Biblical Theology Bulletin Volume 39 Number 3 Pages 14352

The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0146107909106758
http://btb.sagepub.com

The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship:

The Meeting of the Ways

Carolyn Osiek

Abstract

Scholarship on patronage in the ancient Mediterranean world abounds but is not unanimous in its understand-
ing of how the patronage system worked, how it was present in the pre-Roman Greek world, and what were the dif-
ferences, if any, in how it functioned in the Roman West and East. Moreover, little is known about how the system
worked among non-elites. In two of Pauls relationships, with Philemon and with Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2), we can
see the informal patronage system at work among friends with common community ties.

Key Words: Paul, patronage, Philemon, Phoebe, kinship, euergetism

S cholarship on the social structures of patronage, and on

the practice of patronage in Greece and Rome is plenti-
ful (on social structures, Gellner & Waterbury; Eisenstadt
& Roniger; Elliott with extensive further bibliography; on
GrecoRoman society, De Ste. Croix; P. White; Saller
1982, 1983; Krause; Wallace-Hadrill; Forbis; Eilers; Lo-
mas & Cornell) More recently, there has been a growing
amount of literature on early Christian patronage as well
(Chow; Whelan; deSilva; Joubert 2000, 2001; Harrison;
Crook 2004a; Neyrey 2007). Much of the latter has fo-
cused on the figures of God and Jesus as patrons, or Jesus
as broker of Gods patronage. Little attention has been paid
to how patronage relationships functioned within the social
exchange networks of the earliest generations of the Jesus
movement. We will look first at some recent controversies
about the nature and possible differences in Greek and Ro-
man patronage, differences that bear directly on questions of
social relationships within the New Testament world. This
investigation will pave the way toward an examination of pa-
tronage structures that can be seen operating in Pauls deal-
ings with persons in communities that he founded. In the
two test cases of Philemon and Phoebe, we see two different
Carolyn Osiek (Th.D., Harvard University) is Charles Fischer
Catholic Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School at
Texas Christian University, TCU POB 298130, Fort Worth,
Texas 76129. Email: c.osiek@tcu.edu. She has published several
previous articles in BTB. Her most recent book is A Womans
Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity, with Margaret
MacDonald & Janet Tulloch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). The
original research for this paper was done during a sabbatical in
Spring, 2006, funded by a Sabbatical Grant from the Associa-
tion of Theological Schools, for which the author is grateful.

143
 Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship
aspects of the patronage system at work among Greek and
Judean non-elites who are members of the Jesus movement.
General Characteristics of Patronage and the
BenefactorPatron Relationship
Where can we begin to understand this complex social
phenomenon that was so crucial to social relations in the
ancient GrecoRoman world? It will be helpful to recall the
general patterns of reciprocity as laid out notably by Mar-
shall Sahlins (cf. Neyrey 2005; further discussion of their
helpfulness in Crook 2005; Kirk):
Generalized reciprocity, in which the interests of the oth-
er are primary, with undefined expectations of unspecified
reciprocity, usually exercised within kinship groups;
Balanced reciprocity, in which the mutual interests of
both parties are taken into account, with an expectation of
fairly even exchange, usually directed at neighbors or those
with whom one has shared interests;
Negative reciprocity, in which self-interest is dominant (self
here including ones kinship group) at the expense of the out-
side other, thus usually directed at the stranger or enemy.
Neyrey (2005: 46768) gives a good summary of char-
acteristics of benefactorclient relationships drawn from
many discussions of the social phenomenon, including
Eisenstadt & Roniger, Saller, and Wallace-Hadrill:
The relationship is usually asymmetrical, between
parties of different status, thus implying a vertical di-
mension.
There is simultaneous exchange of resources, usually
instrumental, economic, and political on the part of
the benefactor, while the client responds especially
with solidarity and loyalty to the protection, the fides,
of the patron. (Note that the Latin word may carry
the implication of submission to a superior power as
well as confidence in protectionGruen 1982).
The obligation is interpersonal, and personal loyalty
is its expression.
Favoritism in the relationship is usually present, ex-
pected, and not considered dishonest, resented only
by those excluded.
Clear notions of reciprocity develop, so that its gener-
alized nature frequently becomes solidified into spe-
cific expectations of balanced reciprocity.
144
A kinship glaze is superimposed on the language
surrounding the relationship to dull the crassness of
the situation for the client. Language of fatherliness or
siblingship is used, or even more commonly, the lan-
guage of friendship.
Exchange of honor is a significant factor in the rela-
tionship on both sides. One of the clients principal
duties is bestowal of honor on the patron. Being a cli-
ent is demeaning, but being a client of an important
person enhances status.
