Proxenia as a Model for Early Christian Host-Leaders

The Ancient Social Institution of Proxenia

Travel in the ancient world was dangerous and costly (risks: 2 Cor 11.26; Cicero, Off. 1.151; Apuleius, Metam. 1.7; 2.18; 8.17–18 Blumell, 2007; expenses: Matthews, 2006, pp. 97, 138–62; Huebner, 2019, pp. 100–01). Travelers were dislocated from their social network, making them unknown and, thus, vulnerable. When someone departed from their native community (apodēmeō), they had to procure subsistence and safety within a foreign social group. To overcome the social and financial challenges related to ancient travel, Greek cities utilized an institution called proxenia, roughly translated as “public guest-friendship.”

Proxenia was an honorific social institution that structured relations and facilitated travel between members of different Greek poleis. To formalize the long-distance “guest-friendship,” a community would bestow the honorific title of proxenos (“public host”) upon a prominent person in another community. The grantee of the title proxenos was always an outsider, someone of another community and distinct ethnikos. When people from the granting community traveled to the proxenos’ city, he would provide hospitality and intermediary services. An inscription from the Aegean island of Tenos describes the role of their proxenos in generic terms—“He is a good man toward the people of Tenos, performing services for Tenians, whether civic officials or private citizens, who came with a request to him” (IG XII 5 798, trans. mine). Such services included physical accommodation, material support, and legal protections, along with social access to city administrators. Proxenoi were private citizens who assisted foreigners visiting their city.

Based upon two and a half thousand inscribed decrees that have been excavated and published, an estimated 1.2 million proxenos grants were decreed from the archaic to the Roman Imperial periods (Mack, 2015, pp. 2, 15; Marek, 1984, pp. 5–118). Thus, proxenia is “by far the most copiously documented political institution in antiquity” (Herman, 1987, p. 130). The epigraphic evidence indicates that the institutionalized practice was prevalent and ubiquitous, particularly in the Greek East.

A short decree from Asia Minor reveals how proxenia worked in practice (Adak, 2006). Olbia was a small yet autonomous polis on the western edge of Pamphylia. The harbor city sat along the principal sailing route running across the northern Mediterranean. Olbians benefited from their strategic coastal location and even developed trade connections with other cities into the Pontus Euxinus. While sailing through the Propontis toward the Euxinus, these Olbians passed through the commercial city of Cyzicus. In that commercial city, the Olbians relied upon the assistance of a certain person named Herodotus. He helped the Olbian traders by providing hospitality, making introductions with local officials, and providing local information. To express their gratitude and strengthen the beneficial relationship, the people of Olbia ratified and inscribed a formulaic decree to bestow upon Herodotus and his descendants the honorary title proxenos. It reads, “The council and the people have decreed. Pastorides made the petition. Since Herodotus of Cyzicus, son of Xenos, has been beneficial to the city of the Olbians, may he and his descendants be public hosts [proxenous] of the Olbians. May the treasurers with Pantelion inscribe this decree.”

Socio-physically dislocated travelers depended upon established relations with intermediating figures in distant cities to reduce the common points of friction when traveling, trading, and residing in a foreign city. Because proxenoi delivered essential benefits to travelers, Greek communities invested considerable capital into their proxenos-relationships. They needed people willing to leverage their own status and prominence as citizens in the community to serve as diplomatic hosts intermediating for them.

Proxenoi were not altruistic hosts; they also benefited from the arrangement. The pursuit of status and prestige recurs through all proxenia-relationships and fueled the interactions (Mack, 2015, p. 90). In the context of elite competition, proxenoi were at once obliged and eager to perform such diplomatic functions to acquire honor. A grant of proxenos confirmed the grantee’s status as an influential and connected citizen of their community. It often recognized the person for some prior benefaction, as seen in the Olbian inscription above. The grant of proxenos frequently included symbolic honors, such as titles, public inscriptions, and legal privileges like immunity (asylia) or citizenship (politeia) in the granting community (cf. McLean, 2002, pp. 234–5). Perhaps more significant for the pursuit of honor, proxenia-relationships set in motion a cycle for generating future honor. Once established, the relationship fostered travel, which provided the proxenos with constant opportunities to extend hospitality benefits to visitors. The civic elite, at several levels, increased their prestige and status by enabling travel between communities.

