Archaeology · Contested
The Erastus Inscription at Corinth
A Latin inscription found near the theater at Corinth names an Erastus who paid for pavement in exchange for holding the office of aedile, a name and civic role some scholars connect to the Erastus mentioned as city treasurer of Corinth in Romans 16:23.
The evidence explained
The inscription, discovered during excavations in the 1920s and dated on palaeographic and archaeological grounds to roughly the mid-first century AD, reads (in translation) 'Erastus, in return for his aedileship, laid this pavement at his own expense,' identifying a Roman civic magistracy responsible for, among other things, public works and games. Romans 16:23, written from Corinth, has Paul send greetings from 'Erastus, the city's director of public works' (or 'treasurer,' depending on how the Greek term oikonomos tes poleos is translated), a position that some scholars have argued could correspond to, or precede, the aedileship named in the inscription.
Scholars such as Gerd Theissen and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor have argued the identification is plausible given the coincidence of a relatively distinctive name in a city of moderate size with a documented civic official of that name in roughly the same period, and have used the possible identification to argue that early Christian communities in Corinth included at least some socially prominent members with civic standing, complicating older assumptions that early Christianity was drawn overwhelmingly from the poorest social strata.
Other scholars, including Steven Friesen, have urged caution, noting that Erastus was not an especially rare name in the Roman world, that the precise relationship between the Greek civic term used in Romans and the Latin office named on the inscription is not straightforward, and that aediles were typically drawn from a wealthier class than the term used for Paul's Erastus might suggest by itself, though the term's meaning is itself debated. The identification therefore remains a plausible but unproven connection rather than an established fact.
Even scholars skeptical of the specific identification generally agree the inscription is valuable independently, as physical evidence of the civic and architectural environment Paul's letters presuppose, illustrating the kind of Roman colonial civic culture, including public benefaction and aristocratic self-display through paving inscriptions, that forms the backdrop against which Paul's descriptions of the Corinthian church's social diversity and internal status conflicts should be read.
What it does show
- • The inscription provides physical evidence for the type of civic office structure and public culture presupposed by Paul's Corinthian correspondence.
- • If the identification with Paul's Erastus is correct, it would indicate the early Corinthian church included at least one socially prominent civic official.
What it does not show
- • It does not certainly identify the inscription's Erastus with the Erastus mentioned by Paul, since the name was not uncommon and the offices described do not obviously match.
- • It does not by itself establish the social composition of the wider Corinthian church beyond this single disputed individual.
- • It does not verify any other detail of Paul's letter to the Romans.
Primary sources and literature
- Erastus Inscription, Corinth excavations (American School of Classical Studies)Primary artifact, dated on archaeological grounds to the mid-first century AD.
- Romans 16:23Mentions Erastus as the city's oikonomos, variously translated 'treasurer' or 'director of public works.'
- Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth (3rd ed., 2002)Detailed discussion connecting archaeology of Corinth to Paul's letters.
- Steven J. Friesen, 'The Wrong Erastus' (New Testament Studies, 2010)Skeptical reassessment of the identification.
Where scholars disagree
Scholars disagree over whether the Erastus of the inscription is the same individual mentioned by Paul, with the identification considered plausible but unproven by most specialists.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
On the Reliability of the Old Testament — K. A. Kitchen
An Egyptologist's detailed defense of the Old Testament's historical setting.
The Bible Unearthed — Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
The influential minimalist reading of the archaeological record; the position maximalists must answer.
The Archaeology of the New Testament — John McRay
Site-by-site treatment of the New Testament's material context.
Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction — Eric Cline
A sober guide to what archaeology can and cannot establish about a text.