1. Introduction
Perhaps no figure in the NT has excited so much attention from so little material as Erastus, ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλɛως (‘the οἰκονόμος of the city’, Rom 16.23). Critical in the question of social stratification in the Corinthian church, Erastus has been the subject of spirited debate ever since the 1929 discovery of a Corinthian inscription bearing his name (IKorinthKent 232). The brief inscription reads, ‘Erastus in return for his aedileship laid (the pavement) at his own expense (Erastus pro aedilitate s.p. stravit)’. Since the inscription seemed to date to the first century AD, since the Greek office of οἰκονόμος appeared to be equivalent to the Roman office of aedilis, and since the name ‘Erastus’ was thought to be rare, most interpreters since Gerd Theissen's analysis in 1974 have identified the two men as being one and the same.Footnote 1 This would mean that Erastus was among the highest elites in the city, and by far wealthier than most of those in the Corinthian church to which he belonged,Footnote 2 which would lend further weight to arguments that social stratification was among the chief problems that caused divisions to fester in the church (1 Cor 1–4).Footnote 3
Of the three legs of the debate—the date of the inscription, the nature of the office of οἰκονόμος, and the commonness of the name ‘Erastus’ in antiquity—significant contributions have been made in the first two areas within just the last three years.Footnote 4 The third area, however, still calls for deeper investigation. While the (in)frequency of the name has been addressed in fairly recent times by Andrew Clarke and Justin Meggitt,Footnote 5 neither of these scholars has provided the definitive treatment needed: neither provides a comprehensive catalog of the name in antiquity, and each comes to an opposite conclusion—Clarke that the name was rare, and Meggitt that it was common—Footnote 6 a contradiction, moreover, that is due not only to the fact that, of the two searches, Meggitt's was more complete. The disparity also owes itself to the inherently problematic nature of the assumption that labels such as ‘frequent’ and ‘infrequent’ can be applied to free-standing numerical figures, irrespective of any extrinsic point of reference—such as the frequency of other names in antiquity. Besides these issues, Meggitt's preliminary catalog, impressive as it is in length—including, purportedly, 23 epigraphical attestations of the Greek personal name (Ἔραστος) and 55 of the Latin cognomen (Erastus)—does not distinguish references by chronological period and geographical region (a point of no small importance), and includes several errors to boot, which, understandable as they are in working with a large pool of data, nonetheless need to be emended.Footnote 7
A catalog of the name (Greek: Ἔραστος; Latin: Erastus) is therefore long overdue, one that is, for the first time, comprehensive; pays full attention to the regional, chronological, and institutional distribution of the witnesses; and measures relative frequency in the only way that is possible—by comparison with other ancient names. Such an undertaking has now been greatly facilitated by the advent of electronic databases. The analysis undertaken here is based on an exhaustive search through the available electronic databases of Greek and Latin literature, papyri, and epigraphy, as well as through the major print corpora not yet digitized.Footnote 8 In what follows, I present the results thereof, followed by a discussion of the findings.
2. The Name ‘Erastus’ in Antiquity
The following table includes every reference to the name ‘Erastus’ found outside the NT up through the fifth century AD.Footnote 9 Grouped by region, references are then sub-divided by city or province, and then (where dating is possible) roughly by chronology.Footnote 10
In all, we find 105 witnesses to the name ‘Erastus’ up through the fifth century AD, most of these coming from inscriptions.
Two of the references are doubtful. CIL V 7232 possibly refers to Eperastus (see the editor's notes there). Only the letter ‘E’ survives of the cognomen in AE 1984 (625): thus, Ti(beri) Cl(audi) E().
The papyri preserve only a single occurrence of the name before our terminus, dated to the middle of the second century AD (p. leid.inst.35).
All eight literary attestations refer to the same individual: Erastus of Skepsis, disciple of Socrates (fourth century BC).Footnote 11 Omitting quotations of the NT and the occasional references found in patristic writings to the Erastus thereof (e.g. Epiphanius Disc. 123.7; Cassiodorus Comm. Rom. 16.506.31), no other Erastus can be found in the extant literature, Greek or Latin.
