model on which we should draw. The civic ἐϰϰλησία model, for instance, does not explain the communal meal of the Christians. Other models of voluntary and professional associations, the philosophical schools and the synagogues remain useful.Footnote 55 However, the added value of the civic assembly model consists in the fact that it also accounts for the terminological self-designation of Christian communities as ἐϰϰλησίαι. Against this background, the Christian community as an ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ differentiates itself from the normal civic assembly.
I agree with Trebilco that for Paul ‘talk of “the assembly” is actually shorthand for “the assembly of God”’ and that if Christians ‘speak simply of “the assembly”, they assume that it is “of God”, and do not need to spell out the fuller self-designation within the group’.Footnote 56 In contrast to Trebilco, however, I do not believe that the full phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’ is dependent on its one and only occurrence in the LXX in 2 Esd 23.1 (Neh 13.1) or on the alternative, more frequently used LXX phrase ἐϰϰλησία ϰυϱίου. Rather, for Paul, the phrase ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ is the recurrent expression of his underlying view on the two πολιτεύματα, and helps him to characterize the Christian ἐϰϰλησία as an alternative organization existing alongside the civic ἐϰϰλησίαι of the Greek cities, which continued to be important in the Roman period. In its only other occurrence in the NT writings outside the Pauline Corpus, in Acts the full phrase ‘ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ’ serves precisely to contrast the Christian ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ θεοῦ in Ephesus (20.28) from the civic ἐϰϰλησία of the Ephesians (19.32, 39–40). Horsley is fully aware of this political and alternative nature of the Christian ἐϰϰλησίαι, yet he seems to overemphasize the political opposition between the Christian and civic assemblies, as he believes that Paul almost issued a ‘declaration of independence and autonomy from the established (Roman imperial) order’.Footnote 57 A comparison of Paul's view of the two πολιτεύματα with Stoic thought, however, indicates that a more balanced view on the peaceful coexistence of both πολιτεύματα and ἐϰϰλησίαι is possible.
