Arnal, R.S. Ascough, R.A. Derrenbacker Jr. & P.A. … ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium cclxxxv scribal practices and social structures among jesus adherents essays in honour

This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in W.E.

Arnal, R.S. Ascough, R.A. Derrenbacker Jr. & P.A.

Harland (eds), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among

Jesus Adherents. Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg,

ISBN 978-90-429-3391-0

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters

Publishers.

As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the

pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations.

You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web –

including websites such as academia.edu and open-access

repositories – until three years after publication. Please

ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you

observes these rules as well.

If you wish to publish your article immediately on open-

access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to

the payment of the article processing fee.

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication

of your article, please contact the publisher via

[email protected]

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

CCLxxxV

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES AMONG jESUS ADHERENTS

ESSAyS IN HONOUR Of jOHN S. KLOPPENBORG

edited by

william e. arnal – richard s. ascoughrobert a. derrenbacker, jr. – philip a. harland

peetersleuVen – paris – bristol, ct

2016

98899_FS_Kloppenborg_BETL 285_vw.indd 5 18/10/16 10:27

TABLE Of CONTENTS

Tabula GraTulaToria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

PublicaTions by John s. KloPPenborG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

William e. arnal – Richard S. ascouGh – Robert A. Derren-bacKer, Jr. – Philip a. harlanD

“A Share in All Good Things”: An Introduction to a festschrift in Honour of john S. Kloppenborg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION I SCRIBALISM

Karen l. KinG“What Is an Author?”: Ancient Author-function in the Apoc-ryphon of John and the Apocalypse of john . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Giovanni b. bazzana“you Will Write Two Booklets and Send One to Clement and One to Grapte”: formal features, Circulation, and Social func-tion of Ancient Apocalyptic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Agnes choiBetween Literacy and Illiteracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Robert a. DerrenbacKer, Jr.Ancient Literacy, Ancient Literary Dependence, Ancient Media, and the Triple Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Alan KirKThe Scribe as Tradent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Sarah e. rollensWhy We Have failed to Theorize Scribes in Antiquity . . . . . . . 117

Zeba crooKScribal Remembering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Paul FosTerScribes and Scribalism in Matthew’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157


VIII TABLE Of CONTENTS

Daniel a. smiThWhat Difference Does Difference Make? Assessing Q’s Place in Christian Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Leif e. VaaGeHow I Stopped Being a Q-Scholar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Christopher TucKeTTjames and Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Stephen J. PaTTersonMotion and Rest: The Platonic Origins of a Mysterious Concept 251

William e. arnalHow the Gospel of Thomas Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Duncan reiDGospel Openings and the Synoptic Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

joseph VerheyDenClumsy Constructions? A Note on Parataxis, with an Eye on Mark and the Alexander Romance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Richard DemarisReconfiguring Rites in the fourth Gospel: A Case of Ritual Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Dennis c. DulinGThe Scribe “Discipled” for the Kingdom of the Heavens and the Θησαυρός of the Head of the Household (Matthew 13,52) 351

David b. PeaboDyjohn S. Kloppenborg – Scholar, Mentor, Author, Esteemed Colleague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Erin K. VearncombeOn Headaches, Gospel Codices, and the Interpretation of “Literate Media” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

SECTION II PAPyROLOGy, EPIGRAPHy, AND ASSOCIATIONS

Peter arzT-GrabnerDifferent Wages for Workers in a Vineyard: PKöln x 413 and Matthew 20,1-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407


TABLE Of CONTENTS Ix

Alex DammPiety in the Theatre at Ephesos and Acts 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Andreas benDlin“Sodalician Associations”? Digests 47.22.1 pr. and Imperial Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

Philip a. harlanDfund-raising and Group Values in the Associations . . . . . . . . . 465

Dennis e. smiThRevisiting Associations and Christ Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483

Richard lasTThe Myth of free Membership in Pauline Christ Groups . . . . . 495

Markus ÖhlerMeeting at Home: Greco-Roman Associations and Pauline Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

Richard s. ascouGhReimagining the Size of Pauline Christ Groups in Light of Association Meeting Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Alicia J. baTTen(Dis)Orderly Dress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

ABBREVIATIONS AND INDExES

abbreViaTions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587inDex oF ancienT WriTinGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

1. Hebrew Bible and Early jewish Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5912. New Testament and Early Christian Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . 5943. Classical Greek and Roman Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6044. Inscriptions and Papyri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609

inDex oF moDern auThors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617lisT oF conTribuTors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629


THE MYTH OF FREE MEMBERSHIP IN PAULINE CHRIST GROUPS

I. MeMbershIp In paulIne Groups1

Was it free for the “poor” to join a Christ group in the first-century? Many researchers have answered with a resounding “yes”, despite the reality that Christ groups needed steady income to purchase wine, bread, and other items for their gatherings. The model for understanding how a free Christ group could survive has been provided by a curious, and largely accepted, interpretation of 1 Cor 11,17-34. Researchers interpret that text to mean that a handful of the wealthiest Corinthians perpetually covered all the expenses in the operation of the ekklēsia and, through their generosity, exempted all members living at, or below, the level of subsistence from paying fees2. Unfortunately, the Corinthian text actually does not say anything about that group’s strategy for funding their meal. The notion of a free Corinthian ekklēsia has been challenged in recent scholarship3, yet 1 Cor 11,17-34 still provides an analogical base for unsubstantiated claims that the Thessalonian group could offer free mem-bership.

Second Thessalonians 3,6-15 is our fullest description of the structure of the Thessalonian group’s banquet, and it is widely interpreted on the free membership model. Unlike the Corinthian text, there is explicit men-tion of ekklēsia members eating for free in the Thessalonian text. Scholars typically suggest that the freeloaders ate for free because the Thessalonian ekklēsia loved them so much (see section II below). This paper will argue that they temporarily ate for free because they bargained with the ekklēsia to do so.

1. It was a privilege to write this article in honour of John Kloppenborg. John intro-duced me to Greco-Roman associations and, through them, to epigraphic and papyrolog-ical tools for the study of the Christ movement.

2. G. TheIssen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1982, p. 154; p. laMpe, Das korinthinische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch- römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11,17-34), in ZNW 82 (1991) 183-212, pp. 191-193.

3. See especially J.s. KloppenborG, Epigraphy, Papyrology and the Interpretation of the New Testament: Member Contributions to the Eucharist, in J. Verheyden – M. Öhler – T. CorsTen (eds.), Epigraphik und Neues Testament (WUNT), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, forthcoming.

98899_FS_Kloppenborg_BETL 285_26_Last.indd 495 18/10/16 10:37

496 R. LAST

In 2 Thess 3,6-15, the author of the letter – whom I call Paul for con-venience4 – disparages members of the Thessalonian ekklēsia who contin-ually eat free meals (δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐσϑίειν, 3,8) paid by other banquet participants (παρά τινος, 3,8; cf. 3,10-11). Paul instructs the ekklēsia to make a list (σημειοῦσϑαι, 3,14) of the freeloaders in order to shame them (ἐντρέπειν, 3,14) for the disorderliness they have created for the group (ἀτάκτως, 3,11). Paul does not clarify how the Christ group would benefit from the creation of a list of debtors, but some analogies from Greco- Roman associations show that the procedure was done in the interest of the long-term financial stability of the group. The following inscription represents the procedure. In this inscription, an association publicly lists the names of its members who owe fees that they failed to pay on time. The list of debtors served as a shaming mechanism that would encourage the club’s debtors to pay what they owe.