As a social institution for structuring relationships between communities, proxenia overlapped with euergesia. Greeks viewed proxenia as a type of euergesia relationship. Granting communities often named their remote partners both euergetai and proxenoi (e.g., IG I³ 95, 97, 110; I.Eph 1459, 3124), as both titles connoted an asymmetrical, reciprocal relationship. The term proxenos, however, was a “more specialized subcategory of euergetēs” that occurred only in the specific context of travel (Mack, 2015, p. 41). Proxenoi maintained an asymmetrical, reciprocal relationship specifically with travelers.

Applying Proxenia to Early Christian Networks

The pervasive social institution of proxenia, we argue, provides a useful yet untapped heuristic social model for interpreting social interactions among early Christians. At first glance, however, the concept might not appear to be readily applicable. Proxenia was generally formalized, polis-based, and common in the Classical and Hellenistic eras, whereas the early Christian movement was informal, non-civic, and in the Imperial period. We address these apparent incongruities regarding the formality, issuing bodies, and chronology of proxenos decrees, then consider the applicability of proxenia in early Christian studies.

The social calculus of proxenia influenced relations even when an official proxenos decree did not exist. We can distinguish between the official title of proxenos and the general role of a social mediator for travelers. A resident performed proxenos-like services when they provided hospitality and community access to people from another community. A well-placed individual maintained an ongoing commitment to ensuring the welfare of foreign travelers and, thus, functioned like a proxenos. William Mack speaks about the “proxenos-paradigm”—i.e., the coherent and shared set of assumptions for friendships between communities (Mack, 2015, pp. 24–26). The paradigm of proxenia was present even when a proxenos decree had not been issued. General social expectations of generosity and reciprocity compelled prominent people to extend hospitality. Thus, Greek proxenia, like Latin hospitium (Nicols, 2011, 2014), was but one formalized manifestation of the widespread reciprocal obligations linking long-distance relationships and facilitating travel in antiquity. Proxenos decrees merely formalized the general social calculus governing interactions between ancient travelers and their hosts. So, although early Christians never granted the official title of proxenos to a fellow member, the implicit social logic surely shaped relations between itinerants and their hosts.

The majority of proxenos decrees were issued by the boulē and dēmos of a polis; the granting communities were often centralized political bodies. However, in several instances, a non-polis group adopted proxenia to assert its own group status and facilitate travel (Marek, 1984, pp. 359–64). For example, associations of Dionysiac performing artists (technitēs) issued proxenos decrees to recognize hosts in various locales (Guen, 2001, vol. I, nos. 30, 37, 75–77). A group of foreign merchants in Athens also managed to formally recognize someone as their proxenos (IG II² 1012, 112/11 BCΕ). These granting communities were not political entities, but associations of people united through their mobile occupation. Thus, some non-political social groups did adopt proxenia to facilitate travel. The fact that their proxenos decrees were not contested suggests that non-civic social groups, such as early Christians, could and did utilize proxenia to facilitate their travel.

Regarding the timing of proxenia, the institution is most attested to in the third century BCE, then gradually faded in ubiquity and utility as Greek cities prioritized relations with Rome more than fellow Greek poleis (Mack, 2015, pp. 234–82). Nevertheless, proxenia continued into the first and second centuries CE (e.g., IosPE I² 79, ca. 50 CE; SEG 45.985, 173/4 CE). Even if the designation of proxenos declined in the Roman era, the need for intermediating hospitality remained acute, as seen in the first-century honorary inscription of Junia Theodora, a prominent host for Lycians visiting Corinth (RP 1 COR 359).

As itinerant Christians encountered the same risks and friction points as other ancient travelers, they would have naturally availed themselves of the proxenos-paradigm and sought to cultivate a proxenos-like relationship with prominent people in destination communities. In this way, proxenia helps us reconstruct, in an imaginative yet controlled manner, social relations among early Christians as they traveled between communities. As a brief case study, we shall apply the model of proxenia to better understand the personas of two rather enigmatic figures in early Christianity—Philemon and Phoebe. Space permits only brief sketches illustrating how the concept of proxenos illuminates their social roles within the early Christian communities.

Philemon as a Proxenos-Like Host

Aspects of Paul’s letter suggest that Philemon functioned as a proxenos-like host among Christians. In the closing comments, Paul asks Philemon to prepare a guestroom (xenia, v. 22) for him. The term xenia provides a direct semantic connection with proxenia and is the most explicit example of Philemon assuming the role of proxenos. The term generally refers to “hospitality, entertainment,” but here refers to the physical space in which hospitality was provided, as in “guest room, lodging” (cf. BDAG, s.v.; Acts 28:23; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 12.2). Paul’s instructions to provide xenia reveal Philemon’s role as a host with control of lodging spaces for travelers, and this fact was known to a potential traveler such as Paul.

