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

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..........................................

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

iii

INTRODUCTION

Research Question
Paul writes near the end of his letter to the Romans,
, .1 Is
this an allusion to Romans central theological theme2 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 referring to religious sacrificial rites or was he merely varying terminology
from the more common 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 Moos 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: , for a definition of 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: . Thus
they would agree with the latter option for this question. At least three scribes through the
centuries also thought that fit as well or better in the context; MSS 044, 69, and 1881
read instead of . 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 (Tbingen: 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 Pauls 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 Pauls explanation. Through investigating ancient sources
with information about Jewish charity practices and Greco-Roman benefaction systems
and comparing Pauls statement in 15:27 to them, his statements here about the JewGentile relationship may be more fully understood.

State of Research
Many commentators on Romans tie Pauls 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. ) 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 viewthe 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 Pauls words to Senecas 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
Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls
discussions of reciprocity. No one as of yet has tied all these pieces together to explain
what ,
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 Pauls Collection for Jerusalem,
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Pauls 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
Downss 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 Pauls 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 authors 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 highcontext 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 letters 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. Baurs 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.

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 Pauls 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 (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 , so many modern scholars term Greek benefaction
euergetism.
The Rex Gestae Divi Augustus, a funerary inscription for Caesar Augustus,
contains massive lists of Augustuss 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 (liberality) characterizes the good man, whereas
(waste) and (cheapness) are equally distasteful mistakes.29
.
, , . 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 oughtand the liberal man will give for the beauty/nobility of it. And correctly; for to

8
liberality, ,31 so that even a poor person
might be liberal.
Continuing in this vein, Aristotle next discusses (magnificence),
the correct middle ground between (shabbiness) and
(vulgarity and tastelessness) where ,
and the expenditures he makes must be .32 Only certain people can
practice this type of magnificence:
,
...... , (
).33 Furthermore, ,
, .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 (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.
, , ,
. ,
. ,
( ,
), , .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
connexionand 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
, , , ,
, , , , ,
, .
, ,
, ,
, , .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.
, ,
.
. , ,
.
.37
Along those same lines, Dio Chrysostom talks about giving gifts in exchange for
goodwill.
, ,
,
,
, ,
, .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 ones 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 latters search for honor and power through benefaction, saying
.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.
: . .

, .
:
: .
: .
: .
, , ,
.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: Im here to see the god;
its 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.

, .
,
, , ,
, , ,
.
.

,
. ,
, ,
, .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 didnt 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 ribbonAh 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 farmersAgain,
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 ,
, , .
, ,
, .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.
: .
: .
: .
: , , .
: .
: ,
...
: , ,
. ;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
womans moneyOld 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

S2

Imperia
l elites

Regiona
P
l or provincial
elites
P

S3

Munici
pal elites

Modera
te surplus
resources
Stable
P
near subsistence
level51
P

S4

S5

S6

S7

At
P
subsistence
level
Below
P
subsistence
level

imperial dynasty, Roman senatorial families, a

few retainers, local royalty, a few freedpersons
equestrian families, provincial officials, some
retainers, some decurial families, some freedpersons,
some retired military officers
most decurial families, wealthy men and
women who do not hold office, some freedpersons,
some retainers, some veterans, some merchants
some merchants, some traders, some
freedpersons, some artisans (especially those who
employ others), and military veterans
many merchants and traders, regular wage
earners, artisans, large shop owners, freedpersons, some
farm families
small farm families, laborers (skilled and
unskilled), artisans (esp. those employed by others),
wage earners, most merchants and traders, small
shop/tavern owners
some farm families, unattached widows,
orphans, beggars, disabled, unskilled day laborers,
prisoners

2
.8%

2
9%

4
0%
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 Freisens 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. Romes 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, , ,
.
.55 As Herod
completed his massive building projects, he honored his patrons by naming structures and
even cities after them! .
,
, ,
.
, . 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 Caesars affection he stood next after Agrippa, in Agrippas 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 convertantTertium 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 friends 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 neighborsThe
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.


,
;
, ,
...
.

