UNITY IN OBLIGATION

A Major Paper

Submitted to Dr. Gerald Stevens

of the

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

NTGK9436: New Testament Exegesis of Romans

in the Division of Biblical Studies

Allyson R. Presswood

BA, Louisiana State University, 2010

MA, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012

April 16, 2013

iii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1

CHAPTER

1. CONSTRUCTING A MODEL: GRECO-ROMAN BENEFACTION....... 6

Greek Euergetism

Roman Patronage

Greco-Roman Benefaction

Group Collections

2. CONSTRUCTING A MODEL: JEWISH BENEFACTION............ 18

Literature

Inscriptional Evidence

Group Collections

3. CONTEXTUALIZING PAUL............................... 29

Greek, Roman, or Jewish Benefaction Behind Paul

Paul and Jewish Benefaction

CONCLUSION........................................... 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 36

1

INTRODUCTION

Research Question

Paul writes near the end of his letter to the Romans, “εἰ γὰξ ηνῖο πλεπκαηηθνῖο

αὐηῶλ ἐθνηλώλεζαλ ηὰ ἔζλε, ὀθείινπζηλ θαὶ ἐλ ηνῖο ζαξθηθνῖο ιεηηνπξγῆζαη αὐηνῖο.”1 Is

this an allusion to Romans‟ “central theological theme”2 or is Paul merely giving details

concerning the reason for delaying his visit?3 Does it reflect an ancient societal practice

of benefaction or just “smack of simony?”4 Did Paul intend the significant cultic meaning

of ιεηηνπξγεσ referring to religious sacrificial rites or was he merely varying terminology

from the more common θνηλσλεσ used earlier?5 A huge number of questions stem from

this one short phrase, but most can be answered by a detailed look at the cultural and

societal context which Paul and his readers shared, specifically at the societal practice of

1 Rom 15:27b, NA27. “For if the Gentiles shared in their spiritual things, they also are

obliged to serve them in material things.” All NT citations are from NA27.

2 The theme in Moo‟s view is “the salvation enjoyed by the Gentiles comes only by way

of the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of promises made to Israel (1:16, 4:13-16; 11:17-24;

15:7-8).” Doublas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),

905.

3 Stanley Porter, “Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They Opposing?”

in Paul and His Opponents (ed. Stanley Porter; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 164.

4 Bruce J. Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of

Paul, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 289. They, along with Cranfield argue the former. C.E.B.

Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, (2 vols; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1979), 2:733.

5 See L&N,Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: United Bible

Societies, 1989), “53.13: Λεηηνπξγεσ, Λεηηνπξγηα” for a definition of ιεηηνπξγεσ used as

specifically “religious rites.” They categorize two (Acts 13:2, Heb 10:11) of the three NT uses of

the verb here. The only exception is Rom 15:27, where they believe that the verb means “more

formal or regular service. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), s.v. “35.22: Λεηηνπξγεσ.” Thus

they would agree with the latter option for this question. At least three scribes through the

centuries also thought that θνηλσληα fit as well or better in the context; MSS 044, 69, and 1881

read θνηλσλεζαη instead of ιεηηνπξγεζαη. “The Center for New Testament Textual Studies New

Testament Critical Apparatus,” (Source files for the 2013 updates for release to Oak Tree

Software, BibleWorks, and Logos Software , 2013). For the former position, see Bruce J. Malina

and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1996), 197, and Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity,

Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul's Collection (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 209.

2

benefaction which rings strongly in this phrase.6 The primary question for this paper,

then, is: “How would Rom 15:27 have been interpreted against the background of the

Greco-Roman and Jewish systems of benefaction?”

Hypothesis and Thesis

One would think that Rom 15:27 seen against the backgrounds of Jewish

reciprocity and Greco-Roman benefaction reiterates Paul‟s theme of Jew-Gentile unity by

emphasizing both kindness and reciprocity. But this interpretation, when it is made, is

often assumed rather than proved, and many misunderstand or do not completely

comprehend the richness of Paul‟s explanation. Through investigating ancient sources

with information about Jewish charity practices and Greco-Roman benefaction systems

and comparing Paul‟s statement in 15:27 to them, his statements here about the Jew-

Gentile relationship may be more fully understood.

State of Research

Many commentators on Romans tie Paul‟s statements in 15:27 to his overarching

theme of Jew-Gentile unity, but few discuss in much detail the possible Greco-Roman

and Jewish backgrounds which would give more fullness and weight to the connection.7

6 Key words (i.e. νθεηισ) would trigger echoes of this integral cultural practice; the

Jerusalem collection itself obviously is some sort of benefaction; and, to add weight to the

argument, nearly all

scholars who comment on this passage – from Calvin to Jewett – recognize both charity and

reciprocity (the hallmarks of benefaction!) here. Calvin says that the collection “was indeed a rare

instance of kindness” and Paul had “in view…the mutual right of compensation.” John Calvin,

Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (trans. and ed, John Owen; Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 535-6. Jewett writes that “Paul goes on to describe the motivation

and rationale for the Jerusalem offering as a combination of freely chosen goodwill on the part of

Gentile churches and of their obligation to repay the original Jewish churches for spiritual

benefits.” Jewett, 930.

7 Cranfield says that “the idea of obligation to someone on account of a benefit received

from that person is definitely involved.” Cranfield, 733. Fitzmyer mentions “indebtedness” and

“solidarity.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 722. Byrne

asserts that each ethnic group must recognize the importance of the other in salvation history by

one giving and the other accepting the offering. Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville: MN:

The Liturgical Press, 1996), 442. Jewett, who does the most in background work, explicitly

connects Paul‟s words to Seneca‟s De beneficiis with the result that the Jerusalem collection is “an

expression of mutual indebtedness that binds the ethnic branches of the church together.” Jewett,

931. None of the commentators distinguish between Greco-Roman benefaction systems or explore

whether a different Jewish system existed, and most do not recognize beyond a vague shadow the

hugely important ideas concerning reciprocal relationships which controlled Hellenistic culture.

On the other hand, some argue that Paul was in fact “subvert[ing] the values of patronage and

euergetism by depicting an alternate mode of benefaction, one that brings glory, praise, and

thanksgiving to God rather than to human benefactors.” David Downs, The Offering of the

3

Three scholars devote an entire monograph each to the subject of the collection, but do

not incorporate social-scientific methodology into their assessments.8 Several social

scientific investigations into the benefaction systems of the Greco-Roman world mention

Paul‟s Jerusalem collection as reflecting a certain system but do not explore possible

theological motivations behind it.9 At least two monographs explicitly connect Pauline

theology and ethics to benefaction, but do not explain the significance of Paul‟s mention

of the collection to the Romans.10

Only one dissertation addresses the possibility of the

Jewish system of benefaction being the cultural practice perhaps underlying Paul‟s

discussions of reciprocity. No one as of yet has tied all these pieces together to explain

what “εἰ γὰξ ηνῖο πλεπκαηηθνῖο αὐηῶλ ἐθνηλώλεζαλ ηὰ ἔζλε, ὀθείινπζηλ θαὶ ἐλ ηνῖο

ζαξθηθνῖο ιεηηνπξγῆζαη αὐηνῖο” means.

Methodology

Social-scientific criticism (SSC) will be the methodology employed in order to

answer the research questions posed in this paper. Though some minor theoretical and

pragmatic confusions exist, SSC has been largely defined and practiced within clear

boundaries and with lucid goals. Elliot gives the accepted definition: “Social-scientific

criticism of the Bible is that phase of the exegetical task which analyzes the social and

cultural dimensions of the text and its environmental context through the utilization of the

perspectives, theory, models, and research of the social sciences.”11

It is a “subdiscipline

of exegesis” and, as such, complements rather than replaces other methods of exegesis

such as textual, narrative, or historical criticism.12

deSilva describes SSC as immersing

oneself in the NT context so that it is possible “to hear the NT with the fuller resonances

it would have had for authors and addressees alike.” Since Romans is a culturally-situated

document, its cultural system provides the framework within which the document has

Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts

(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 158.

8 Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem,

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy,

(London: SCM, 1966).

9 David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture

(Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000), 154. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Letters of Paul, 288-9. Malina

and Neyrey, 196-8.

10

Joubert and Downs. Downs actually does give an interpretation of Romans 15:27, but

believes that Paul does not have a reciprocal benefaction practice in mind as he writes. Thus

Downs‟s interpretation rests on positing a Jewish cultic background instead of a Greco-Roman or

Jewish benefaction background. He explores the benefaction practices but rejects them as

contributors to Paul‟s meaning. Downs, 147-160.

11

John H. Elliot, What is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 7.

12

Ibid., 7.

4

meaning. Modern readers are in the position of reading Romans cross-culturally, and so

to understand it correctly they must study the original Mediterranean society.13

SSC rests on a theory of communication in which “authors and audiences must

share a horizon of expectations.”14

In practicing SSC, scholars attempt to construct an

ancient horizon for the modern reader to step into, so that the author„s words will not be

viewed through a modern perspective and unthinkingly distorted. “Recontextualization,”

looking at the text from a modern standpoint and thus completing unwritten implications

of the text differently than the author intended, can be addressed and to a certain extent

fixed by studying the ancient social world and their worldview. This is especially

important for ancient Mediterranean documents because they were written in a “high-

context” society, one in which people had an incredibly high degree of shared experience

and so could leave many things unstated. In this situation, authors refer only briefly to

matters and expect their audience to fill in the gaps.15

Though Paul had never visited the

Romans, they all lived in a Hellenistic world with a common language, a common ruler,

and many common assumptions about life. Filling in their common context helps their

communication come to life.

To “construct an ancient horizon” one must research ancient events, people,

language, values, etc. The only access moderns have to these ancient matters comes

through writing or archeology, so doing SSC requires familiarity with ancient literature,

inscriptions, and sometimes archeological studies. Most SS critics call these

constructions “models,” and the goal is to use all the information available to understand

the functions of broad ancient institutions and values. After constructing a model of a

cultural pattern, the text in question can be compared to the model in order to see “the

social codes embedded but not explicitly mentioned in these texts.”16

Delimitations

The scope of this paper does not allow detailed exploration into several areas

which are necessary as underlying presuppositions for this research. One major area of

discussion and debate is the audience of Romans. Nearly all scholars today believe that

the entire letter of Romans was penned to the church in Rome (as opposed to the church

in Ephesus or Jerusalem).17

Opinions on the specific addressees in Rome range from

13 David Rhoads, “Social Criticism: Crossing Boundaries,” Pages 145-79 in Mark and

Method, Ed., Janice Anderson and Stephen Moore, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 145.

14

deSilva, 18.

15

Bruce J. Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic

Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), x.

16

Elliot, 47. Information on constructing models is given on pages 36-59.

5

Stowers, who believes that Paul intentionally addresses Gentiles alone,18

to Baur, who

holds that the letter was intended for a Jewish (Christian) audience. The majority of

commentators today fall somewhere in between in positing a mostly Gentile Christian

community with strong Jewish synagogue roots.19

This dominant view will be accepted

as accurate because the historical and textual evidence seems to fit it best.

For the purposes of this paper the Pauline collection will be assumed to be a

single project, and the references to it in Galatians, and the Corinthian correspondence

will be considered historically accurate. No attempt will be made to give a complete

Pauline chronology regarding the collection by comparing his epistles with Acts, though

others have certainly done so.20

Even if such a chronology could be assuredly accurate, it

would not add much to the discussion at hand.

17

For a standard defense of the letter‟s integrity and original addressee, see Harry

Gamble Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

18

Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, & Gentiles (New Haven:

Yale, 1994), 133.

19

Jewett, 70. Baur‟s view was in vogue for most of the 1800s, but eventually evidence

from the letter itself (1:5, 1:13, 11:13, 15:14-19) overturned that opinion, and “all current

commentators,” according to Jewett, now agree that the audience was at least majority Gentile.

Jewett, 70-72.

20

One scholar who has extensively studied the matter gives a possible Pauline

chronology including all mentions of the collection. Georgi, 128-37.

6

CHAPTER 1

CONSTRUCTING A MODEL: GRECO-ROMAN BENEFACTION

Many social scientists studying the New Testament world begin with the

assumption of a hyphenated “Greco-Roman” culture without asking first whether the two

cultures were so entirely merged as to make that designation always accurate. Contra that

assumption, several scholars have distinguished between the “Greek” institution of

benefaction and the later Roman system of patron/client relationships.21

Joubert describes

the two systems as similar in reciprocity but different in “the contents of the goods

exchanged and the nature of the ensuing relationship.”22

The distinction between systems

may be more diachronic than synchronic, but geography may also have played a role in

even a synchronic distinction. For the purposes of this paper the Greek system of

benefaction and the Roman system of patronage will be described separately when

possible for the sake of clarity, but will both be considered as possible influences on the

social context of Paul‟s readers. Both are “specialized forms” of reciprocity, “the

principle and practice of voluntary requital, of benefit for benefit (positive reciprocity) or

harm for harm (negative reciprocity).”23

Both benefaction and patronage are

asymmetrical, voluntary, and involve ραξηο (grace).24

Greek Benefaction

Those social-scientific works which analyze all occurrences of benefaction and

evidences of reciprocal relationships under the heading of “patron/client” relationships

may have the wrong system highlighted. Patronage is the more specific term; benefaction

a less specific one, but both are culturally-specific reciprocity systems. Danker defines

21

Jonathan S. Marshall, “Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors in Roman Palestine and the

Gospel of Luke” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008), 82-93. Joubert, 17-72.