We also need to remember that patronage in whatever
form was an entirely informal relationship, even if solidified
in stone in the case of an inscription. It rested on social con-
sent. There was no legal basis for it other than in the case of
a slave owner with his or her libertus/liberta, a situation that
is not under consideration here.
Possible Differences between
Greek and Roman Patronage
Our New Testament social exchanges are examples of
reciprocity by Greek non-elites in the Roman period. It is
therefore necessary to examine whether one or the other cul-
ture may have had predominant influence on these social
exchanges. Erich Gruen took the position that if Rome set
up a patronage system, it was because she found the model
already there, because she transformed her private clientela
into an international system (Gruen 1982: 184, 199200).
Otherwise understood, the idea that Rome imposed a cli-
entela system on the East is a modern construct; the system
was already there, and rather than Rome incorporating the
Greeks, the Greeks incorporated Rome into it. Similarly, G.
Bodei Giglioni drew attention to the numerous discussions
in Greek literature as early as Aristotle of reciprocal and
proportional exchange and charis, given visual depiction in
the dance of the Three Graces, the constant movement of
reciprocal relationship.
More recently, a debate has been carried on about pos-
sible differences between the Greek East and the Roman
West (Eilers and Joubert), with those who want to draw
a distinction arguing that the Eastern Greek world had a
system of more impersonal benefaction between groups and
of euergetism toward cities, but not the more formal personal
patronage structures later evident in Rome and then to some
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N VO LU M E 3 9
extent imported to the East.
Eilers examined Roman civic patronage of Greek cities
and found a noticeable decline in the practice from the late
Republic through the first imperial century. He argued that
under the later Republic, such civic patronage provided real
protection for clients, especially client cities, through political
mediation in a very uncertain climate, but that with the com-
ing of the Augustan regime and greater political stability,
while the practice of civic patronage continued, it became
more honorary than actual, as evidenced, among other things,
by equestrians and women now becoming civic patrons. This
argument presupposes certain assumptions about the patron-
age of elite Roman women that are refuted by careful studies
of womens patronage: namely, that these women were with-
out significant political influence (see Bauman). It also as-
sumes perhaps too massive a concentration of patronal power
in imperial hands. Eilers argues that after Augustus, not only
was it not an advantage for a senator to accumulate such cli-
ents, but it could be dangerous to attract too much attention
to oneself in this way.
One significant change does seem to have happened in
the Roman world with the final victory of Octavian Au-
gustus over his rivals in 31 bce: in some respects, the en-
tire Mediterranean world now had one supreme earthly
patronthough some have argued, unsuccessfully, I think,
that this idea is a modern invention. For elites and cities, no
longer was it a gamble whether to stake ones future on one
rival for power over against anotheruntil, of course, the
imperial succession became unstable after Nero. Under the
Julio-Claudians, it was the imperial system or nothing. This
does not mean, however, the cessation or diminishment of
patronage, for it is precisely in this period that the formal
version of Roman patronage strengthens, as all must com-
pete for access to a centralized system of power that becomes
increasingly complex and bureaucratized.
Eilers argument on the cessation of personal patronage
in the East after the Empire is founded on a very narrow
understanding of patronage as the structured relationships
usually assumed to be specifically elite Roman. In personal
patronage, this involves a formal (but not legal) arrangement
established between patron and client in which the client has
certain defined obligations, e.g., the morning salutatio and
accompaniment of the patron in public places, in exchange
for certain kinds of protection and access to networks of ad-
vancement. For civic patronage, it means use of the specific
language of patronage in official documents. Eilers does not
wish to look at the phenomenon of patronage in a wider
social context of benefaction, the exchange of goods and ser-
vices in an informal but asymmetrical relationship. But the
two social realities need not be mutually exclusive (see the
review of Eilers by Verboven).
Something similar to Eilers argument has also been ad-
vanced by biblical scholar Stephan Joubert (2001) who ar-
gues that Greek euergetism or benefaction never took on the
specific forms of patronage characteristic of the elite Roman
world. He maintains that though in general terms they may
look the same, at a lower level, while overlapping somewhat,
they are distinct. Greek euergetism is mostly public bene-
faction that benefits all the citizens of a given group, while
Roman patronage is an individual face-to-face exchange of
services and goods. He argues that because Roman termi-
nology took a long time to catch on in Greek circles, the
customs were in fact distinct. He cites Lucian, Nigrinus, on
the unfavorable aspects of Roman patronage as contrasted
to Greek euergetism.