As with the literary references, a few of our epigraphical attestations refer to identical individuals. (1) SEG 11:622; CIG 1241; IG V, 1 69 (= IG V, 1 70); and IG V, 1 71 all refer to ‘Apollonius, son of Erastus’ (Ἀπολλώνιος Ἐράστου) of Sparta (second century AD). (2) Publius Licinius Erastus of Rome (first century AD) is mentioned more than once (Not. Sc. [1934]: 219 n. 28 and Not. Sc. [1914]: 379 n. 16 [= CIL VI 3953]). (3) Also in Rome, one Erastus twice scrawled his name upon the wall (CIL IV 4614 and CIL IV 4641), obviously proud that he could write his name at all.
Further examples of common identity are likely as well, though in these cases we lack secure onomastic proof. (4) Eight (or nine) of our epigraphical attestations bear the name ‘Tiberius Claudius Erastus’. The praenomen and nomen, added in accordance with Roman naming conventions, will be recognized as those of the emperor Claudius, who had been known for his prodigality in granting manumission. Upon manumission, the one liberated added the two names of his liberator to his own personal name, which was then retained as a sort of cognomen. Of course, owing to Claudius's indulgence, the possibility that over the course of time he manumitted more than one slave named Erastus, resulting in a proliferation of individuals named Tiberius Claudius Erastus, is only too likely. Descendants of freedmen, moreover, continued to carry the gentilica bestowed upon their forbears at manumission, so that we can find references to such men as ‘Tiberius Claudius Clemens, son of Tiberius Claudius Erastus’ (CIL VI 15031). Once we account also for differences in provenance, differentiation of individuals seems probable for at least a few of these examples (CIL X 527; 6144 [= AEph (1978): 91]; CIL XVI 33). Yet, it is not without interest that three of our references to ‘Tiberius Claudius Erastus’ come from Rome (CIL VI 15031; 15325; 15439). It is well within the realm of possibility that two or more of these refer to the same person.
(5) Another interesting case of common identity involves the four first-century AD inscriptions from Athens: IG II2 1945, 1990, 1968, and 1985.Footnote 12 All four of these were commissioned in the middle years of that century for purposes connected with the gymnasium, an institution that provided physical and intellectual education for privileged Greeks, beginning with a year of training for select youths—or ‘ephebes’—of about eighteen years of age. IG II2 1968 and 1985 both date to the reign of Claudius (AD 41–54) and list an ‘Erastus’ among the ephebes for that year. Probably these refer to two different individuals; though it is not impossible that they were one and the same. Since the kosmetes was responsible for compiling ephebic lists on an annual basis, and training lasted only one year, we should not usually expect the same ephebe to have been included in more than one list. Yet, informal lists, sponsored by the ephebes themselves, are attested during this period as well. Such are IG II2 1968 and 1985. Since both of these lists are fragmentary, the two ephebic classes do not allow exhaustive comparison. We may only conclude that differentiation of the two lists is probable, though not certain.
Each of the other two inscriptions, IG II2 1945 and 1990, name an Erastus, not as a gymnasium student, but as a gymnasium officer or affiliate. IG II2 1945 names Ἐράστο[υ ․․․․9․․․․]ου Ἀναφλυστίου as the ὑπηρέτης, or gymnasium ‘attendant’, for the year AD 45/6. IG II2 1990, dated to AD 61/2, names Ἔραστος Βη<σ> αι <ɛ> ύς as a παιδɛύτης, or literary instructor of the ephebes.Footnote 13 In contrast to the two ephebes named above, these two men can be differentiated by their demotic, or deme of origin—Anaphlystos (Ἀναφλυστίου) for the first Erastus, and Besa (Βη <σ> αι <ɛ> ύς) for the second.
