low social and economic rank, such as courtesans and slaves (e.g., Walton
1894, 58; Rouse 1902, 206–207). In a recent study, Sara B. Aleshire (1992,
85–92) reviews the evidence and finds that the dedicants were a heteroge-
neous group (from many social classes).
Attachments and Constraints
Stark’s insight (1996, 75) on the opportunities for new patterns of attach-
ment resulting from Christian ministry to the sick is fascinating, as is his
intuitively credible observation that obligations to Christian caregivers and
healers could have brought in new members (cf. Luke 8:2–3; the women
who had been healed or exorcised by Jesus became his sponsors—and dis-
ciples?). This issue relates to Stark’s observation (1996, 16) drawn from
modern sociological studies of conversion: interpersonal attachments,
rather than theological or ideological persuasion, are often the instigating
factor in a convert’s attraction to a group. Many scholars of early Christian-
ity, surveying second- to fourth-century Christian evangelistic success,
would agree with Stark’s application of this observation to that situation.
Was Christian charity intramural, or was it also directed toward out-
siders, i.e., pagans? If the latter, then there would be an influx of pagans
forming new attachments to the Christians who had offered them chari-
table health care. Speaking of conversion in the second and third centuries
CE, MacMullen observed that a likely setting was “the room of some sick
person” (1984, 41). This would be an example of what Stark calls an “open
network” (1996, 20), one where members reach outside the group bound-
ary to draw in newcomers. According to Stark: “an epidemic would have
caused chaos in pagan social relations, leaving large numbers with but few
attachments to other pagans, meanwhile greatly increasing the relative
probabilities of strong bonds between pagans and Christians” (1996, 91).
This, however, is a difficult issue to assess. It is likely that the major-
ity of Christian charity was directed toward Christians (Lane Fox 1987,
591). Stark (1996, 92) admits that the care offered by Christians to outsiders
would necessarily have been selective (offered to neighbours, friends, and
relatives) rather than comprehensive. Thus we have a network based as
much on pre-existing social relations (kinship, friendship) as on healing.
Early Christian communities simply did not have the resources to carry
out wide-scale public charities—at least, not until after Constantine.
One underlying problematical assumption in Stark’s discussion is the
notion that religion was a distinct entity in the ancient world, in fact, a social
commodity, which could be chosen or discarded (see, e.g., 1996, 37). Is
this an anachronistic (modern) view? The current standard assessment is
“Look How They Love One Another” 227