It is not my intention to reiterate here the conclusions reached at the end of each chapter. However, some more general comments are appropriate. Many scholars have thought that Jewish communities in the Diaspora formed tightly-knit, introverted groups. Faced with a hostile environment, the Jews formed exclusive communities in order to retain their Jewish identity. However, this view is questionable with regard to Jewish communities in Asia Minor. Despite the fact that the evidence is often fragmentary and spans a wide period of time, we can suggest that, although Jewish communities did not have local citizenship as a body, many members of the communities interacted regularly with Gentiles and were involved to a significant degree in city life. Moreover, some Jewish communities were influential and respected in their cities. Gentiles were also involved in some Jewish communities, most notably as ‘God-worshippers’ or as patrons, which suggests that the communities concerned had not withdrawn into themselves. There is evidence from Apamea and Smyrna that Jewish communities encouraged non-Jews to be involved in synagogue life; the existence of God-worshippers also suggests this. In addition, the extent to which some Jewish communities were influenced by the customs and practices of their environment indicates a degree of integration within the city. We conclude that the Jewish communities we have studied belonged in the cities in which they lived. They were a part of the social networks of the city and shared in many of the characteristics of everyday life.