摒除尊卑之分——羅馬書這封宣教者信函的要旨

　　The Seminary invited world renowned New Testament scholar, Professor Robert Jewett, to be our speaker at the morning chapel on April 17. Dr. Chow Siu-chun was the respondent. Dr. Jewett claimed Roman’s main theme is the overcoming of shameful status and pointed out that this same issue often lies behind the many conflicts of the 21st century. We are indeed privileged that Dr. Jewett has granted HKBTS’s English Newsletter permission to publish his manuscript in this issue.

Introduction

　　One of the oddities of Romans research, dominated thus far by western scholars, is the lack of interest in the twofold admonition to “welcome” each other in Rom 14:1 and 15:7 and the twenty-one repetitions of the formula “greet so and so” in chapter 16. In the vast scholarly literature on Romans, there is not a single article devoted to either of these terms. The reference in 16:16 to the “holy kiss” has attracted more attention,¹ but no study has thus far explained its function in the congregational situation or the argument of the letter. In the studies written on the dialectic between honor and shame in Romans, there is no mention of the social function of honoring guests implicit in these references.²

　　Given the fact that these admonitions form the climax of the letter, their significance is indisputable. Yet commentators have lacked the theological and social sensitivity to understand what was at stake in these prominent references. The preoccupation with issues of guilt and forgiveness, which has dominated the theology of Romans since Augustine’s time, has rendered our theological tradition oddly uninterested in the pervasive social issues of shameful exclusion and honorable welcome. What is the function of these themes in the argument of the Paul’s letter? What is their social and theological relevance in the situation Paul is attempting to address in Romans? Is there a basis here to develop a new ethic of honorable welcome in the 21st century? We begin the quest with a consideration of the language of honor and shame in the opening chapter of the letter.

I. Overcoming shameful status in the argument of Romans

　　E. A. Judge helps us understand that Paul in Romans is reversing a broad cultural tradition in the ancient world that viewed the earning of honor as the only suitable goal for life. “It was held that the winning of honor was the only adequate reward for merit in public life. ”³ This insight was confirmed by Empire of Honor, in which J. E. Lendon describes the views of the upper class in the Roman Empire:

When a great aristocrat peered down into society beneath him, there was a threshold beneath which, to his mind, honor did not exist; there were people, a great many people, without honor, and best kept that way…. The slave is the archetype of the man without honor.⁴

Most of the audience of Romans consisted of persons with no prospects of gaining such glory. In the hierarchical context of Roman society, the early Christians were mostly slaves and former slaves who were demeaned from birth on prejudicial grounds. The rhetoric of shame in New Testament usage includes both shameful deeds and shameful status imposed by others.⁵ It is the second type of shame that surfaces most prominently in this letter. In fact the most damaging form of shame is this second type, namely to internalize prejudicial assessments that persons or groups are worthless, that their lives are without significance.

　　In “Honor and Righteousness in Romans,” Halvor Moxnes places the argument of the letter in the ancient cultural context of an “honor society” in which “recognition and approval from others” is central, which means that the “group is more important than the individual.”⁶ This contrasts with the dominant concern of Western theology and interpretation of Romans, “in which guilt and guilt-feeling predominate as a response to wrongdoing.”⁷ He notes that the word fields of honor and shame play important roles in the argument of Romans, with references to “honor, dishonor, shameless, be ashamed, put to shame, glory, glorify, praise, boast and boasting” playing decisive roles in Paul’s argument. This focus on honor and shame relates to the central purpose of the letter as Moxnes understands it, “to bring together believing Jews and non-Jews in one community.”⁸ This means that shameful exclusion should be overcome, and that cannot be accomplished by forgiveness. This relates to the fact that guilt and forgiveness are decidedly secondary issues in Romans.