The fifth, and only remaining, attestation of an Erastus in Greece in the first century AD would be IKorinthKent 232, the controversial inscription mentioning a Corinthian aedile of that name. Recently, however, the question of this inscription's date has been opened anew. As Steven Friesen has shown,Footnote 14 when the inscription block was found in 1929, it was no longer in its original location. Rather, the inscription must have been moved there around the mid-second century, late in the reign of Hadrian, for—Friesen reasons—it forms part of the pavement that covers an apsidal latrine that was itself in use up to the time of Hadrian (whose reign began in AD 117). With this, Friesen presents a plausible interpretation of the evidence, and one that should not be easily dismissed. Yet, questions remain. Specifically, one wonders why the date at which the pavement was laid over the latrine must be seen as the critical piece of the puzzle when, as Friesen acknowledges, the inscription had been inserted into its current position within the paving area after the pavement had been laid and therefore need not have belonged originally with that pavement at all. Why should we believe that the inscription came into existence at the same time as the pavement? Friesen answers that, according to Charles Williams's recent reassessment of the materials (conveyed to Friesen via personal communication), the Erastus block seems to have been made out of the same materials as the plaza pavement. But how could such a thing be known? Moreover, if, in Friesen's words, the block has ‘a different size and shape than the surrounding pavement slabs’,Footnote 15 might that not actually militate against the possibility that the inscription came from the same materials? If the block did not come from the same materials, would there then be anything compelling us to prefer a second-century date over a first-century one? Perhaps a definitive answer cannot be given on the basis of the present evidence. What might be added from the present analysis up to this point, however, is this: men named Erastus in first-century Greece were apparently in seriously short supply. This greatly decreases the likelihood that there were two different men of the rank aedile/οἰκονόμος in Corinth within just 60 years of each other (c. AD 55–125); a single individual attested twice seems far easier to fathom. Moreover, if Friesen's new, second-century dating does fail to gain traction and the traditional first-century dating continues to prevail, the possibility cannot be dismissed—and it is only a possibility—that this man is the same as one of those found in the Athenian inscriptions: indeed, tenure in a high municipal office, especially in a nearby city such as Corinth, would not be an unusual place to find a gymnasium graduate.Footnote 16
Looking at the five Greek inscriptions together, we may regard the possibility that all refer to distinct individuals as too ‘accidental’ to deserve serious consideration. One must ask how likely it is that not a single Erastus would come down to us throughout all of Greece from AD 1–40 and 60–100—a period of eighty years—and then to have as many as five attested within a period of twenty, four of them within the same city, and connected with the same institution. On the contrary, it would seem more natural to suppose that, at least among the four Athenian inscriptions, only two individuals are actually attested: these being first attested as gymnasium ephebes, and then later as gymnasium officers. Such a course was routine for ephebic graduates, as we have ample evidence to attest.Footnote 17 The Corinthian inscription, if it is rightly dated to the first century, could then be either one of same individuals—assuming any of several possible scenarios—Footnote 18 or a third entity. Accordingly, our Erasti may be distinguished as follows.
Erastus #1: Ἔραστος Ἀναφλυστίος. This Erastus was ὑπηρέτης in the Athenian gymnasium in AD 45/6 (IG II2 1945) and was, at an earlier date, quite likely one of the ephebes of IG II2 1968 and IG II2 1985. A first-century date for IKorinthKent 232 would leave open the possibility that the Erastus named there was the same man. Thus possible references to Ἔραστος Ἀναφλυστίος include the following:
IG II2 1968: Athenian ephebe, AD 41–54
IG II2 1985: Athenian ephebe, mid-first c. AD
IG II2 1945: ὑπηρέτης in the Athenian gymnasium, AD 45/6
IKorinthKent 232: Corinthian aedile, first or early second c. AD
Erastus #2: Ἔραστος Βησαιɛύς. This Erastus was παιδɛύτης in the Athenian gymnasium in AD 61/2 (IG II2 1990) and was, before that time, quite likely also one of the ephebes of IG II2 1968 and IG II2 1985. He, if not Erastus #1 or a third individual, could also have been the man of IKorinthKent 232. Possible references to Ἔραστος Βησαιɛύς therefore include the following:
IG II2 1968: Athenian ephebe, AD 41–54
IG II2 1985: Athenian ephebe, mid-first c. AD
IG II2 1990: παιδɛύτης in the Athenian gymnasium, AD 61/2
IKorinthKent 232: Corinthian aedile, first or early second c. AD
Erastus #3: Erastus the aedile? If the Corinthian aedile of IKorinthKent 232 was distinct from the other two men, he would then seem to represent the third of only three Erasti known in first-century Greece:
IKorinthKent 232: Corinthian aedile, first or early second c. AD
These lines of individuation, of course, cannot be proved. But it seems far easier to believe that at least two of these individuals were the same than to believe that four, or five, distinct individuals suddenly appeared at the same time and in the same place and in connection with the same institution, when men named Erastus were nowhere to be found, throughout all of Greece, in the long space of years that preceded or followed, and when movement from ephebe to gymnasium officer was the usual expected course for graduates.