Against Marshall and Joubert, Zeba Crook argues that, despite the co-existence of various types of

benefaction/patronage, one primary “umbrella” system could rightly be seen to contain them. Zeba

Crook, “BTB Readers Guide: Loyalty,” (BTB 4.4; 2004): 167-77. “Greek” appears in scare quotes

because the benefaction system originated with Greeks but spread widely. Patronage, on the other

hand, was always associated particularly with the Romans, as to be a patron one must requisitely

be Roman. Marshall, 66-8.

22

Joubert, 67.

23

Richard Seaford, “Introduction,” Pages 1-11 in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Ed.,

Christopher Gill et al, (Oxford: Oxford, 1998), 1. Quoted in Marshall, 42. .

24

Marshall, 70-3.

7

benefaction as “the association of unusual merit, as manifested by esteemed members of

narrower or broader community, with the response made by the beneficiaries of such

merit.”25

Benefaction usually involved groups and benefactors usually provided one-time

“luxury” items such as streets, stadiums, and social events.26

The Greek term for a

“benefactor” is εὐεξγέηεο, so many modern scholars term Greek benefaction

“euergetism.”

The Rex Gestae Divi Augustus, a funerary inscription for Caesar Augustus,

contains massive lists of Augustus‟s benefactions, which exactly capture the kinds of

items given by benefactors. Below is a very small sample:

Curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum

porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum

appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat Octaviam, pulvinar ad

circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri et Iovis Tonantis, ~ aedem Quirini,

aedes Minervae et Iunonis reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in

summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris

Magnae in Palatio feci.27

Aristotle writes extensively on ethics and social values in his Nichomachean

Ethics, and spends a significant amount of time discussing reciprocal financial

relationships, mostly from the standpoint of the wealthy. 28

Regarding money, Aristotle

remarks that ειεπζεξηνηεηνο (liberality) characterizes the “good” man, whereas “αζσηηα”

(waste) and “αλειεπζεξηα” (cheapness) are equally distasteful mistakes.29

“δην καιινλ

εζηη ηνπ ειεπζεξηνπ ην δηδνλαη νηο δεη…θαη ν ειεπζεξηνο νπλ δσζεη ηνπ θαινπ ελεθα. θαη

νξζσο, νηο γαξ δεη θαη νζα θαη νηε, θαη ηαιια νζα επεηαη ηε νξζε δνζεη.” 30

In regard to

25

Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New

Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 26.

26

Marshall, 74-7.

27

Rex Gestae Divi Augustus (Shipley, Loeb Classical Library): “I built the curia and the

Chalcidicum adjoining it, the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the

deified Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at the Circus Flaminius which I allowed to be called

Actavia after the name of him who had constructed an earlier one on the same site, the state box at

the Circus Maximus, the temple on the capitol of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter Tonans, the temple

of Quirinius, the temples of Minerva, of Juno the Queen, and of Jupiter Libertas, on the Aventine,

the temple of the Lares at the highest point of the Sacra Via, the temple of the Di Penates on the

Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine.”

28

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. IV.i.1-iii.35.

29

Ibid., IV.i.1-2.

30

Aristotle, Eth.Nic. IV.i.7-13. “Therefore the liberal man cares more about giving to

whom he ought…and the liberal man will give for the beauty/nobility of it. And correctly; for to

8

liberality, “θαηα ηελ νπζηαλ δ‟ε ειεπζεξηνηεο ιεγεηαη,”31

so that even a poor person

might be liberal.

Continuing in this vein, Aristotle next discusses κεγαινπξεπεηα (magnificence),

the correct middle ground between κηθξνπξεπεηα (shabbiness) and βαλαπζηα θαη

απεηξνθαιηα (vulgarity and tastelessness) where ν δε κεγαινπξεπεο επηζηεκνλη εηνθελ,

and the expenditures he makes must be δαπαλπκα θαη πξεπνλ.32

Only certain people can

practice this type of magnificence: πξεπεη δε νηο ηα ηνηαπηα πξνππαξρεη δη απησλ ε δηα

ησλ πξνγνλσλ ε σλ αζηνηο κεηεζηηλ, θαη ηνηο εζγελεζη θαη ηνηο ελδνμνηο θαη νζα

ηνηαζηα......θαη ελ ηνηο ηνηνπηνηο δαπαλεκαζηλ ε κεγαινπξεπεηα, σζπεξ εηπεηαη (κεγηζηα

γαξ θαη εληηκνηαηα).33

Furthermore, νπ γαξ εηο εαπηνλ δαπαλεπνο ν κεγαινπξεπεο, αιι

εηο ηα θνηλα, ηα δε δσξα ηνηο αλαζεκαζηλ ερεη ηη νκνηνλ.34

The rich then, according to

Aristotle, should relate to those below them in “public benefactions” resulting in honor.

After the magnificent man comes the κεγαινςπρνο (great-souled man), similar in

kind but with the emphasis shifted to honor instead of wealth. Here Aristotle describes in

more detail how the “reciprocity” aspect of gifts and public benefactions works.

θαη νηνο επ πνηεηλ, επεξγεηνπκελνο δ‟αηζρπλεηαη, ην κελ γαξ ππεξερνληνο, ην

δ‟ππεξερνκελνπ. θαη αληεπεξγεηηθνο πιεηνλσλ, νπησ γαξ νη πξνζνθιεζεη ν

ππαξμαο θαη εζηαη επ πεπνλζσο. δνθνπζη δε θαη κλεκνλεπεηλ νπ αλ πνηεζσζηλ επ,

σλ δ‟αλ παζσζηλ νπ (ειαηησλ γαξ ν παζσλ επ ηνπ πνηεζαληνο, βνπιεηαη

δ‟ππεξερεηλ), θαη ηα κελ εδεσο αθνπεηλ, ηα δ‟αεδσο.35

He also links honor to gifts directly in his Art of Rhetoric:

whom he ought and how much and when, and concerning all the other things he will give

correctly.”

31

Aristotle, Eth.Nic.IV.i.19. “Liberality is ascribed according to wealth.”

32

Ibid., IV.ii.5-6. “The magnificent man is an expert in spending…..costly and fitting.”

33

Ibid. IV ii. 14-15 (Rackam, LCL). “But great public benefactions are suitable for those

who have adequate resources derived from their own exertions or from their ancestors or

connexion…and Magnificence mostly finds an outlet in these public benefactions, as we have

said, since these are the greatest forms of expenditure and the ones most honoured,”

34

Ibid., IV.ii.15-16.“Because the magnificent man does not spend for himself, but for the

common/public good, and his gifts are like votive offerings.”

35

Ibid., IV.iii.24-25. “And he of that sort [the great-souled man] does good, being a

benefactor but being ashamed [to receive benefaction], because the one is superior and the other

inferior. And he pays back services with interest, because this puts the existing benefactor into his

debt and makes him the benefactee. And the great-souled remember what they do good, but of

what they receive not (because the receiver is inferior to the one doing good, but he wishes to be

superior), and to hear gladly things about the former, but unhappily things about the latter.”

9

κεξε δε ηηκεο ζπζηαη, κλεκαη ελ κεηξνηο θαη αλεπ κεηξσλ, γεξα, ηεκελε,

πξνεδξηαη, ηαθνη, εηθνλεο, ηξνθαη δλκνζηαη, ηα βαξβαξηθα, νηνλ πξνζθπλεζεηο θαη

εθζηαζεηο, δσξα ηα παξ‟εθαζηνηο ηηκηα. θαη γαξ ην δσξνλ εζηη θηεκαηνο δνζηο

θαη ηηκεο ζεκεηνλ, δην θαη νη θηινρξεκαηνη θαη νη θηινηηκνη εθηεληαη απησλ,

ακθνηεξνηο γαξ ερεη σλ δενληαη, θαη γαξ θηεκα εζηηλ, νπ εθηεληαη νη

θηινρξεκαηνη, θαη ηηκελ ερεη, νπ νη θηινηηκνη.36

Thucydides seems to have “great-souled men” in mind when he writes about the

Athenians, but he goes further in locating the motive for giving simply in a “spirit of

liberality.”

θαη ηα εο αξεηελ ελεληησκεζα ηνηο πνιινηο, νπ γαξ παζρνληεο επ, αιια δξσληεο

θησκεζα ηνπο θηινπο. βεβαηνηεξνο δε ν δξαζαο ηελ ραξηλ σζηε σθεηινκελελ δη

επλνηαο σ δεδσθε ζσδεηλ. ν δε αληνθεηισλ ακβιπηεξνο, εηδσο νπθ εο ραξηλ, αιι

σο νθεηιεκα ηελ αξεηελ απνδσζσλ. θαη κνλνη νπ ηνπ μπκθεξνληνο καιινλ

ινγηζκσ ε ηεο ειεπζεξηαο ησ πηζησ αδεσο ηηλα σθεινπκελ.37

Along those same lines, Dio Chrysostom talks about giving gifts in exchange for

goodwill.

εθεηλε γαξ επεηδαλ ηηλη δσ ηα παξ αζηεο αγαζα –ηαπηα δ‟εζηη ρξεκαηα, ηζρζο,

δνμα, ηηκαη –ηνπηνηο νζδελα θσιπεη ρξεζζαη θαηα ηξνπνλ θαη λε Δηα γε εηο ηελ

νηθηαλ ελδνλ νπδ‟εηο ην ηακηεηνλ νπδε θιεηο εθηζηαληαο θαη κνρινπο, νπ

θπιαηηεηαη γαξ ππν ηνπησλ νπδελ ησλ παξ απηεο, αιι εηο επλνηαλ αλζξσπσλ,

παηξηδνο επεξγεζηαλ, θηισλ βνεζεηαλ.38

36

Aristotle, Rhet I.9 (Freese, LCL). “The components of honor are sacrifices, memorials

in verse and prose, privileges, grants of land, front seats, public burial, State maintenance, and

among the barbarians, prostration and giving place, and all gifts which are highly prized in each

country. For a gift is at once a giving of a possession and a token of honor; wherefore gifts are

desired by the ambitious and by those who are fond of money, since they are an acquisition for the

latter and an honor for the former; so that they furnish both with what they want.”.

37

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War II (Charles Forester Smith, LCL).

“Again, in nobility of spirit, we stand in sharp contrast to most men; for it is not by receiving

kindness, but by conferring it, that we acquire our friends. Now he who confers the favour is a

firmer friend, in that he is disposed, by continued goodwill toward the recipient, to keep the

feeling of obligation alive in him; but he who owes it is more listless in his friendship, knowing

that when he repays the kindness it will count, not as a favour bestowed, but as a debt repaid. And

finally, we alone confer our benefits without fear of consequences, not upon a calculation of the

advantage we shall gain, but with confidence in the spirit of liberality which actuates us.”

38

Dio Chryrsostom, 1 Fort (H. Lamar Crosby, LCL). “For whenever she [Fortune] gives

any one her good things – wealth, power, fame, honours – she never prevents him from using

these in a proper way or, by Heaven, from storing them away in safety for himself; and I do not

mean indoors in the house, or in the storehouse, or putting them under lock and key – for none of

her gifts is protected by these things – but rather storing them away in goodwill toward mankind,

in service to one‟s country, in aid to friends.”

10

Seneca perhaps expresses this thought of giving for joy and not reputation best.

He says “Quid est ergo beneficium? Benevola action tribunes gaudium capiensque

tribuendo in id, quod facit, prona et sponte sua parata. Itaque non, quid fiat aut quid detur,

refert, sed qua mente, quia beneficium non in eo, quod fit aut datur, consistit, sed in ipso

dantis aut facientis animo.”39

And later, “Opinionem quidem et famam eo loco habeamus,

tamquam non ducere sed sequi debeat.”40

In fact, he even says that the value of the gift

rests not on any monetary measure but on the amount of goodwill. “Eo animo quidque

debetur, quo datur, nee quantum sit, sed a quali profectum voluntate, perpenditur.”41

Though the ancient writers above clearly express principles showing ideally how

and why benefactors should help others, the “system” in actuality was often abused.

Xenophon writes a humorous sketch in which Socrates subtly teases Critobulus

concerning the latter‟s search for honor and power through benefaction, saying επεηηα δε

πνιηηαο δεηπληδεηλ θαη επ πνηεηλ ε εξεκνλ ζπκκαρσλ εηλαη.42

Aristophanes tells the story

of a man who spent all his wealth helping people and received no thanks or help when he

later needed it.

Δικαιος: πξνο ηνλ ζενλ εθσ. κεγαισλ γαξ κνπζηηλ αγαζσλ αηηηνο.

εγσ γαξ ηθαλελ νπζηαλ παξα ηνπ παηξνο ιαβσλ επεξθνπλ ηνηο δενκελνηο ησλ

θηισλ, εηλαη λνκηδσλ ρξεζηκνλ πξνο ηνλ βηνλ.

Καριων: ε πνπ ζε ηαρεσο επειηπελ ηα ρξεκαηα

Δικαιος: θνκηδε κελ νπλ.