In Phlm 7, Paul praises Philemon because “the hearts of the saints have been refreshed” through Philemon (ta splanchna tōn hagiōn anapepautai dia sou; Phlm 7). This activity appears important, for Paul has learned about it while in prison and makes public mention of it. So, what did Philemon do to “refresh” the saints? The five Pauline instances of the verb anapauō all occur in the specific context of travel and refer to concrete acts of assistance to dislocated individuals (1 Cor 16:18; 2 Cor 7:13; Phlm 7, 20; Rom 15:32), a sense that apparently became a feature of early Christian idiolect (cf. Matt 11:28; Ign. Tral. 12.1; Rom 10.2; Smyrn. 10.1–2; Acts Paul 3.4; 3.13; Acts Peter 22). A close linguistic parallel to Phlm 7 occurs in 2 Cor 7:13 (Dunn, 1996, p. 321). Paul praises the Corinthians because Titus’ “spirit was refreshed by all of you” (anapepautai to pneuma auto apo pantōn humōn) when he traveled to and from Corinth. The linguistic similarities between these verses, in terms of specific vocabulary, grammar, and logical reasoning, suggest that they address a similar socio-historical situation. In the case of 2 Cor 7:13, “refresh” refers to the gracious manner in which the Corinthian church received, hosted, and returned Titus as he traveled to and from Corinth. Paul’s use of anapauō in 2 Cor 7:13 and other instances suggests that Philemon had likewise “refreshed” Christian itinerants by supporting their travel efforts.

Paul’s word of thanksgiving in Phlm 7 serves his rhetorical aims. He notes Philemon’s reputation as a host who refreshed the saints because it relates to the letter’s principal request. Paul asks Philemon to receive his former slave with language denoting hospitality—“welcome” (proslambanō, v. 17) and “refresh” (anapauō, v. 20). The praise for past hospitality (v. 7) generates social pressure for Philemon to maintain that reputation when Onesimus returns (v. 17, 20) and Paul arrives in the future (v. 22). Scholarship on Philemon, focusing on the matter of slavery, has lamented the ambiguity, and even alleged an absence, of Paul’s request in Phlm (Barclay, 1991; Tolmie, 2010). However, Paul does in fact make three requests of Philemon (vv. 17, 20, 22), all of which relate to welcoming an arriving traveler, thus addressing Philemon as a host figure.

Some of Philemon’s past guests were likely the five Pauline associates who greet Philemon in vv. 23–24. They had seemingly traveled to Philemon and benefitted from his hospitality, then returned to Paul’s location. This reconstruction best explains how Paul heard of Philemon’s admirable behavior (vv. 5–7). His itinerant colleagues who were Philemon’s former guests and who now send greetings told him about Philemon’s “love” and “faith.” Also, assuming the amicus domini theory of Onesimus’ departure (Lampe, 1985, 2010, pp. 63–65), the household slave had to learn about Paul’s specific location and authority as a potential mediator before he departed to find Paul (Rapske, 1991, p. 201). A likely source of that information would have been Pauline associates who stayed in Philemon’s house and whom Onesimus might have served. Philemon likely functioned as a proxenos-like host to Pauline associates in the past, which links with Paul’s principal requests for welcoming and hosting more people.

An observation about the historical geography of Colossae lends further support to this reconstruction of Philemon’s persona. Assuming that he was based in Colossae (Lohse, 1988, p. 186), Philemon would have encountered Christian travelers from many directions. The Lycus valley maintained strategic prominence throughout the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods because it is located at the intersection of two major travel routes across Roman Asia (Mitchell, 1999). These would be the northwest-southeast route from Pergamum to Pamphylia and the east-west route running from Ephesus across Anatolia. Located on the main routes of travel, prominent people in the Lycus valley, such as Philemon, likely received travelers passing through.