In order that the partnership in the sacrifices be maintained for all time for the associaiton (koinon) that is near Kalliphanes’ property and that of the hero Echelos, (it was decided) to inscribe (the names) of those who owe anything to the partnership (koinōnia) – both the principal and the interest, as much as each owes – on a stele and set it up by the altar in the temple (Agora 16:161.2-8 = GRA I 14, Athens, Attica; early III bce, translation by Kloppenborg)5.

My interest in the Thessalonian banquet is specifically 2 Thess 3,11 where Paul reveals that the freeloaders bargained (περιεργάζεσϑαι) with the ekklēsia in order to be permitted temporarily to eat for free. This text reads as follows:

For, also, when we were with you, we passed this on to you: if anyone is not willing to ἐργάζεσϑαι6, let him not eat (μηδὲ ἐσϑιέτω). For we hear that some walk in a disorderly manner (ἀτάκτως) among you, not ἐργάζεσϑαι but haggling (περιεργάζεσϑαι) (2 Thess 3,10-11).

4. For standard arguments in favour of pseudepigraphic authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see K.P. DonfrIed, 2 Thessalonians and the Church at Thessalonica, in B.H. Mclean (ed.), Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (JSNTSup, 86), Sheffield, JSOT Press, 128-144; M.J.J. MenKen, 2 Thessalonians, London – New York, Routledge, 1994, pp. 27-43. For recent contribu-tions, see P. FosTer, Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem, in JSNT 35 (2014) 150-175; and K.P. donfrIed, Issues of Authorship in the Pauline Corpus: Rethinking the Relationship Between 1 and 2 Thessalonians, in C. TucKeTT (ed.), 2 Thes-salonians and Pauline Eschatology (Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum, 21), Leuven, Peeters, 2013, 81-113.

5. See J.s. KloppenborG, Membership Practices in Pauline Christ Groups, in Early Christianity 4 (2013) 183-215, pp. 198-199.

6. In my full translation of the passage in section VIII, I take this verb to designate “work” in support of the Christ group rather than occupational employment. This is the sense of the cognate noun, ἔργον, in 1 Thess 5,13, a passage that also bears other resem-blances to 2 Thess 3,10-11.


THE MYTH OF FREE MEMBERSHIP IN PAULINE CHRIST GROUPS 497

Paul’s detail that the freeloaders needed to bargain (περιεργάζεσϑαι, 3,11) with the ekklēsia is typically overlooked. Instead, the partici-ple, περιεργαζόμενοι, is translated as “busybodies”, and, in one of the major commentaries on the letter, the Thessalonian περιεργαζόμενοι are imagined as members who were

essentially poor and did not work every day with their own hands, either as artisans or day labourers [and] of necessity must have been economically dependent on others. In all probability the somewhat better-off members of the community felt obliged to support such people, out of their sense of Christian obligation7.

The supposition that Christ associations imparted a “sense of Christian obligation” to the poor serves the apologetic aim of exalting Christ groups as morally superior to Greek associations8. It is to this issue that I turn next.

II. The MyTh of chrIsTIan broTherly love

The presupposition that Christ group meals were free for the poor runs deep in scholarship on the social history of early Christianity. The Thes-salonian group in particular has earned a reputation in scholarship for being “remarkable for its love”9 and as having “serve[d] the weak as an expres-sion of its love”10. Bruce Longenecker recently analysed 2 Thess 3,6-15 to indicate that “[c]ertain of the community’s members seem to have taken it for granted that the Thessalonian communities of Jesus-followers would offer them economic support despite their idleness”11. This conviction is upheld in several other studies12.

7. c.a. WanaMaKer, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1990, p. 163; cf. pp. 185-186. For the most recent articulation of this position, see a.J. Malherbe, Ethics in Context: The Thessaloni-ans and Their Neighbours, in HTS Teologiese studies/Theological Studies 68 (2012) 1-10.

8. See now the recent study by B.W. lonGenecKer, where charity in association life is a categorically Judean and “Christian” practice, while benefaction is much more character-istic of Greek and Latin groups: Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2010, pp. 67-74, 98-9.

9. A.J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB, 32B), New York, Doubleday, 2000, p. 256.

10. lonGenecKer, Remember the Poor (n. 8), pp. 148-149.11. Ibid., pp. 146-147.12. See, for example, Malherbe, Letters (n. 9), p. 456; J.J. MeGGITT, Paul, Poverty and

Survival, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 162-163; R. Russell, The Idle in 2 Thess 3.6-12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?, in NTS 34 (1988) 101-119 esp. 113; T.d. sTIll, Organizational Structures and Relational Struggles among the Saints: The Establishment and Exercise of Authority within the Pauline Assemblies, in Id. – d.G. horrell (eds.), After the


498 R. LAST

More broadly, it has been suggested that “Christian groups most effec-tively distinguished themselves from other cult associations, clubs, or phil-osophical schools [in] the organization of aid for widows, orphans, pris-oners, and other weaker members of the movement”13. Gerd Theissen refers to Pauline groups’ brand of care for the poor as distinctive: it is “love patriarchalism”14 – similarly, Justin Meggitt calls it “economic mutualism”15.

None of these idealizations would stand if Pauline groups behaved like typical Greco-Roman associations in closing their doors to people who could not afford membership dues, and penalizing members who were in arrears with fines, shame, and expulsion. The possibility of uncharitable first-century Christ groups should be not ruled out. Indeed, the dominant perspective of charitable economic practice in Pauline groups is not based on data about the groups’ behaviour but, rather, on the assumption that Paul’s eagerness (σπουδάζειν) to remember (μνημονεύειν) the poor (οἱ πτωχοί) (Gal 2,10)16, and Luke’s mythic narrative of communalism in the Jerusalem church (e.g., Acts 2,44-45, 4,34-35)17, shaped the financial practices of actual Christ groups. The Pauline groups sound strikingly similar to Luke’s Jerusalem church in Bruce Longenecker’s supposition that Pauline members of more modest economic strata “could enjoy the benefits of a benefactor’s generosity without being expected either to make membership payments or to be involved in public acclaim of the benefactor”18. Elsewhere, Longenecker makes the following case for coherence between Paul and the ekklēsiai in their position on charity:

care for the poor was, in fact, deeply embedded within Paul’s theological concerns. The fact that his letters usually do not explicitly address those

First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later, London – New York, T&T Clark, 2009, 79-98, esp. pp. 94-95.

13. W.A. MeeKs, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1993, p. 213.

14. G. TheIssen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1982, p. 107.

15. MeGITT, Paul (n. 12), pp. 155-164.16. LonGenecKer explicitly maps this ethic onto Pauline groups; see Remember the

Poor (n. 8), pp. 259-260 for a summary of this argument.17. For an analysis of mythic qualities in Luke’s description of the Jerusalem church,

see M.P. MIller. ‘Beginning from Jerusalem…’: Re-examining Canon and Consensus, in Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995) 3-30; and D.E. sMITh, Was There a Jerusalem Church? Christian Origins according to Acts and Paul, in Forum 3 (2000) 57-74.

18. lonGenecKer, Remember the Poor (n. 8), p. 271; cf. pp. 67-74 where Longenecker argues that Pauline groups’ financial initiatives were more “charitable” than lesser forms of generosity shown in Greco-Roman associations.



issues demonstrates that the same concern for the poor must have been shared by the communities he had founded and that their practices were not (usually) negligible in that regard19.