Καριων: νπθνπλ κεηα ηαπη‟εζζ‟αζιηνο.

Δικαιος: θνκηδε κελ νπλ. θαγσ κελ σκελ νπο ηεσο επεξγεηεζα δενκελνπο εμεηλ

θηινπο, νλησο βεβαηνπο, εη δεεζεηελ πνηε, νη δ‟εμεηξεπνλην θνπθ εδνθνπλ νξαλ

κ‟εηη.43

39 Seneca the Younger, Ben (John W. Basore, LCL). “Then what is a benefit? A

benevolent action giving joy and getting joy in its giving, that he does, willingly and

spontaneously by his readiness. And so it is not what is done or what is given which counts, but

what is in the mind, because a benefit is not consisting in this – what is done or given, but in the

mind/spirit of the giver or doer.”

40

Seneca the Younger, Ben, 452. “Indeed, opinion and reputation let us consider as not

leading but following (what we do).”

41

Seneca the Younger, Ep LXXXI (Richard M. Gummere, LCL). “Our feeling about

every obligation depends in each case upon the spirit in which the benefit is conferred; we weigh

not the bulk of the gift, but the quality of the good-will which prompted it.”

42

Xenophon, Oeconomicus, ( E. C. Marchant, LCL). “And then to feed the citizens and

to do good, or to be isolated from your followers.”

43

Aristophanes, Wealth (Jeffrey Henderson, LCL). “Just Man: I‟m here to see the god;

it‟s him I thank for my great blessings. You see, I had a sufficient inheritance from my father and

used it to help my needy friends, considering this a responsible way to behave. Cario: Let me

11

Dio Chrysostom in his discourse on reputation talks about how a desire for

importance and reputation often leads to financial ruin, since the primary means of

obtaining such “honor” is through benefaction.

θαη δεκνζηα ζρεδνλ αη πνιεηο απαζαη δειεαηα ερεπξεθαζη παληνηα ηνηο

αλνεηνηο, ζηεθαλνπο θαη πξνεδξηαο θαη θεξπγκαηα. ηνηγαπνπλ εδε ηηλαο ηνπησλ

επηζπκνπληαο αζιηνπο θαη πελεηαο απεδεηραλ, νπδελ νξεγνληεο κεγα νπδε

ζαπκαζηνλ, αιι εληνπο απν ζαιινπ πεξηαγνληεο, σζπεξ ηα πξνβαηα, ε ζηεθαλνλ

ηηλα ε ηαηληαλ επηβαιινληεο… αιια θεππηηεηαη, θεζηλ,ππν ησλ πνιηησλ, σζπεξ

απνισινο αλδξαπνδνλ. νπθνπλ εηθνησο ρξσληαη πξνο ηαο ρεηπνηνληαο ησ ηεο

ειαηαο ζαιιρ δηα ην θζζεη πηθξνλ ππαξρεηλ. ηνπο γαξ δνμνθνπνπο εθβαιινπζηλ

εθ ησλ αγξσλ νη δεκνη θξαπγε θαη ο ςαξαο νη γεσξγνη… θαη ηαο κελ εθ ηεο

αγνξαο ηαηληαο νιηγσλ δξαρκσλ, ηαο δε εθ ηεο εθθιεζηαο πνιιαθηο απαζεο ηεο

νπζηαο. θαη ηνπο κελ επη ηεο αγνξαο θεππηηνκελνπο αζιηνπο παληεο λνκηδνπζη,

ηνπο δ‟ελ ησ ζεαηξσ καθαξηνπο, θαη ηνπηνπο κελ θεξππηηεζζαη θαζηλ, εθεηλνπο

δε απνθεξπηηεζζαη, δεινλ νηη παξα κηαλ ζπιιαβελ γηγλνκελεο ηεο δηαθνξαο.44

He also gives a very intriguing look at what makes the patronage system work in

his discourse on law. In modern terms, he says that because the institutional nature of

patron/client relationships, they continue to exist even though they often are abused. He

especially criticizes the wish for “honor” which drives many givers; they strive after

public representations of honor (olive crowns and such) which are worthless apart from

their institutionally-located honor value.45

guess: your money ran out quickly. Just Man: Exactly right. Cario: And then you were ruined. Just

Man: Exactly right. I used to think that the needy people I helped would be true friends if I ever

needed their help, but they turned their backs on me and pretended they didn‟t even know me any

more.”

44

Dio Chryrsostom. 1 Glor (H. Lamar Crosby, LCL). “Furthermore, by official act

virtually all the states have devised lures of every kind for the simpletons – crowns and front seats

and public proclamations. Accordingly, in some instances men who craved these things have

actually been made wretched and reduced to beggary, although the states held before them nothing

great or wonderful at all, but in some cases led their victims about with a sprig of green, as men

lead cattle, or clapped upon their heads a crown or a ribbon…Ah but, says he, his name is publicly

proclaimed by his fellow citizens – just as is that of a runaway slave! With good reason, therefore,

men use in connexion with the votes passed in Assembly the branch of the olive, because of its

native bitterness! For the notoriety-seekers are driven out of their fields by the democracies with

shouting and clamour, just as, methinks, the starlings are driven out by the farmers…Again,

though you will buy the ribbons of the market-place for a few drachmas, those of the Assembly

will often cost you all your fortune. Furthermore, while persons who are cried for sale in the

market-place all deem wretched, those cried in the theatre they deem fortunate; besides, they claim

that the latter are cried, the former decried, a single syllable evidently constituting the sole

difference!”

45

Dio Chyrsostom, De Lege.5-9.

12

Instructions were not given only to the benefactor in a reciprocal relationship.

Aristotle says that a virtuous man δσζεη θαη δαπαλεζεη εηο α δεη θαη νζα δεη, νκνησο ελ

κηθξνηο θαη κεγαινηο, θαη ηαπηα εδεσο, θαη ιεςεηαη δ‟νζελ δεη θαη νζα δεη. ηεο αξεηεο

γαξ πεξη ακθσ νπζεο κεζνηεηνο, πνηεζεη ακθνηεξα σο δεη, επεηαη γαξ ηε επηεηθεη δνζεη

ε ηνηαπηε ιπςηο, ε δε κε ηνηαπηε ελαληηα εζηηλ.46

Seneca gives explicit instructions to

those on the receiving end of benefits.“Hoc debemus virtutibus:”47

gratefulness. Seneca

himself would rather help those who are grateful and poor than those who are ungrateful,

even if the latter are likely to reciprocate monetarily. “Ad animum tendit aestimatio mea;

ideo locupletem sed indignum praeteribo, pauperi viro bono dabo; erit enim in summa

inopia gratus et, cum omnia illi deerunt, supererit animus.”48

Again, the satirists capture

how this ideal relationship often played out in reality. Aristophanes writes a hilarious but

insightful dialogue which pictures how the benefactor/benefactee relationship sometimes

functioned.

Γρασς: θαη ηαο γε ρεηξαο παγθαιαο ερεηλ κ‟εθε.

Χρεμσλος: νπνηε πξνηεηλνηελ γε δξαρκαο εηθνζηλ.

Γρασς: νδεηλ ηε ηεο ρξνηαο εθαζθελ εδπ κνπ.

Χρεμσλος: εη ζαζηνλ ελερεηο, εηθνησο γε, λε Δηα.

Γρασς: ην βιεκκα ζ‟σο ερνηκη καιαθνλ θαη θαινλ.

Χρεμσλος: νπ ζθαηνο ελ αλζξσπνο, αιι‟επηζηαην γξανο θαπξσζεο ηαθνδηα

θαηεζζηεηελ...

Γρασς: αλαγθαζαη δηθαηνλ εζηη, λε Δηα, ηνλ επ παζνλζ‟ππ‟εκνπ παιηλ κ‟αλη‟επ

πνηεηλ. ε κεδ‟νηηνπλ κ‟αγαζνλ δηθαηνλ εζη‟ερεηλ;49

Obviously the realities of everyday life did not always mirror the ideal of the

kindness of the benefactor leading to gratefulness of the benefactee, but nevertheless, the

underlying cultural expectation was clearly that this was the ideal.

46

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. IV.i.24 (Rackham, LCL). “…will not only give and spend the right

amounts on the right objects alike in small matters and in great, and feel pleasure in so doing, but

will also take the right amounts, and from the right sources. For as this virtue is a mean both in

giving and in getting, he will do both in the right way. Right getting goes with right giving, wrong

getting is opposed to right giving.”

47

Seneca, Ben IV.xxx.3. “This we owe the virtuous.”

48

Seneca, Ben IV.x.5 (Basore, LCL).“It is the to the heart that my estimate is directed;

consequently I shall pass by the man who, though rich, is unworthy, and shall give to one who,

though poor, is good; for he will be grateful in the midst of extreme poverty, and, when he lacks

all else, this heart he will still have.”

49

Aristophanes, Plut. 1018-1029. “Old Woman: And he said my hands were very

beautiful. Chremylos: When they stretched out 20 drachmas! Old Woman: And he said my skin

smelled good. Chremylos: If you poured Thasian wine, no doubt. Old Woman: And that my eyes

were gentle and beautiful. Chremylos: The man was not stupid, but he knew how to eat up an old

woman‟s money…Old Woman: It is only right to make, no doubt, the one who had good from me

again to do good to me. Or is it right that I should have no good in exchange?”

13

Though the ancient writers do not identify a certain level of wealth a benefactor

must have (beyond it being obviously high) or the expected economic class of most

benefactees, modern archeological and sociological studies have tentatively filled in

some of that information. After extensively studying data from the time period, Friesen

proposed the following economic scale for the Greco-Roman world in the first century:50

P

S1

Imperia

l elites

imperial dynasty, Roman senatorial families, a

few retainers, local royalty, a few freedpersons

2

.8% P

S2

Regiona

l or provincial

elites

equestrian families, provincial officials, some

retainers, some decurial families, some freedpersons,

some retired military officers

P

S3

Munici

pal elites

most decurial families, wealthy men and

women who do not hold office, some freedpersons,

some retainers, some veterans, some merchants

P

S4

Modera

te surplus

resources

some merchants, some traders, some

freedpersons, some artisans (especially those who

employ others), and military veterans 2

9% P

S5

Stable

near subsistence

level51

many merchants and traders, regular wage

earners, artisans, large shop owners, freedpersons, some

farm families

P

S6

At

subsistence

level

small farm families, laborers (skilled and

unskilled), artisans (esp. those employed by others),

wage earners, most merchants and traders, small

shop/tavern owners

4

0%

P

S7

Below

subsistence

level

some farm families, unattached widows,

orphans, beggars, disabled, unskilled day laborers,

prisoners

2

8%

One reason that asymmetry characterizes benefaction relationships is that only

2.8% of the population really had any resources to spare! Only those at the very top could

afford to pay for “luxury” items like special buildings or parties.

Roman Patronage

Patronage in the Roman world had much in common with

benefaction, but significant differences separate the two systems. Joubert describes

patronage as “a personal, voluntary relationship, which could be understood from the

50

Steven J. Friesen, "Poverty in Pauline studies: beyond the so-called new consensus”

(JSNT 26. 3; 2004), 341.

51

“Subsistence Level” in Freisen‟s scale means “has the resources needed to procure

enough calories in food to maintain the human body.” Freisen, 343.

14

perspective of fides.”52

Aspects of personality and loyalty are much stronger (if not

unique) in patronage as opposed to benefaction. A patron provided sustained support:

sometimes a job and usually ongoing protection and any survival needs.53

The Emperor

was the first and greatest patron, the “imperial father” of the Empire. He assigned

bureaucratic offices, provided doles of food to city inhabitants, and demanded loyalty

from all citizens in exchange for their protection and subsistence. Rome‟s relationship to

her annexed (read: captured) territories functioned along patron/client lines, so that the

rulers of each territory viewed the Emperor as their patron, while they became the patron

of their own city or province.54

Herod provides a perfect example of this. Caesar had “given” Herod an extensive

territory to rule over, ν δε Ηξσδε κεηδνλ ελ, ππν κελ Καηζαξνο εθηιεηην κεη‟Αγξηππαλ,

ππ‟Αγξηππα δε κεηα Καηζαξα. ελζελ επη πιεηζηνλ κελ επδαηκνληαο πξνπθνςελ εηο κεηδνλ

δ‟εμεξζε θξνλεκα θαη ην πιενλ ηεο κεγαινλνηαο επεηεηλελ εηο επζεβεηαλ.55

As Herod

completed his massive building projects, he honored his patrons by naming structures and

even cities after them! Αλησληαλ εθαιεζελ εηο ηελ Αλησληνπ ηηκελ. ην γε κελ εαπηνπ

βαζηιεηνλ θαηα ηελ αλσ δεηκακελνο πνιηλ, δπν ηνπο κεγηζηνπο θαη πεξηθαιιεζηαηνπο

νηθνπο, νηο νπδ‟ν λανο πε ζπλεθξηλεην, πξνζεγνξεπζελ απν ησλ θηισλ ηνλ κελ

Καηζαξεηνλ ηνλ δε Αγξηππεηνλ. Αιια γαξ νπθ νηθνηο κνλνλ απησλ ηελ κλεκελ θαη ηαο

επηθιεζεηο πεξηεγξαςελ, δηεβε δε εηο νιαο πνιεηο απησ ην θηινηηκνλ. 56

Herod filled his

territory with temples and theaters and even constructed a complete city, and he used

these projects as opportunities to honor his patrons, who were a rung (or two) above him

in power and prestige.