　　To these references, I would add the socially discriminatory categories that Moxnes overlooked such as

• “Greeks and barbarians, educated and uneducated” in 1:14;
• The 28 appearances of the potentially shameful epithet “Gentiles”;
• The categories “weak” and “strong” employed in 14:1-15:7;
• The 25 references to social gestures of honor in the form of “welcome” and “greeting” that dominate the last three chapters;
• And the 70 references to “righteousness,” “make righteous,” etc. that are often mistranslated as “justification.”

　　When compared with the single allusion to the “passing over previously committed sins” in Rom 3:25, it is clear that a mainstream has been confused for a minor current in the tradition of interpreting Romans. Therefore, in place of the traditional theology of Romans that concentrates on individual guilt and forgiveness for failing to live up to the law, I propose that the central issue is setting the world right by overcoming its perverse systems of honor and shame through conformity to various forms of law.

　　This allows Paul’s letter to have a fresh relevance for the 21^st century. Although it was relevant in previous centuries to stress forgiveness because most people in the West feared the fires of hell because they were not living up to the law, forgiveness is less relevant for most societies today. Most people living in Europe and North America no longer feel bound by the law, and the societies in Africa and Asia lack the tradition of biblical rules. The most significant conflicts in our time come from shame in the form of social discrimination. Muslims who dominate the news in this “era of Jihad” resent their domination by others; they feel discriminated against, and in fact the aggressive policies of the west, currently led by the United States, are an expression of the feeling of superiority. Other nations that have suffered from various forms of imperialism act out of resentment against their former masters, which makes peaceful international relations difficult to maintain. Paul’s argument has great relevance in this contemporary situation, because Rom 1-3 says that none is superior, that all nations have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In face of claims that some group earns God’s blessings because of its alleged virtues, Rom 3-6, 9-11 says all people can be saved by grace alone. We need to reformulate the classical Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith” in relevant social terms. To become “righteous through faith” means to accept the gospel of Christ’s shameful death in behalf of the shamed, which means that all of us humans are equally honored. God is not the God of the Jews or the Gentiles alone, argues Paul at the end of Romans 3, because his righteousness is impartial. If we understood this, we would all be willing to stop crusading against each other, and to place ourselves under the same standards of international law, which would be the key to world peace.

2. The challenge of the mission to the barbarians in Spain

　　This new approach to the theology of Romans is linked with the central purpose of this letter, which was to enlist Roman support for the mission to Spain. Here again, there is a surprise. In 1:14, Paul employs some discriminatory language by referring to “Greeks and barbarians…wise and foolish.” These terms articulate the social boundaries of Greco-Roman culture in a thoroughly abusive manner. As studies of βάρβαρoς by Yves Albert Dauge and others have shown,⁹ this is the “N-” word in Greco-Roman culture. When paired with its ideological opposite, “Greeks,” it denotes the violent, perverse, corrupt, uncivilized realm beyond and at times within the Roman Empire that threatens peace and security. There may be parallels here to the ancient Chinese view of the dangerous barbarians of the North. Similarly, the terms σoφός (“wise”) and άvοήτoς (“unwise/uneducated”) depict the educational boundary between citizens of the Roman Empire and the shameful masses. But it is not just Paul’s use of these epithets of honor and shame that jars the reader; he undercuts the moral premise of the Greco-Roman world in proclaiming his indebtedness to the shameful as well as to the honorable representatives of the antitheses.

　　When the remarkable formulation is followed by the antithesis “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” in Rom 1:16-17, there is a reversal of the claim of ethnic priority that was being claimed by the Gentile Christian majority in Rome.¹⁰ The reference to not being “ashamed of the gospel” (1:16) also sets the tone for the entire subsequent letter. One can see from the parallel text in 1 Cor. 1:20-31 that the gospel was innately shameful as far as ancient cultures were concerned. The message about a messianic redeemer being crucified was a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” A divine self revelation on an obscene cross seemed to demean God and overlook the honor and propriety of established religious traditions, both Jewish and Greco-Roman. Rather than appealing to the honorable and righteous members of society, such a gospel seemed designed to appeal to the despised and the powerless. To use the words of 1 Corinthians once again, “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world …so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (1 Cor. 1:27-29) There were powerful, social reasons why Paul should have been ashamed of this gospel; his claim not to be ashamed signals that a social and ideological revolution has been inaugurated by the gospel.

