One of my 'pleasures' in recent days has been reading Philip F. Esler's book on
Conflict and identity in Romans. The Social Setting of Paul's letters (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003). By applying several social science models Esler manage to make the Letter to the Romans to become interesting again! I admit that I have read and lectured on Romans with the result of becoming a little tired of it. But this book provide new lenses through which one might discover more of the scenarios and issues that were at stake when Paul wrote his letter. I enjoy the book. Tolle lege!
When it comes to the question of the presence and use of separate synagogues in Rome, recent research show no agreement. Esler, however, argues for the following view:
While it is not impossible that some judean (=Jewish) congregations were meeting in what might have been domestic dwellings, this was not the dominant architectural context. Concerning Rome, he says (.90), when we recall that there hade been a sizeable Judean population in Rome since the mid-first century BCE, it is inconceivable that, a hundred years later when Paul came to write Romans, the Judeasn had reached the stage in the capital where they had buildings specially dedicated to, or even constructed for, their use. And to this view, Philo provides important evidence, evidence that the Jews in Rome, as elsewhere, were meeting in buildings specifically devoted to that purpose. Esler draws here primarily on Philo's
Legatio at Gaium, but also on
Hypothetica and
Ad Flaccum.
In Legatio 156-157 we have Philo's important description of the Jews in Rome, and in other sections also on Alexandria.
Esler summarizes the evidence from Philo thus (pp. 92-93):
1) Judean houses (oikiai) and
proseuchai were different buildings: in the Embassy (Legatio) the oikiai were attacked first, and then the prosechai, although this order is reversed in Against Flaccus.
2)
proseuchai existed in every quarter of the city (Legatio 132)
3) The
proseuchai were open to the public and classed as "public" (demosioi), while the Judean house (oikiai) were private and clased as "private" (idiwtikoi)(Leg 132).
4) The
proseuchai were probably all reasonably respectable buildings or it might have been hazardous for the Greeks to seek to honor Gaius by putting his portraits in them (Leg 134)
5) At least one of the Alexandrian
proseuchai was large enough to contain a bronze statue of someone riding a four-horse chariot. (Legat 134-135)
6) Some oikiai containing large numbers of Judeans were built right next to
proseuchai (so that if the latter were burned, the former might also catch fire) (Legat 132.134).
7) The
proseuchai contained objects that the Judeans had erected in honor of emperors as benefactors, such as shields, crowns, monuments, and inscriptions
8)The
proseuchai were known by particular manes (Flacc 48-49).
9) One of the
proseuchai was a place to offer prayers of thanks (Legat 133.134).
Esler finds that this view of Philo concerning the synagogues at this time as being separate constructions confirmed by two items of non-judean epigraphy from Rome, and the proseucha at Ostia (pp. 93-97).
All this makes Esler suggest that the social and architectural context of the assemblies of the Jews was very different from that of the communities of the Christ-followers in Rome, who were gathering in private
houses. These aspects also had far-reaching implications for the respective identities of Judeans and Christ followers (p. 90). This Elser elaborates in the following pages.
I have several times pointed to or commented on recent views and literature on the ancient synagogues. (see
here.) Esler's book represent a very fascinating study of the social setting of Paul's letter to the Romans whether one agrees with his views or not.