Having accounted for cases of common identity, it is now evident that far fewer than one hundred Erasti have come down to us from antiquity. Less than twenty-five references, totaling less than twenty individuals, can be dated to the first century AD, and even less to the middle years of that century. In Asia Minor we have but one first-century attestation, and it dates late in the century (IEph 1008,8 [= Ephesos 454 = SEG 51:1575]). While Italy and the western provinces have left us as many as fifteen references from this period, and a fair number of inscriptions that, with further information, might be similarly dated, we must also remember that many of these date late in the century (CIL IV 179; CIL X 6144 [= AE (1978): 91]; CIL VI 15492; CIL XI 1620; CIL V 800), and some of these likely refer to identical individuals (as, e.g., CIL VI 15031; 15325; 15439). Macedonia, Thrace, and the Lower Danube offer us no more than two first-century references (CIL XVI 33; CIL III 9052). Finally, Greece—and this demands more attention than all the rest—affords us, throughout the entire century, only four (IG II2 1945, 1968, 1985, 1990) or at most five (if IKorinthKent 232 is not to be dated later) total attestations, which we have seen likely refer to a total of only two or three distinct individuals. If some relativity can be established for name frequency in antiquity, such a dearth of references throughout first-century Greece could prove to be significant indeed.
3. Relative (In)frequency of the Name
As stated at the outset, the question whether ‘Erastus’ was a frequent or an infrequent name cannot be settled on the basis of the subjective impression given by the total number of references found. In the past, Erastus's name has been deemed both ‘relatively uncommon’ and ‘relatively common’,Footnote 19 according as each interpreter has been stricken by the total number discovered at the end of his count. But we hit here on something that is intrinsic to the idea of relativity and, for that matter, problematic for any judgment of this kind: what is ‘relatively uncommon’ can, by definition, also be ‘relatively common’. Without multiple points of reference, we are only hedging our bets. What must be asked, rather, is how frequent the name ‘Erastus’ was in comparison with other names of its day. Only when such baselines have been established can the name rightly be labeled either ‘uncommon’ or ‘common’.
Once a tall order, such comparison is now easily undertaken with recourse to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names electronic database. Footnote 20 To avoid undue selectivity, I have begun by comparing the Greek name Ἔραστος with the names found alongside ‘Erastus, οἰκονόμος of the city’ in Romans 16.Footnote 21 Latin names have been omitted. Numbers reflect the total distinct individuals bearing that Greek name:
Ἡρωδίων: 0
Πατροβᾶς: 0
Ὀλυμπᾶς: 6
Φλέγων: 6
Ἀσύγκριτος: 9
Πɛρσίς: 10
Τρυφῶσα: 11
Νηρɛῦς: 18
Φιλόλογος: 23
Στάχυς: 25
Τρύφαινα: 26
Ἔραστος: 32
Νάρκισσος: 69
Ἀπɛλλῆς: 90
Ἐπαίνɛτος: 94
Σωσίπατρος: 155
Τιμόθɛος: 285
Ἀριστόβουλος: 292
Ἀνδρόνικος: 299
Ἰάσων: 305
Ἑρμῆς/Ἑρμᾶς: 315
Following this list from the least frequent names to the most frequent, one notices that Ἔραστος appears near the middle, falling just this side of the more frequent end. This, however, does not yet give us an accurate picture of the relative frequency of the name. It must be asked not how many names were more or less frequent than Ἔραστος, but rather how many times, on a sliding scale, names more or less frequent than Erastus actually occurred. Here, eleven names occur less frequently than Erastus, and nine more frequently. Yet, at a count of 32 individuals in the LGPN, the total number of Ἐράστοι attested stands far closer to the total number of individuals bearing the less frequent names—26, 25, 23, and on down the line—than it does to the number of individuals bearing the more frequent ones—69 on up to 285, 292, 299, 305, and 315.
