New Test. Stud. 50, pp. 257–272.

Printed in the United Kingdom © 2004 Cambridge University Press

DOI:10.1017/S0028688504000165

God in the Letter of James: Patron or

Benefactor?*
ALICIA BATTE N
Department of Religion, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA 98447-0003,
USA

This article joins recent studies of the letter of James in arguing that the ancient
system of patronage aids in illuminating the social situation of this short text.
However, unlike other authors, I suggest that God is not understood as a substitute
patron in James, but as an ideal benefactor, on whom the audience must rely.
Building on the work of Stephan Joubert and others, the article first offers evidence
that patronage and benefaction were understood as different relationships in parts
of the Roman Empire. Subsequently it focuses on sections of James in which
patronage is criticized and God is portrayed as a frank friend and benefactor, con-
sistent with the image of the ideal benefactor in antiquity.

Introduction

The letter of James currently enjoys considerable interest from many

scholars, including those who employ insights from the social sciences. In par-
ticular, examination of the phenomenon of patronage in antiquity has fostered
some rethinking as to what type of social situation lies behind this document, with
several authors concluding that the short epistle challenges the audience’s
reliance upon a rich patron.1 Many hold the view that James replaces the worldly

* An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual
Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, in November 2002.
1 A. Batten, ‘An Asceticism of Resistance in James’, Asceticism and the New Testament (ed. L. E.
Vaage & V. L. Wimbush; New York: Routledge, 1999) 355–70; D. H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen
the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James (JSNTSup 206; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 2001); J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Status und Wohltätigkeit bei Paulus und Jakobus’, Von
Jesus zum Christus: Christologischen Studien. Festgabe für Paul Hoffmann zum 65. Geburtstag
(ed. R. Hoppe & U. Busse; BZNW 93; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998) 127–54; J. S.
Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Patronage Avoidance in James’, HTS 55 (1999) 755–94; S. J. Patterson,
‘Who are the “Poor in the World” in James?’ (paper delivered at the Society of Biblical
Literature Annual Meeting, Boston, 1999); N. J. Vhymeister, ‘The Rich Man in James 2: Does
Ancient Patronage Illumine the Text?’, AUSS 33 (1995) 265–83; W. H. Wachob, The Voice of
Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James (SNTSMS 106; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000). 257
258 alicia batten

and wealthy human patron, who could easily exploit his or her clients, with a
divine patron, God, who provides generously and fairly, with no trace of caprice.
The following discussion concurs that James challenges the practice of
patronage. Through the scenarios depicted, and in the use of the vocabulary of
friendship, James criticizes the sort of behaviour that patronage could breed. But
the characterization of God as a substitute patron risks oversimplification and
even distortion. Although patronage was pervasive in the ancient world, and the
patron–client model is a helpful tool in understanding many dimensions of the
early Christian literature,2 patronage was not the only way in which asymmetrical
relationships between people or between mortals and the divine were understood
in antiquity. Rather, evidence indicates that there was a range of ways of under-
standing connections between those of differing social rank. The focus here will
be on the differences between patronage and benefaction, which are often used
interchangeably by scholars. Using the findings of Stephan Joubert and others, I
argue that during the first century ce, patronage and benefaction were not uni-
versally identified as one and the same throughout the entire Roman Empire.
Such distinctions have implications for how to interpret the letter of James’s
description of God.

Patronage

There is ample consensus among historians that the phenomenon of

patronage was pervasive throughout the societies of the first-century
Mediterranean basin, and a generous discussion of it can be found in several
recent introductions to the world of Jesus.3 Richard Saller has paid particular
attention to North African patronal inscriptions,4 but evidence for patronage is
found in many sites, including Gaul, Syria,5 and Palestine, including Galilee.6
Saller states that ancient patronage consisted of three chief characteristics: (1)
it revolved around the reciprocal exchange of goods and services; (2) the relation-