Paul seems to evoke the proxenos-paradigm in Phlm 14. Instead of making a unilateral choice about Onesimus’ future, Paul asks Philemon to decide. Paul claims to have done this “in order that your good deed might be voluntary.” In proxenia inscriptions, “doing good” and “being willing/eager” were commonly mentioned characteristics of proxenoi (Mack, 2015, pp. 50–51). A proxenos grant from Thaumakoi in Thessaly (ca. 50 BC) notes these two qualities in the honoree: “since his earliest youth he has lived his life always being the cause of some good for the polis of the Thaumakoi and for those of its citizens who meet him, lacking no eagerness or zeal on behalf of the interests of the polis of the Thaumakoi” (IG IX 2 219, ll. 3–6, emphasis mine). Paul’s language in v. 14 invites Philemon to function as a generous host, eager to fulfill social expectations toward Onesimus, whom Paul now commends as he travels back to Philemon. Thus, the proxenos-paradigm—a common operating system for relationships across space—informs Philemon’s persona in Colossae and rhetorical dynamics in Paul’s letter to him.

Phoebe as a Proxenos-Like Host

In Rom 16:2, Paul states that a certain Phoebe “has been a patron of many and of myself” (prostatis pollōn egenēthē kai emou autou). The interpretation of the term prostatis, the feminine form of prostatēs, generally translated as “helper” or “patron,” has generated considerable discussion, focusing primarily on her authority and legal status as a prostatis (Fiorenza, 1987; Jewett, 1988, 2006, pp. 941–49; Kearsley, 1999; MacGillivray, 2011; Osiek, 2005; Schultz, 1990; Whelan, 1993). Less attention has been paid to the practical and social aspects of the term. What did Phoebe do to be considered a prostatis?

In his commentary on Romans (10:18), Origen interprets prostatis—Phoebe provided hospitality services, such as accommodation and advocacy, to travelers like Paul and other itinerating Christians. Origen states:

Since Origin, late-antique and modern commentators have mentioned a similar reconstruction, but only in a passing sentence or two (Theodoret of Cyrus, Int. Paul., at Rom 16.2, PG 82.820; Ambrosiaster Comm. Rom., at 16.2, CSEL 81/1.476; Campbell, 2009, p. 92; MacGillivray, 2011, p. 197; Wilckens, 1978, p. 132; Witherington, 1988, p. 114; Zapella, 1989, p. 171). By following and expanding this interpretation, we propose that Phoebe’s identity as a prostatis refers to her acts of hospitality toward Christian travelers, such as Paul and perhaps even the Christians in Rome to whom she would carry the epistle of Romans. The strength of this social reconstruction is that it explains how Phoebe functioned as a prostatis to many as well as Paul, and it sheds light on the reason Paul commends Phoebe to the Romans. In support of this interpretation, we consider two pieces of evidence: (1) epigraphic and linguistic data regarding prostat- and (2) Paul’s socio-rhetorical purposes in Rom 16:2.

Epigraphic evidence indicates that the term prostatis shares a semantic and cultural overlap with the word proxenos (contra Montevecchi, 1981). Mack notes, “The close connection between the role of proxenos and prostatēs is stressed in our lexicographical sources, in which the proxenos is very frequently defined as the prostatēs of a polis” (2015, p. 75; Monceaux, 1886, pp. 12–15). For example, a mid-first-century CE inscription from Byzantium honors Orontas of Olbia for his proxenia and benevolence toward the people of Byzantium whenever they sailed to his city. The decree says that Orontas performed many services, “being useful in his prostasia” because of his “goodwill and proxenia” (IosPE I² 79; cf. SEG 11 974 ll. 2–5). In such inscriptions related to ancient travel, both roots, prostat- and proxen-, involve the practice of hosting and assisting travelers from foreign communities. The Hellenistic-era definition from linguist Aristophanes of Byzantium illustrates the terms’ shared meaning: “A proxenos is a prostatis of a city based on a civil decree” (Slater, 1986, p. fr. 301; cf. Hesychius Alexandria, s.v. πρόξενοι). In light of the linguistic link between prostat– and proxen– terms, we might conclude that hospitality was an expected aspect of being a prostatēs or prostatis. The epigraphic parallels between prostatis and proxenia also explain the nature of hospitality provided by a prostatis, namely, material provision and social protection.