Relative frequency of the name begins to come into focus, then, only as we compare names within their various ranges of frequency. Moving outside Romans 16 to the broader Greek world, let us now compare the following names:
Names with 50-100 individuals attested:
Δῖος: 67
Διομήδης: 89
Ὄλυμπος: 89
Ἀχιλλɛῦς/-ής: 93
Names with 200-500 individuals attested:
Τιμόθɛος: 285
Στέφανος: 303
῾Ερμῆς/‘Ερμᾶς: 315
Παυσάνιας: 391
Names with 500-1000 individuals attested:
Ἀρτɛμίδωρος: 642
Διογένης: 670
‘Ηρακλɛίδης: 773
Φίλιππος: 941
Names with 1000-3000 + individuals attested:
Ἀρίστων: 1063
Ἀλɛξάνδρος: 1443
Ἀπολλώνιος: 1774
Δημήτριος: 1838
Διονύσιος: 3024
Our sampling throws ample light on the question of the relative frequency of the name Ἔραστος, of which as few as 32 individuals are found. When a single name could be possessed by known individuals in excess of several hundred or even several thousand, there can remain no question that a name occurring fewer than fifty times was a rare one. The further mystery of why so many individuals—perhaps more than half, if we can judge from the list in Romans 16—apparently had ‘relatively uncommon’ names is not a difficult one to unravel. We are already familiar with this sort of occurrence from word statistics in the NT, where about 6% of the lexemes comprise about 80% of the total word count,Footnote 22 but as many as 50% of the lexemes occur fewer than five times.Footnote 23 So it was also with names: while frequently occurring names were born by a large percentage of the people in the ancient world, still upwards of half of the names remained uncommon—and ‘Erastus’ was one of them.
4. A Class-Specific Name?
Because certain names in antiquity, including ‘Erastus’, are sometimes said to have been associated more closely with particular social classes,Footnote 24 before closing it may be appropriate to address the question of the social status of Paul's Erastus, once again, with reference to name frequency.
One of our inscriptions does in fact designate Erastus as a slave (Bull. Com. Arch. Rom. 90.2 [1985]: 419). Several inscriptions designate the subject as a freedman, using the epithet libertus (CIL VI 8518; 8875; 9865; 15728; 17254; 24776; CIL X 1878; 6144 [= AE (1978): 91]), in many cases followed by the name of the one who freed him in the genitive case. Several others attach a gentilicum, which could indicate, among other things, manumission from slavery (CIL VI 15031; 15325; 15439; CIL X 527; CIL XVI 33; AE [1984]: 625; IEph 1008,8 [= Ephesos 454 = SEG 51:1575]; IEph 1487,6 [= Ephesos 191 = SEG 44:929]). Judging from these inscriptions, a slave background could be indicated in as many as one-sixth of our inscriptions, and on this basis may be conjectured for a great number of others.
Yet things are not as they at first appear. Attending to the provenance of these inscriptions, we notice that an imposing number of them are from Rome, and even more from Italy at large. Bearers of Greek names in first-century Rome in fact usually had a slave background,Footnote 25 for most of Rome's Greek population had been deported there from the wars of the last several centuries, a situation that naturally spelled slavery for the deportees and their descendants. Second, inscriptions were commissioned by freed slaves far more often than by other people of the lower and middle classes, so inscriptional evidence is not necessarily representative of all who bore the name.Footnote 26 Third, the attachment of a gentilicum to the name, as we see in many of the above examples, could indicate things other than a slave background, adoption into a Roman family—whether of a slave or a freeborn person—being one of them. In most of our instances, we have insufficient evidence to adjudicate the reasons.
Moreover, outside Italy, one notices in fact an equal number of examples where the subject is marked out, not as a slave or freedman, but as a man of considerable social distinction. Well attested is Ἔραστος the eponymous Athenian archon of the year 163/2 BC (Agora 16:295 [= Hesp. 3.27,20; 13.266,20 = PA 5030]). Six inscriptions list an Ἔραστος among the gymnasium ephebes (SEG 24:194; IG II2 1945; 1968; 1973B; 1985; 2067). One inscription refers to an Ἔραστος who held the office of prytaneis (IEph 1008,8 = Ephesos 454 = SEG 51:1575). The Erastus of p.leid.inst.35, called ‘Erastus the Great’ (Ἔραστος Μάγνος), is apparently designated as a ταμίας, a Greek equivalent for the distinguished Latin office of quaestor.Footnote 27 An Erastus is attested in Aquae Statiellae (of Italy) as having completed the local cursus honorum—aedile, tribune, quaestor (CIL V 800).Footnote 28 Erastus the aedile of Corinth hardly needs mention (IKorinthKent 232). In view of such abundant evidence for distinguished men named Erastus, it becomes impossible to justify any notion that the name was distinctively a ‘slave name’. Rather, it must have been a Greek name that was, for one reason or another, sometimes born by slaves.
