Cited by 0Biblical Studies and InterpretationHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeClassical Antiquity Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 58 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Roman Allotment and the Selection of Bishops

Stewart, Roberta·2017·Oxford Scholarship Online

Abstract

Acts 1: 23–26 describes the selection of Matthias to replace Judas; use of an allotment to select a priest had Jewish, apostolic precedents. Commentators reference Biblical authorities and precedents for a divinely affirmed allotment. The appointment of Christian bishops in the third century ce, however, shows a popular election procedure. This chapter first considers the Christian turn away from allotment to select priests and examines allotment from the Republican into the imperial period, including Roman contexts in the first–fourth centuries ce; second, it summarizes what Christians said about allotment and particularly Matthias’s appointment by lot in the early centuries ce when Christians developed the office of the bishop and there was little evidence for the actual appointment of bishops. How Christian thinkers wrote about allotment and its use in appointing bishops allows us to track Christian appropriation or translation of ancient, classical religious practice.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The chapter argues that although Acts 1:23–26 gave an apostolic precedent for choosing Matthias by lot, early Christian writers and communities turned away from allotment when developing the office of bishop, instead adopting popular election/acclamation. It reads this shift as selective appropriation and translation of Roman and biblical traditions, driven partly by anxiety about allotment as an uncontrollable mode of appointing leadership.

Key findings

  • Acts 1:23–26 describes a two-stage procedure: two candidates preselected by the community, then an allotment that identified Matthias as chosen by God; the chapter notes this had Jewish precedents and Roman parallels, including selection of Vestal Virgins.
  • Evidence for Christian bishops in the third century CE shows popular election, and Cyprian of Carthage (died 258 CE) cited Acts to argue for popular election as apostolic tradition while suppressing the lot in Matthias’s appointment.
  • Christian apocrypha imagined allotment for religious leadership and duties—e.g., *Protevangelium Iacobi* 24:4, *Acts of Thomas* 1, *Acts of Philip* 94, *Acts of Andrew* 1—but these texts were rejected from the canon.
  • Origen treated Matthias’s lot as divine judgment and used it to critique contemporary church leadership; he was eventually declared a heretic, while Augustine interpreted *sors* as divine will and salvation without citing Matthias’s lot as a precedent for church election procedure.

Methods

  • Design: historical and textual analysis comparing Roman allotment practices with early Christian commentary on the selection of Matthias and the appointment of bishops.
  • Data: biblical texts (especially Acts), Roman authors and inscriptions (Cicero, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Velleius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.), early Christian writers (Ignatius, Clement, *Didache*, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine), and New Testament apocrypha.
  • Main analysis: close reading of vocabulary, procedure, and selective citation to track Christian appropriation, rejection, or translation of Roman and biblical allotment traditions.

Limitations

  • Stated: evidence for the procedure of episcopal appointment in the first three centuries is “meager”; sources are often silent; the authorship and date of the *Gospel of James* are unknown; Cyprian engages in “special pleading.”
  • Stated: the date of Acts is debated, and the chapter notes uncertainty about how Matthias or his community viewed his role as divinely ordained.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is interpretive and source-dependent, with no systematic dataset or independent confirmation of actual appointment practices beyond literary and inscriptional testimony.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190278359.003.0009

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 58 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 50 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 47
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
72 of 72
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Roman practice of allotment was sufficiently known and salient to Christian communities that it could motivate their anxiety about allotment to appoint leadership.

    “The Roman context and the Roman cultural associations of allotment offer one motive for what will emerge as a Christian anxiety about allotment to appoint leadership.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The apocryphal texts' imagined allotments reflect Roman administrative allotment rather than purely literary invention.

    “these imaginings accord with the traditional Roman practice of administrative allotment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The silence of early Christian texts about the mechanics of selecting leaders indicates a lack of institutionalized procedure or avoidance of the Matthias precedent.

    “it does not specify any mechanics of their selection, passing over this feature of Acts in silence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Church forbade its priests and leaders from engaging in lot divination and repeatedly condemned the practice in 465, 506, and 511, thereby separating the clerical world of the church leadership from the secular, worldly lives of those who used divination.

    “The Church forbade its priests and leaders from engaging in lot divination and repeatedly condemned the practice in 465, 506, and 511, thereby separating the clerical world of the church leadership from the secular, worldly lives of those who used divination.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Origen was eventually declared a heretic.

    “The only Christian thinker who proposed actually using the lot to appoint church leadership, Origen was eventually declared a heretic.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Apocrypha interpret the allotment to appoint a priest as a divine vocation and repeatedly describe allotment as the procedure for dividing duties among church leadership; these texts were excluded from what came to be the corpus of authoritative Christian texts.

    “The Apocrypha interpret the allotment to appoint a priest as a divine vocation and repeatedly describe allotment as the procedure for dividing duties among church leadership; these texts were excluded from what came to be the corpus of authoritative Christian texts.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the fourth century, the church hierarchy was convening as councils and enunciating canons that defined rules for ordination, although it did not regulate the procedure for actually choosing bishops.

    “In the fourth century, the church hierarchy was convening as councils and enunciating canons that deg7Fned rules for ordination, although it did not regulate the procedure for actually choosing bishops.”
7 of 7

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Stewart, R.
Corresponding author
Stewart, Roberta
Venue
Oxford Scholarship Online
Published
2017-06-22
OpenAlex
W4230473122
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Religious Studies of Rome
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Classics › Classical Antiquity Studies
Keywords
Lot, Matthias, apostolic succession, early Christian bishops, early Christianity, Roman religion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-21, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-21 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review