　　This revolutionary viewpoint is directly related to the mission to Spain. In Rom 15:24, Paul refers to his plan to “see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped forward on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.” The crucial element in verse 24 in relation to the Spanish mission is the expression “send forward,” or “sped onward” which is perceived by commentators as something of a technical expression in early Christian missionary circles.¹¹ Paul is politely requesting logistical support for his mission project.¹² In 15:28, Paul says that after the offering has been delivered to Jerusalem, “I shall go on by way of you to Spain.” Again by implication this reference invites the Roman churches to become involved in the planning and support of the Spanish project.

　　What was there about the Spanish mission that required such tactful preparation? If, indeed, the entire letter to the Romans is directly related to this project as I show in the commentary, why was it all necessary? Why did Paul not think it was feasible to start the mission in Spain as he had in Thessalonica or Corinth? Why not arrive without advanced notice or preparation, start preaching in a synagogue, find a local patron or patroness, and build a local congregation of converts? In light of information that is now available, we are now in a position to provide an informed answer to this question.

　　The first matter on which new information is available relates to the presence of Jewish population in Spain during the Julio-Claudian period. Older commentators assume the presence of Jewish communities in Spain, relying primarily on outdated information.¹³ In fact evidence of substantial Jewish settlement in Spain does not appear until the third and fourth centuries C. E., as W. P. Bowers has shown.¹⁴

　　The lack of Jewish settlement in Spain posed several large barriers to Paul’s previous missionary strategy. Not only did this eliminate the prospects of Jewish converts to the gospel, but it also ruled out finding a group of God-fearers or proselytes in the Spanish cities to recruit as the initial core of Christian churches. There would be no initial interest in a messianic proclamation prepared by devotion to the Septuagint. The absence of synagogues also eliminated the avenues that Paul normally used to establish a base of operations in the Greek cities of the east. Wherever possible Paul began his missionary activities in local synagogues and move to an independent base of operations after troubles erupted or patrons and patronesses emerged.¹⁵ Without a synagogue as a starting point, the crucial contacts with appropriate patrons would be extremely difficult to make, especially for a handworker of Paul’s social class.

　　The absence of synagogues would pose a related economic problem, because Jewish travelers often used such buildings as convenient hostels and places to develop business contacts. In the case of Spain, prior arrangements for bases of operations and the recruitment of appropriate patrons would be required in the absence of the resources of local synagogues. Given the Roman domination of the economic resources in Spain and the high proportion of mines, industries, and estates directly owned and managed by the empire,¹⁶ it would likely be necessary to approach this problem through persons close to administrators in Rome. The broad consequence of the lack of Jewish settlement is that the entire strategy of the Spanish mission needs to be reconceived.

　　With regard to the Spanish cultural situation during the period of Paul’s intended mission, I have discovered that Paul’s reference to shameful “barbarians” in Rom 1:14 would have included the Spaniards, from the Roman point of view. Despite the presence of a small, Romanized upper class in Spain, large portions of the peninsula were substantially untouched by the veneer of Roman civilization.¹⁷ The rural population in particular and the northern portions of Spain specifically remained apart from Greco Roman culture. In general, “those who held Latin rights and were more or less Romanized formed a small minority of the population of Spain, while the status of the rest remained the same ….”¹⁸ On the decisive question of the language spoken in Spain, the barriers to a Greek speaker like Paul were rather high. While Latin was spoken in the major cities, at least in part, and at times rather poorly, the “Iberians and Celt-Iberians of Spain spoke their own languages….”¹⁹ Recent studies of the cultural situation in Spain confirm this picture.