This argument comes after sixteen pages of presenting Paul’s ideali-zations about how Christ groups ought to be concerned for the poor (e.g., Rom 12,13; 2 Cor 8–9; Gal 6,9-10; 1 Thess 5,14), and virtually no information on charitable initiatives actually practiced by Christ groups. Among the authentic letters and Deutero-Pauline epistles, 2 Thess 3,6-12 is the only text Longenecker cites which says anything about the behav-iour of Paul’s groups and, as will be shown below, this text actually has been misread.

A similarly idealistic scenario is proposed by Eva Ebel, who argues that the Corinthian ekklēsia’s policy of charging no fees, and their offer of a free meal every week to all members, attracted multitudes of urban poor to them, giving them a recruitment advantage over Greco-Roman associations who charged fees20. This policy of free membership sounds a lot like Paul’s own idealization of ekklēsia egalitarianism in 1 Cor 12,13, 22-26. Ebel’s scenario of free membership might have been temporarily possible in Christ groups, but the fate of associations unable to collect fees from their members for any extended period of time was more likely to have been disbandment than social unity. This was the outcome of a collegium from second century Dacia – due to absenteeism and a lack of fee payments, the club’s officers had no means to pay the expenses that would accumulate from continued existence, and they decided to disband the group (CIL III 1 = AGRW 69; Alburnus Major, Dacia; 167 ce)21. If free Christ groups were able to avoid that fate, their strategy for doing so needs to be explained, not assumed.

19. Ibid., p. 156 (emphasis added).20. e. ebel, Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von

Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine (WUNT, II/178), Tübingen, Mohr Sie-beck, 2004, pp. 216-217. The idea that the Corinthian group was free is pervasive. See also H. conzelMann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corin-thians (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1975, p. 296; P. pIlhofer, Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996-2001 (WUNT, II/145), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, p. 207; lonGenecKer, Remember the Poor (n. 8), p. 271; d.J. doWns, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chron-ological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT, II/248), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, p. 101.

21. See also OGIS 595 = AGRW 317 (Campania, Italy; 174 ce) for a group that nearly needed to disband due to financial hardships even though its members were seemingly paying fees regularly.


500 R. LAST

III. The ThessalonIan banqueT

The theory that the Thessalonian περιεργαζόμενοι were freeloading meddlers at the Christ group’s banquet is most often argued from the strength of the fifteen comparative texts that are found in Table 1. There are four problems with this evidence. First, eleven of these fifteen texts do not use Paul’s language to denote busybodies. Strikingly, Paul’s περιεργαζόμενοι have been understood mostly in light of texts that refer to πολυπράγμονες, a word that almost always designates “busybodies” in the ancient literature, unlike Paul’s more versatile word which could sig-nify a host of different concepts, including the acts of haggling, interfering with property, and investigating.

Second, in the texts that actually use Paul’s word, the term does not always mean “busybodies” (though commentators rarely draw attention to this). For example, in Theophrastus, it means “over-zealous man”, not “busybody”. In two other instances, Paul’s word happens to be found together with πολυπράγμων but does not function synonymously with it. In one case, Paul’s word means “curiosity” (Philo), and in Epictetus it designates “meddlesomeness” while a different word is reserved for the concept of a “busybody”. Researchers almost always cite the comparative data in Table 1 without providing analyses of it, and so these problems have largely gone unnoticed.

Table 1: busybody analoGIes cITed In MaJor coMMenTarIes on 2 ThessalonIans

Text Greek term for “busybody/to be a busybody”Plato, The Republic 433a-b πολυπραγμονεῖν

Plato, Apology 19B περιεργάζεσϑαι

Plato, Gorgias 526c πολυπραγμονήσαντος

Plutarch, Moralia/On Being a Busybody 516A

ὁ πολυπράγμων

Polybius, History 18.51.2 πολυπραγμονεῖν

Lucian, Icaromenippus 20 πολυπραγμονεῖν

Epictetus, Discourses 3.22.97 “neither meddlesome [περίεργος] nor a busy-body [πολυπράγμων]”

Philo, On the Life of Abraham 20-21 meddlesome [πολυπράγμονος] curiosity [περιεργίας]

Chiton, Epistle 16.5 πολυπραγμοσύνη



Text Greek term for “busybody/to be a busybody”Dio Chrysostom, Oration 80.1 cited for its ideas, not vocabularyDemosthenes, On the Crown 18.72 περιεργάζεσϑαι [busybodies]Demosthenes, Against Aristogiton 2 26.15 περιεργάζεσϑαι [mischief-makers]1 Timothy 5,13 περίεργος

Acts of the Apostles περίεργα [magic]Theophrastus, Characters 13.4 περίεργος [“an overzealous man”]

Third, none of these texts attest to the presence of busybodies (ὁ πολυπράγμων or περίεργος) at meals or engaging in financial practices. In other words, these sources tell us nothing about περίεργοι in settings com-parable to 2 Thess 3,6-1522. Rather, these texts are often concerned with general and philosophical matters. For example, in Plato’s Apology 19B:

Socrates commits wrongs and meddles [περιεργάζεσϑαι], seeking what’s under the heavens and making the weaker argument stronger.

This text seems to have little relevance for understanding the περιεργαζόμενοι at the meal setting in 2 Thess 3,11.

Iv. busybodIes and MeddlInG In prIvaTe banqueTs and assocIaTIon Meals

A fourth problem with the material in Table 1 needs to be explored in greater detail than the others. In Paul’s text, the περιεργαζόμενοι are described as disorderly (ἀτάκτως) (2 Thess 3,11)23. Paul’s description of

22. The exception is Theophrastus, where the περίεργος is an overly zealous man.23. A common assumption is that the Thessalonian “busybodies” were “idle” (ἀτάκ

τως, v.11), as in non-wage earners. This may be due to readings of 2 Thess 3,11 with 1 Tim 5,13 in mind, where busybodies are ἀργοί (“idle”). Problematically, ἀτάκτως does not mean “failure to work” (as in Malherbe, Letters [n. 9], p. 317). See C. spIcq, ataktew, ataktos, ataktws, in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA, Hendrick-son, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 223-224, esp. 223. Cf. PEleph. 2.10-13 = SelPap I 82 (Elephantine, Egypt; 284 bce); 3 Macc 1.19; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.48; Josephus, War 4.231; Josephus, Apion 2.151; POxy II 275 = SelPap I 13 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; 66 ce); POxy IV 725 = SelPap I 14 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; 183 ce). The pervasive notion that the Thessalonian περίεργοι were “idle”, as in non-wage-earners, has generated the speculation that they received free everyday meals either from their alleged patrons outside of the Christ group (Bruce Winter) or from employed manual labourers within the ekklēsia (Abraham Mal-herbe). Ben WITherInGTon recently merged Winter’s and Malherbe’s proposals and arrived at a precise analogy to the situation in 2 Thess 3,6-15: “philosophers were notorious for being busybodies and also for living off of patrons, whom they served as tutors or rhetors”. This is a bold theory that must be rejected. None of Witherington’s sources speak about busybodies eating free meals or having patrons and, in addition, these texts do not mention


502 R. LAST

the περιεργαζόμενοι as disorderly invites an investigation into the behaviour of περίεργοι at dinners and, specifically, an investigation into the connection between meddlesomeness and disorderliness in meal set-tings. It is to an exploration of meddling at dinners that I turn next. I begin with private meals and then turn to association banquets.