2 See B. J. Malina, ‘Patron and Client: The Analogy behind Synoptic Theology’, Forum 4 (1988)
2–32.
3 For example, K. C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman include a chapter on patronage and politics in
their volume Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 63–97.
4 R. Saller, ‘Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction’,
Patronage in Ancient Society (ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill; Leicester–Nottingham Studies in
Ancient Society 1; London/New York: Routledge, 1989) 54–5.
5 See P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and
Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988) 58–63.
6 See S. Schwartz, ‘Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown’, Josephus and
the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. F. Parente & J.
Sievers; SPB 41; Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1994) 290–306.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 259

ship was personal and of some duration; and (3) it was not an equal relationship
but between parties of differing status.7 The difficulty with patronage, at least
from the client’s perspective, was that because it involved participants of unequal
social and economic levels, it could ‘easily slide into overt exploitation’.8 This is
because the relationship was largely determined by the most powerful person
involved, a characteristic that Andrew Millett tentatively deems a defining aspect
of patronage.9
It was common in the Greco-Roman world for patrons and clients to refer to
one another as fivlo~ or amicus, despite the fact that friendship and patronage
were not identical. Patron–client relationships would disguise themselves as
alliances of friendship, and sometimes the boundaries between the two were not
crystal clear. Moreover, it was quite possible for friendship to deteriorate into
relationships based upon utility, and, if one friend fell down the social ladder,
border closely on a patron-client tie.
The fact that friendship and patronage did become confused, and that clients
and patrons would call one another ‘friend’, disturbed some writers to the extent
that they composed satirical texts on the hypocrisy of this type of charade. Perhaps
the bitterest attack emerges in Juvenal’s fifth satire, in which the so-called ‘friend-
ship’ between Virro and Trebius is exposed as a liaison suffused with constant
humiliations inflicted upon Trebius by the wealthier Virro (Sat. 5.170–73).
Similarly, Horace counsels against seeking the ‘friendship’ of a wealthy person, for
such an alliance would result in precisely the opposite. The ‘weaker’ friend would
become dependent on the rich one, and subsequently lose the ability to speak
frankly, which was a key characteristic of true friendship (Epist. 18). Plutarch is par-
ticularly sensitive to the misuse of the vocabulary of friendship in patron–client
relationships, in which the ‘friend’ cajoles the other ‘friend’ through flattery.
According to his How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend, such a use of this language
demeans and perverts friendship and the set of values upon which it is based
(49C). Thus Plutarch and others appealed ‘to the nature of friendship as a means
of exposing the coercive aspects of contemporary patron–client relationships’.10

7 R. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge, 1982) 1.

8 Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 58.
9 A. Millet, ‘Patronage and Its Avoidance in Classical Athens’, Patronage in Ancient Society, 16.
10 D. Konstan, ‘Patrons and Friends’, CP 90 (1995) 330. It is Plutarch’s essay How to Tell a
Flatterer from a Friend that prompted T. Engberg-Pedersen (‘Plutarch to Prince Philopappus
on How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend’, Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies
on Friendship in the New Testament World [ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; NovTSup 82; Leiden/New
York/Köln: Brill, 1996] 79) to comment that ‘whenever early Christian writers make use of con-
cepts belonging within the nexus of friendship, flattery and frank criticism . . ., they too betray
a concern about the status system and a set of counter-values. To the extent, therefore, that
their use of those concepts enters directly into the formulation of their own religious message
. . . that message too will be partly about the status system and a set of counter-values.’
260 alicia batten

Other ancient writers scoff at the dishonourable conduct of clients. Lucian of

Samosata, for example, describes the response of Nigrinus, who jeers at both the
rich and their clients after a stay in Rome. In reaction to the practice of paying
court to wealthy patrons, Nigrinus describes the clients who
get up at midnight, run all about the city, let servants bolt the doors in their
faces and suffer themselves to be called dogs, toadies and similar names. By
way of reward for this galling round of visits they get the much-talked-of
dinner, a vulgar thing, the source of many evils. How much they eat there,
how much they drink, that they do not want, and how much they say that
should not have been said!11

Polybius of Megara, moreover, criticizes the behaviour of King Prusias of Bithynia,

who visits the Roman senate and generals as a client would a patron, ‘making it
impossible for anyone after him to surpass him in unmanliness, womanishness,
and servility’.12 Plutarch scorns the conduct of clients who flatter and feign adora-
tion for their affluent patrons. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend sharply con-
trasts the conduct of true friends, who speak frankly, and flatterers or clients, who
sing the praises of the rich in hopes of personal gain. Plutarch calls the latter
apes,13 and in another text compares them to flies that ‘do not stay on after the
good food is gone’.14

Benefaction

These criticisms have caused some scholars to question whether patron-

age was identical to benefaction, a practice that reaches far back into the classical
period. Many authors have equated the two relationships, and made little or no
distinction between them,15 but recently Joubert and others have questioned such
an assimilation of concepts. Thus we need to examine what it meant to be a bene-
factor in the Greco-Roman world.
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics describes two forms of benefaction in ancient
Greece. The first is the noble individual who provides important benefits for the
community as a whole, and the second is the one who exchanges goods and serv-