Several aspects of Jouberts analysis cannot be sustained,
however. First, he seems to confuse Roman patronage and
Greek euergetism with private vs. public patronage/euerget-
ism, which are somewhat distinct from one another: one
deals with personal relations, the other with the relationship
of a patron/benefactor to a group, such as a city. But both
public and private patronage systems are attested in both
earlier Greek and later Roman worlds. Most of this is self-
evident. What is not self-evident to many scholars of Roman
patronage is the personal patterns of patronage/euergetism
in the Greek world, present under the three semantic groups
of ritualized friendship: first, xenos, idioxenos, and doryx-
enos, nearly always with persons from separate social units
and among elite males, though not necessarily always Greek
to Greek; second, philos, hetairos, epite-deios, anagkaios,
oikeios; third, syngene-s and euergete-s (Herman: 1013,
passim). Ritualized friendship and clientage could be com-
bined, or the one, ideally between equals, could devolve into
the other. In times of civic crisis, when obligations to ones
city-state were in conflict with obligations to ones ritualized
friendship, there were varying strong opinions about which
should prevail (Herman: 3940, 11628, 144, passim).
The second objection to Jouberts thesis is that changes in
terminology, especially from one language to another, often
lag behind practice. Nothing can be ascertained about prac-
145
 Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship
tice from the fact that the terminology was slow to migrate
from Greek to Latin expressions. Third, satirists should
never be trusted to tell the whole story. Satire, by its very
nature, exaggerates one aspect of a situation, admittedly
perceived by many to be true. But this would need to be
compared to satire about a civic patron, not to inscriptions.
The genres are distinct.
My own reading and consultation with experts in Greco
Roman social history has led me to take the side of those
who say that there were definite patterns of personal patron-
age established in the East long before the arrival of Ro-
man social customs, even if they may have differed in some
ways, and even if the terminology may not be as clear as it
is among Roman eliteswhere, even there, it is not as clear
as some might think. (In private conversation, John Bodel of
Brown University has said that the evidence for Greek pri-
vate patronage is there in the inscriptions and literature, and
has not yet been analyzed.) Moreover, general euergetism
was also prevalent in the Roman world and continued in the
Greek East throughout the Roman period. Thus I disagree
with Eilers and Joubert, though in the long run, it may just
be a question of levels of abstraction.
Patronage Patterns in the Christian Sources
It has been well established by biblical scholars that the
patronage of God is a dominant model of interaction presup-
posed between God and humanity in both the Hebrew Bible
and the New Testament and other early Christian literature
(Danker; Malina; Neyrey 2004, 2005). God exercises all
three kinds of reciprocity: generalized reciprocity to Gods
own insiders, to biblical Israel, and to those who believe in
Jesus; balanced reciprocity in the giving of the covenant and
in the obligations of the baptized; negative reciprocity to Is-
raels enemies and to those who are objects of Gods wrath.
Crook (2004a) has successfully demonstrated that conver-
sion in social terms consists in switching patrons.
Moreover, it has been pointed out that Paul did not
choose to speak of relationship with God in terms of
hesed=eleos=misericordia, but rather charis=gratia, a word
associated with benefaction (Harrison: 2). Charis is an ini-
tial gift, but it is also return favor, e.g., in the case of Ju-
nia Theodora, about whom we will hear more below. Her
charites to her country people traveling in Corinth inspired
charis in response (SEG 18.143; Harrison: 50). Joubert
146
(2000) presents a reciprocal benefaction between Paul and
the Jerusalem church whereby Jerusalems concession to him
of a law-free gospel necessitates the reciprocation of the col-
lection of funds.
The accustomed assignment of the position of broker to
Jesus (e.g., Neyrey 2007), or to anyone for that matter, is one
that is always in need of clarification. Broker of patronage
is an ambiguous functional category. In reality, all brokers
are in fact both clients and patrons themselves, at the same
time that they may be intermediaries. So it is really a question
of intricate levels of patronclient relations. Perhaps Jesus as
impoverished benefactor works better (based on 2 Corin-
thians 8:9), or as (lesser?) patron (Stoops; Neyrey 2007).
While the role of God as patron has been well elucidated
among early Jesus followers, little has been done to study
the interrelationships of these people with each other, and
that is the present inquiry. Moreover, while patronage and
benefaction among Roman elites has been well studied, little
has been done to study the same social structures among
non-elites. The large amount of literary and inscriptional
evidence for the social life of the elites has just been too
tempting, whereas social relationships among non-elites are
more elusive. (See a brief suggestion by Saller (1980: 168)
about some evidence for lesser imperial officials, e.g., clerks
and notaries, exercising their own forms of patronage, as
would be expected in a bureaucracy, as well as Andreau
and Patterson on the assumption of patronage roles by col-
legia. There are vast inscriptional resources that could be
studied from this perspective.) Yet what we have in the lit-
erary remains of early Jesus followers is some of the best
evidence for the social relations of non-elites in the early Em-
pire, granted, with certain peculiarities not shared with their
other contemporaries, but probably having more in common
with them than different.
It is notable that Paul does not favor the language of
friendship, which lends itself most easily to that of patron-
age, but rather the language of kinship. This is not to say
that there are not friendship motifs in Paul, especially in Phi-
lippians (Reumann; L. M. White 1990; Metzner). God is
father, those to whom Paul writes are brothers [and sisters].