1. Meddling as Disorderliness at Private Meals

Did busybodies (περίεργοι and cognates) create disorderliness at pri-vate and association banquets? In literary texts, περίεργοι (and cognates) appear within three lines of food and banquet terminology only in Theo-phrastus and the anonymous Life of Aesop until later centuries24. These few texts provide rich detail that helps to clarify the social dynamics at private dinners at which meddling participants were in attendance. They suggest that we might need to look for a different identification of Paul’s περιεργαζόμενοι in order to account for Paul’s description of their dis-orderliness and freeloading.

An illuminating source of evidence for the behaviour of busybodies, as in περίεργοι, at private meals is Life of Aesop25. Here, we find three references to busybodies at private dinners, but none of the busybodies in these texts create disorderliness. In one instance, after the slave, Aesop, insults the students of his master (the philosopher, Xanthos), by calling them busybodies, Xanthos challenges Aesop to go to the market to invite a dinner guest who is not a busybody (ἀπερίεργος). Xanthos threatens Aesop with a beating if his guest behaves like a busybody (περίεργος) on three occasions during the meal. The following passage narrates what tran-spires when Aesop’s selected guest arrives for a meal at Xanthos’ house:

At the set hour Xanthos led him in, and he reclined on the couch with (Xan-thos’) friends. Xanthos ordered honeyed wine to be given to the guest first. The guest said, “No, lord; you drink first, next your wife, and then we, your

περίεργοι (B. WITherInGTon, III [1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 253] cites Plutarch, Curios. 516A; Lucian, Icar. 20; Dio Chrysostom, Orations 80.1; and Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.97). See also Malherbe, Letters (n. 9), pp. 246-252; and B.W. WInTer, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefac-tors and Citizens, Grand Rapids, ΜΙ, Eerdmans, 1994, pp. 44-51.

24. See Theophrastus, Char. 13.4 (IV bce) where ὁ περίεργος (“the over-zealous man”) is a banquet host who prepares more wine than guests can drink. My TLG search was designed to be representative, not comprehensive. It included word searches for περιεργάζεσϑαι (and cognates) in addition to δεῖπνον, ἄριστον, ἄρτος, ἔσϑειν, οἶνος, πίνειν, συμπόσιον.

25. In the context of private meals, περίεργος held a range of meanings, including “over-zealous” in Theophrastus to describe a banquet host who prepares more wine than his guests can drink (Char. 13.4).



friends”. Xanthos nodded to Aesop, “I have (you) once” since (the guest) appeared (to be) a busybody ([ἀ]περίεργος). Next, fish soup was set before (the guest). Xanthos, contriving, said, “After giving it so much seasoning, my dish is still disdainful; for it has neither aromatic herbs, nor oil, and the soup is stale. Let the cook be beaten”. The guest said, “stop, lord! Nothing is blameworthy, everything is fine”. Xanthos nodded again to Aesop: “That’s two”. Then he carried in a full sesame cake. Xanthos, having tasted it, said, “Call the cook. For why does the cake have no honey or raisins?” The guest said, again, “lord, both the cake is good and nothing is missing from the dinner. Do not strike the slaves without purpose”. Xanthos again nodded to Aesop, “That’s three”. And (Aesop) said, “I concede”. After the guests rose from dinner and left, Aesop was hung up beaten (Life 57–58)26.

The busybody here is actually the most disciplined and orderly (τακτός) person in the room: he is the only one to insist that the honeyed wine be drunk in the proper order, he knows that Xanthos’ justification for beating his cook is poor, and he is aware that slaves should not be beaten without purpose (εἰκῇ), a piece of wisdom imparted in prior chapters (e.g., Life 38, 43). The guest’s meddling consisted of speaking about pro-cedures that are the host’s responsibility.

In a second attempt to invite a guest who is not a busybody, Aesop succeeds. Aesop selects a merchant from the market and leads him to Xanthos’ house. During the banquet, Xanthos attempts to trick the guest into behaving as a busybody by faking as though he is about to burn his wife alive in front of his dinner guests. The guest’s response is as follows:

And thinking that Xanthos was trying to test him, the countryman said to Xanthos, “lord, if you have chosen (to do) this, wait a minute until I run to the country and fetch my wife, and you can burn them both”. Xanthos was amazed by the coolness of the man who was not a busybody (Life 63– 64).

In Life of Aesop, dinner busybodies were guests who showed a concern for proper etiquette and normative banqueting practices. To be sure, it was the host’s place to do this, and in this way they meddled in the affairs of the host. No disorder was created otherwise. Indeed, the disorder created by the περιεργαζόμενοι in Thessalonikē related to financial matters and, unfortunately, such a context is necessarily absent in private dinners such as Xanthos’ banquets where the host is expected to pay for the menu items27.

26. Translations are mine unless indicated otherwise.27. See D.E. SMITh, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Chris-

tian World, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2003, p. 33.


504 R. LAST

The point here is not that the traditional translation of περιεργαζόμενοι in 2 Thess 3,6-15 is incorrect because Life of Aesop’s dinner-busybodies behaved differently than did the περιεργαζόμενοι at the Thessalonian banquets. The traditional translation of περιεργαζόμενοι in 2 Thess 3,6-15 is based on comparative evidence that mostly does not use Paul’s lan-guage, and never situates busybodies at dinner. That was the reason to examine the connection between meddling, freeloading, and disorderliness in meal settings. The evidence from Life of Aesop, which uses Paul’s language and situates busybodies at meals, generates reasons to explore a broader dataset for understanding freeloading at meals in Thessalonikē.

2. Busybodies in Greco-Roman Associations

In order to control speculation about the situation in 2 Thess 3,6-15, we need more evidence about the perception of meddling behaviour at meals in antiquity. Since the meal Paul describes in 2 Thess 3,6-15 was a Christ group meal, not a private banquet28, the occurrence and perception of meddlesome behaviour in associations is particularly significant.

The issue of meddling shows up in various forms in association bylaws. That busybody terminology is rarely used in these contexts might be due to the fact that the terms in Table 1 carried negative connotations when used to denote meddling, whereas associations generally encouraged meddlesomeness. First, in many association bylaws it is assumed that members would scan their dining rooms to ensure that no one had taken someone else’s seat29. This meddlesome behaviour was necessary in order to prevent participants from reclining in someone else’s more hon-

28. Paul’s order in 2 Thess 3,10 makes little sense if he were speaking about everyday meals for subsistence: a Christ group would not be able to enforce starvation in private settings. Crucially, association meals were not for subsistence, especially if the club was economically modest, and since Christ groups actually had the authority to restrict access to food in such a setting, scholars have argued that the meals described in 2 Thess 3,6-15 were ekklēsia banquets, not private dinners. For this argument, see r. JeWeTT, Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, in Biblical Research 38 (1993) 23-43, esp. p. 38; r.s. ascouGh, Of Memories and Meals: Greco-Roman Associations and the Early Jesus-Group at Thes-salonikē, in L. nasrallah – c. baKIrTzIs – s.J. frIesen (eds.), From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology (HTS, 64), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2010, 49-72, esp. pp. 61-67. Other interpreters have argued that the meal was a Christ group banquet for other reasons. See, for example, Russell, The Idle (n. 12), pp. 107-108; E. BesT, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, London, Black, 1972, pp. 333-334.

