It is obvious that the conceptual and methodological perspectives pro-
posed earlier in order to come to grips with the Mishnaic and Toseftan evi-
dence provides a useful grid to analyze what appears to have been
happening in Chrysostom’s Antioch. He and (at least) a minority of his
Gentile Christian parishioners differed from one another with respect to
their avoidance of, or co-participation with, Jews, in various socially differ-
entiated spheres. Moreover, in several of these mapped spheres, Antioch’s
Jews sufficiently shared a set of mapping norms with Judaizing Gentile
Christians to have permitted Gentile Christian attendance at communal
liturgical rituals in the synagogue and to have allowed use by Gentile Chris-
tians of Jewish institutions of civil justice and of synagogue-based shamans.
Chrysostom’s alternate map of certain specific social spheres put him in con-
flict with both some of his own congregants and (some of) the Antiochene
Jews. Had Chrysostom’s recalcitrant congregants mapped the world as he
did, or had the Jews themselves mirrored his map (by excluding Gentile
Christians outright from the spheres in question), the basis for the indicated
conflict would have been lessened.
Another example is Tertullian, who took great pains in his Apologyto
explain that, in many spheres, Christians saw themselves as complete co-
participants with their non-Christian (pagan) fellow citizens: “[We Chris-
tians] live with you, enjoy the same food, have the same manner of life, and
dress, the same requirements for life....We cannot dwell together in the
world, without the marketplace, without butchers, without your baths,
shops, factories, taverns, fairs and other places of business. We sail in ships
with you, serve in the army, till the ground, engage in trade as you do; we
provide skills and services to the public for your benefit” (Apol.42; trans.
R.M. Grant 1980, 28). Why make this point? Tertullian was responding
here to the anti-Christian charge that Christians did not contribute to the
local economy. In response, Tertullian laid out his map of the economic
social sphere, defining much of it as one in which Christians and pagans
are co-participants.
Some authorities within the non-Christian Gentile community seem
to have perceived Gentile Christians as propounding social avoidance in
spheres where, in the opinion of these authorities, Christians ought to
behave as fellow citizens. Indeed, some Christian authorities other than Ter-
tullian may have held this (isolationist) view. But Tertullian is stating
(pleading) otherwise. In any case, real or potential conflict due to inharmo-
nious mapping of social spheres by different communities, including per-
haps different subgroups within the Christian community, lies behind
Tertullian’s remarks. In fact, Judaizing Gentile Christians counselled avoid-
My Rival, My Fellow 103