A first-century inscription from Corinth offers an illuminating parallel to Phoebe’s role in Rom 16:2. The koinon and select cities of Lycia issued honorific letters expressing their gratitude for Junia Theodora, as she intervened on their behalf before authorities and provided exceptional hospitality (RP I COR 359; Vénencie et al., 1959; Friesen, 2014). The communities of Lycia relied upon her hospitality and diplomatic assistance when they visited Corinth. Of particular relevance concerning Rom 16:2, the letter from Telmessos praises Junia Theodora for “displaying her patronage (prostatia)” to those in her home (l. 77). The linguistic parallel provides information about how Phoebe likely functioned as a prostatis within the Christian community. In light of epigraphic evidence, Paul’s representation of Phoebe as a prostatis likely connotes, in particular, the practice of hospitality. Phoebe, as a prominent resident of Cenchreae, hosted and assisted fellow Christians, including Paul, who traveled through her port city. She functioned as a proxenos-like figure in the community. This fact explains why Paul describes Phoebe as a prostatis to the believers in Rome.

In Rom 16:1–2, Paul commends Phoebe to the churches in Rome for a specific and stated purpose—that the Romans would “welcome her” and “help her in whatever matter.” Phoebe was soon to become a socio-physically dislocated person in Rome, where she would need a new social network to mitigate the costs and dangers of travel. With this recommendation formula, Paul asks the Romans to assist and host her. The first request (prosdechesthai) uses a term associated with a host’s initial reception of a traveler or stranger (e.g., Luke 10:38; 19:16; Acts 17:7; 28:7; 1 Cor 16:10-12; Gal 4:13-14; Col 4:10; Did 11.1-2, 4-6; 12.1-2; 1 Clem 12.3; 28.2; 54.3). As per letters of commendation, Paul’s request to help her “in whatever matter” refers to a generic, unspecified appeal for personal assistance toward the visiting letter carrier (e.g., P.Giss. 1.71.5–6; P. Giss. 1.88.5–6; P.Mich. I.33; contra Jewett, 2006, pp. 947–48; cf. Kim, 1972, pp. 78–9). Paul’s commendation language evokes the common social practice of providing general assistance to a commended traveler.

Rom 16:2b provides a clue about the kind of help Phoebe might need in the reason clause, “for she has been a prostatis of many and of myself as well.” The fact that Phoebe was a prostatis forms the basis for Paul’s request and, thus, relates to the nature of the “help” that he asks the Romans to extend. They are to welcome and help Phoebe in her upcoming travel to Rome because she herself, as a proxenos-like prostatis, had welcomed and helped many Christian travelers. Her generosity as a host in Cenchreae both grounds Paul’s request of the Romans and models the reception that Paul expected of them. In this reading, both elements of Rom 16:2—Paul’s request of the Romans to welcome Phoebe, and the grounds clause about Phoebe being a prostatis — refer to proxenia-like hospitality toward travelers. The beneficiaries of Phoebe’s hospitality were Paul during three prior trips to Corinth (Acts 18:18; 2 Cor 2:1–2; 13:1) and perhaps some of the twenty-seven people named in Rom 16:3–16, who, like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2), were expelled from Rome and traveled eastward, where they would have relied upon the generosity of a local host who could provide accommodation and social advocacy. If these Roman Christians knew Phoebe through such circumstances, their indebtedness to Phoebe might explain why she was the carrier of Paul’s letter (cf. Phil 2:29; Kim, 1972, pp. 76–77, 112–13; contra Käsemann, 1980, p. 411). Paul asks and expects the Romans to welcome Phoebe because she had welcomed many fellow Christians, and perhaps even the Romans to whom she was traveling with Paul’s letter. This reconstruction of Phoebe as a proxenos-like host-leader of Christians, based on epigraphic and rhetorical considerations, illuminates both her persona and social dynamics within the early Christian movement.

The Prominence of Christian Host-Leaders

Early Christian leaders functioned like proxenoi who facilitated travel between Christian communities. This realization affords two general observations regarding the prominence and authority of proxenos-like hosts in early Christian communities.

Within early Christianity, proxenoi-like hosts with the capacity to create connections and facilitate travel were numerous and critical. In Acts chs.13–18, we see how such figures propelled and guided the apostle’s movement. The patronage of Sergius Paulus facilitated Paul’s travel into Galatia (Mitchell, 1994, pp. 6–8). Prominent believers in Macedonia—Lydia in Philippi, Jason in Thessalonica, and unnamed believers in Berea—hosted Paul’s group in their homes (16:15; 17:5,7), advocated on their behalf (17:6–10), and sent them safely to the next destination (17:14–15). In Corinth, Prisca and Aquilla were Paul’s initial hosts (Acts 18:2–3) and formed Paul’s mission base in Ephesus (Acts 18:26; 1 Cor 16:19). As mentioned, Judge’s prosopological survey of the New Testament identified up to forty persons capable of providing patronage to Christian travelers (Judge, 1961, p. 131). Notably, a considerable number were women, such as the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12), Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40), Nympha (Col 4:15), Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3), the “elect lady” (2 John 10), and Phoebe (Rom 16:2).

