409 BETWEEN AMBITION QUIETISM AND Thessalonian Christian guild would not only suffer a congenital suspicion against collegia tout-court from Roman authorities, but also, and more importantly, a weakened connection with Roma- r e l a t e d benefactors. The patronage system was intimately connected with the religious system based on the Cult of the Emperor, which also operated at the level of the political administration of Roman cities 69. By rejecting the Cult of the Emperor, the Thessalonian Christians undermined the imperial social (household-benefaction system) structure. For this reason, the Christian group at Thessalonica could not easily turn to a Roman benefactor. In addition to a weakened connection with these Roman benefactors, giving up the locally worshipped deities and the Cult of the Emperor created negative repercussions for the Christian group on another level: they would be at risk of persecution at the hands of their fellow city dwellers. According to Acts 17,1-7, the city of Thessalonica had already been in uproar because Paul, Silas, Jason, and others affiliated with them were accused of “ acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus”. As a result of this accusation, the people and the city authorities (ton oxlon kaı toyv politarxav) were “troubled” ù¶ ù ù ¥ (tarassw) 70. Paul was fully aware of the risk of mob violence ¥ against Christians who had been singled out because of their beliefs and consequent attitudes towards well established customs and worldviews. As Ramsay MacMullen pointed out, actual or threatened stoning was not unknown in the Eastern cities of the Empire such as Athens (Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 526 ; Lucian, Demonax 11), Iconium (Acta apost. 14.5), Ephesus (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 1.16), Smyrna (ibid. 4.8), Hypata in Thessaly (Apuleius, Met. 1.10), Larissa (ibid. 2.27), Parium (Lucian, Peregrinus 15), and Antioch (Libanius, Or. 1.209) 71. HORSLEY, Paul and the Empire, 10-24; 88-95. 69 Cf. also Acts 16,12-24: Paul and Silas are accused in Philippi (Mace- 70 donia) of advocating customs not lawful for Romans “to accept or practice” (v. 21). As a result of this accusation, “[t]he crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates had them stripped of their clothing and ordered them to be beaten with rods” (v. 22, NRSV). See also DONFRIED, “The Cults”, 349-350 on OGIS 532 :6 (Paphlagonian loyalty oath to Augustus and his descendants, March 3 BCE) and HARRISON, “Paul”, 79. MACMULLEN, Roman, 66, 171, n. 30. 71