Most patrons chose clients who were near them on the social scale, so that nearly

all patrons (except the imperials at the peak of society) were also clients, and vice versa.

An example is Pliny, whose patron was the Emperor himself,57

but who also had many

52 Joubert, 24.

53

Marshall, 73-7.

54

Joubert, 24-6.

55

Josephus, J.W. I.400 (Thackaray, LCL). “But what Herod valued more than all these

privileges was that in Caesar‟s affection he stood next after Agrippa, in Agrippa‟s next after

Caesar. Thenceforth he advanced to the utmost prosperity; his noble spirit rose to greater heights,

and his lofty ambition was mainly directed to works of piety.”

56

Josephus, J.W.I.402-3, (Thackaray, LCL). “[He] called it Antonia in honor or Antony.

His own palace, which he erected in the upper city, comprised two most spacious and beautiful

buildings, with which the Temple itself bore no comparison; these he named after his friends, the

one Caesareum, the other Agrippeum. He was not content, however, to commemorate his patrons‟

names by palaces only; his munificence extended to the creation of whole cities.”

57

Pliny, Ep. Tra. X. Trajan provided him with a job and some funding, and in exchange

Pliny executed the commands of the Emperor in many of his territories and was constantly loyal

and respectful.

15

clients himself. One of these was an old family friend, Romatius Firmus. Pliny bestowed

enough money upon him that he could qualify for the rank of equestrian and then wrote

him as follows: “Te memorem huius muneris amicitiae nostrae diuturnitas spondet: ego

ne illud quidem admoneo, quod admonere deberem, nisi scirem sponte facturum, ut

dignitate a me data quam modestissime ut a me data utare. Nam sollicitius custodiendus

est honor, in quo etiam beneficium amici teundum est.”58

Cicero describes what a patron should look for in a client and vice versa. He

begins his discussion of “beneficentia et liberalitate” (benefaction and generosity) by

setting forth three guidelines to which a would-be patron should adhere in order not to

run into trouble.

Videndum est enim, primum ne obsit benignitas et iis ipsis, quibus benign

videbitur fiery et ceteris, deinde ne maior benignitas sit quam facultates, tum ut

pro dinitate cuique tribuatur; id enim est iustitiae fundamentum, ad quam haec

referenda sunt omnia. Nam et qui gratificantur cuipiam, quod obsit illi, cui

prodesse velle videantur, non benefici neque liberals, sed perniciosi assentatores

iudicandi sunt, et eui aliis nocent, ut in alios liberals sint, in eadem sunt iniustitia,

ut si in suam rem aliena convertant…Tertium est propositum, ut in beneficentia

dilectus esset dignitatis; in quo et mores eius erunt spectandi, in quem beneficium

conferetur, et animus erga nos et communitas ac societas vitae et ad nostras

utilitates official ante collata; quae ut concurrant omnia, optabile est; si minus,

plures causae maioresque ponderis plus habebunt.59

Cicero also emphasizes the affection and “animo” (spirit) behind each

transaction. If a client shows more devotion and loyalty, the patron should respond with

more favors; if the patron gives arbitrarily and inconsistently, even a magnificent gift

58 Pliny, Ep.I.19 (Radice, LCL). “The length of our friendship is sufficient guarantee that

you will not forget this figt, and I shall not even remind you to enjoy your new status with

becoming discretion, because it was received through me; as I ought to, did I not know that you

will do so unprompted. An honorable position has to be maintained with special care if it is to

keep alive the memory of a friend‟s generous gift.”

59

Cicero, Off I. 42-5 (Miller, LCL). We must, in the first place, see to it that our act of

kindness shall not prove an injury either to the object or our beneficence or to others; in the second

place, that it shall not be beyond our means; and finally, that it shall be proportioned to the

worthiness of the recipient; for this is the corner-stone of justice; and by the standard of justice all

acts of kindness must be measured. For those who confer a harmful favour upon someone whom

they seemingly wish to help are to be accounted not generous benefactors but dangerous

sycophants; and likewise those who injure one man, in order to be generous to another, are guilty

of the same injustice as if they diverted to their own accounts the property of their neighbors…The

third rule laid down was that in acts of kindness we should weigh with discrimination the

worthiness of the object of our benevolence; we should take into consideration his moral

character, his attitude toward us, the intimacy of his relations to us, and our common social ties, as

well as the services he has hitherto rendered in our interest. It is to be desired that all these

considerations should be combined in the same person; if they are not, then the more numerous

and the more important considerations must have the greater weight.” Trans, Walter Miller, 47-9.

16

does not have as much value as those “quae iudicio, considerate constanterque delata

sunt.”60

Dio writes about the fawning behavior of many clients.

Καηηνη ηη πνηε βνπινληαη ησλ καθαξησλ ξηλεο ζεξαπεπεζζαη πξνο αλζξσπσλ

ειεπζεξσλ εηλαη θαζθνλησλ θαη ηνπο θαινπκελνπο θηινζνθνπο επη ζπξαηο απησλ

νξαζζαη ηαπεηλνπο θαη αηηκνπο, θαη λε Κηα θαζαπεξ ε Κηξθε εβνπιεην ηελ

νηθεζηλ απηεο θπιαηηεζζαη ππν ιενλησλ δεηισλ θαη θαηεπηερνησλ; νπθνπλ νπδε

εθεηλνη ιενληεο νληεο εθπιαηηνλ απηελ, αιια δπζηελνη αλζξσπνη θαη αλνεηνη,

δηεθζαξκελνη δηα ηξπθελ θαη αξγηαλ...Αιια δλ εζηηλ νπθ νηδ‟νπνηνλ ηη ε ηνηαπηε

επηζπκηα. κπξηνη κελ γαξ εηζηλ νη εθαληεο θαη παλπ πξνζπκσο ζεξαπεπνπζη ηνπο

πινπζηνπο θαη δπλαηνπο θαη κεζηα παληα θνιαθσλ εζηη θαη κεη‟ακπεηξηαο θαη

ηερλεο απην πξαηηνλησλ.61

Nearly all patronage occurred between PS1/2/3, sometimes including PS 4/5,

with those in PS4/5 too poor to do much for those below them. In Greek benefaction,

then, the very poor benefitted little; those who needed help the most rarely received it. 62

This economic reality is the untold story of the literature, since any modern person

reading it would assume that a properly functioning reciprocity system would keep

people from starving to death and living in poverty. Quite the opposite was true under the

Roman patronage system: those of a high enough status to be valuable were “adopted”

and provided for, but those who mattered less had little recourse. Pliny warns against

helping only those who could reciprocate, but indicates that most do exactly that. “Volo

enim eum, qui sit vere liberalis, tribuere patriae propinquis, adfinibus amicis dico

60 Cicero, Off. I.49. “[Those] which are judged, considered, and considered maturely.”

61

Dio Chrysostom, Invid..34-6 (Crosby, LCL). “And yet why on earth do some of the

prosperous wish to be courted by persons who claim to be free men, and why do they wish the so-

called philosophers to be seen at their doors, humble and unhonored, just as, so help me, Circe

wished her dwelling to be guarded by lions that were timid and cringing? Nay, it was not even real

lions that guarded her, but wretched, foolish human beings, who had been corrupted by luxury and

idleness…Nay, to such a desire as I have mentioned I know not what name to give. For there are

thousands who willingly, yes, very eagerly, cultivate the rich and influential, and all the world is

full of flatterers who ply that calling with both experience and skill.”

62

Bruce W. Longenecker, "Poverty and Paul's gospel" (Ex Auditu 27; 2011), 32. “This

looped system of generosity and reciprocity worked well for all those involved. Usually, however,

the ones involved were primarily the elite of ES1-ES3 and those most closely associated with

them in the middling groups of ES4; on occasion some at ES5 might have benefitted, perhaps if

they belonged to a Greco-Roman association” of one kind or another. But for those at the bottom

of the economic scale, the benefits of elite generosity were negligible. The generous exchange of

resources marked out relationships at the top of the economic scale, but failed to “trickle down5 to

those in ES6 and ES7 whose lives dangled precariously by a thin economic string.” Longenecker

replaces PS with ES, but his scale is much the same as Freison‟s otherwise.

17

pauperibus, non ut isti qui iis potissimum donant, qui donare maxime possunt. Hos ego

viscatis hamatisque muneribus non sua promere puto sed aliena corripere.”63

Greco-Roman Benefaction

After drawing distinctions between Greek benefaction and Roman patronage, is

it even right to speak of a “Greco-Roman” system? In many ways: yes. Though the

Roman patronage system should not be read back into Greek benefaction, and Greek

benefaction should not be seen as the controlling concept in patron/client relationships,

during the first century the two “systems” seem to have co-existed quite peacefully and in

non-contradiction. The Roman emperor with his manifold numbers of clients also

provided benefactions; Herod with his massive benefactions still could be labeled a client

of the emperor. Both systems were highly asymmetrical and linked to honor and shame

values; they mainly differed in the individual individual or individual community

aspect. Thus Greco-Roman benefaction includes euergetism: a wealthy person providing

luxuries for a community in exchange for honor; patronage: a higher-status person having

an intentional friendship with a lower-status person and exchanging financial for social

support; and possible other types of relationships somewhere in this milieu.

Group Contributions

Since the goal of these models is to understand the background through which

Paul might have meant and his audience might have understood εἰ γὰξ ηνῖο πλεπκαηηθνῖο

αὐηῶλ ἐθνηλώλεζαλ ηὰ ἔζλε, ὀθείινπζηλ θαὶ ἐλ ηνῖο ζαξθηθνῖο ιεηηνπξγῆζαη αὐηνῖο and

Paul is referring to group reciprocity, does this match any occurring reciprocal scheme in

the Greco-Roman world? Did people ever make collective efforts to support another

group, or donate money toward something and receive honor as part of a benefactor

group? The answer is yes and no. Very rarely, inscriptional evidence shows that group

collections, especially for building projects, did occur. In Samos, the citizens took up a

collection to decorate Hera‟s temple. In a Black Sea colony, a certain religious society

built a temple for Dionysus. In Kolophon, the people took up a collection to fix the city

walls. The inscription for that reads: “In order that the citizens may contribute as

generously as possible toward the walls, it is resolved by the people that any citizen who

wishes shall promise whatever amount he desires…with regard to the promises made, in

the month of Lenaion the people in plenary session are to take council, so that each of

those who have promised a gift shall be honored worthily in proportion to his generosity,

63

Pliny, Ep. XXX.1 (Radice, LCL).“I should like to see the truly generous man giving to

his country, neighbors, relatives, and friends, but by them I mean his friends without means;

unlike the people who mostly bestow their gifts on those able to make a return. Such persons do

not seem to me to part with anything of their own but use their gifts as baits to hook other people‟s

possessions.”

18

in the measure that seems good to the people.”64

In Oropus, a rebuilding collection had a

decree attached which said that “those who contributed more than a talent would receive

the title of proxenos and euergetes, while, concerning those who might give less than

this, „the people is to make an investigation as to what degree of honour each deserves to

receive.‟”65

Therefore, collective benefactions did exist, but the donors were not

recognized or honored as a group but as individual contributors.

64

A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London: Thames and

Hudson, 1968), 51. Italics are mine.

65

Ibid, 51.

19

CHAPTER 2

CONSTRUCTING A MODEL: JEWISH RECIPROCITY

Though first-century Jews lived in a “Greco-Roman” society, they held fast to

their own cultural traditions in many ways, especially in Palestine but even in the

Diaspora.66

A particularly Jewish system of benefaction, then, would not be surprising.

Several scholars have researched literature and inscriptions from that period to determine

whether or not a uniquely Jewish reciprocal system– in addition to and distinct from

Greek benefaction and Roman patronage – existed in Palestine or elsewhere. Sorek

claims that the evidence does indeed indicate a Jewish system based on the OT-

influenced concept חסד. “Hesedism…rivals euergetism in the benefaction arena…the

ideology behind חסד can offer some explanation for some of the unique elements

perceived in the Jewish benefaction system both in Palestine and the Diaspora.”67

Rajak

gives a more measured evaluation of the evidence, highlighting some distinctions of the

Jews‟ practice of benefaction which she believes make their system different but not

unique.68

Schwartz puts the focus on charity, distinguished in his case by its complete

lack of expecting returns, rather than reciprocity. Torah is anti-reciprocity because all the

people of God are on the same level – “all Israel are friends.”69

Schwartz and Sorek thus

arrive at two radically different solutions from the same set of evidence; the way to solve

such a conundrum is to return to the evidence.

66 Martin Hengel argues strongly against a separation between “Hellenistic Judaism” and

“Palestinian Judaism,” saying that both of them were strongly Hellenized. The Hellenization of

Judaea in the First Century after Christ (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989), 53. Lee Levine agrees, but

with reservation. “The thrust of our discussion has been to transcend the overly simple question of

Hellenism among the Jews – „yes or no?‟ …Jews, like other peoples throughout the East, could in

no way remain oblivious to the cultural and social as well as the political and economic forces at

work throughout the Empire…Nevertheless, in each and every case studied, we have taken pains

to note the ability of the Jews to absorb and internalize such influences without compromising

their unique tradition.” Judaism & Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence (Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 1998), 180-2.

