Erastus inscription

[arnoldo]

So we have three different hypotheses here.

(1) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are not the same person.

(2) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are the same person, but the reference in Rom. 16:23 is an unhistorical embellishment on an otherwise historical character.

(3) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are the same person, this person was promoted in rank, and this person was referenced here by Paul in the epistle to the Romans.

What makes you think any of these hypotheses is better than each of the other two? Please don't assume.

I dunno which one is better.

[arnoldo]

But if we can still see the inscription and if the inscription has something to do with the NT why couldn't someone in the second century have seen it and used it as a basis for his addition to the original letter in the Marcionite canon (Origen makes clear chapter 16 not in the Marcionite canon).

According to this source Marcion left the bit about Erastus but cut out Romans 16:25-27.

[DCHindley]

Isn't "aedile" that sultry sounding female singer from the UK?

I like her sound, but the local grocery store plays a Muzak tape of her music non-stop and I'm frankly sick of hearing it.

DCH

What is "aedile"? What is "oikonomos"?
Cordially, Bernard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Peter,

I found this summary of Friessen's article on Corinthian Mattershttp://corinthianmatters.com/2011/08/17 ... l-erastus/:

In this article, Friesen critiqued the misuse of archaeological evidence by New Testament scholars and a generational trend to think of the Erastus of Romans as a character with aspirations of upward social mobility. The Erastus inscription from Corinth is in a secondary, not primary, context and, in any case, was probably not commissioned before the mid-second century AD, well after the time of the Erastus of Romans 16. The inscription is not, therefore, evidence for the man named by the apostle Paul but a non-Christian aedile who hailed from the highest status group of Roman society. By contrast, Erastus the oikonomos was a low-status (non-citizen) manager of finance, possibly a slave, and probably not a Christian. The first Christian communities at Corinth were overwhelmingly poor, like the population of the Roman world generally. Friesen concludes that scholars should dispense with the ‘ideology of social mobility’ which has blinded them to the inequalities that characterized early Christian churches.

The idea that the archaeological evidence is actually from the 2nd Century would suggest that any connection between the two names would be from the 2nd Century.
The question arises how popular was the name Erastus? Was it a common name in Corinth like "John" or an uncommon name like "Rumpelstiltskin?"
Eραστος, Erastos apparently means "beloved". (This is also the meaning of the Hebrew name "David"). There was a pupil of Plato's named Erastos from http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries ... s-e400740:

(Ἔραστος; Érastos) from Scepsis. 4th cent. BC; a pupil of Plato, he took part in the philosophical delegation to Hermias at Assos (Didymus, In Demosthenem commenta V 54 = F 7 Lasserre). According to Philod. Index academicorum VI 10-12, E. like Asclepiades of Phleius was the author of a text ‘Memories (Apomnēmoneúmata) of Plato’, otherwise unknown. Stanzel, Karl-Heinz (Tübingen)

Plato's sixth letter was sent to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, urging them to get along together. He also was a friend of Aristotle and founded a school with him in Assos in Asia Minor.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[arnoldo]

Steven Friesen article is included in the following book, Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society. From a initial reading of the article I haven't found that Friesen's argument rests on the premise that the inscription is dated from the second century. Did I miss something?

[Peter Kirby]

We have three facts to address:

(1) Erastus was not a unique name. Corinth was a big city.
(2) The aedile rank implied by the inscription (no, I'm not sure why either) is not compatible with the oikonomos rank implied by Rom. 16 (actually, I personally don't know about that either).
(3) The inscription was dated to the second century (no, I'm not sure why either).

And I suggest that the null hypothesis should be that these aren't positively identified as the same Erastus. Identity must be argued and not assumed.

[arnoldo]

On closer reading,page 243 does indeed state that the second century date for the inscription is "only probable." The stronger part of his argument seems to rest on the premise of lack of upward social mobility in ancient Roman society.

[Peter Kirby]

The better part of wisdom is humility. We don't know that they are the same Erastus. There's been no real argument to the effect that they are. Making assumptions like this easily leads to false history. Let's be skeptical of the assertion--we don't need to disprove it (having disproved it, we would be in no really different place than we were when purely skeptical); we need to prove it. At the very least, we need to consider whether there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of it.