11 Lucian Nigr. 22.

12 Polybius Hist. 30.18.
13 Plutarch Mor. 52B.
14 Ibid. 94B.
15 S. Joubert (Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s
Collection [WUNT 124; Tübingen: Mohr, 2000] 59–60, 62–3) provides an overview of classi-
cists and biblical scholars who see no distinction between patronage and benefaction. J. H.
Elliott (‘Patronage and Clientage’, The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation [ed.
R. L. Rohrbaugh; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996] 151) does grant the fact that ‘there is a ques-
tion about the degree to which the specifically Roman form of patronage was adopted in
eastern areas of the Mediterranean’.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 261

ices on an individual level with others who are equals, or nearly so, in status. Both
types are magnificent (megaloprephv~) and magnanimous (megalovyuco~) people
who do not stupidly spend more than they are able, nor do they spend in order to
parade their wealth, but because they are truly great people, of the highest moral
attributes. The benefactor is not even overly concerned with honour, although he
accepts it – as he should, in Aristotle’s view (Eth. Nic. 4.3.1f.).
Seneca’s De Benificiis provides a description of the ideal conditions for bene-
faction. The true benefactor is not motivated by desires for repayment, but
because ‘[t]o help, to be of service, is the part of a noble and chivalrous soul; he
who gives benefits the gods, he who seeks a return, money-lenders’.16 The
bestowal of benefits produces a bond between people (4.41.2), making equal
demands upon both. Despite the risk of ingratitude and no repayment, the ideal
benefactor should give without concern for repayment, even though the ideal
beneficiary will both receive and return benefits willingly (1.4.3).17
A key attribute of the ideal benefactor, therefore, is her or his lack of self-
interest. Benefactors, be they mortals or gods, were sometimes referred to as
‘father’ as in some ways they embodied the selfless behaviour of parents. For
example, parents persist in raising children despite the inevitable disappoint-
ments involved, just as benefactors continue to provide benefactions, regardless
of the risk of no repayment.18 T. R. Stevenson argues that this ideal picture of the
selfless provider formed the backdrop against which the gods, rulers and mortal
benefactors were measured. The evidence shows, he says, ‘that the father analogy
was used regularly of founders and saviours in the Graeco-Roman world. In Greek
literary sources, “father” appears commonly in conjunction with epithets such as
swthvr, eujergevth~ and ktisthv~’.19 Furthermore, Stevenson states that such an
image of the god or human benefactor ‘rests upon the recognition of the procre-
ative/tutelary power and entails the selfless use of that power’.20 Often this picture
was contrasted with that of the tyrant, who was only interested in selfish gain.21
Biblical texts, moreover, explicitly use the language of benefaction to describe
God. The most common word for benefactor is eujergevth~, and Frederick Danker

16 Seneca De Ben. 3.15.4.

17 In addition, K. Bringmann (‘The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the
Age of Hellenism’, Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World [ed. A. W.
Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long & A. Stewart; Hellenistic Culture and Society 12; Berkeley:
University of California, 1993] 17) draws attention to the fact that Cicero (Off. 2.32) finds the
origin of affection in beneficence.
18 See Seneca De Ben. 1.1.10.
19 T. R. Stevenson, ‘The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought’,
CQ 42 (1992) 430.
20 T. R. Stevenson, ‘Social and Psychological Interpretations of Graeco-Roman Religion: Some
Thoughts on the Ideal Benefactor’, Antichthon 30 (1996) 18.
21 Stevenson, ‘Social and Psychological Interpretations’, 10.
262 alicia batten