29. For example, IG II2 1368.72-4 = GRA I 51 (Athens, Attica; 164/5 ce); IDelta I 446.12 = AGRW 287 (Psenamosis, Egypt; 67, 64 bce); PMich V 243.8-11 = AGRW 300 (Teb-tynis, Egypt; 14-37 ce).



ourable seat, which the latter would have earned by performing some sort of generosity. Second, association members often needed to evaluate whether current officers brought enough food to the banquet when it was their turn to do so – that is, association members were expected to concern themselves with the business of officers at club meals30. We even find this act of meddling in Paul’s Corinthian group where a cohort informs Paul that the Corinthian banquet leaders were not distributing food properly (1 Cor 11,18). Third, associations meddled in their members’ affairs out-side of club meetings. For example, in an Athenian association (koinon) of the Heroists, it is stipulated that if a member is absent from a meeting, it is necessary to inquire about the reason so that the club could determine if the absence conformed to the club’s bylaws31. In other associations, prospective members were interrogated about their private affairs as part of the initiation process32.

On the whole, meddling in the affairs of others was built into the ethos of association membership. The following bylaws from an Egyptian trade guild’s regulations will suffice to make the point:

A member shall contribute two drachmas if he marries, two drachmas for the birth of a male child, one drachma for the birth of a female child, four drachmas if land is purchased, four drachmas for a flock of sheep, and one drachma for cattle. If a member ignores someone who is in distress and does not assist in helping him out of his trouble, he shall pay eight drachmas (PMich V 243.5-8 = AGRW 300; Tebtynis, Egypt; 14-37 ce; translation by Kloppenborg)33.

Since it was in the financial interest of this club to keep track of the life achievements of its members, it is plausible that some form of meddling would occur in the event that a member was trying to hide from this club, say, news of a childbirth. In Life of Aesop, if a dinner participant told someone where to sit when it was the host’s job to do so or decided how much wine everyone should drink when it was the symposium leader’s (symposiarch) job to do so, that person would be labelled a “busybody”

30. CIL XIV 2112.II.8-10 = AGRW 310 (Lanuvium, Italy; 136 ce); SEG XXXI 983.1-11 (Söke, Asia Minor; II/I bce); IPerg II 274.B-D = AGRW 117 (Pergamon, Asia Minor; 129-138 ce).

31. IG II2 1339 = GRA I 46 (Athens, Attica; 57/6 bce); IG II2 1368.96-99 = GRA I 51 (Athens, Attica; 164/5 ce).

32. See J.S. KloppenborG, The Moralizing of Discourse in Greco-Roman Associations, in C. Johnson hodGe – s.M. olyan – d. ulluccI – e. WasserMan (eds.), “The One Who Sows Bountifully”: Essays in Honor of Stanley K. Stowers (Brown Judaic Studies, 356), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, 215-228.

33. See also IG II2 1275.7-13 = GRA I 8 (Piraeus, Attica; 325-275 bce) and OGIS 213.23- 4 = AGRW 213 (Elaeussa Sebaste area, Cilicia; late II bce – early I ce).


506 R. LAST

(Life 55-64). Indeed, in the first instance of a dinner busybody in Life, the individual simply pointed out that the host was distributing wine improp-erly (Life 57), whereas at association banquets, willingness to announce an infraction, or to point out that something was out of order, was a pre- requisite for club bylaws to be enforced and followed.

In light of the centrality of meddling in the affairs of others in associa-tions, it is not surprising that in the one instance where περιεργάζεσϑαι is prohibited in an association text (IG II2 1366.14-16 = GRA I 53; Lau-rion, Attica, late II or early III ce), it denoted the act of “interfering (with the property of the god)”, not meddling. To be sure, πολυπραγμονεῖν (“meddling”) is also prohibited by this association, but this seems to relate as well to the property of the deity and, therefore, to a financial misdeed. This inscription will be explored further below.

In summary of the observations drawn so far, the sources on Table 1, which are the ones commentators cite in support of the busybody reading of 2 Thess 3,11, are mostly off topic and often do not use Paul’s language. When we try to understand the activity of meddling in the context of pri-vate meals and association banquets – as this study has attempted to do – it becomes clear that meddling was sometimes done to create order at pri-vate meals and club banquets. Meddling at meals was not typically gener-ative of ἀτάκτως. This observation problematizes the busybody reading of 2 Thess 3,11 because Paul describes the περιεργαζόμενοι in a way that is the opposite of busybody behaviour at meals in Roman antiquity.

v. a neW approach

The verb, περιεργάζεσϑαι, held several meanings in antiquity, includ-ing “to bargain”, “to investigate”, “to labour excessively”, “to strive zealously”, and “to meddle”. It occurs nearly 4,000 times in literary texts, documentary papyri, and epigraphic sources. In light of this semantic range, we cannot assume that the word in 2 Thess 3,11 simply “means ‘to meddle’ in that which is not one’s concern”34. Rather, what Christina Kreinecker says about the usage of περιεργάζεσϑαι in papyri is true of the thousands of occurrences of the word and its cognates in literary and epigraphic data as well: “The verb περιεργάζομαι, which basically means ‘to strive eagerly’ … takes different translations depending on its context”35.

34. G.L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans; Leicester, Apollos, 2002, p. 351.

35. c.M. KreInecKer, 2. Thessaloniker (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Tes-tament, 3), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, p. 206: “Das verb περιεργάζομαι,



Kreinecker’s observation about the context determining the meaning of the word calls for a new method of selecting comparative data based on literary context. Previous scholarship has taken as its starting point the assumption that the Thessalonians were unemployed philosophers or cli-entela pushing their patrons’ interests in public, and have sought out evi-dence as comparative phenomena even if it does not use Paul’s language and does not reflect the meal context of 2 Thess 3,6-15 (see Table 1). In the following section, I analyse sources that reference περιεργάζεσϑαι – regardless of the meaning – in contexts where, like 2 Thess 3,6-15, food or money are at issue. My data are organized in Table 2. Most of these sources have never been employed to illuminate 2 Thess 3,6-15. These texts originate between IV bce and VI ce, but this collection is not com-prehensive of the vast number of comparable usages of περιεργάζεσϑαι and cognates in situations involving food and money. Omissions from the list include material that, if added, would be repetitive36. The dataset in Table 2 provides the foundations for a fresh reconstruction of the social situation behind 2 Thess 3,6-15.

Table 2: περίεργοί In seTTInGs analoGous To 2 Thess 3,6-15

Text Date Terminology Translation Literary/ Social Setting

Demosthenes, Philippic 4 10.72-73

IV bce περιεργάζεσϑαι, ἐργάζεσϑαι, ἡσυχία

“meddling” “bustling” “inactivity”

Comparison between περιεργάζεσϑαι and ἐργάζεσϑαι,

Theophrastus, Characters 13.4

IV bce ὁ περίεργος “the over-zealous man”

At a banquet, the host prepares more wine than guests can drink

PCair Zen III 59393 275-226 bce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to bargain” Property at issue

das in seiner Grundbedeutung ‘sich eifrig bemühen’ meint … und je nach Bedeutungskon-text unterschiedlich wiederzugeben”.

36. For example, stories in recensions of Life of Aesop other than Vita G are excluded. I have confirmed that these do not offer anything (for present purposes) that is not already documented in Vita G. Other relevant passages, such as Menander’s Epitrepontes (l.575), do not evidence any semantic variation that is not already present in the table.


