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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Sources not found · 39 No basis given · 32 Own interpretation · 8 Not checked yet · 3 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The evidence for the appointment of Christian bishops in the third century CE , however, shows a procedure of popular election.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Instead he carefully delineates a direct line of authority from Jesus through the apostles to the churches established by them (20.4-5)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 20.4-5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Most of all he uses the language of allotment to describe the human condition (gender, sensory perception, corporal mortality) and the natural world as the product of the divine immanence in the material world (e.g., De testimonio animae [ On the Testimony of the Soul ] 16.2, and often).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De testimonio animae 16.2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Conspicuously, Tertullian claims that Judas's falling away fulg7Flled prophecy (Psalm 109:8);”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Psalm 109:8
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“he does not inveigh against the public allotment”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He similarly contrasts the authoritative, g7Fnal judgment of Christ with the underworld judgment of Minos and Rhadamanthus, who got their authority by lot, again appropriating another enduring literary image to assert the primacy of the Christian god.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and he emphasizes the continuity of teaching ( ' they promulgated the same teaching of the same faith to the nations').”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to Cyprian, the public, popular election legitimates church ofg7Fce:”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Origen understands the selection of Matthias to replace Judas as a preliminary election followed by a process that removed the selection from human will:”
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, he cites as precedent the replacement appointment of Matthias:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Origen repeatedly argues against an understanding of Biblical allotment as 'by chance' or fortuitu (23.1, cf. 23.3):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 23.1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 23.3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“He contrasts the 'sortes' of the Psalm with private lot divination ('When we hear the word 'lots,' we need not p. 144 think of private diviners').”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Augustine, like Origen, understands the allotment of Matthias as a divine selection.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In Epistle ( Ep. [ Letter ]) 67, Cyprian replies to Christians in Spain about their replacement appointment of two bishops who had engaged in idolatry (67.1-4):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ep. 67
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 67.1-4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike Origen, he interprets apostolic allotment to illustrate the extended meaning of sors as an individual, personal 'fortune' of salvation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So he, like Origen, contrasts human selection and divine judgment.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tertullian does inveigh against private practices of lot divination.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He selectively interprets Matthias's appointment simply as an election, not an election of potential candidates followed by allotment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and in doing so, he suppressed the other tradition, also reported in Acts, of Matthias's appointment by lot.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“He describes the practice of choosing sortes , or oracles, from scriptural readings ( Apol . 22.9):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Apol. 22.9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Origen knows the double meaning of lot indicated in Acts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the revulsion against divination by the church hierarchy contrasted with the popular divinatory practice and personal belief.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, Origen's contemporary Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (died 258 CE ), cited Acts to argue for popular election of bishops as a tradition, indeed an apostolic tradition;”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Already under Tiberius, then, the allotment of duties was being replaced-or better translated-by the unilateral authority of the emperor.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allotment continued as a mechanism of Roman government in the transition from Republican to imperial government”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of an allotment to select a priest had Jewish precedents”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Writing in the late g7Frst and early second centuries CE , Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny record the allotment of administrative tasks among elected public ofg7Fcials.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Suetonius
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tacitus
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pliny
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allotment took place in a ritually deg7Fned space, or templum”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The language describing the results of the allotment makes clear its conceptualization as a form of divination.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Signig7Fcantly, Cicero reports that the Senate annulled the allotment in 44 BCE because of presumed irregularities”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cicero, Philippicae [ Phil . ] [ Philippics ] 3.25
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conspicuous contrast, the writers of the New Testament apocrypha imagined the use of allotment to select religious leaders and to assign duties among them: that is, they imagined a Roman allotment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The apocryphal texts' imagined allotments reflect Roman administrative allotment rather than purely literary invention.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus allotment survived for selection to a priesthood that could not represent a political threat”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The early Church also had in the replacement appointment of Matthias a historical precedent, dated to the g7Frst generation of those who had directly witnessed Christ's ministry, for a procedure of appointment that the church chose not to develop.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Imperial legislation exported Roman allotment throughout the Empire to organize the political practices of municipal life”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ignatius shows clearly that the early church hierarchy had a problem establishing the legitimate authority of bishops.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ignatius
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The writings of Ignatius of Antioch (late g7Frst, early second century) illustrate the historical problems of establishing authoritative church leadership in the early Christian communities.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ignatius of Antioch