Paul is sometimes also father (e.g., 1 Cor 4:1417; 2 Cor
11:2; Phil 2:22 with reference to Timothy; Phlm 10). Sib-
ling language is quite pronounced in Pauls usage, appear-
ing at least 122 times. Such kinship language is not unique
with Paul or with early Christians, as it occurs commonly in
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N VO LU M E 3 9
other non-official religious groups and professional associa-
tions, e.g., devotees of the Magna Mater, Isis and Osiris,
Jupiter Dolichenus, Mithras, the Fratres Arvales, etc., as
well as Jewish groups. Contrary to what modern readers
might think, it does not connote egalitarian relationships,
but rather stresses unity and harmony. Patterns of hierarchy
are present but not determined; rather, they are constantly
shifting (Aasgaard: 7579, 10816). This factor is very im-
portant for our understanding of how patronage functions in
these groups, and perhaps even why kinship language was
Pauls preferred medium.
Here a caution should be raised against the assumption
that if the usual language for patronage is not present, neither
is the social construct to which it refers. Of course, pater-
nal language is not unknown in patronage contexts: witness
Augustus himself, pater patriae. Yet as deSilva and Harri-
son have shown, Pauls choice word group around charis is
replete with connotations of patronage and benefaction. If
there is anything to the argument that Roman patronage and
Greek benefaction are distinct, in Paul we have an Eastern
Hellenized and Greek-speaking (Roman citizen?) of Judean
extraction dealing with non-elite Greek speakers in Roman
Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia. Pauls letters in gen-
eral may be test cases not only for how patronage functioned
in non-elite circles, but also for how it functioned in the ab-
sence of some of the expected terminology.
There are a number of ways in which Paul would seem
to be in the position of patron or benefactor with regard to
others. He was founder of communities, which placed him in
the superior position of guide and legislator in their regard,
as well as benevolent defender. (Legislator may be a jar-
ring description for Paul, but what else do you call what he
tried to do to them in 1 Corinthians or Galatians?) He was
evangelizer and educator, and so in a position of provider
of spiritual benefits (for which he refused reciprocity from
the Corinthians, for unclear reasons, most likely because of
the entanglement of patronage systems thereChow). I sus-
pect that baptism, too, must have created a relationship quite
close to that of patron and client. This must be the reason
for Pauls insistence to the Corinthians that Christ did not
send him to baptize, and he did not, except for a very few
(1 Cor 1:1417). It is here in Corinth that he tries his best
to avoid getting entwined in patronage systems. A patronal
relationship created by baptism also explains his paternal
solicitude for Onesimus in Philemon 10.
From this perspective, we turn now to two test cases in
the letters of Paul that may shed light on how the patron-
age system worked among a group of relatively prosperous
but non-elite persons of Greek and Judean extraction in the
Greek East in the early Roman Empire: the cases of Phile-
mon and Phoebe.
The Case of Philemon
Recent scholarship on Philemon has tended to focus on
the historical situation with regard to the triangulated re-
lationship PaulPhilemonOnesimus, the relationship of
Onesimus to Philemon, and the legal status of Onesimus.
Whether Onesimus was a runaway (traditional interpreta-
tion) or taking a legal step to appeal to a disinterested third
party in a dispute with his owner (Lampe) is immaterial
here, as are Pauls intentions for Onesimus future (further
discussion in Osiek 2000; Lampe; extensive bibliography
in Harrison: 328). What is at issue is Pauls relationship
with Philemon (or Archippos or Apphia, but probably the
singular pronouns from v 4 on apply to Philemon, as is tra-
ditionally supposed) and the complications created by his
new relationship with Onesimus.
Paul begins his appeal in v 8 by claiming his own parre-sia
(boldness) to command (epitassein) one whom he has just
called brother in v 7. This is not the language of a sub-
ordinate but of a superior. Rather, however, he will use the
language of love, to call upon Philemon (parakalein, vv 9,
10), in the gracious spirit of charis. Paul does not want to do
anything without Philemons consent to give him the chance
to consent willingly rather than under pressure (v 14). Paul
invites Philemon to receive Onesimus in a changed relation-
ship, now not as slave but as beloved brother. This verse has
often led modern interpreters to assume both that manumis-
sion is presumed and that a new egalitarian relationship is
created between former master and slave. In view of ancient
connotations of kinship, however, neither need be the case.
The point here is reconciliation.