The question posed in recent studies has been whether Paul's Erastus, ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλɛως, was also a person of high station. The most recent, and only complete, study on the term οἰκονόμος in the Hellenistic and Roman periods to date, suggests that he probably was. As John Goodrich has shown, municipal οἰκονόμοι (in distinction to private οἰκονόμοι, who were usually freedman or slaves) ‘normally functioned as financial magistrates and possessed considerable socio-economic status within their respective communities’.Footnote 29 While the occasional slave could find himself filling this role (SEG 24.496; 38.710; 47.1662), Goodrich's full treatment of the evidence reveals that these were the exceptions. On balance, this means that Rom 16.23 almost undoubtedly refers to a high-status individual, and to yet another example of a high-status ‘Erastus’.
5. Conclusion
Much of the debate about Erastus, ‘οἰκονόμος of the city’, has turned on the issue of name frequency. After a deeper examination of the issue here, however, it is hoped that this question can now be laid to rest. A comprehensive search of the available electronic databases and major print corpora reveals a total number of attestations barely in excess of one hundred, of which many refer to the same individuals. Among the dateable witnesses, only some twenty-five date to the first century AD, only four or five of which come from Greece, among which, it has been argued, probably only two or three individuals are actually represented. Moreover, a comparison of the total number of individuals bearing the Greek personal name Ἔραστος with other ancient names in the LGPN has given us multiple points of reference for determining relative frequency, allowing us for the first time to make a definitive judgment in this regard: the name is indeed more rightly called ‘infrequent’ than it is ‘frequent’.
This conclusion adds considerable weight to the long-debated issue of whether Paul's Erastus and the aedile of IKorinthKent 232 were one and the same. When only two, or perhaps three, individuals bearing this name are attested in all of Greece, in all of the first century AD, each of them exhibiting an ‘elite’ profile, with confirmation from Goodrich's recent study on the (usually) elite nature of municipal οἰκονόμοι, it may be asked whether identifying one of these men with the Corinthian churchman indeed places any strain on the imagination. Although debate has usually centered on the rarity of the name in first-century Corinth, it bears asking whether these other Greek inscriptions do not now deserve comparable attention. The two (?) individuals attested in Athens (IG II2 1945; 1968; 1985; 1990)—if these should in fact be differentiated from the man of IKorinthKent 232—both completed the gymnasium ephebate, a program that promised graduates a career in politics, and both of these men went on to fill higher posts there. Graduates, moreover, could expect to be mobile, as there would not have been enough vacancies in Athens to provide local positions for all of them.Footnote 30 When we then consider that these are the only Erasti that can be dated securely to first-century Greece, and their careers date precisely to the middle years of that century, and their social profiles place them squarely within the realm of politics, the possibility that one of these ephebes, having completed the ephebate in the early 40s, might have gone on to become οἰκονόμος in Corinth in AD 57 is, if only a tantalizing possibility, also a very real one.Footnote 31
In closing, let it be said that, if we have now put paid to the question of the name's (in)frequency, we have likely not heard the last of the larger Erastus debate. Much will turn on how recent proposals on the meaning of οἰκονόμος and the dating of IKorinthKent 232 are received. While John Goodrich and others have confirmed the traditional consensus that Erastus, as ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλɛως, was, more likely than not, a man of wealth and considerable social distinction, still others have continued to appeal to evidence that men of that office were sometimes slaves.Footnote 32 Moreover, while most incline to the view that IKorinthKent 232 dates to the second half of the first century, Friesen puts forth a plausible argument that it could date to the first part of the second. In the wake of clashing proposals, the jury is perhaps still out on the identity of the man in IKorinthKent 232. But as a consensus emerges, we may now regard the infrequency of the name as a fixed piece of the puzzle.