67

Susan Sorek, Remembered for Good: A Jewish Benefaction System in Ancient

Palestine (SWBA 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 262.

68

Tessa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and

Social Interaction (Boston: Brill, 2002), 388-9.

69

Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Socity?: Reciprocity and Solidarity in

Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 168.

20

Literature

The HB, most especially the Torah, provided the unchanging foundation upon

which every generation of Jews attempted to build, and is the normative center for

theologizing and interaction with every culture.70

Though its commands were re-

interpreted and applied differently through the centuries, those dealing with reciprocity

would have formed a major part of any Jewish conversation on the subject. Philo and

Josephus both wrote during the same basic time frame as Paul; though these three Jewish

writers had fundamental differences, by dint of their heritage and shared society they also

had much in common. Inscriptional evidence from the time period has significant value

in determining actual Jewish praxis, but the brief texts merely hint at an underlying

cultural practice and require interpretation to be useful.

The TDOT definition of חסד, read in the light of benefaction, yields surprising

similarities. Zobel says that the nominative functions in the “sphere of human

interaction,” usually within kinship circles,71

and is often reciprocal in nature, so that “the

one who receives an act of hesed responds with a similar act of hesed, or at least that the

one who demonstrates hesed is justified in expecting an equivalent act in return.”72

An

example is the hesed between Jonathan and David: (1 sam 20:8/14 insert OT passage)

and between Abimelech and Abraham (Gen 21:23 – insert pass). חסד is active, requiring

the pursuit of good; social, based in human relationship; and enduring, used for long-

standing intimate relationships and assuming mutuality.73

always stems from חסד

Yahweh and creates new fellowship for the people in the covenant with Yahweh. Their

vertical relationship transforms their horizontal relationships.74

επεξγεηεο appears in the LXX only around seven times and only in apocryphal

(or apocryphal additions to canonical) books.75

This does not mean that the concepts of

70 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T&T Clark, 2004),

528. Watson speaks primarily of soteriology and hermeneutics, but his claim applies here as well.

For Jews, Torah was central to life.

71

H.-J. Zobel, “חסד,”TDOT 5:46. OT passages cited as support are Gen 20:13, 24:49,

47:29, Ruth 1:8, 1 Sam 15:6, 20:8, 14, and several others.

72

Ibid., 49.

73

Ibid., 51-2.

74

God‟s kindness towards an individual places that individual in a new relationship with

his neighbor, a relationships based on Yahweh‟s kindness; in his daily contacts with others he

must keep the kindness he has experienced, he must practice righteousness and justice, kindness

and mercy. Thus hesed shapes not only the relationship of Yahweh with human beings, but also

that of humans beings among themselves.” Ibid., 63.

75

The seven references including επεξγεηεο in the Swete LXX are Wis 19:14; Sir 0:17;

Add Esth 16:3, 16:13; 2 Macc 4:2; 3 Macc 3:19, 6:24. All refer to human benefactors, usually in a

very general sense of “generous leader.”

21

reciprocity are not there, especially if “this principle [reciprocity] is almost a primordial

imperative which „pervades every relation of primitive life‟ and is the basis on which the

entire social and ethical life of primitive civilizations presumably rests.”76

An assumption

of reciprocity leading to relationship was most likely behind the exchange between

Abraham and Ephron in Gen 23.

ר לו׃ ם לאמ ויען עפרון את־אברה

ר׃ וא ואת־מתך קב סף ביני ובינך מה־ה ת שקל־כ ע מא ני ארץ ארב אדני שמע

ר באזני ר דב סף אש ן את־הכ ל אברהם לעפר ע אברהם אל־עפרון וישק וישמ

ר לסחר׃ סף עב קל כ ע מאות ש ת ארב בני־ח77

Abraham‟s refusal to accept the cave as a “gift” seems to indicate his refusal to

join in a reciprocal relationship with Ephron. But what this shows is the lack of

reciprocity and dependence practiced by the patriarchs and taught by Moses. The

principles of Torah are closer to a “solidarity” ethic, where gifts or charities do not put

the “benefactee” under obligation to the benefactor.78

Though help for the poor is

commanded, the poor are not instructed to respond in gratefulness to their human

benefactor, but to God.

ובקצרכם את־קציר ארצכם לא־תכלה פאת שדך בקצרך ולקט קצירך לא

תלקט לעני ולגר תעזב אתם אני יהוה אלהיכם׃79

While the Torah teaches the ethic of charity without expectation of return, in

praxis humans have trouble distinguishing between the two. When the law above was put

into practice, it certainly resulted in overwhelming gratefulness by those benefitted by it,

but instead of being thankful only to their benefactor, Ruth and Naomi respond by asking

76 Alvin W. Gouldner, "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement" (American

Sociological Review 25. 2; Apr 1960), 161.

77

Gen 23:14-16. “Then Ephron answered Abraham saying to him, „My lord, hear me,

land of 400 shekels of silver between me and between you, what is it? So bury your dead.‟ And

Abraham heard Ephron, and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he spoke of in the ears

of the sons of Heth, 400 shekels of silver, approved by traders.”

78

“The Bible‟s elaborate rules are meant to ensure that the charitable donation (and

likewise the donations meant to form the livelihood of the priestly and levitical temple staff) never

degenerates into the dependency-generating gift. The pauper, like the priest, is meant to feel no

gratitude – at least not toward the donor. Rather, charity is a prime expression of Israelite

corporate solidarity, of the obligation of all Israelites to love one another regardless of familial or

other connection.” Schwartz, 18.

79

Lev 23:22. “And when you reap the harvest of your land, do not complete the corners

of your field and glean, (but) leave them for the poor and for the foreigner: I am Yahweh your

God.”

22

God to bless Boaz.80

Torah ethics did not replace reciprocity so much as they transformed

it.81

For the Israelites, then, Yahweh was the “basis on which the entire social and ethical

life of [their] primitive civilization” rested.82

Their relationships with each other were

founded on their relationship with Yahweh; benefactors gave to please Yahweh and

benefactees asked Yahweh‟s blessing (the highest thanks they could give!) on their

benefactors.

Philo employs Greek benefaction language in several places. Interestingly, he

always pictures God as the benefactor and people as the benefactees bound to honor Him.

παξα ζνπ ν ζενο νπδελ βαξπ θαη πνηθηινλ ε δπζεξγνλ αιια απινπλ παλπ θαη

παδηνλ. ηαπηα δ‟εζηηλ αγαπαλ απηνλ σο επεξγεηελ, εη δε κε, θνβεηζζαη γνπλ σο

απρνληα θαη θπξηνλ, θαη δηα παζσλ ηελαη ησλ εηο αξεζθεηαλ νδσλ θαη ιαηξεπεηλ

απησ κε παξεξγσο αιια νιε ηε ςπρε πεπιεξσκελε γλσκεο θηινζενπ θαη ησλ

εληνισλ απηνπ πεξηερεζζαη θαη ηα δηθαηα ηηκαλ.83

Concerning God‟s gifts, ην γαξ κε παξ αλζξσπσλ αιια παξα ηνπ παλησλ

επεξγεηνπ δνθεηλ ιακβαλεηλ αδπζσπεηνλ ερεη δσξεαλ.84

Philo uses the Greek

benefaction system as a metaphor for God‟s relationship with his people, but does not

recommend it as an exemplary practice among humans or make any connections between

Torah and benefaction as an interpretation of Torah principles. As a (related) side-note,

this view of God differs greatly from Aristophanes‟s discussion of the “gifts” given by

Zeus.

Πενια: ν Ζεπο δεπνπ πελεηαη, θαη ηνπη‟εδε θαλεξσο ζε δηδαμσ. εη γαξ επινπηεη,

πσο αλ πνησλ ηνλ Οιπκπηθνλ απηνο αγσλα, ηλα ηνπο Ειιελαο απαληαο αεη

δη‟εηνπο πεκπηνπ μπλαγεηξεη, αλεθεξπηηελ ησλ αζθεησλ ηνπο ληθσληαο

ζηεθαλσζαο, θνηηλνπ ζηεθαλσ; θαηηνη ρξπζσ καιινλ ρξελ, εηπεξ επινπηεη.

80 Ruth 2:17,19.

81

This statement is contra Schwartz, who would say that the Pentateuch “clearly

opposes” the system of reciprocity. For him, the resulting question is “how Jews should cope with

life in a world in which institutionalized reciprocity was very hard to escape?” Schwartz, 19.

Though his heuristic of solidarity and reciprocity is helpful for explanation, in reality they are

similar. Even in reciprocal societies (as per Seneca), benefactors are supposed to give without

expecting anything in return.

82

Gouldner, 161.

83

Philo, The Special Laws I. 299-300, 272-3. “Of you God (asks) nothing heavy and

much or hard but only light and easy. And this is to love him as a benefactor, and if not, to fear

(him) as ruler and lord, and through all to walk of a pleasing way and to serve him not half-

heartedly but with the whole soul being filled with the purpose of His love and to hold his

commands and to honor justice.”

84

Philo, Spec.1.152.“Because it [the gift] (is) not from men but from the benefactor of

all, to receive the gift has no shame.”

23

Χρεμσλος: νπθνπλ ηνπησ δεπνπ δεινη ηηκσλ ηνλ πινπηνλ εθεηλνο; θεηδνκελνο

γαξ θαη βνπινκελνο ηνπηνπ κεδελ δαπαλαζζαη, ιεξνηο αλαδσλ ηνπο σηθσληαο

ηνλ πινπηνλ εα παξ‟εαπησ.85

Josephus‟s writings definitely have an agenda, but taken with a grain of salt they

can provide great insights into Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural relations. Even in a

rather conciliatory work written under Roman patronage, Josephus pokes fun at the

benefaction system and sees the Hebrews‟ lack of such a system as a mark of character.

Τνηο κεληνη γε λνκηκσο βηνπζη γεξαο εζηηλ νπθ αξγπξνο νπδε ρξπζνο, νπ θνηηλνπ

ζηεθαλνο ε ζειηλνπ θαη ηνηαπηε ηηο αλαθεξπμηο.86

While these prizes were often given to

Olympic (or other) game winners, they can also symbolize the mark of honor a

benefactor receives, as they most likely do here.87

Josephus also holds up Jewish charity

practices as a hallmark of Torah excellence. κηκεηζζαη δε πεηξσληαη θαη ηελ πξνο

αιιεινπο εκσλ νκνλνηαλ θαη ηελ ησλ νλησλ αλαδνζηλ θαη ην θηιεξγνλ ελ ηαηο ηερλαηο

θαη ην θαξηεξηθνλ ελ ηαηο ππεξ ησλ ησλ λνκσλ αλαγθαηο.88

In Antiquities Josephus writes to show the magnificent history and culture the

Israelites possessed, which in its prime was “far superior to that of Rome.”89

He presents

the Jews as more rational, intelligent, and deserving of respect than any other race. In

regard to Jewish “reciprocal” practices, Josephus shows a situation far different than that

of Roman patronage or Greek benefaction. According to him, common collections – or at

least, anonymous donations to fund common meals – seem to be the major funding for

religious celebrations and community life, especially in the Diaspora. Josephus records a

letter from the Imperator Dolabella to Ephesus concerning the Jews: εγσ ηε νπλ απηνηο,

θαζσο θαη νη πξν εκνπ εγεκνλεο, δηδσκη ηελ αζηξαηεηαλ θαη ζεγρσξσ ρξεζζαη ηνηο

85 “Poverty: Zeus of course is actually poor, as I now will clearly demonstrate. If he‟s

wealthy, then why is it that when he holds the Olympic Games, where every fourth year he gathers

all the Greeks together, he heralds the victorious athletes by crowning them with wild olive? If

he‟s wealthy, he should crown them with gold. Chremylus: Doesn‟t that simply show that he

values his wealth? Being thrifty, and unwilling to squander any of his wealth, he adorns the

winners with baubles and keeps the wealth for himself.” Aristophanes, Plut.580-5.

86

Josephus, Ag.Ap. II.217-8. “For the ones, on the other hand, living by our laws, the

prize is not silver nor gold, nor a crown of wild olive or of parsley and with any such public

proclamation.” Olive crowns were given at the Olympics and parsley ones at the Isthmian and

Nemean games.

87

Dio Chyrsostom, 1 Glor. 91. Rajak agrees that Josephus is implying the “benefactor

honor reward” symbolism by using olives and parsley. Rajak, 373.

88

Josephus, Ag.Ap. II. 283. “And they try to imitate our likeness to one another and

generous charities and our love of work in the crafts and our endurance in distresses on behalf of

our laws.”

89

H. St. J. Thackeray, “Introduction,” Pages vii-xix in Ant., LCL vol 1.

24

παηξηνηο εζηζκνηο, ηεξσλ ελεθα θαη αγησλ ζπλαγνκελνηο, θαζσο απηνηο λνκηκνλ, θαη ησλ

πξνο ηαο ζπζηαο αθαηξεκαησλ, πκαο ηε βνπινκαη ηαπηα γξαςαη θαηα πνιεηο.90

On the other hand, when times were tough a system much more akin to Greek

benefaction might begin to operate. When a horrible famine hit Judea, Herod managed to

buy food by sacrificing much of his personal art collection (gold and silver ornaments)

and buying grain from Egypt.