Yet the focus is not so much on the relationship between
Philemon and Onesimus, as on that between Philemon and
Paul. If Philemon considers himself to have any koino-nia
with Paul, he should receive Onesimus as he would Paul
himself (v 17). In the matter of who owes what, Paul has
now assumed Onesimus debt, whether material or relation-
al, a shaming technique employed by Paul to assure that
147
 Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship
he has the upper hand. He will even assert that Philemon
owes himself to Paul (v 19). Paul wants this profit from
the acquiescence of Philemon, and even his obedience (vv
2021). But when he comes, Paul will accept hospitality in
the house of Philemon, and when that happens, Paul will be
bestowed upon Philemon (charisthe-nai, v 22).
Twice in this communication Paul uses language of great
authority toward Philemon (epitassein, hypakouein). Yet in
the rest of the appeal, without using charis language except
once in v 22, he is walking the tightrope of gracious benefac-
tion. He seems to speak softly and carry a big stick, but the
soft words are more up front than the stick, which lurks
behind the few words of authority. Paul claims a position of
superiority vis--vis Philemon. Yet as far as we can ascer-
tain, Philemon is also in a position of authority toward the
congregation that meets in his house, and certainly with re-
gard to Onesimus. He is one of those to whom Paul expects
that others will submit (1 Cor 16:16; 1 Thess 5:1213).
As has often been remarked, Philemon finds himself be-
tween a rock and a hard place. Whatever has happened
between him and Onesimus, his standing with the members
of the ekkle-sia and his patriarchal authority are at stake. If
Onesimus is indeed a runaway, Philemons standing with his
nonbeliever friends and neighbors and even his legal author-
ity are at stake. As a householder and as leader of a house
church, he has definite authority and responsibility that he
must carry out. Yet he is being asked as a subordinate to
exercise gracious reciprocity, not to Onesimus, but to Paul
himself. Philemons way to do that will be clemency to One-
simus, who is also Pauls subordinate.
If the traditional understanding is correct, that Paul re-
cently baptized Onesimus, the likely meaning of his paternal
language in v 10, then Paul has entered another complicated
relationship. It would seem that baptism itself created a pa-
tronal relationship freighted with some authority, perhaps
something akin to the relationship between manumitter and
manumitted. Paul refers to Onesimus as his son (v 10) but
in the next breath with language of sibling kinship posed to
Philemon (adelphon agape-ton, malista emoi, poso- de mallon
soi, v 16). So now Paul is father/benefactor (Harrison:
328) to both Philemon and Onesimus, while Philemon has
legal rights over Onesimuswhether or not Philemon is
about to manumit him. The two relationships held by Paul
here may be very different, unless Paul also baptized Phile-
mon. We cannot know this, but it is the best explanation for
148
Pauls unflinching awareness of his authority to command
Philemon (v 8) and his passive aggressive comment that
Philemon really owes him everything (v 19). In this case,
there is something of a parallel relationship between Phi-
lemon and Onesimus, both sons/clients of Paul, who asks
Philemon to take back Onesimus no longer as a slave but as
a beloved brother because the two are in a similar position
with regard to Paul, the father-figure.
Bible readers over the centuries have wished we had Phi-
lemons response, or perhaps a follow-up note from Paul that
would tell us how the story ended. Whether or not Philemon
manumitted Onesimus, or was supposed to do so, their re-
lationship is forever changed because of Pauls intervention
by inserting himself in the middle of it. One of the roles of
the benefactor figure is to mediate disagreements between
clients, and this is what Paul does. Moreover, he has done
what every smart benefactor does. First, he uses only mini-
mally direct language of social dependence, which would
lessen Philemons dignity. He simply delicately drops a few
hints to be sure Philemon gets the point. Second, he makes
his appeal in a social context. The other readers/hearers of
the letter, the ekkle-sia in Philemons house, will also get the
point. Third, while expecting a reciprocal response from his
subordinate, he moves at the same time to offer yet more,
compensation to Philemon for whatever Onesimus owes him
and cannot repay, and the reminder that Philemon owes
Paul considerably more than Onesimus owes Philemon, or
than Paul is asking of Philemon. Thus Philemon, while ex-
pected to reciprocate, remains pitiably in even greater debt
to Paul, the gracious giver. Even by doing what Paul asks
and by providing hospitality, he will never catch up and at-
tain parity with Paul, and this is the whole point.
Phoebe
Our second case is Pauls recommendation of Phoebe in
Romans 16:12. Here we see a different aspect of patron-
age at work. Whether the intended recipients are in Rome
(the traditional position, and the one I follow) or in Ephesus
is not relevant here. The passage is a crux for understand-
ing how patronage functioned among early followers of the
Jesus movement. Paul, in virtue of his apostolic role in the
Corinthia, should be seen as superior person in this mutual
relationship with an otherwise unknown female figure with
a single Greek name, Phoebe. Indeed his introduction and
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N VO LU M E 3 9
commendation of Phoebe fits that pattern. The first title by
which he calls her, diakonos, is sometimes assumed to mean
that she hosts a house church in Cenchrae. This may be, but
is not necessarily so. We do not know what was the role of
a diakonos at this early date. Admittedly, the word carries
connotations of service, but what kind of service is not at all
clear. It may have been more that of official agency or repre-
sentation than hospitality. Yet Paul also calls her prostatis of
many, including himself. If the word is to be understood in
its usual meaning of patron or benefactor, hospitality prob-
ably is involved, but the relationship now gets complicated.