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the church hierarchy had a long-term problem establishing what legitimated the authority of bishops.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The third-century Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (2.1- 2) cursorily describes appointment of the bishop after an election by the people ('Let a bishop be ordained who has been elected by the entire people').”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Apostolic Tradition 2.1-2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So the inhabitants of the Roman world-pagans and Christians-would have recognized allotment as a mechanism of the Roman government for voting and judicial process.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The Roman practice of allotment was sufficiently known and salient to Christian communities that it could motivate their anxiety about allotment to appoint leadership.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Cumulatively, Velleius, Valerius, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny show that the imperial period squeezed the religious associations out of the administrative allotment.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Velleius
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Valerius
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Roman imperial authors had already used the language of allotment to describe the physical world: for example, the qualities of the natural world and the location of stars and planets in Manilius ( Astronomica 1.602 et al.), the natural characteristics of plants and animals in Pliny the Elder ( Historia Naturalis [ Natural History ] 9.2, 9.18, 16.6, 17.218).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Manilius, Astronomica 1.602
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis 9.2, 9.18, 16.6, 17.218
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Turning away from the precedent of Matthias also meant turning away from an uncontrollable procedure of appointing church leadership.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The practices described by Tertullian correlate with popular, private divinatory practices, such as the sortes V ergilianae and later sortes Biblicae and sortes Sangallenses , studied by Klingshirn 2002, 2005 and Hamilton 1992.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Klingshirn 2002, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Hamilton 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study of allotment and the selection of bishops allows us to watch Christian thinkers selectively appropriating and carefully translating both Christian and Roman tradition to develop a legitimate Church leadership.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tellingly, the seriation of Christian views on allotment and the appointment of Matthias reveals an enduring anxiety about allotment as an uncontrollable mode of appointment of leadership.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“His discussion thus implies a contrast between the modes of appointment in Acts and modes of appointment in his own time.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Church turned away from Jewish and Roman precedent.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By rejecting the claim of a divinely selected leadership, Christian leaders were able to make their own claims to power.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the early Churches faced enormous difg7Fculties establishing and maintaining authority within their communities, a popular election, mediated by the powerful, perhaps offered a more predictable and controllable means for making stable transfers of power.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 47
- Probably not a substantial claim. 37
In the paper
“On the allotment to determine voting units, Cicero uses a neutral vocabulary ( sortiri/sortitio/sors ) or verbs that emphasize mechanics ( exire or ducere ), whereas his description of the allotment to assign tasks to elected ofg7Fcials uses vocabulary that implies auspication that creates a divinely ordained duty.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cicero
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, Tertullian knows the procedure of Roman allotment well;”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tertullian, like Clement's First Letter to the Corinthians , looks away from the lot when describing Matthias's appointment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Tertullian refers to the Roman allotment of administrative posts ( Apologeticus [ Apol . ] [ The Apology ] 7.8-10) and military duties ( Apol . 2.8)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Apol. 7.8-10
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Apol. 2.8
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Moreover, he appropriates the language of Roman allotment to describe the shared kingdom of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ( Adversus Praxean [ Against Praxeas ] 3.4-5, 17.2-3), where we have a parallel with the allotted division of Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Adversus Praxean 3.4-5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 17.2-3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The imperial idiom describing allotment emphasizes its mechanics; and the ritual, specig7Fcally auspical, vocabulary has all but disappeared.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“His references to allotment show him deeply acculturated, aware of Roman political and social practices, as well as learned in Roman literary traditions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but he does not cite the fulg7Fllment of prophecy or the precedent of Acts to justify Matthias's replacement of Judas, or the modality of Matthias's appointment by lot.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“he vividly describes the highly anticipated spectacle of the allotment for starting positions in the chariot races ( De spectaculis [ On the Spectacles ] 16.1- 2).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De spectaculis 16.1-2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence for the procedure of episcopal appointment in the g7Frst three centuries is meager but indicates a prolonged contest over the legitimacy of church leadership.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The conclusion parallels the g7Frst exposition of Psalm 30, where Augustine expands the concrete meaning of sors to describe the allotted fortune of salvation ( Enarr. in Ps. 30.16):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Enarr. in Ps. 30.16
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He then deg7Fnes the authority of the people to judge and witness the worthiness of the priest:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“He insists that the results of allotment manifest the will of God (23.2, cf. 23.3):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 23.2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 23.3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Augustine's thinking became foundational: the Enarrationes clearly resonated with and guided Christians, who, as Lehman has emphasized, copied and distributed his texts for their own homiletic use.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lehman 2013: 162
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Cyprian engages in special pleading, as Torjesen has remarked (2004: 189-190); his own ascent to ofg7Fce came from a popular mandate, not the support of the church hierarchy with which he continually struggled to assert his authority as bishop.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Torjesen 2004: 189-190
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Augustine caps the discussion by translating 'lot' as the salvation that emerges as the free gift of God:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He identig7Fes the selection by lot as a divine judgment and the lot as a mechanism of divine will because of the preceding prayer:”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He claims that the community has to obey Divine rules because they have the authority to appoint priests from God:”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Signig7Fcantly, Origen begins his discussion of the appointment of Matthias by contrasting the wisdom of the apostles with the current church leadership (23.2):”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 23.2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“He claims that the lot is not evil and can re ect divine will ('the lot is not something evil, but in a context of human uncertainty the lot serves as an indicator of divine will').”
plainconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the second commentary on Psalm 30 ('My lots are in your hands'), exploring the signig7Fcance of in manibus tuis sortes meae , he questions the meaning of 'sortes' ('What are those lots? Why the lots?'; Enarrationes [ Enarr. ] in Ps. 30.2.13).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Enarr. in Ps. 30.2.13
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It developed instead a procedure of popular acclamation for the appointment of bishops, a process that had no parallels in the immediate, contemporary context.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sors describes life circumstance, especially human mortality, and the features of a divinely guided universe.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He sees this as daemonic and fraudulent, though he seems to be targeting a Christian, not a classical, practice.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Elsewhere Augustine describes (and critiques) divinatory practices ( De civitate Dei [ De civ. D . ] [ The City of God ] 8.23).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De civ. D. 8.23
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Augustine then proves his claim by adducing the appointment of Matthias:”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The process was, moreover, fractious and messy (cf. Ambrose in Milan; Silvanus in Cirta), although it potentially co-opted the popular electorate into the emerging system of the church hierarchy and perhaps, although unlikely, subordinated the traditional Roman elites within their respective Christian communities (Rapp 2000, Oliveira 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rapp 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Oliveira 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“He also speaks metaphorically of the lot, citing Paul's claim to be inheritors of salvation (23.3) and of particular life circumstance that is apportioned (23.3).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 23.3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He speaks concretely of the lot selecting individuals: the division of the tribes of Israel by Moses, the selection of Matthias.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Homily 23, Origen considers the drawing of lots for inheritance among the tribes of Israel ( De ratione sortium, ubi septem capiunt hereditatem ) and develops a contrast between an instrumental or mechanical interpretation versus an understanding of allotment as revealing a larger divine organization of the world and events (21.1).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 21.1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Yet Christians in developing processes for the appointment of church leadership did not use allotment, even though they developed the ideology of the bishop as the successor of the apostles (Rapp 2005: 29) and divinely appointed.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rapp 2005: 29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When Augustine in the late fourth and early g7Ffth century CE talks about the allotment of Matthias, he does not even think about the election of bishops.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And he does not cite the allotment as a precedent for Church election procedure.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But sors is repeated throughout the corpus to designate the human fortune to receive the divine gift of eternal life.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The lot, like any auspice, gave a permission (Festus p. 380, 382 Lindsay), not a guarantee of success; and the lot, like an omen, was accepted or rejected”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Festus p. 380, 382 Lindsay
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“commentators cite Biblical precedents for divinely afg7Frmed allotment”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but a secular and civic use of sortition is documented only at Rome.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The procedure of allotment had deep history in the Roman world.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the Republic, the lot insulated political decision making from in uences of bloodline or status group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The public allotment was an auspice, or solicited sign, and so formed part of the ritual frameworks legitimating political decision making at Rome.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The augurs presided over the allotment and adjudicated any fault in procedure, or vitium”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Romans used the lot to determine the order of voting in assemblies; to empanel jurors; to organize the levy and military work; to apportion land assignments among colonists; to assign religious roles; and, most distinctively, to apportion duties among elected public ofg7Fcials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The author of Acts 1:23- 26 describes the selection of Matthias to replace Judas:”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Acts 1:23-26
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inscriptions show that people throughout the Mediterranean would have recognized allotment as a Roman mechanism for political appointments and would have witnessed Roman allotment in municipal government, for elections and judicial process.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Paul and the Pauline texts do not make clear a procedure for selecting church leadership and instead develop language that emphasizes a personal, divine vocation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 2 Corinthians 1:1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 1Timothy 3:1-7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Titus 1:7-9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tertullian appropriates the language of Roman allotment to translate or explain Christian ideas, and the Christian God becomes the god of the lot.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The appointment of Matthias by lot was a historical action of the g7Frst-generation apostles that contradicted subsequent practice and, by historical lectio difg7Fcilior , suggests an early date for the tradition reported in the text, insofar as subsequent practice developed in opposition to it.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Christian commentators on the appointment of Matthias show a range of views on that allotment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Tacitus thus conceptualizes the allotment as a randomized process, and he evaluates its administrative use instrumentally and rationally as a tool that promoted the Roman value of equity.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tacitus