observes that of 22 times that the euerg word family is used relating to benefaction
in the LXX, 14 refer to God.22 Most of these references are to wisdom literature, to
which James is indebted, and five of them occur in the Wisdom of Solomon,23 which
also refers to the idea of friendship with God. In the Gospels, Danker has argued
that the author of Luke–Acts is particularly interested in presenting God as the
benefactor par excellence and Jesus as a benefactor especially of the oppressed.24
The language of friendship was also associated with benefaction. An Athenian
inscription from 306–305 bce honours Timosthenes of Carystus, who ‘continues
to be a friend (fivlo~) to the people of Athens’ and who ‘did not withdraw friend-
ship (filiva~) and [who] was continually benefiting in public the people of
Athens’.25 Such a benefactor may or may not have met the ideal described later by
Seneca, but in theory, the inscriptional evidence reveals that for the Greeks,
friendship and benefaction overlapped quite often whereas some Greek authors
objected to mixing up friendship and patronage. The Wisdom of Solomon is at
ease in referring to God as a giver of benefits while including the notion of the
possibility of friendship with God (Wis 7.27). For Seneca, friends did not need to
offer benefits, as friends had all things in common (De Ben. 7.12), but ‘helpfulness
is traditionally the mark of a friend and services may be interpreted as a sign of
good will or amicableness’.26
This image of the selfless benefactor who gives life, saves, and helps those in
need is in contrast, argue some, with the image of the patron, the latter taking on
special prominence with the triumph of Rome. Several ancient texts, as we have
observed, lash out sarcastically at these patrons and the type of behaviour they
incite among their clients. Moreover, Joubert cites Cicero (Verr. 2.2.154),27 who
describes C. Verres’s expectations that his Greek dependents honour him both as
a Roman patron and as a saviour, as he was not satisfied with the mere Roman
title. ‘Saviour’ was often used of benefactors,28 which suggests that the benefac-
tor/saviour concepts were not understood to be identical to that of a patron, at
least not by Verres.
Joubert indicates that patronage was ultimately a Roman phenomenon, but as
the Roman administration spread throughout the Greek East, the Greeks con-

22 F. W. Danker, ‘Benefactor’, AB 1 (1992) 670.

23 Wis 3.5; 7.23; 11.5; 16.2, 11.
24 F. W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic
Field (St Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982) 489–90.
25 IG II2 457. Translation by P. Harding, From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of
Ipsus: Translated Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985) 154.
26 Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World, 55.
27 S. Joubert, ‘One Form of Social Exchange or Two? “Euergetism”, Patronage, and Testament
Studies’, BTB 31 (2001) 22.
28 See A. Darby Nock, ‘Soter and Euergetes’, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World Vol. 2 (ed.
Z. Stewart; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) 720–35.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 263

tinued to use the traditional language of benefaction to honour their Roman

patrons. He concludes that the ‘Greeks in general did not understand the Roman
rule over them as patrocinium (as the Romans did)’.29 Significant here is the fact
that the phrase koinov~ eujergevth~ (‘common benefactor’) emerges as a new epi-
thet once the Romans begin to take control over the Greek East. According to
Andrew Erskine’s studies of the inscriptions bearing this phrase, its appearance
indicates that ‘Greek perceptions of the Romans were different from their percep-
tions of the Hellenistic kings’.30 Comparison of the use of koinov~ eujergevth~ in
Egyptian papyri reveals that it was used in reference to the Egyptian king Ptolemy,
who for the Egyptian peasant was all-powerful. Erskine argues that in the Greek
East, the phrase was not used for Hellenistic kings as these kings had no rivals.
However, when Rome emerged as a power its strength could not be challenged
and the Greek cities knew it. Thus ‘common benefactor’ reflects the unmatched
power of the Romans. For Erskine, not only did the Greeks now look to Rome as a
benefactor, ‘they were also obedient to Rome and subordinate to it, just as the
peasant was to the Ptolemies’.31 Although the language of benefaction continues
to be employed in the inscriptional evidence, the precise understanding of the
nature of the relationship, in this case between the Romans and their Greek sub-
jects, appears to have shifted.
Thus the fact that many Greeks continued to honour the Romans as benefac-
tors renders explicable why modern scholars would perceive that patronage and
benefaction were one and the same. Certainly the two concepts could overlap,
and many inscriptions honour the Roman patron as both a patron and a benefac-
tor, for if a Roman aristocrat agreed to accept a Greek city as his client, he was also
expected to be of service to it. However, this ‘need not imply that patron and euer-
getes were one and the same thing’.32 Jean-Louis Ferrary has indicated that the
Roman Senate had no desire to substitute patronage for the traditional practice of
benefaction. Rather,
patronage was added to the Hellenic system of services and honours,
euergesiai and timai, without merging with it: every patron was necessarily a
(real or virtual) euergetes, and received from the city honours usually paid to

29 Joubert, ‘One Form of Social Exchange or Two?’, 22.

30 A. Erskine, ‘The Romans as Common Benefactors’, Historia 43/1 (1994) 82.
31 Ibid., 86.
32 J.-L. Ferrary, ‘The Hellenistic World and Roman Political Patronage’, Hellenistic Constructs:
Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography (ed. P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey & E. S. Gruen;
Hellenistic Culture and Society 26; Berkeley: University of California, 1997) 110. In addition,
Holland Hendrix (‘Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment: Evidence from
Thessalonica’, Semeia 56 [1991] 40) points out that the distinctions between patronage and
benefaction are not always clear based on the vocabulary used in inscriptions alone. For
example, ‘Thessalonian “clients” used the language of benefactor–beneficiary relations in
speaking and writing publicly about their patrons’.
264 alicia batten