Paul is then Phoebes client.
As Caroline Whelan remarks, it is most unusual for a
social inferior to recommend a social superior, which is what
appears to be happening here if indeed the relationship is as
hierarchical as patron/client relationships are usually imag-
ined to be (Whelan: 8283). This cannot be the usual kind
of such relationship. Justin Meggitt doubts that Paul means
it in the usual way because his use of the term is too un-
conventional. Meggitt notes that it is odd so boldly to call
someone your patron (though not nearly as odd as calling
someone your client), and that patrons do not normally re-
quire material support (Meggitt: 14748). Here, however,
it is a case of hospitality when traveling, as Philemon was
asked to be prepared to extend to Paul.
A comparison is sometimes drawn between Phoebe and
the first-century resident of the environs of Corinth, Junia
Theodora from Lycia, honored by a series of surviving in-
scriptions in the first half of the first century ce for her pros-
tasia. According to the inscriptions in her honor, this service
consists largely in hospitality and access to networking for
visitors from her homeland of Lycia (SEG 18.143; Osiek,
MacDonald, Tulloch: 20507, 300 n. 52, with bibliogra-
phy). Such a role obviously requires a certain level of wealth,
but does not necessarily place her among the provincial elite,
though in her case, the commemorations by civic entities
does suggest elite standing. The combination of Latin and
Greek names suggests a Greek woman with Roman citizen-
ship, even the possibility of a freedwoman, but then, so does
the name of Julia Felix, who at Pompeii makes it clear in
her lease advertisement that she is freeborn, but illegitimate
(CIL 4.1136; ILS 5723).
For Meggitt, Phoebe cannot be in a similar position to
Junia Theodora because she cannot be an elite. In terms
of absolute social status, that is probably true; Phoebe is
probably not an elite, but perhaps a woman in a business
that requires her to travel, hence her trip to Rome in which
she carries Pauls letter. Women property owners and/or en-
gaged in trade, craft, and business are well documented for
the period. In terms of function vis--vis those who benefit
from her actions, however, there could be a great deal of
similarity with Junia Theodora. If Phoebe was host of Paul
in Cenchrae and instrumental in introducing him into so-
cial circles in which he could be most effective, and if she
also hosted visiting or migrating members of the ekkle-sia and
helped them get established in trade or other occupations,
that is the clearest explanation of what her prostasia could
mean. We have in Phoebe an example on the non-elite level
of what the elite Junia Theodora did for her constituency.
How then to reconcile the seeming inversion of roles
in Romans 16:12, in which Paul recommends Phoebe?
There is a long Greek tradition of reciprocity among equals,
as well as superior to inferior, and the same is true in Roman
custom. Even in formal Roman patronage among elites, the
social structure that is thought to be the most rigidly hierar-
chical, there is room for general reciprocity and role rever-
sal. Implicit in the exchange, of course, is the competition to
outdo the other in generosity so that graciousness, charis, is
the principal component of the relationship. Paul could be
taking the opportunity to endorse a respectable woman go-
ing to a place where she is unknown. (This possibility was
suggested by Richard Saller in private correspondence. He
adds that such reversals of relationship are possible when
there are different dimensions of status.) More, she is prob-
ably the bearer of Pauls letter, and he introduces her in an
expanding dimension of her diakonia, as his official repre-
sentative, his voice from a distance, who will then proclaim
the contents of the letter when she arrives and be the one to
interpret the text with a living voice. If she is indeed of higher
social status than he, which the Romans will find out when
she arrives, it is an enhancement of Pauls status to be able
to declare that he is under her protection.
If our understanding of the Letter to the Romans is cor-
rect, that Paul is introducing his gospel in a new place as
preparation for launching his Spanish missionperhaps
with Phoebe as his front runner (Jewett 1988), he needs all
the enhancement he can get. Perhaps there is mutual flattery
going on here: Pauls gesture of humility in acknowledging
Phoebes prostasia is met by her gesture of humility in be-
ing recommended by Paul. It may be that Christian love is
149
 Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship
the key component that dissolves the differences in status
(Lampe), but it may also be primarily the simple rules of
reciprocity in a culture intent on honor not only from subor-
dinates but also from social peers.
How are we to understand the relationship between Paul
and Phoebe? Scholars may sometimes be more rigid in their
interpretation of social inequalities than were the ancients.