508 R. LAST

Text Date Terminology Translation Literary/ Social Setting

PLond VI 1912 = CPJ II 153

41 ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to bargain” Possessions at issue

Philo, On Abraham 20-21

I ce περιεργία “curiosity” In ϑίασοι ἀνϑρώπων (= “company of men”)

Life of Aesop 55-64 I ce περιεργάζεσϑαι, περίεργος

“to comment on the affairs of others”

At three meal settings

Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 1.174

II ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to labour excessively”

synonymous with ἐργάζεσϑαι

Favorinus, Fragments 96.19.2

II ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to interfere” Food and possessions at issue

IG II2 1365 + 1366 = GRA I 53

II ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to interfere” Cultic group

POxy LIX 3994.4 201-225 ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to enquire” property involved

PPrinc III 119 = SB 12 10989

325-326 ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to tamper” property involved

PHarrauer 49, ll.6-8 401-500 ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to investigate”

Property involved

CPR XXV 14.2 VI ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to investigate”

Property involved

POxy XXXIV 2732.15 501-600 ce περιεργάζεσϑαι “to ask for news”

money and goods involved

vI. Περιεργαζόμενοι In The conTexT of Money and properTy

Since Paul mentions the περιεργαζόμενοι while discussing money (2 Thess 3,8) and property (e.g., food, 3,8.10), the semantic range of the word in these settings will prove illuminating. The earliest usage of περιεργάζεσϑαι in a text concerning property is a private letter from Apollonius to his secretary, Zenon. Here, the word denotes the activity of haggling:

Apollonios to Zenon, greetings. A buyer visited me concerning your big horse and I am not able to bargain (περιεργάσασϑαι) the price unless



I hear from you. Therefore, write to me what price it should be sold by you. Write to me, for I am in Kerke, so that I should know. Farewell (PCairZen III 59393; Kerke, Egypt; 275-226 bce).

The word carried this meaning into the Roman period. In a famous papyrus that, to my knowledge, has not been brought to bear on 2 Thess 3,6-1537, the Alexandrian Judean community is described as having bargained for certain rights. Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrian Judeans reads as follows:

And to the Judeans I outright command that you not haggle (περιεργάζεσϑαι) for more than what you formerly possessed nor in the future to send out two embassies as though you were living in a separate city (PLond VI 1912.90 = Sel. Pap. II 212 = CPJ II 153; Alexandria, Egypt; 41 ce).

One can see from this papyrus how the act of haggling might be per-ceived as a type of meddling that generated annoyance as in 2 Thess 3,6-15.

In the context of property, the verb could connote a thorough investiga-tion. This is the meaning in a fragmentary private letter between Christians where the recipient is given the instruction: “to investigate thoroughly (περιεργάζεσϑαι) what kind of wine, sent from our cellar, pleased the common master, and from which place (it came) (CPR XXV 14.2; Arsi-noites or Herkleopolites, Egypt; VI ce).

Although this text is late, it helps to demonstrate the flexibility of the verb and the need to allow a text’s context to determine its meaning. The meaning “to investigate” appears a few more times in the papyri when property is at issue38. In one example, a certain Calocaerus, asks his sister to investigate (περιεργάζεσϑαι, l. 4) his wife because she has not been returning his letters (POxy LIX 3994.8-9; Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; early III ce). The reason for the investigation is “not because I care about her, but because everything I possess is in her hands”39.

vII. redescrIbInG The ThessalonIan Περιεργαζόμενοι

The term, περιεργάζεσϑαι, denoted “haggling”, “investigating thor-oughly”, and also, as we saw earlier, “interfering” (e.g., PPrinc III 119, II.3; 325 ce), when used in contexts analogous to 2 Thess 3,6-15. With

37. Kreinecker’s papyrological commentary (2. Thessaloniker [n. 35], pp. 205-207) is an exception, but Kreinecker does not find the papyrus helpful for understanding Paul’s use of the verb.

38. See, for example, PHarrauer 49.7 (Arsinoites or Herakleopolites, Egypt; 401-500 ce), and the textual amendments in A. papaThoMas,, Textkritische Bermerkungen zu einem griechischen Geschäftsbrief, in ZPE 136 (2001) 177-178; and POxy XXXIV 2732 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; possibly VI ce).

39. οὐκ ἐπεὶ μέλει μοι περὶ αὐτῆς, ἀλλὰ εἴ τι ἔχω παρʼ αὐτῇ ἐστιν.


510 R. LAST

Kreinecker we can rule out “investigating thoroughly” for 3,11 since, as she observes, this is a virtuous behaviour that is not critiqued in Greek sources in the way Paul attacks the activity of περιεργάζεσϑαι40. The possibility of “interfering” is appealing especially because it appears as a prohibited act in an association text (“interfering with the property of the god”) where it seemingly represents a financial misdeed (IG II2 1366.16 = GRA I 53). However, it is difficult to imagine how the notion of “inter-fering” could be read into 2 Thess 3,6-15. It would involve some type of interfering with the property of Christ, on this potential model. But how that would lead to free meals is unclear. Moreover, it would be odd for an association to “note down” or make a list of interferers (2 Thess 3,14).

“Haggling” is the other main possibility. It was characterized negatively in Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians and, moreover, coheres with several other details in 2 Thess 3,6-15 concerning problems at the banquet when understood in light of financial practices at the meals of Greco-Roman associations. Fascinatingly, association sources clarify how haggling could lead directly to freeloading in settings analogous to 2 Thess 3,6-15. This is the missing link in the “busybody” translation: scholarship has yet to describe adequately how the act of being a busybody could lead to free meals in a Christ group. As I will now show, the link between negotiating and freeloading is, by contrast, rather clear.

1. From Haggling to Freeloading in AssociationsPaul’s description of Thessalonians who eat for free as περιεργαζόμε

νοι becomes comprehensible if they are understood to have negotiated terms with the ekklēsia allowing them to freeload temporarily. Several examples of this practice are attested in the association data. A few illu-minating cases come from a Hellenistic Egyptian club (PTebt III/2 894; Tebtynis, Egypt; 114 bce). In this association, two members negotiated deals allowing them to bring material goods to a banquet in lieu of money:

Ἐπὴπ λ. χα(λκοῦ) τά(λαντον) α Α,Τράλις ἄμην Ασ,Θέων κιτὼν γυ(ναικεῖος) τν

30th of Epeiph. 1 copper talent, 1000 dr.Trallis a shovel valued at 1,200 dr.Theōn, a tunic (κιτών) valued at 350 dr. (Frag. 9, recto II.36-38)

The editors say the following regarding these lines: “It is not clear what these entries signify. Perhaps in lieu of money the subscribers gave these

40. KreInecKer, 2. Thessaloniker (n. 35), p. 207.



articles, valued at the stated amounts”41. If they are correct about the meaning of these entries, both Trallis and Theōn negotiated agreements with the Tebtynis club allowing them to eat food at a club banquet with-out paying money, though they were required to contribute material goods.

During a meeting on the 18th day of the month Payni, most members of the Tebtynis club paid their fees upon arrival, but two – Artemōn and Eudēmos – paid theirs a few days late (Frag. 1, recto II. 6-7). The club account does not clarify what led to the leniencies given to Artemōn and Eudēmos. But some form of negotiation needed to occur before the club would allow these members to participate in the club banquet this evening without paying subscription dues.

The Tebtynis papyrus only records the results of the bargaining of Artemōn, Eudēmos, Trallis, and Thēon; it does not mention the act of negotiating itself. The act of negotiating for temporary relief from paying dues can be visualized through a passage in the Athenian Iobacchoi’s bylaw. This association had a zero tolerance policy on freeloading, but they recognized that when members failed to pay their fees, some form of bargaining should happen between the debtors and the guild leaders.