.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 socalled 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
idlenessNay, 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 Freisons 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
, 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 Heras 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 desireswith 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 peoples
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.

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 OTinfluenced concept . Hesedismrivals euergetism in the benefaction arenathe
ideology behind 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 EmpireNevertheless, 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.

19

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 reinterpreted 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 , 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). is active, requiring
the pursuit of good; social, based in human relationship; and enduring, used for longstanding intimate relationships and assuming mutuality.73 always stems from
Yahweh and creates new fellowship for the people in the covenant with Yahweh. Their
vertical relationship transforms their horizontal relationships.74
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, ,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

Gods kindness towards an individual places that individual in a new relationship with
his neighbor, a relationships based on Yahwehs 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 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.

77



Abrahams 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.

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 Bibles 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 Yahwehs 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.

. , ,
,

.83
Concerning Gods gifts,
.84 Philo uses the Greek
benefaction system as a metaphor for Gods 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 Aristophaness discussion of the gifts given by
Zeus.
: , . ,
,
,
, ; , .
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 halfheartedly 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
: ;
,
.85
Josephuss 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.
,
.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.

.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: ,
,
85

Poverty: Zeus of course is actually poor, as I now will clearly demonstrate. If hes
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
hes wealthy, he should crown them with gold. Chremylus: Doesnt 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
, , ,
, .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.

,

,
...
,
.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
, ,
.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:
; ,
,
, ,
.... ,
, ,
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 Herods 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
,
.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:
,
, ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
.
; ; ;
;
;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.
.95 He wanted his subjects to honor him for his
beneficence, ,
.
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
,
.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:



98
A first century synagogue inscription from Acmonia in Asia Minor reads:
[] []
.

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 kings 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



[] []

[][]
[]99
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
101

myqydx 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:
, And remember me, Oh my God, for good. Ibid, 77.
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
102

mllv

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

(seemingly rather awkwardly translated from Aramaic) is written:

.
. 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
104

bfl arkd

A catacomb in Beth Shearim has a similar Jewish funeral inscription in Greek:

, ,
.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

Sakerdos.

Sorek, 81. Lord, remember your servant Primosa, Lord, remember your servant

29
[]
[.......] [ ]
[][. ]
[.....]
[ ] []106
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 Shean 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

,
, 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
110

mwlv 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]
112

nwqzjtf [nwnh]d

Two groups the congregation and the whole town are mentioned in this
inscription. At Maon 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, Naaran, 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 endeavouredRemembered 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 Pauls 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 Pauls thought, insights from that model can be used in
examining Pauls meaning. To reiterate, in Rom 15:27 Paul states baldly:
,
. 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

Pauls use of 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 GrecoRoman 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
Pauls 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 GentileJew relationship here is symmetrical, centered in God, and community-based, the
parallels with Greco-Roman systems are negligible, and attempting to interpret Pauls
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

Pauls 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 Pauls 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 apostles
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
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
, .124 Remembering the poor in the
context of the Gentile mission, then, seems to be foundational for Pauls project. Paul
instructs the Corinthian church to consistently collect money for the
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 .127 Pauls 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 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 ,
. 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
Pauls 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 [Pauls] 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 Israels salvation by bringing
the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem; in summation, Pauls 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 soit is God who inspires and provides the ability to give as a basis for
genuine sharing. Martin, 290.
127

128

Rom 15:26.

The collection (2 Cor 9:5),

,
, (2 Cor 8:7),

35

To what degree do his descriptions of his project and its goals mirror or diverge
from the cultural norms? What results from comparing Pauls 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 Pauls case, his collection is
,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 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. 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 Yahwehs
command.
Secondly, both Pauls 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 Pauls 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.

[] (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. Pauls 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 Pauls theme throughout the letter that Gentiles are because of
Messiah the people of God by faith that only Jews historically had been.

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. Pauls 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 Pauls statement with Greco-Roman
reciprocity systems, but after beginning research the dissimilarities between Pauls
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.

37

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.
Putmans 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.

38

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 Pauls 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: Senecas 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. Tbingen: 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): 2644
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 Pauls 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. . 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.