This is a case where patronage and reciprocity merge in
confusing ways. The language of patronage is present, but if
we can extrapolate from Pauls relationship with Philemon,
who is also a householder, there is some kind of authority
status of Paul over Phoebe at least as founding apostle. Yet
the relationship between Paul and Phoebe seems to be more
one of general reciprocity in the spirit of charis. This kind
of reciprocity patronage can be a series of exchanges for
mutual good. As we have seen, equality is not the issue. As
Richard Saller has suggested in private conversation, what
makes patronage different in early Christianity is that it does
not depend on wealth, birth, and education, but rather is
constructed from a new and different form of status. Un-
doubtedly, as Lampe argues, the new relationship in Christ
is a strong factor, but there are other prior kinds of patronage
that are more reciprocal than the most obvious ones, and
that perhaps help to illuminate the situation.
The closest analogies to what appears to be happening
in these early Christian relationships are philosophical,
artistic, and literary patronage, in which the exchange of
services is more mutual. The philosopher, artist, or writer
may be of lesser wealth and birth status; yet patrons often
actively sought them as clients for the benefit to be reaped
in enhanced status among their peers. Philosophers, art-
ists, and writers who are clients of wealthy patrons hold the
social power of their skills to exchange for material support.
The convinced patron of a philosopher may be material pa-
tron, but in another way, he/she is not so much patron as
disciple, in the position to listen and learn, for the patron
must be convinced of the value of the philosopher. Other-
wise, he/she would not provide the patronage. Similarly,
the artistic or literary patron is dependent on the artist or
writer client to produce the desired art or literary work that
will redound to the glory of the patron. The relationship is
far more fluid than in cases of classic patronage. The ex-
change of goods and services does not privilege the patron
but the client, who possesses a good beyond the usual ser-
vices and honor, a good that the patron wants and cannot
150
acquire him/herself.
Conclusion
In the two cases of Philemon and Phoebe, we see two
aspects of patronage and reciprocity in the first generation
of the Jesus movement. The common position of all involved
as disciples of the new movement may play a significant role
in how these relationships are structured. It is just as likely,
however, that they reflect the fluidity of the system of reci-
procity as it was lived by non-elites in the Roman East in
the first century.
The complex relationship between Paul and Onesimus,
and between Paul and Philemon of necessity will create a new
complexity in the relationship between Onesimus and Phile-
mon. How that actually played out, we wish we knew. What
we are enabled to see in this brief letter is the way in which
Paul sets the scene by putting assertions of his authority be-
hind, in favor of gracious appeal in order to expect Philemon
to respond in kind. Here we see the more obvious exercise of
patronage by Paul in order to get the results he wishes.
Paul considers Phoebe a patron and a leader of some
kind in the assembly of Cenchrae but especially as provider
of the goods and services expected in such a role for him
personally and for many others, as he says (Rom 16:12):
hospitality, protection, and access to social networks. In this
case we see better the reciprocal nature of the relationship,
whereby Paul enhances Phoebes status by calling her his
prostatis, while she will enhance his status by association
with her upon her arrival in Rome bearing his letter. This
relationship seems more complementary than Pauls rela-
tionship to Philemon, but then, Paul is not in this exchange
asking Phoebe to do something that will be as difficult as
Philemon reconciling with Onesimus. Were that the case,
he might speak very differently.
Works Cited
Aasgaard, Reidar. 2004. My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!
Christian Siblingship in Paul. JSNTSup 265. London, UK:
T & T Clark.
Andreau, Jean. 1977. Fondations prives et rapports sociaux en
Italie romaine, Ier-IIe sicle aprs J.-C., Ktema 2: 157209.
Bartchy, Scott S. 1992. Philemon, Letter to. ABD 5. 30510.
Bauman, Richard A. 1992. Women and Politics in Ancient
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N VO LU M E 3 9
Rome. London, UK: Routledge.
Bodei Giglioni. 1991. Gratitudine e scambio. Economia e re-
ligiosit tra Aristotele e Teofrasto, in Atti del convegno in-
ternazionale Anathema: Regime delle offerte e vita dei san-
tuari nel Mediterraneo antico, 1518 Guigno 1989. Scienze
dellAntichit. Storia Archaeologia Anthropologia 34. Ed.
G. Bartolini, G. Colonna, C. Grottanelli, A. Vivante. Rome:
Universit degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza. 5564.
Chow, John K. 1992. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social
Networks in Corinth. JSNTSup 75. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Crook, Zeba A. 2005. Reflections on Cultural and Social
scientific Models, JBL 124: 51520.
2004a. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and
Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean.
BZNW 130. Berlin, Germany/New York, NYL deGruyter.
2004b. BTB Readers Guide: Loyalty. BTB 34/4: 16777.
Danker, Frederick W. 1982. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a
GraecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Lou-
is, MO: Clayton.
deSilva, David A. 2000. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity:
Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: In-
terVarsity Press.