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The appointment of Matthias recorded in Acts, a text traditionally dated to the last quarter of the g7Frst century, comprised a twofold process, an initial selection of two men by the religious community (on the criterion of their having directly witnessed the ministry of Christ) followed by an allotment that identig7Fed the individual as selected by God.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Acts
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The lot also selected religious personnel and apportioned their duties, and a religious context for that assignment can be documented into the late third century CE .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The second-century CE Didache , addressed to eastern diasporic churches, describes the appointment of bishops and deacons by church leadership, without making clear who selected the candidates or how (15.1- 2)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Didache 15.1-2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Signig7Fcantly, Clement is the g7Frst Christian source to ignore the precedent set by the account of Matthias's selection by lot in Acts, even as he cites scriptural authority to claim that the apostolic method for appointing bishops was a tradition”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Clement's First Letter to the Corinthians 42:5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Isaiah 60:17
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Tacitus presents the senatorial view of allotment as a traditional mechanism that mitigated aristocratic competition for political favor and precluded resentment”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tacitus, Historiae [ Hist. ] [ Histories ] 4.8
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roman priests were not normally selected by lot, but by co-option or by popular election followed by co-option.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, the Church developed a procedure of popular election as 'an expression of the communal consensus' and an ideology of the bishop as 'incarnation of the community.'”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In short, Didache invokes Acts to describe the appointment of bishops and to conjure up the idea of a personal, divine vocation, but it does not specify any mechanics of their selection, passing over this feature of Acts in silence.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Didache
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Acts
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the early Christian apocrypha imagined allotment allocating duties among preselected groups of disciples; these imaginings accord with the traditional Roman practice of administrative allotment.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The apocryphal texts' imagined allotments reflect Roman administrative allotment rather than purely literary invention.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Christians rejected the Roman, and the early Christian, Biblical tradition on allotment to select leadership, even as they carefully selected elements from the appointment of Matthias, to claim adherence to tradition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Origen then, the allotment re ected the divine will of a Judeo-Christian god and the allotment selected leadership that was chosen by god.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The appointment of Matthias, arguably the g7Frst apostolic succession, employed allotment, and Christian leaders and communities had precedent and authoritative text to support the appointment of leadership by lot.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The contrast reproduces or better parallels Roman thinking on the mechanical versus religious deg7Fnition of allotment (Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cicero
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pliny
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tacitus
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That Christian leadership rejected the Roman tradition makes sense, that is, they rejected the secular frameworks of the Roman imperial government against which the Christian communities were developing.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rejecting Roman allotment was not rejecting a religious belief but rejecting Roman governmental practice and imperial authority, a distinction of particular importance given the recruitment of bishops from among the traditional elite and given the demographic heterogeneity of the developing Church (already evident in Acts).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study of Origen's views of leadership, Trigg has argued that Origen distinguished a charismatic leadership selected by God from the leadership selected by the emergent church hierarchy.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trigg 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The allotment seems in Origen's thought to function as a mechanism that countered the presumptive authority of bishops and the Church, and Origen used Matthias's allotment to develop a critique of ecclesiastical position and authority.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet rejection of Roman practice differentiated the Church and its hierarchy from the mundane power structures of the Roman Empire.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Origen develops a distinction g7Frst articulated by his teacher Clement of Alexandria (died 215 CE ).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A focus on allotment documents the complex range of views on divinely ordained leadership and simultaneously illustrates the process of cultural assimilation on the micro level.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Augustine has translated-and redeg7Fned-the concrete lot g7Frst as the indicator of God's will and then by extension as the enduring gift of salvation emanating from God's will.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Identifying Acts and Matthias's appointment as precedent for contemporary selection of bishops, Cyprian omits to mention the lot and invents the tradition of a divinely sanctioned, popular election of bishops.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Watching the Christian authors selectively reject and translate the example of Matthias's appointment reveals their deep awareness of Roman and Biblical traditions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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.”
Citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, R.
- Corresponding author
- Stewart, Roberta
- Venue
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- 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