If one of those who enters does not pay the entrance fee to the priest or the vice priest, he shall be expelled from the banquet until he pays and he shall pay in whatever way the priest orders (IG II2 1368.102-107 = GRA I 51; Athens, Attica; 164/5 ce; translation by Kloppenborg and Harland)

The Iobacchoi refrained from threatening a specific procedure for their debtors other than to insist that debts be paid back. The club left the terms of individual arrangements to the priest – the debtor is to pay their debt “in whatever way the priest orders”. The openness to “pay in whatever way the priest orders” could, in theory, result in members bringing shov-els instead of fees (as in PTebt III/2 894, Frag. 9, recto II.37-38). It could even result in gradual payments over time (cf. Frag 12, recto II.1-14)42.

41. B.P. Grenfell – a.s. hunT – J.G. SMyly (eds.), Tebtynis Papyri, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1902-1938, vol. 3.2, p. 170.

42. It is unclear if PTebt III/2 894, Frag. 12, recto II.1-14 is a list of gradual payments of overdue subscription dues or to gradual repayments of loans. If loans, several analogies exist: see CPJ II 149 (Abusir-el-Meleq, Egypt; 10 bce); PRyl IV 589, cols. I-VIII (Phila-delphia, Egypt; 180 bce); Clara Rhodos 2 (1932) 175, no. 4 (Lindos, Aegean; II bce) and commentary on this inscription in V. GabrIelsen, The Rhodian Associations and Economic Activity, in Z.H. archIbald – J. davIes – v. GabrIelsen – G.J. olIver (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London – New York, Routledge, 2001, 215-244, esp. pp. 235-236; SB XXIV 16296 (Unknown provenance, Egypt; 182 or 158 bce); PRyl IV 586 (Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; 99 bce); PStras. IV 287 (Hermopolis, Egypt; VI ce) and com-mentary on this latter papyrus in I.F. fIKhMan, Sur quelques aspects socio-économiques


512 R. LAST

Instances of bargaining for temporary freedom from fee payments in associations not only illuminates the connection between περιεργάζεσϑαι (“negotiating”) and eating for free temporarily, but also coheres with Paul’s advice to the ekklēsia about how to solve the problem of collecting overdue fees. Paul advises the ekklēsia to “note down” (σημειοῦσϑαι; 3,14) disorderly (ἄτακτοι) members as a “warning” (νουϑετεῖν; 3,15) to make them feel shame (ἐντρέπειν; 3,14). The inscription quoted in this study’s introductory section, Agora 16:161.2-8 = GRA I 14, shows that the act of making a list of members in financial debt to a club was within the range of ways in which associations attempted to extract over-due fees from their debtors43. Alternatively, a list of “busybodies” would seem to have very little utility.

2. Haggling as Disorderliness

When members failed to pay subscription dues, or negotiated deals with their association to postpone fee payments, they created disorder, as Paul describes (2 Thess 3,11). It was a disorder in associations because failure to pay for one’s seat at a club banquet constituted a breach of a rather ubiquitous club bylaw requiring all members to pay their member-ship fees44.

In the event that the Thessalonians had no written policy on contribu-tions for their banquet, freeloading still would have hindered the club’s ability to carry out its activities and was thus a threat to the Christ group’s survival if left unchecked. This is vividly illustrated in PTebt I 118 (Teb-tynis, Egypt; late II bce), which records the income and expenses for three meetings of a club. At all three meetings the income generated by

de l’activité des corporations professionnelles de l’Égypte byzantine, in ZPE 103 (1994) 19-40, esp. p. 37.

43. See, also, for example, PRyl IV 589, cols. I-VIII (Philadelphia, Egypt; 180 bce); and PTebt III/2 894, Frag. 12, recto II (Tebtynis, Egypt; 114 bce).

44. ascouGh has provided data showing that misbehaviours in breach of club regula-tions, such as taking other members’ seats, insulting other members, and disrupting sacrifices (Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians & 1 Thessalonians [WUNT, 161], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 181-182) were regarded as disorderli-ness by collegiati. He observes that ἀκοσμεῖν was used for this reason by associations in IG II2 1368.72-83, 136-46 = GRA I 51 (Athens, Attica; 168 ce) and IG V/1 1390.39-41 (Andania, Peloponnese; 96 bce), and that this was regarded as a synonym of ἀτακτεῖν by Plutarch. For bylaws against freeloading, see IG II2 1339.5-15 = GRA I 46 (Athens, Attica; 57/56 bce); PMich V 243.2-3 = AGRW 300 (Tebtynis, Egypt; 14-37 ce); PMich V 244.18-20 = AGRW 301 (Tebtynis, Egypt; 43 ce); PMich V 245.37-42 = AGRW 302 (Tebtynis, Egypt; 47 ce); CIL XIV 2112, col. 2.20-23 = AGRW 310 (Lanuvium, Italy; 136 ce); SEG XXXI [1981], no. 122.42-45 = GRA I 50 (Liopesi, Attica; early II ce); IG II2 1368.45-49 = GRA I 51; Athens, Attica; 164/165 ce).



membership fees was vital. I have included the club’s financial report for just one of their meetings:

Τῦβι κε. οἴνου κε(ραμίου) α Β, στ[εφάνου ̣ ̣, (γίνονται) ̣ ̣ ̣] εἰσὶν ἄνδρες κα ἀνὰ ρ [Βρ,] ὑπὲρ ἀνη(λώματος) κ. 25th of Tybi: one keramion of wine cost 2000 drachmas, one crown cost [120 drachmas]45. Twenty-one persons were present; each paid 100 drach-mas, for a total income of 2100 drachmas. Debt: 20 drachmas (ll. 16-18).

For this association, membership dues were the minimum level of income needed to hold a banquet. Indeed, the drachmas generated from subscription fees did not even cover all of the club’s dining expenses. If two or three members freeloaded at one meeting, there might not be enough money for the club to buy wine for its next scheduled banquet.

This papyrus clarifies how failure to pay subscription dues could be perceived as disorderly in antiquity, not only because it breached the standard club bylaw that all members must pay what they owe, but also because the club’s ability to hold an orderly banquet with wine, food, and proper honorifics for service-providers, was dependent upon payment of subscription dues.

vIII. a neW TranslaTIon of 2 Thess 3,6-15

In light of this study’s scrutiny of the “busybodies” rendering of περιεργαζόμενοι in Paul, and this paper’s identification of an alternative rendering for the word which fits better in the context of a Christ group meal, I propose the following translation of 2 Thess 3,6-15:

6I encourage you, members, in the name of the lord Jesus Christ, to separate yourselves from every member who walks disorderly (ἀτάκτως) and not according to the tradition which they received from us. 7For you yourselves know how it is necessary to imitate us (and) that we were not disorderly (ἠτακτήσαμεν) among you 8 – we did not eat free food from anyone (οὐδὲ δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν), but in labour and toil during night and day we worked in order to not burden any of you. 9Not that we don’t have [the] authority [to be exempt from dues], but [because] we gave ourselves to you as a model so that you could be imitating us. 10For, when we were with you, we also passed this on to you: if anyone is not willing to provide for the group (ἐργάζεσϑαι), let him not eat (μηδὲ ἐσϑιέτω). 11For we hear that some walk in a disorderly manner (ἀτάκτως) among you, not providing

45. The club paid 120 drachmas for a crown at a previous meeting (l. 9). The numbers at the Tybi 25 meeting add up if they paid the same price for this crown.