De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 1954. Suffragium: From Vote to Pa-
tronage, British Journal of Sociology 5: 3348.
Eilers, Claude. 2002. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N., & L. Roniger. 1984. Patrons, Clients, and
Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in
Society Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Elliott, John H. 1996. Patronage and Clientage. Pp. 14456
in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, ed.
Richard Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Forbis, Elizabeth P. 1990. Womens Public Image in Italian
Honorary Inscriptions, AJP 111: 493512.
Gellner, Ernest, & John Waterbury, eds. 1977. Patrons and Cli-
ents in Mediterranean Societies. London, UK: Duckworth.
Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, & Richard Seaford,
eds. 1998. Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford, UK/New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gruen, Erich S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of
Rome. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
1982. Greek pistis and Roman fides, Athenaeum 60: 5068.
Harrison, James R. 2003. Pauls Language of Grace in its
GraecoRoman Context. WUNT 2:172. Mohr Siebeck.
Herman, Gabriel. 1987. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek
City. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jewett, Robert. 1988. Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission.
The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Es-
says in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. J. Neusner et al.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Joubert, Stephan J. 2001. One Form of Social Exchange or
Two? Euergetism, Patronage, and Testament Studies BTB
31 (2001): 1725.
2000. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theologi-
cal Reflection in Pauls Collection. WUNT 2:124. Mohr Sie-
beck.
Kirk, Alan. 2007. Karl Polanyi, Marshall Sahlins, and the
Study of Ancient Social Relations. JBL 126. 18291.
Konstan, David. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Krause, Jens-Uwe. 1987. Sptantike Patronatsformen im Westen
des Rmischen Reiches. Munich, Germany: C. H. Beck.
Lampe, Peter. 2003. Paul, Patrons, and Clients. Pp. 488523
in Paul in the GrecoRoman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul
Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Lomas, Kathryn, & Tim Cornell, eds. 2003. Bread and Cir-
cuses: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy.
London, UK: Routledge.
Malina, Bruce J. 1996. Patron and Client. The Analogy be-
hind Synoptic Theology. Pp. 14375 in The Social World of
Jesus. London, UK: Routledge.
Meggitt, Justin J. 1998. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh,
UK: T & T Clark.
Metzner, Rainer. 2002. In aller Freundschaft. Ein frhchrist-
licher Fall freundschaftlicher Gemeinschaft (Phil 2.2530).
NTS 48/1: 11131.
Neyrey, Jerome H. 2007. I Am the Door (John 10:7, 9): Jesus
the Broker in the Fourth Gospel. CBQ 69: 27191.
2005. God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural
Model for Interpreting the Deity in GrecoRoman Antiq-
uity. JSNT 27/4: 46592.
2004. Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the
Divine. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Osiek, Carolyn. 2000. Philippians, Philemon. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon.
Osiek, Carolyn, & Margaret MacDonald, with Janet Tulloch.
2005. Women Patrons in the Life of House Churches. Pp.
194219 in A Womans Place: Early Christian House Church-
es. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
151
 Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship
Patterson, John R. 1994. The collegia and the transformation
of the towns of Italy in the second century ad, in LItalie
dAuguste Diocltien; Actes du colloque international de
lcole Franaise de Rome. Sup 198. Rome, Italy: cole
Franaise de Rome.
Reumann, John H. P. 1997. Philippians and the Culture of
Friendship, Trinity Seminary Review 19/2: 6983.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone-Age Economics. Chicago, IL:
Aldine-Atherton.
Saller, Richard P. 1983. Martial on Patronage and Litera-
ture, CQ n.s. 33. 24657.
1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stoops, Robert F., Jr. 1992. Christ as Patron in the Acts of
Peter. Pp. 14357 in Social Networks in the Early Christian
Environment: Issues and Methods for Social History. Semeia
56. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Verboven, Koenraad. 2003. Review of C. Eilers, Roman Pa-
152
trons of Greek Cities. BMCR online. 2003.16.19.
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, ed. 1989. Patronage in Ancient Soci-
ety. London, UK: Routledge.
Whelan, Caroline F. 1993. Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe
in the Early Church, JSNT 49. 6785.
White, L. Michael. 1990. Morality between the Two Worlds:
A Paradigm of Friendship in Paul. Pp. 20115 in Greeks,
Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Mal-
herbe, ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, & Wayne A.
Meeks. Philadadelphia, PA: Fortress.
White, L. Michael, ed. 1992. Social Networks in the Early Chris-
tian Environment: Issues and Methods for Social History. Se-
meia 56. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
White, Peter. 1978. Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in
Early Imperial Rome, JRS 68: 7492.
Woodhull, Margaret L. 1999. Building Power: Women as Archi-
tectural Patrons during the Early Roman Empire, 30 bce54
ce. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.