Though a significant number of prominent hosts are mentioned in Christian texts, many remain hidden figures. The expansion of Christianity around the Mediterranean would have required connections with a series of people capable of hosting and helping travelers (Maier, 2002, pp. 148–53; cf. Did. 11–13; Herm. 104). This would have been the case, for example, during Paul’s two years in Ephesus as his team traveled through Asia (Acts 19:10), for the messenger who delivered John’s apocalypse to the seven churches, and the early second-century churches who traveled to visit Ignatius during his journey through Asia. The multi-day journeys necessitated acts of personal hospitality, especially for Jewish believers who shunned public inns and might not have been welcomed as believers in synagogues. The extant of early Christians’ hospitality network surely exceeded those people identified by name in their literature.

Such proxenos-like hosts facilitated the notable expansion and intercommunication of Christian communities. However, their quantity and impact have not been fully recognized. The general obscurity of such people stands in contrast to the influence and authority they enjoyed during their lives. Two factors perhaps explain why their number and influence have been historically discounted. One, most early Christian texts were composed by itinerant teachers. We learn about the hosts only through the perspective and circumstances of their guests. Two, historians create the impression that early Christianity was foremost scholastic and ideological (Hurtado, 2006, pp. 15–43; Judge, 1960, 1961). From Irenaeus and into Protestant scholarship, reconstructions of Christianity have foregrounded teachers and theologians as the primary Church leaders. However, the early “social movement” was not the diffusion of disembodied ideas but, rather, the physical movement of actual people into and between communities (Concannon, 2016, 2017). A consideration of the social dynamics enabling ancient travel recenters proxenoi-like hosts in our reconstructions of early Christianity. As the instances of Philemon and Phoebe illustrate, information about hosts in early Christian texts is rather fragmentary and incidental. Nevertheless, they played critical roles in the early movement, which the paradigm of proxenia allows us to better understand.

The Authority of Christian Host-Leaders

Proxenos-like hosts enjoyed authority and status among fellow Christians precisely because of their ability to enable movement. In the ancient world, alleviating the steep costs and risks of travel was a notable and praiseworthy act of patronage. Greek communities inscribed decrees praising proxenoi because they facilitated travel. Rhetoricians lauded the Roman Empire because its infrastructure likewise enabled movement (Pliny, Panegyric of Trajan, 29; Ep. 8.4.2; Status, Silvae 4.3; Aristides, Regarding Rome 100–102; Philo, Leg. 47; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.30.3; Laurence, 2004). Christian host-leaders who enabled travel gained social prestige because of the travel assistance they provided. Among Christians in the first century, the benefits that leaders provided were not the conventional forms of civic benefaction. Rather, the benefits from proxenoi included social connections and physical mobility.

Early Christianity was not a decentralized network in which everyone had direct access to everyone else. Movement occurred through certain hub-figures. Only a limited number of people had sufficient resources to extend proxenia-like benefits to travelers. These people became centralized nodes in the community. In social network theory, “centrality” measures the density and importance of certain points within a network. The measure of a point’s centrality generally indicates its “power, influence, popularity, and prestige” (Scott & Carrington, 2011, pp. 5–6). As networks scale up, centralized nodes create and capture significant value within the network because they facilitate movement and interconnections. Within the social network of early Christianity, proxenos-like hosts functioned as nodes within the social infrastructure. By opening their doors to travelers, Christian hosts became proverbial gatekeepers to the broader social network. Hosting visiting travelers enacted their status and authority (cf. 3 John 9–10). Without such figures who could host regular gatherings and traveling visitors, most early Christians could not have fully participated in, or interacted with other members of, the network. The important praxis of hospitality continued and formalized in the second century as Christian bishops exerted their authority within the local community by extending hospitality to itinerants and overseeing intercommunal communications (Ign. Rom. 9; Smyr 11; Poly. 7; Hermas, Vision 2.4.3; Lucian, Passing of Peregrinus 12, 41; Ramsay, 1893, p. 364; Maier, 2002). These leaders in the early Christian movement functioned like proxenoi. Their ability to enable (or restrict!) mobility and connectivity garnered a certain authority, determined the flow of resources between groups, and ultimately shaped the course of the early Christian expansion.