ηαπηελ δ‟απηνπ ηελ επηκειεηαλ θαη ηελ ηεο ραξηηνο επθαηπηαλ νπησο ελ απηνηο ηε

ηνηο Θνπδαηνηο ηζρπζαη ζπλεβε θαη δηαβνεζελαη παξα ηνηο αιινηο, σζηε ηα κελ

παιαη κηζε θηλεζεληα δηα ην παξαραξαηηεηλ εληα ησλ εζσλ θαη ηεο βαζηιεηαο

εμαηξεζελαη ηνπ παληνο εζλνπο, αληηθαηαιιαγκα δε θαηλεζζαη ηελ ελ ηε βνεζεηα

ησλ δεηλνηαησλ θηινηηκηαλ...ην γαξ ελ ηαηο απνξηαηο κεγαινςπρνλ παξα δνμαλ

επηδεημακελνο αληηκεηεζηεζε ηνπο νρινπο, σο εμ ππαξρεο δνθεηλ νπρ νηνλ ε κεηα

ηεο ρξεηαο επηκειεηα παξεζηεζαην.91

Even Herod, though, was not necessarily viewed in the same manner as his

Grecian and Roman counterparts. When he finished constructing the temple, the

population did honor him, but Josephus records that primarily απαο ν ιανο επιπξσζε

ραξαο, θαη ηνπ ηαρνπο πξσηνλ κελ ησ ζεσ ηαο επραπηζηηαο επνηνπλην, κεηα δε θαη γεο

πξνζπκηαο ηνπ βαζηιεσο ενξηαδνληεο θαη θαηεπθλκνπληεο ηελ αλαθηηζηλ.92

Instead of

thanking the king, they thanked God for him! Josephus also records (or writes) a speech

by Nicolas of Damascus on behalf of the Ionians:

εζεινη δ‟αλ ηηο αθπξνπο ηαο εληεπζελ εηλαη ραξηηαο; νπδεηο νπδε καηλνκελνο,

νπδε κεηξεζαη δζλαηνλ εζηηλ, εη γαξ εθινγηζαηλην ηελ παιαη βαζηιεηαλ θαη ηελ

λπλ αξρελ, πνιισλ νλησλ νζα πξνο επδαηκνληαλ απηνηο επεδσθελ, ελ ηη θαηα

παλησλ αξθεη ην κεθεηη δνπινπο αιι‟ειεπζεξνπο θαηλεζζαη....ην γαξ ζεηνλ, εη

ραηξεη ηηκσκελνλ, ραηξεη ηνηο επηηξεπνπζη ηηκαλ, εζσλ ηε ησλ εκεηεξσλ

90 Josephus, Ant.XIV.227. “So then I to them, just as also the rulers before me, give

military exemption and gathering privileges to follow the customs of their fathers, sacred customs

and holy gatherings, just as their law, and making offerings with sacrifices, and I want you to

write this to the cities.”

91

Ibid.,.XV.315-6 (Marcus, LCL).“Now Herod‟s solicitude and the timeliness of his

generosity made such a powerful impression on the Jews and were so much talked about by other

nations, that the old hatreds which had been aroused by his altering some of the customs and royal

practices were completely eradicated throughout the entire nation, and the munificence shown by

him in helping them in their very grave difficulties was regarded as full compensation….For the

unexpected greatheartedness which he showed in this time of difficulty brought about a reversal of

attitude among the masses, so that he was thought to have been at bottom not the kind of person

that their earlier experiences indicated bu thte kind that his care for them in their need made him

out to be.”

92

Ibid, XV.421-2, 204. “All the people were joyful, and gave thanks to God, first for the

quickness and then for the eagerness of the king, celebrating and praising the restoration.”

25

απαλζξσπνλ κελ νπδελ εζηηλ, επζεβε δε παληα θαη γλ ζσδνπζε δηθαηνζζλε

ζπγθαζσζησκελα.93

Nicolas has told the king that religious freedom matters more to them than

benefactions, thus stepping outside the expected honorable response he should give to a

recognized benefactor. But he then switches tactics to argue from within the benefaction

system:

ζρεδνλ γαξ νπ κνλνηο εκηλ αιια καζηλ αλζξσπνηο ηα κελ νληα θζιαμαληεο,

μεηδσ δε ησλ ειπηζζελησλ πξνζζεληεο, επεξγεηεηηε ησ θξαηεηλ, θαη δπλαηη‟αλ ηηο

επεμησλ ηαο εθαζησλ επηπρηαο, αο δη πκσλ ερνπζηλ, απεξηιεπηνλ πνηεζαη ηνλ

ινγνλ. ηλα κεληνη θαη δηθαησο απαλησλ απησλ ηπγραλνληαο εαπηνπο επηδεημσκελ,

απθεη πξνο παξξεζηαλ εκηλ, ηα πξνηεξνλ ζησπεζαζη, ηνλ βαζηιεπνληα λπλ εκσλ

θαη ζνη παξαθαζεδνκελνλ εηπεηλ. σ πνηα κελ επλνηα πξνζ ηνλ πκεηεξνλ νηθν

παξαιειεηπηαη; πνηα δε πηζηηο ελδεεο εζηηλ; ηηο δε νπ λελνεηαη ηηκε; πνηα δε ρξεαη

κε εηο πξνππηνλ νξα; ηη δλ θσιπεη θαη ηαο ζκεηεξαο ραξηηαο ησλ ηνζνπησλ

επεξγεζησλ ηζαξηζκνλ εηλαη;94

Josephus obviously knows how the Roman reciprocal relationship is supposed to

work. But he definitely does not condone such a system for the Jewish people. Later in

the same book, he explains why he thinks that Herod was a magnificent benefactor at

times and yet a horrible tyrant at other times. εθ ηνπ κνλνο εζειεηλ ηεηηκεζζαη ηαο

ηνηαπηαο ακαξηηαο αλαιακβαλσλ.95

He wanted his subjects to honor him for his

beneficence, ην γε κελ Θνπδαησλ εζλνο ειινηξησηαη λνκσ πξνο παληα ηα ηνηαπηα, θαη

ζπλεηζηζηαη ην δηθαηνλ αληη ηνπ πξνο δνμαλ εγαπεθελαη. δηνπεξ νπθ ελ απησ

93

Josephus, Ant.XVI.39-42 (Marcus, LCL).“Or would anyone want to revoke the favors

coming from you? No on, not even a madman. For there are none who have not shared in these

both privately and publicly. Certainly, then, those who deprive others of the privileges that you

have given them leave themselves no security either, in respect of those privileges which they owe

to you. And yet it is impossible to measure the favors which have been granted them, for it they

were to evaluate the present government in comparison with the early kingdom, of all the things

which it has done to make them still happier there is one above all which is enough in itself to

achieve this, namely that they no longer are found to be slaves but free men...For if the Deity

delights in being honored, it also delights in those who permit it to be honored.”

94

Ibid., XVI.49-51,226-8. “For it is not only to us but to almost all men that you have

been benefactors in your rule by preserving existing rights and adding more than were hoped for,

and one might make an endless speech if one were to enumerate each of the benefits which they

have received from you. However, in order that we may show that we have obtained them all

rightfully, it will suffice for us to speak freely, although we have passed over these earlier

instances in silence, and mention him who is now our king and sits beside you. What act of

goodwill toward your house has been left undone by him? What mark of good faith has he failed

to give? What form of honor has he not thought of? In what emergency has he not shown

foresight? What, then, prevents your favors from being equal in number to so many benefactions?”

Trans, Ralph Marcus, 227-9.

95

Josephus, Ant.XVI.157. “From the wish to be singly honored he did these sins.”

26

θεραξηζκελνλ, νηη κε δπλαηνλ εηθνζηλ ε λανηο ε ηνηνπηνηο επηηεδεπκαζη θνιαθεπεηλ ηνπ

βαζηιεσο ην θηινηηκνλ.96

Therefore according to Josephus a primary reason for the Jews‟

dislike of Herod stemmed from their rejection of the cultural assumptions he brought

with him. Josephus at least consciously rejected a system of benefaction in which the

benefactees owe honor and praise (and obeisance) to a human benefactor. Did he possibly

have a different system in mind?

Inscriptions

Inscriptional evidence from Palestine and the Diaspora yields several extremely

interesting texts which challenge the truth, or at least the widespread acceptance, of the

anti-benefaction principles expressed by Philo and Josephus. Over 200 synagogue

inscriptions with what seem to be the names of benefactors from Palestine and elsewhere

have been recovered. A majority are written in Aramaic or Hebrew, with a little over a

third in Greek.97

If these inscriptions are comparable to the plethora of Greek and Roman

benefaction inscriptions, they would show the Israelites, despite being opposed to human

honor-based benefaction systems in principle, actually mirrored it in practice. A

(presumably) Jewish man who lived in Leontopolis (in Egypt) in the first century is

mentioned in a city epigraph:

Αβξακνπ ςπρεο ηνπ καραξηζηηηαηνπ

νπθ αγεξαζηνο εθπ γαξ αλα πηνιηλ

αιια θαη αξρε παλδεκσ εζληθε

εζηεθεη‟ελ ζνθηα98

A first century synagogue inscription from Acmonia in Asia Minor reads:

ηνλ θαηαζθεπαζζε[λ]ηα ν[η]θνλ ππν Θνπιηαο Σενπεξαο

Π. Τπξξσληνο Κιαδνο ν δηα βηνπ αξρηζπλαγσγνο

θαη Λνπθηνο Λνπθηνπ αξρηζπλαγσγνο θαη Πνιηιηνο

96

Ibid., XVI. 158, 270. “But, as it happens, the Jewish nation is by law opposed to all

such things and is accustomed to admire righteousness rather than glory. It was therefore not in his

good graces, because it found it impossible to flatter the king‟s ambition with statues or temples or

such tokens.”Trans, Ralph Marcus, 271.

97

Sorek, 69-71. The following section concerning inscriptions is taken primarily from

Sorek, though other sources, specifically Rajak and Levine, have been consulted where they

mention an inscription. The primary source for the inscriptions (as cited in Sorek) is the Corpus

inscriptionem judaicarum. II. Asie-Afrique (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana,

1952). This book was not available to double-check her citations, so the following quotations are

from Sorek, as no other readily available sources include the original languages when discussing

the Jewish synagogue and funerary inscriptions.

98

Sorek, 57. “Of the soul of Abram (Abramos?) most blessed, not without honor was he

in the city, but also in the manner of the Gentiles, he was crowned with wisdom.”

27

Ζσηηθνο αξρσλ επεζθεπαζαλ εθ ηε ησλ ηδησλ θαη ησλ

ζπλθαηαζεκελσλ θαη εγξαςαλ ηνπο ηνηρνπο θαη ηελ

νξνθελ θαη επνηεζαλ ηελ ησλ ζπξηδσλ αζθαιεηαλ θαη ηνλ

[ιπ]πνλ παλξα θνζκνλ νπζηηλαο θα[η] ε ζσλαγσγε

εηεηκεζελ νπισ επηρξπζσ δηα ηε ηελ ελαξεηνλ απησλ

δ[ηα]ζ[ε]ζηλ θαη ηελ πξνο ηελ ζπλαγσγελ επλνηαλ ηε θαη

ζ[πνπ]δελ99

Both of these speak of honoring the person responsible for giving funds to the

project. In the latter inscription, four names are mentioned, but apparently the funding

was partly communal as well. The inscription above is actually out of the ordinary and

does not follow what appears to be the standard Jewish form for “dedicatory”

inscriptions. Nearly all the Jewish inscriptions contain the phrase “remembered for

good” in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, and the majority begin with the phrase.100

One

rather unique inscription is written on the central synagogue “Chair of Moses” in

Chorazin:

laemvy rb wdwy bfl rykd hwfs wdh rbed

yhy hlypd hvgrdw 101myqydx me wqlwj hl

At the Beth Guvrin synagogue, an inscription was found carved on a column.

rykd syrwq bfl vpn jyn yye

syfnskwa rb adwme nydh dbyd

99 “This building was erected by Julia Severa; P(ublius) Tyrronios Klados the head for

life of the synagogue, and Lucius, son of Lucius, head of the synagogue, and Polilios Zotikos,

archon, restored it with their own funds and with money which had been deposited and they

donated the (painted) murals for the walls and the ceiling, and they reinforced the windows and

made all the rest of the ornamentation, and the synagogue honoured them with a gilded shield on

account of their virtuous disposition, goodwill and zeal for the synagogue.” Ibid., 57-8.

100

Ibid., 75. The phrase may come from Neh 13:31, which ends with the phrase: זכרה־לי

.And remember me, Oh my God, for good.” Ibid, 77“ ,אלהי לטובה

101

“Remembered for good Judan b. Ishmael Who made this stoa(?) and its steps. For his

work may he have a share with the righteous.” Sorek, 90. The especially interesting thing about

this inscription is its eschatological nature (a share with the righteous).