　　The situation in Spain presented Paul’s missionary strategizing with formidable challenges both on the linguistic and political levels. Proclamation and instruction in Latin would be required, and there is no evidence that Paul was sufficiently fluent to carry this out without translators. Indeed, such resources would be difficult to develop, because the Hebrew scriptures were not yet available in Latin, and the first evidence we have of Latin-speaking churches is in the middle of the Second Century.²⁰ Even the church in Rome remained Greek speaking until the middle of the third century,²¹ while elsewhere in the West the church was associated for centuries with Greek immigrants.²² The translation of the gospel, the liturgy, and the instructional traditions into another language would be a substantial undertaking, especially in light of the fact that a range of additional translation resources would be required to extend past the restricted circle of Latin civilization in Spain. Since the Latinized urban centers functioned as outposts of Roman rule and civilization in ways quite different from the Greek speaking portions of the empire where Paul had scored his earlier successes, care would have to be taken to find local patrons who were not resented by the native population.

　　In sum, the Spanish mission required a level of planning and support that represented a huge leap from the improvised scheme of earlier Pauline missionizing.

3. Overcoming Chauvinism within the Roman Congregations

　　When one understands the challenge of a mission to the “barbarians” in Spain, it becomes clear why so much of Romans seeks to overcome chauvinistic behavior among the congregations in Rome. Since these congregations were treating each other as dangerous barbarians, refusing to accept each other, they were behaving much like the Romans had behaved in Spain. A mission under these circumstances would be perceived by the Spaniards as one more exercise in hateful Roman imperialism. This is why Paul spends so much time providing ways to overcome chauvinism.

　　In 14:13 and 15:7 there is an admonition to mutual “welcome” in a context that commentators agree was closely related to the congregational situation. The specific ethic of the letter opens with the words, “Welcome the one who is weak in faith, but not in order to dispute debatable points” (Rom 14:1). This is a clear reference to the Jewish Christian conservatives, the “weak” who are being discriminated against by the Gentile Christian majority in Rome. The term “weak” was probably applied by the majority in a pejorative sense, depicting their opponents as persons too “weak” to break free from the Jewish law. It is likely that this group included some of the Jewish Christian exiles mentioned in chapter 16 who are now returning to Rome after the lapse of the Edict of Claudius. Following the reconstruction of Wolfgang Wiefel, it appears that they were not being accepted back into the groups they had earlier helped to form. Conflicts over theology, ethics, worship, and leadership had emerged. As we can tell from the wording of Paul’s admonition, when they were admitted into these congregations, it was “to dispute debatable points,” that is, to get them in a corner and show them what’s what. Paul insists instead on an unconditional form of welcome, in which liberals were to accept conservatives without trying to change them. As we can see from the wording of 15:7, Paul extends this principle both ways: “Welcome one another, therefore…” This fits the argument of 14:1-15:7 which forbids mutual conversion of opponents in the church: each side is to build up the other, protecting the integrity of those whose theology and cultures lead them to different perspectives and practices in the church.

　　In Romans 16 Paul greets a large number of persons whom he had met in previous missionary activities in the eastern half of the Mediterranean world. They are now back in Rome, which correlates with what we know about official Roman policy. In C. E. 49 the Emperor Claudius issued an edict banning Jewish agitators from Rome because of uproars over a certain “Chrestus.” I still accept the standard inference that conflicts between Christian evangelists and Jewish zealots and traditionalists in the Roman synagogues led to this edict that disrupted both synagogue and church life in the city until the end of Claudius’ career in C. E. 54. The book of Acts indicates that Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul greets in 16:3-5, were refugees forced out of Rome whom Paul met in Corinth when he arrived there in the winter of C. E. 50. Other likely refugees mentioned in chapter 16 are Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Herodion, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus and his mother. The most probable explanation for Paul’s acquaintance with these early Christian leaders is that they met during exile. Paul knows that they have returned to the capitol of the empire during the peaceful, early years of the Nero administration before he writes in the winter of C. E. 56-57 from Corinth.