514 R. LAST

(ἐργάζεσϑαι) but haggling (περιεργάζεσϑαι).12To such individuals we order and require in the lord Jesus Christ that, contributing quietly, they should eat their own bread (μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσϑίωσιν). 13Now, members, do not be lax when you do what is good. 14If someone does not comply with our instruction in this letter, note down (σημειοῦσϑαι) this person and do not associate with them in order that they should be ashamed (ἐντρέπειν). 15Do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as a member.

In these verses, I have taken ἐργάζεσϑαι to signify not “work” – as in a job – but, more generally, “to provide”, as in doing work for the association. This is the sense of the word in the only other instance in the Thessalonian correspondence where it is contrasted with ἀτάκτως or, dis-orderliness (τὸ ἔργον, 1 Thess 5,13)46. The term, ἀτάκτως, although it is often rendered idleness, and described as laziness, actually designates disorderliness, as commentators now agree. Περιεργάζεσϑαι takes the meaning “to haggle”, one of the activities it denoted when used in the context of money and property.

Unlike the traditional reading of this text, my new translation is not based on presumptions about the psychology, private employment, or patronage relationships of members in the ekklēsia47. The issue at the Thessalonian banquet, this study has asserted, was one that many other private cultic groups anticipated, experienced and corrected in various ways: failure of some members to pay their required subscription dues at banquets. Paul does not specify the reason for the misbehaviour. This means that it remains possible that the delinquents were unemployed or that they were under-employed, as other interpreters have attempted to argue. At the same time, it is too often assumed that they were unemployed on the strength of 1 Thess 4,10-12, especially v.11 (“work with your own hands”; ἐργάζεσϑαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν). The issue in that text

46. The work (τὸ ἔργον) of the κοπιῶντες in 1 Thess 5,13 earns them esteem (ἡγεῖσϑαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ). The κοπιῶντες are also denoted as προϊστάμενοι (v. 12), that is, leaders in the ekklēsia, not manual labourers in private life (see ascouGh, Paul’s Macedonian Associations [n. 44], pp. 176-177). The kind of “work” that earned leaders (προϊστάμενοι) esteem in cultic groups was financial contributions or proper handling of leadership duties. For the former, see AM 66:228 no. 4 = GRA I 39 (Athens, Attica; 138/7 bce) IBeroia 22 = AGRW 35 (Beroea, Macedonia; 7 bce); IG X/2.1 58 = AGRW 47 (Thessalonikē, Macedonia; I bce – I ce); IJO 1, Ach67 = ASSB 101 (Delos, Aegean; 150-50 bce). For the latter, see IG II2 1298 = GRA I 20 (Athens, Attica; 248/7 bce); IG II2 1334 = GRA I 45 (Piraeus, Attica; after 71/70 bce); IG II2 1343 = GRA I 48 (Athens, Attica; 37/6 or 36/5 bce); IJO II 168 = ASSB 103 (Acmonia, Asia Minor; 50-100 ce).

47. Russell seems correct in observing that: “Although some have suggested … that the idle were urged to withdraw from public discussion of the parousia in the market-place, it is more likely that the context of the problem was primarily within church life (περὶ τῆς φιλαδελφίας in 1 Thess 4,9) and not public affairs (The Idle [n. 12], p. 109).



is outsiders’ perceptions of the group, not the internal financial organiza-tion of the Christ group’s banquet, which is the focus of 2 Thess 3, 6-15. Crucially, the issue of ekklēsia members working with their own hands is not mentioned at all in 2 Thess 3,6-15.

The presence of debtors in the Thessalonian Christ group may seem odd on this paper’s reading of 2 Thess 3,6-15. How would people too poor to afford fees gain entrance into the association in the first place? The economic situation of these debtors is best understood as a temporary drop in status that resulted in overdue fees at the time of the composition of 2 Thessalonians. It is well documented that occasionally collegiati came into economic hardships after joining a club (e.g., PMich V 243.8-9 [Arsinoites, Egypt; 14-37 ce]; PMich V 244.9-10 [Tebtynis, Egypt; 43 ce]; PRyl II. 94 [Euhemeria, Egypt; 14-36 ce])48. Their economic fall into lower socio-economic strata disabled them from performing previous financial activity. Informatively, the Christ group did not relax the require-ment that these members pay their fees (2 Thess 3,10-11), which indicates that their economic fall was not imagined as permanent.

Ix. conclusIon

The recent insistence on the “nearly complete absence of wealth”49 among Pauline Christ-believers presumes that people could join these groups even if living dangerously close to, or below, the level of subsist-ence. This theory has been forwarded without consideration for the cost of maintaining a Christ group, and without inquiry into the range of fund-ing mechanisms employed by various other cult groups for doing so.

I have argued that the presence of freeloaders at this meal is not evi-dence of a special “brotherly love” ethic motivating wealthier members to fund food for the entire Christ group. Rather, the Thessalonian group seems to have permitted certain members to negotiate (περιεργάζεσϑαι) terms with the ekklēsia, which allowed their continued presence at ban-quets for which they did not contribute fees. It is true that Paul tells the Thessalonian group that it was especially loving (1 Thess 4,9-12), but that

48. a. Monson, The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations, in Ancient Society 36 (2006) 221-238, esp. p. 229; P.F. venTIcInque, Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt, in GRBS 50 (2010) 273-294, esp. pp. 282-285.

49. s.J. frIesen, The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis, in Id. – d.n. schoWalTer – J.G. WalTers (eds.), Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2010, 224-249, p. 256.


516 R. LAST

should not be applied at face value to an understanding of funding mech-anisms for the group’s common meal (2 Thess 3,6-15). The Thessalo-nians’ supposed “loving” nature towards members who temporarily did not contribute to the ekklēsia’s common fund should be situated in light of ranges of behaviours in analogous settings. For example, a “loving” response to debtors might be to refrain from expelling them immediately (IG II2 1339.5-15 = GRA I 46; Athens, Attica; 57/56 bce), or arresting them (PMich V 245.37-42 = AGRW 302; Tebtynis, Egypt; 47 ce), or laying additional fines upon them (SEG 31 [1981], no. 122.42-45 = GRA I 50; Liopesi, Attica; early II ce). The Thessalonians might have approached their debtors the way that a Christian association (ἐργασία) of workers collected loan payments from their members (PStras IV 287; Hermopolis, Egypt; VI ce). Itzhak Fikhman describes that loan as “friendly” based on its features: The low amount of money loaned, lack of interest, short term, and lack of surety, penalty clauses, etc. suggest that it is a friendly loan50. “Friendliness” is discernable in the way that non-Christian associations treated debtors, as well51. In the final analysis, Gordon Fee exhibits the appropriate level of caution by admitting that “even though the text itself [i.e., 2 Thess 3,6-15] is generally straightforward and overall easily accessi-ble, in the end we know very little about the specifics as to what occasioned it”52. With this in mind, it is best to refrain from citing it as an example of “Christian” brotherly love, and free membership in Christ groups.

Richard lasT

50. fIKhMan, Quelques aspects (n. 42), pp. 19-40, esp. 37: “Le montant limité de la somme, l’absence d’intérêts, le court terme, l’absence de caution, de clauses pénales etc., tout ça indique qu’il s’agit d’une aide amicable”.

51. See, for example, IG II2 1638.102-107 = GRA I 51 (Athens, Attica; 164/165 ce); and PTebt III/2 894 Frag. 9, recto II.36-38 (Tebtynis, Egypt; 114 bce).

52. G.d. fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 324-325.


Documents

Arnal, R.S. Ascough, R.A. Derrenbacker Jr. & P.A. … ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium cclxxxv scribal practices and social structures among jesus adherents essays in honour