28

ajvynkd hrqyl 102mllv

In the Greek-speaking synagogue of Hammath Tiberias, a similar inscription

(seemingly rather awkwardly translated from Aramaic) is written:

Μλεζζε εηο αλαζνλ θαη εηο

επινγηαλ Πξνθνηνπξνο ν κηδν-

ηεξνο επνηεζελ ηελ ζηναλ ηαπ-

ηελ ηνπ αγηνπ ηνπνπ. Επινγηα απησ

Ακελ. mwlc103

Some inscriptions on tombs use the same phrase. An example is a third century

Aramaic tomb inscription from Dura Europus:

rk hyja[ ]

ywl hnb nm h [ ]

mdq btl rykd nma aymv yrm

ajaz 104bfl arkd

A catacomb in Beth She‟arim has a similar Jewish funeral inscription in Greek:

θπξηε κλεζζεηη ηεο δνπιεο ζνπ Πξηκνζα, θπξηε,

κλεζζεηη ηνπ δνπινπ ζνπ Σαθεξδνο.105

And another Jewish tomb inscription in Greek was found in Rome:

102 “Remembered for good Kyrios, Rest upon his so[ul]. The son of Auxentios who built

this column in honour of the synagogue. Peace.”The phrase “rest upon his soul” may be an

allusion to Ps 116:7, and is found in several funeral inscriptions and tombsin Palestine (and later in

Italy). Ibid., 91-2.

103

Ibid.,93. “Remembered for good and for a blessing Prophorouros the elder made this

stoa of the holy place. Blessing to him. Amen. Peace.”

104

“Ahia son of…. ….of the sons of Levi, remembered for good before the God of

Heaven, Amen. This is a memorial for good.” Sorek, 79.

105

Sorek, 81. “Lord, remember your servant Primosa, Lord, remember your servant

Sakerdos.”

29

[Ελζα]δε θεηηε

[.......]ηα Μαξθει-

[ια κε]ηεξ ζπλα

[γσγεο]Απγνπζηε-

[ζησλ. Μ]λεζζε

[.....ε]λ εηξελε

[ε θνηκε]ζηο απ-

[ηε]ο106

What seems to be the case in all these inscriptions is that Jewish “benefaction”

practices were quite distinct from the more general Greek system and from the Roman

patronage system. The practice may be similar but the motives are quite different. Though

the same gift of money or support from a wealthy person or family to the community

occurred, benefactors, from this evidence, were not named until after their death, so that

gaining honor in their own lifetime would not be the issue. Why then write specific

names at all? One scholar proposes that these people served as examples for others to

follow107

; another that perhaps the memorial inscriptions reminded the synagogue

“congregation that good words will be rewarded in the hereafter.”108

Both of these

explanations make sense, and they could be equally accurate.109

Group Collections

Again, Paul refers to a reciprocal relationship between groups in Rom 15:27. Is

there any possible background for group benefaction in the Jewish system? A few more

inscriptions seem to vary from the pattern seen so far and may shed light on this issue.

One synagogue in Beth She‟an has an inscription which reads:

tjvydq htrwbj ywb lk bfl wyrycd hrhtad hnwqtb wyqzjtm nwnhd

nma htcrb nvhl ywht hmlvww hweydq

106

Ibid., 84. “Here lies […..] ia Markel-la, mother of the Augustesian synagogue. May

she be remembered […] in peace her sleep.”

107

Rajak, 377.

108

Sorek, 99.

109

Josephus may surface a possible flaw to this theory, because he says Τεο εηο ηνπο

ηεηειεπηεθνηαο πξνπλνεζελ νζηαο νπ πνιπηειεηαηο αληαθησλ, νπ θαηαζθεπαηο κλεκεησλ

επηθαλσλ, or “The religious rites which one provides for the dead should not be expensive burials,

nor erecting conspicuous memorials.” Josephus, Ap.Ap.II.205. This prohibition seems to refer to

the place of burial, not to a donation of money for a building.

30

110mwlv dsj mwlv bwr Instead of honoring a single individual, this inscription refers to an entire

community project in which they rebuilt the synagogue by taking up a collection.

Because the Hebrew htrwbj could also mean “association,” the epigraph could refer to

a group inside the congregation. Either way, the project was a collaborative effort.111

Another group project is mentioned a Jericho synagogue inscription, using similar

terminology. Then a fragment of an inscription from Susiya reads:

…qzjtad hvyrq hl[hq]

htrq ynb l[k b]fl ny[rykd] 112nwqzjtf [nwnh]d

Two groups – the congregation and the whole town – are mentioned in this

inscription. At Ma‟on and Beth Alpha, very similar inscriptions noting that the hlhq

(congregation) helped finance the project and were to be bfl nyrykd (remembered for

good) were found. At least three more synagogues (in Hammath Tiberias, Na‟aran, and

Caesarea) indicate communal involvement.113

This evidence shows that the Jewish

system had a collective element fairly often. Donators were often honored as groups and

“remembered for good.”

110 “Remembered for good all the members of the Holy Congregation who endeavored to

repair The holy plae and in peace shall they have their blessing. Amen Great peace, hesed, in

peace.” Sorek, 107.

111

Ibid., 107. Levine and Schwartz both indicate that the entire community or

congregation, not a specific group inside it, would have been involved in financing the project.

112

“…the holy congregation which endeavoured…Remembered for good all the people

of the town. Who endeavoured to repair…” Ibid., 108-9. This inscription is fragmentary, but

enough remains to see the group mention.

113

Ibid., 112.

31

CHAPTER 3

CONTEXTUALIZING PAUL

Danker says that in order to read Paul‟s letters, “it is necessary to interpret them

first of all in light of linguistic data that would have been available to the larger public

and which would have provided the necessary semantic field for understanding the

argument of a versatile communicator like Paul.”114

He also points out that the majority

of the population was not reading Herodotos (or Seneca or Josephus, for that matter), but

would come into contact on a daily basis with epigraphic material. Without the literature

of the time period, modern scholarship would have no context to understand even the

words in inscriptions, but the reverse is also true to some extent. Epigraphic evidence

allows a link between principle and practice, so that the everyday experiences of typical

people can be seen. To understand what Paul intended to communicate, then, filling in

the available contextual information will be of greatest importance. Three possible

models have been constructed in the preceding chapters, so after determining which one

most clearly undergirds Paul‟s thought, insights from that model can be used in

examining Paul‟s meaning. To reiterate, in Rom 15:27 Paul states baldly: εἰ γὰξ ηνῖο

πλεπκαηηθνῖο αὐηῶλ ἐθνηλώλεζαλ ηὰ ἔζλε, ὀθείινπζηλ θαὶ ἐλ ηνῖο ζαξθηθνῖο

ιεηηνπξγῆζαη αὐηνῖο. Obviously this language is in some way reciprocal, but does it

match one of the common first century reciprocal systems (Greek, Roman, Jewish)

enough to trigger that background as an interpretive scheme? Comparisons at several

points might help in answering this question.

Greek, Roman, or Jewish Benefaction

Paul‟s use of νθεηισ sounds much like Greek benefaction, where a donation by a

superior to an inferior put the recipient actually in debt financially or socially to the

benefactor. Roman patronage used the language of obligation and debt in much the same

way; within a patron/client relationship, each continually owed the other “help” or

“honor.” All of these obligations were incurred only within a reciprocal relationship, not

toward the greater population in general. In the Jewish system, however, everyone was

obligated to help those in poverty with no reciprocation required from the poor.

Obligations stemmed from the divine commandment, not from a human relationship.

Similarly, “benefactors” gave to community projects without expecting any return

besides perhaps being “remembered for good.” However, it seems that the Jewish

benefaction system was not based upon obligation in the same way as the Greek one,

114 Danker, 29.

32

since those benefitted by gifts did not owe their benefactors anything in return. By

making explicit a reciprocal obligation, Paul seems to be echoing the larger Greco-

Roman system. Sorek provides a caveat to this, saying that Jewish benefaction did create

obligation, but only in as far as recipients of blessing were supposed to bless others when

they were able. A “pay it forward” obligation ensued from benefactions, not a “pay it

back” one.115

The way Paul sets up the relationship between the Jerusalem poor and the

Gentiles sounds equivalent: determining which was the benefactor and which the

benefactee, which the original giver and which the respondent giver, would be nearly

impossible. If asymmetry exists in this relationship, the Jerusalemites (according to

Paul‟s structure) might be the superior in the relationship since they “acted” first,116

or

the Gentiles might be, since they are giving the material assistance which usually

characterizes the benefactor.117

Paul seems to be setting up an equivalence between

groups here. This type of exchange was not properly part of the Greek benefaction

system, since that was characterized by asymmetry. Roman patronage did not include

symmetrical relationships either. Jewish reciprocity, on the other hand, included an

equivalence between humans, who all related to God in the same way and thus owed each

other help whenever needed because He commanded it. The giver was no better than the

receiver, and even in cases where a Jewish benefactor provided a service which would (in

the larger Greco-Roman culture) lead to inscriptional honor and status elevation, the

Jewish donators seem to have shunned glory during their lifetime (at least) and

concentrated on continuing to spread the gifts God had given them to the entire

population. In setting up an equivalence between groups, then, Paul must be relying on

some system besides Greek benefaction or Roman patronage. If he is echoing one of

them, he transforms the very foundational asymmetrical definition of Greco-Roman

benefaction;118

if he echoes Jewish benefaction, his symmetry between groups here

makes perfect sense.

Greek benefaction and Roman patronage always revolved around individuals as

the givers. Even in cases where a group of people financed something cooperatively, they

each received “honor” based on their specific contribution.119

Jewish benefaction, on the

other hand, was quite often community-based. When cities, synagogue communities, or

groups within a community financed a project, they shared the honor corporately, with no

115 Sorek, 189.

116

The person who gives first becomes the benefactor, and the respondent only pays back

a debt instead of conferring a benefit. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War II. 328-30.

117

A benefactor gives materially, the benefactee responds by honoring him. Aristotle,

Rhet.I.9, 52.

118

Marshall, 58.

119

Hands, 51.

33

distinction between members.120

Only in Jewish inscriptions and literature is a

community-based honor system found. For Paul to indicate that an entire group was part

of a benefaction relationship seems to mirror what was uniquely a Jewish practice. The

community of the people of God should give, not because they want to receive honor for

themselves, but simply because ones among them need help.

Though Paul may invoke some thoughts of Greco-Roman reciprocal relationship,

he seems primarily to be drawing from his own background of Jewish reciprocity when

he writes these words to the Roman church. Since the scenario he sets up of a Gentile-

Jew relationship here is symmetrical, centered in God, and community-based, the

parallels with Greco-Roman systems are negligible, and attempting to interpret Paul‟s

words through one of those schemes will yield more discongruities than helpful

similarities. Most interpreters of Paul have noted the discongruities which result from

Greco-Roman comparisons. deSilva says that “especially in the letters of Paul we find a

remarkable transformation of the cultural code of patronage.”121

Jewett notes that the

Christian reciprocity structure is “distinctive” from the Greco-Roman one.122

But is the

“Christian” system so distinct and transformative, or does it mirror the Jewish system in

quite a few foundational ways? If Paul means to invoke (and possibly renovate) basically

the Jewish system and not the Greco-Roman system, comparisons with the latter and not

the former are foundationally unsound and are focusing on the wrong “renovations.”

Paul and Jewish Benefaction

Paul‟s collection for the Jerusalem church was not a short and simple

project but an extensive endeavor. A very brief overview of what Paul wrote about his

collection elsewhere should help set the stage for his discussion of it in Romans. “As the

collection was a constant concern of Paul‟s from the days of the contention at Jerusalem

until his last journey to that city, its story can be viewed truly as a mirror of the apostle‟s

missionary effort as a whole.”123

In Romans the brief mention of the collection is only a

glimpse at the middle of an ongoing story; to fill in the gaps, one must consult other

literature by and about Paul. In his letter to the Galatians Paul mentions the impetus

behind his collection, though this is rather an oblique reference to the rationale behind

what later became a concrete operation. He merely states that κόλνλ ηῶλ πησρῶλ ἵλα

120 Sorek, 99-112.

121

He continues: “The striking vision of Matthew 25:31-46, in which the righteous are

separated from the wicked on the basis of the beneficence toward the needy, surprises the hearers

and readers by asserting that providing food and clothing and comfort to the needy is the way to

return the favor to the one who has given us all we need for our well-being and survival.” deSilva,

152.

122

Jewett, 930-1.

123

Georgi, 15.

34

κλεκνλεύσκελ, ὃ θαὶ ἐζπνύδαζα αὐηὸ ηνῦην πνηῆζαη.124

Remembering the poor in the

context of the Gentile mission, then, seems to be foundational for Paul‟s project. Paul

instructs the Corinthian church to consistently collect money for the ηῆο ινγείαο ηῆο εἰο

ηνὺο ἁγίνπο so that they will not have to give a huge amount at once when he comes to

pick up the money. Later he writes to them even more extensively concerning the

collection, encouraging them to give generously and explaining the importance it holds

for his Gentile ministry.125

All gifts stem from God and should be generously shared with

others for His glory.126

Finally in Romans, Paul writes that the collection is complete and

ready εἰο ηνὺο πησρνὺο ηῶλ ἁγίσλ ηῶλ ἐλ Ἰεξνπζαιήκ.127

Paul‟s characterizations of the

physical and (possible) metaphorical aspects of his collection echo Jewish reciprocity

language in many ways, though never so explicitly as in Romans.128

124 Gal 2:10. This verse concludes the section on the Council of Jerusalem where Paul

records that he met with Ἰάθσβνο θαὶ Κεθᾶο θαὶ Ἰσάλλεο in an attempt to prove that “the

Jerusalem apostles recognized the theological validity of his ministry and message.” Richard N.

Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 61.The collection proves “that

Paul was approved by the Jerusalem church. After all, the Jerusalem church must accept Paul if

they accept his money!” Hans Dieter Betz. Galatians, (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979),

103. Luke gives a rather different account of the Council of Jerusalem, saying that the

determination by the leaders was not that Paul should remember the poor, but that he should teach

the Gentiles ἀπέρεζζαη εἰδσινζύησλ θαὶ αἵκαηνο θαὶ πληθηῶλ θαὶ πνξλείαο, ἐμ ὧλ δηαηεξνῦληεο

ἑαπηνὺο εὖ πξάμεηε. Acts 15:29. A solution to this is given by Nickle: basically that Acts 15 is in

the correct place chronologically, but that the decrees about eating meat offered to idols and such

were given at a subsequent Jerusalem meeting in Acts 21, so that Paul has the content of the “Gal

2/Acts 15 council” correctly. Nickle has a complete discussion on the issue. Idem, 51-9. This is

not the place for a discussion on the historicity of Acts, and the exact timing of the beginning of

Paul‟s mission does not necessarily affect his mention of the collection in Romans; thus the

Gal/Acts comparison will not be pursued extensively here.

125

2 Cor 8-9. Whether 2 Cor is an amalgamation of letters or not does not considerably

affect the interpretation of this passage. An excellent history of research on the subject, especially

as involving 1 Cor 8-9, can be found in Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Hermeneia;

Philadephia: Fortress, 1985), 3-36. Martin gives five reasons why the Jerusalem collection was

“an illustrative model of his [Paul‟s] theology:” Paul was keeping his promise to the Jerusalem

council, showing that the gentile churches were compassionate and ready to give, trying to “bind

together the two ethnic „wings‟ of the church,” and hoping to bring Israel‟s salvation by bringing

the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem; in summation, Paul‟s collection “had at

its heart the unity of the church made up of Jews and Gentiles who had entered the community of

the new Israel by faith in messiah Jesus.” Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians, (WBC 40; Waco: Word

Books, 1986), 251.

126

1 Cor 9:7-8. “As the Achaeans rise to their responsibility in making their offering,

they may count on God to sustain this endeavor by granting them both the desire to share and the

necessary ability to do so…it is God who inspires and provides the ability to give as a basis for

genuine sharing.” Martin, 290.

127

Rom 15:26.

128

The collection ὡο εὐινγίαλ θαὶ κὴ ὡο πιενλεμίαλ (2 Cor 9:5), ἐλ ηῷ λῦλ θαηξῷ ηὸ

ὑκῶλ πεξίζζεπκα εἰο ηὸ ἐθείλσλ ὑζηέξεκα, ἵλα θαὶ ηὸ ἐθείλσλ πεξίζζεπκα γέλεηαη εἰο ηὸ ὑκῶλ

ὑζηέξεκα, ὅπσο γέλεηαη ἰζόηεο (2 Cor 8:7), ζὺλ ηῇ ράξηηη ηαύηῃ ηῇ δηαθνλνπκέλῃ ὑθʼ ἡκῶλ πξὸο

35

To what degree do his descriptions of his project and its goals mirror or diverge

from the cultural norms? What results from comparing Paul‟s words in 15:27 with the

first century Jewish reciprocity system? First of all, both highlight an indebtedness of

some sort. In some Jewish benefaction, giving is voluntary, but with regard to the poor it

is required by God. In Paul‟s case, his collection is εἰο ηνὺο πησρνὺο ηῶλ ἁγίσλ ηῶλ ἐλ

Ἰεξνπζαιήκ,129

so the indebtedness of the people of God to care for the poor among them

is automatic. The difference is that Paul considers the Gentiles part of the people of God

and thus obligated to help. Looking at his explanation through the background of Jewish

benefaction would most likely indicate that νη πλεπκαηηθνο are the aspects of a

relationship with Yahweh which were previously limited to the Jews but now expanded

to include Gentiles. Since the Gentiles are now in relationship with Yahweh, they are

indebted to the poor in their community. νη πλεπκαηηθνο which the Gentiles received are

the foundation because of which they owe their fellow members of the people of God.

Paul pulls the Gentiles into the already-existing system of obligatory relationships

practiced by the people of God. This means that, in contrast to Greco-Roman benefaction

practices, the Gentiles did not owe the Jews because of a benefit they had received from

them. Or at least, the very “benefit” they received removed them from owing benefits on

the basis of asymmetrical reciprocity and added them to a system where they were

obligated to their fellow members of the people of God on the basis of Yahweh‟s

command.

Secondly, both Paul‟s view of the collection and the Jewish benefaction system

rely on mutuality and symmetry in relationship. In the Jewish benefaction system,

humans are on an equal playing field before God; in Paul‟s use of it, then, Jews and

Gentiles are too. “Solidarity” and “unity” are hallmarks of Jewish benefaction in ways

very unlike its Greco-Roman counterpart, and thus in exploiting the resonances of Jewish

benefaction Paul immediately takes his audience to a level playing field. The renovation

Paul performs here is not a transformation of the Greco-Roman system to symmetry, so

that Jews and Gentiles are equal instead of on different levels before God; it is a

transformation of the Jewish system to include Gentiles as part of the mutually indebted

people of God. Transforming the entire basis of the Greco-Roman system would most

likely require more explicit denotation by Paul of his purpose, since a cultural construct

such as Greco-Roman benefaction would not be easily overturned by a simple statement

that could be interpreted as symmetrical or not. On the other hand, the mutuality Paul

speaks of immediately resonates with Jewish benefaction, which is transformed by Paul

to include all the people of Yahweh.

ηὴλ [αὐηνῦ] ηνῦ θπξίνπ δόμαλ θαὶ πξνζπκίαλ ἡκῶλ (2 Cor 8:19), and of course the collection as an

explicit reciprocal relationship in Rom 15:27.

129

Rom 15:26b. “For the poor (among the) saints in Jerusalem.” Whether this is an

epexegetic “poor who are saints” or a partitive “poor among the saints,” the Jerusalem Christian

group is in view here. Jewett, 929-30.

36

Thirdly, they are both founded in and controlled by relationship with Yahweh.

The Jewish benefaction system depended completely on Yahweh as originator and

sustainer. Those who were part of the people of God were obligated by Him to perform

certain actions in view of their relationship with Him. By implicitly echoing Jewish

benefaction, Paul emphasizes that the mutual indebtedness between Jews and Gentiles is

because they are both controlled by and in relationship with Yahweh.

The two also contrast at points. The Jewish reciprocal system, while it provided

for certain benefits for people outside the group (i.e. strangers in the land), was only

binding on Israel herself. Paul‟s introduction of Gentiles to the group who owed

something because of Yahweh was incredibly transformative. Putting Gentiles into the

same category of responsibility as Jews – the category of the people of God – was

completely antithetical to the first century Jewish self-definition. This unifying

responsibility matches Paul‟s theme throughout the letter that Gentiles are because of

Messiah the people of God by faith that only Jews historically had been.

37

CONCLUSION

The title of this paper is a double entendre. First of all, Paul pictures a

relationship of obligation in which both sides are equally indebted to each other: unity in

obligation. Secondly, Paul uses that mutual indebtedness to show that the Jew-Gentile

relationship should be one of in-group people of God: unity in obligation. The answer,

then, to how Rom 15:27 would have been interpreted against the background of the

Greco-Roman and Jewish systems of benefaction is that 1) the Greco-Roman system was

not assumed as a background by Paul, but rather the Jewish system was, and 2) unity in

obligation meant incorporation of Gentiles into the people of Yahweh. Paul‟s explanation

of the collection thus concretely illustrates his theologizing throughout Romans.

Several avenues of further research could add much to the content of this paper.

A possible connection between hesed and berit in the HB (as surfaced by Zobel) could

help in further defining the Jewish ideology related to reciprocal relationships.130

More

direct comparisons between the literature and inscriptional evidence of Greco-Roman and

Jewish benefactions would make more clear the distinctions between the two. A main

deficiency of this paper is the lack of Jewish sources consulted. Originally the plan was –

as some have partially done before – to compare Paul‟s statement with Greco-Roman

reciprocity systems, but after beginning research the dissimilarities between Paul‟s

statements and the Greco-Roman benefaction assumptions became ever more apparent.

After discovering some works concerning Jewish reciprocity, it became clear that the

relationship Paul seemed to be indicating fit much better with that system. To really make

a case for this, though, rabbinic literature from the time period needs to be extensively

examined – a process which time did not allow for this paper.

130

Zobel, 64.

38

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristophanes. Edited and Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Loeb Classical

Library.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press University Press, 2002.

Aristotle. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1961.

Aristotle. Translated by John Henry Freese. Loeb Classical Library. New York:

G.P.

Putman‟s Sons, 1926.

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Hermeneia. Philadephia: Fortress,

1985.

Borgen, Peder, Kare Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete

Greek

Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2000.

Bray, Gerald, Ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans. Edited

by

Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.

Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series 6. Collegeville: MN: The

Liturgical Press,

1996.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.

Translated

and edited by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Cicero. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1956.

39

“The Center for New Testament Textual Studies New Testament Critical

Apparatus.”

Source files for the 2013 updates for release to Oak Tree Software, BibleWorks,

and Logos Software. 2013.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. International Critical

Commentary .

Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1979.

Crook, Zeba. “BTB Readers Guide: Loyalty.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 34.4

(2004):

167-77.

Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and

New

Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982.

deSilva, David. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament

Culture.

Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000.

Dio Chryrsostom. Translated by H. Lamar Crosby. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1964.

Donfried, Karl P. The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition. Peabody:

Hendrickson, 1991.

Downs, David. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in

Its

Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Elliot, John H. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. The Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday,

1992.

Friesen, Steven J. "Poverty in Pauline studies: beyond the so-called new

consensus." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26. 3 (March 1, 2004): 323-361.

Gamble, Harry Jr. The Textual History of the Letter to Romans. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans,

1977.

Georgi, Dieter. Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for

Jerusalem.

40

Nashville: Abingdon, 1992.

Gouldner, Alvin W. "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement."

American

Sociological Review 25.2 (April 1960): 161-178.

Hands, A. R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London: Thames

and

Hudson, 1968.

Hengel, Martin. The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ.

Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989.

Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1976.

Joubert, Stephan. “Coming to Terms with a Neglected Aspect of Ancient

Mediterranean

Reciprocity: Seneca‟s views on benefit-exchange in De beneficiis as the

framework for a model of social exchange.” Pages 47-63 in Social Scientific Models of

Interpreting the Bible. Edited by John J. Pilch. Boston: Brill, 2001.

Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological

Reflection in

Paul's Collection. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

Levine, Lee I. Judaism & Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence.

Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 1998.

Longenecker, Bruce W. "Poverty and Paul's gospel." Ex Auditu 27 (2011): 26-

44

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas:

Word

Books, 1990.

.

Louw, Johannes, and Eugene Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament. 2nd ed.

New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey. Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of

Ancient

41

Personality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the

Synoptic

Gospels. 2nd

ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

________. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis:

Fortress,

2006.

Marshall, Jonathan S. “Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors in Roman Palestine and

the

Gospel of Luke.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008.

Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A.

Hubbard,

and Glenn W. Barker. Waco: Word Books, 1986.

Moo, Doublas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on

the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Nickle, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. Society of Biblical

Theology

48. Naperville, Ill: Alec R. Allenson, 1966.

Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1960.

Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1969.

Porter, Stanley. “Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They

Opposing?”

Pages 149-168 in Paul and His Opponents. Edited by Stanley Porter. Atlanta:

SBL, 2005.

Rajak, Tessa. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural

and

Social Interaction. Boston: Brill, 2002.

Rhoads, David. “Social Criticism: Crossing Boundaries.” Pages 145-79 in Mark

and

Method. Edited by Janice Anderson and Stephen Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress,

2008.

42

Seaford, Richard. “Introduction.” Pages 1-11 in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece.

Ed.,

Christopher Gill et al. Oxford: Oxford, 1998.

Seneca the Elder. Translated by Michael Winterbottom. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Seneca the Younger. Translated by John W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1989.

Seneca the Younger. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. Loeb Classical

Library.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson,

1994.

Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, & Gentiles. New

Haven:

Yale, 1994.

“The Center for New Testament Textual Studies New Testament Critical

Apparatus.”

Source files for the 2013 updates for release to Oak Tree Software, BibleWorks,

and Logos Software. 2013.

Thucydides. Translated by Charles Forester Smith. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1962.

Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: T&T Clark,

2004.

Xenophon. Translated by E. C. Marchant. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1923.

Zobel, H.-J. “חסד.” Pages 44-64. Pages in vol 5 of. Theoogical Dictionary of the

Old

Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated

by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

-