　　The massive study of Roman Christianity by Peter Lampe,²³ my colleague in Heidelberg, goes beyond these frequently accepted inferences to suggest the precise districts in the city where Christianity got its start. Using a topographic method based on the coincidence between five different types of archeological and literary evidence, Lampe showed that two of the most likely areas for early Christian house churches were in Trastevere and the section on the Appian Way around the Porta Capena inhabited by the immigrants. These are the slum districts where slaves and handworkers lived, the most shamed element in the population of Rome, whose names surface in chapter 16.

　　This theme of inclusive welcome of shameful outsiders is continued in the repeated formulas of chapter 16. “Greet so and so” is repeated 21 times in this chapter, in various forms. The meaning of the term “greet” in the Greco-Roman culture is actually to put one’s arms around the other, to hug or kiss them as a sign of welcome. It was ordinarily done when a guest enters the house or space of a host. So the implication of this repeated admonition is the same as we found in 14:1 and 15:7, to welcome people into your love feasts.

　　The climax in this request for mutual welcome, which would overcome the conflicts between these early Christian groups, is found in 16:16, “greet one another with a holy kiss.” In contrast to much of the kissing in the modern world, in Paul’s time it was primarily a family matter. One kissed family members when meeting them. In the case of early Christian groups, the holy kiss sealed the solidarity of extended family. It said, in effect, you are my “brother” or “sister;” it is the ultimate expression of honor. And in view of the fact that most Christians did not own homes, the kiss was extended when they met for their common meals. It was a regular feature in the early Christian love feasts. What I would like to point out, however, is that to “greet one another” in this manner would overcome the hostilities and prejudices between early Christian groups, and make them ready to participate in the mission to the imperial outsiders in Spain.

　　This gospel of generous grace has been betrayed by Christian chauvinism, thwarting the mission to unify the world, just as in Paul’s time, it threatened the possibility of a successful mission to the barbarians in Spain.

4. New light on the thesis of Romans

　　The thesis of Romans is that the righteousness of God is the greatest power in the world. In 1:16, Paul writes that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation, for all who believe.” The gospel of Christ shamefully crucified shatters all efforts to retain claims of cultural superiority. It is revealed in Christ, whose death expressed divine love at its height and exposed human depravity at its depth. Christ revealed the deepest dilemma of religion, that it can be misused as a means of status acquisition, leading us to say, “We are more righteous than you,” and “We know better than you how to achieve freedom and peace.” This is why Paul insists that this transformation is available to all who believe, whether Greco-Romans or barbarians. The righteousness of God overturns the unjust systems of honor and shame that each nation and group creates, showing that all humans are equally loved by God with a holy, impartial, righteous passion. This power demands mutual acceptance of others. This has not been understood by western interpreters, who since the Reformation have devoted their energies to define the correct doctrine of justification so as to prove the superiority of their group of believers. This leads western commentators to disregard the significance of the climactic, final chapters of Romans that call for mutual acceptance in place of theological exclusion of fellow believers. We return to this theme in the final lecture that identifies the interpolations of 16:17-20 and 16:25-27 as early efforts to avoid the tolerant implications of Paul’s argument and to establish intolerant exclusion as the norm advocated by Paul.

　　In fact, Paul devotes 16 chapters of his longest letter to demonstrate how divine righteousness as revealed in Christ should be understood and lived out. This has a direct bearing on how the “God of peace” in 15:33 and the global reconciliation of 15:7-13 should be understood. If divine righteousness is indeed impartial, then in the international arena, we should treat other nations as equals under international law. In the church arena similar to the situation of congregational competition that Paul was facing in Rome, it means inviting members of other groups into one’s own love feasts that celebrate the koinonia established by the shameful death of Christ in behalf of the shamed. It is in mutual greetings of one another, through the holy kiss at the beginning of our meetings together, that the redemptive power of divine righteousness is spread.

Conclusion

　　The time has come in the 21^st century for the true nature of early Christian communalism, the issue of barbarian shame, the insight about the perversion of religion into a means of gaining honor, and the message concerning the impartial righteousness of God to become clear. In face of the violent campaigns of contemporary Christians, Muslims and Jews that reflect distorted visions of divine righteousness, and illusions about the capacity to achieve the good through violence, the gospel of Christ shamefully crucified remains supremely relevant. This gospel of divine righteousness is the true power center of the universe, overcoming shameful status where ever it remains, and making us know that we are all God’s beloved children wherever we may be on that great circle from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. In Christ the line between the barbarians and the citizens of imperial centers, wherever they may be located, has been definitively erased. If this were understood and lived out, the story of the 21^st century would reflect the fulfillment of the globally reconciling mission that Paul wrote this letter to advance.

____________________________________________

¹ See Stephen Benko, “The Kiss,” in Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, ed. S. Benko (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1984) 79-102；John Ellington, “Kissing in the Bible: Form and Meaning,” BT 41 (1990): 409-416；William Klassen, “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament,” NTS 39 (1993): 122-135；Eleanor Kreider, “Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace,” Conrad Grebel Review 5 (1987): 28-49；W. Lowrie, “The Kiss of Peace,” TTo 12 (1955): 236-242；Nicholas James Perella, The Kiss: Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California, 1969)；Klaus Thraede, “Ursprünge und Formen des ‘Heiligen Kusses’ im frühen Christentum,” JAC 11-12 (1968-1969): 124-180.
² Halvor Moxnes, “Honor and Righteousness in Romans,” JSNT 32 (1988): 61-77, which develops the ideas in the earlier article, “Paulus og den norske vaeremåten. ‘Skam’ og ‘aere’ i Romerbrevet” [Paul and Norwegian Culture. “Shame” and “Honor” in Romans], NorTT 86 (1985): 129-140.
³ E. A. Judge, “The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought,” Journal of Christian Education 9 (1966): 38-39; he cites Sallust, Bellum Jugurthinum LXXXV: 26, “Reticence would only cause people to mistake modesty for a guilty conscience.”
⁴ J. E. Lendon, Empire of Honour (Oxford: OUP, 2001), 96.
⁵ See A. Horstmann, “α_σχύvoμαι be ashamed,” EDNT 1 (1990): 42-43, which lifts up the public sense of persons “being put to shame” by others in contrast to the subjective meaning of “be ashamed” of what one has done, found especially in the use of “παισχύvoμαι.”
⁶ Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 63.
⁷ Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 62.
⁸ Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 64.
⁹ Yves Albert Dauge, Le Barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilization, Collection Latomus 176 (Brussels: Latomus, 1981): 393-810, showing that the term barbarian in Roman materials serves to depict outsiders as irrational, ferocious, warlike, alienated, chaotic, and in all respects the opposite of the civilized Roman.
¹⁰ See James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Valley Forge: TPI, 1993), 68-79。
¹¹ Michel, Römer, 369.
¹² C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932), 229.
¹³ Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 398; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), 769; Michel, Römer, 369; the new edition of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 B.C.-A.D.135, vol. 3, rev. ed., G. Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 84-85 correct the earlier edition at this point, taking Bowers’ work into account.
¹⁴ W. P. Bowers, “Jewish Communities in Spain in the Time of Paul the Apostle,” JTS 26 (1975): 400.
¹⁵ See Stanley Kent Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 68-73, for evidence suggesting that the homes of patrons were the primary locus of the Pauline mission. The use of workshops for missionizing has been made plausible by Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
¹⁶ M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1926; citations from the second edition revised by P. M. Fraser, 1957), 213f. See also J. M. Blázquez (Martínez), “Roma y la explotació’n económica de la Península Ibérica,” Las Raices de España, ed. J. M. Gómez-Tabanera (Madrid, 1967), 253-281.
¹⁷ Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 211-215.
¹⁸ Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 215.
¹⁹ Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 213.
²⁰ See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 340.
²¹ See W. H. C. Frend, Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries (London: Variorum, 1980), 126.
²² See Frend, “A Note on the Influence of Greek Immigrants on the Spread of Christianity in the West,” in Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, 125-129.
²³ Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987; second ed., 1990); English translation, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. M. Steinhauser, foreword by R. Jewett (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).