benefactors. But not all Roman euergetai were necessarily patrons . . .,

because patronage was largely reserved to magistrates or senators.33

It seems that patronage coexisted with other forms of aid and exchange, such as
benefaction and charity.34
Admittedly there is a paradox in some writers, such as Pliny, who emphasizes
that the giving of gifts should not be motivated by a desire for recognition, but
who, in turn, freely advertises his generosity in his correspondence.35 This could
mean that by the imperial period, the concept of benefaction was still idealized in
theory, but less often practised by Romans, or that it was never fully understood
by Pliny. Patronage, however, was by definition an exchange between unequal
parties, and maintained a system whereby the clients were kept obedient to, and
were often exploited by, their providers. In contrast, benefaction did not
inevitably place the beneficiaries in a submissive role, for many honorary inscrip-
tions clearly state how the recipients of benefits have fulfilled their obligations to
the benefactor, thus indebting their benefactor to them.36 Although attributes
such as ajrethv ascribed to benefactors in these inscriptions indicate that the indi-
vidual is of great social standing (not only that she or he is an excellent human
being), such honours were a method of maintaining the benefactor’s support, for
if benefactors wanted to preserve their public honour, their generosity had to con-
tinue.37 From a modern perspective, patrons and benefactors might look the same
because of similar vocabulary, but from an ancient Greek point of view these two
phenomena were distinct.38

Opposition to patronage in the letter of James

Several authors have identified patronage as a ‘problem’ that the letter of

James attempts to address.39 The key text here is Jas 2.1–13, which begins with the
exhortation to show no partiality, followed by a hypothetical situation in which a
rich man with fine clothing and gold rings and a poor man in tatters enter the

33 Ferrary, ‘The Hellenistic World’, 112.

34 P. Garnsey and G. Woolf, ‘Patronage of the Rural Poor in the Roman World’, Patronage in
Ancient Society, 154.
35 See S. Dixon, ‘The Meaning of Gift and Debt in the Roman Elite’, Echos du Monde
Classique/Classical Views 37 (1993) 451–64.
36 See, for example, Harding, From the End of the Peloponnesian War, no.28B [SEG 26.1282].
37 As Danker (Benefactor, 438) points out: ‘Besides encouraging others, it is anticipated that rec-
ognition of benefits conferred will also encourage the benefactor who is being honoured to
continue in his or her generous ways.’
38 Joubert (‘One Form of Social Exchange or Two?’, 24) states that ‘[i]t is only during the late
Empire, with Roman ideologies firmly embedded, that one can plausibly speak of patronage
as a universal phenomenon usurping all the functions of civic benefactors’.
39 See n. 1.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 265

assembly; the wealthy man is treated well, while the impoverished one is ordered
around (2.2–3). The letter writer ends the scene with the rhetorical question: ‘have
you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil
thoughts?’ (Jas 2.4), then scolds the audience for dishonouring the poor man
despite the fact that it is the rich who oppress them, drag them into court, and
blaspheme the honourable name invoked over them (Jas 2.6–7). Moreover, James
goes on to explain that such partiality violates the love commandment (Jas
2.8–9).40
As John Kloppenborg Verbin has observed, such a scene is reminiscent of
Lucian’s criticism of rich people who show off their clothing and rings, expecting
bows and curtsies in return (Nigr. 21).41 Flattery was often associated with patron-
age during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and one way of expressing it was
to offer the best seat or the platform to the wealthy patron – what Plutarch refers
to as ‘silent flattery’ (Mor. 58B). There is no reason to believe that the author of
James would not be critical of this type of activity, just as other Greek writers
were.42 Given the general bitterness that the letter displays towards the rich (e.g.
Jas 1.10; 5.1–6), a denunciation of patronage and the behaviour that it can produce,
namely flattery and ill treatment of the poor, is not surprising.

Use of friendship language in James

When one turns to the presence of friendship language in the letter, the
argument that the author is attempting to inveigh against the practice of patron-
age becomes more compelling. The two times that James uses the word fivlo~
both refer to the relationship between human beings and God. Abraham is desig-
nated a ‘friend of God’ in Jas 2.23, and then in 4.4 James draws a clear contrast
between ‘friendship with the world’ and ‘enmity with God’.43 In his characteriz-
ation of God in 1.5, James states that God gives ajplw`~ (‘simply’) and without
reproach (mh; ojneidivzonto~). Such a depiction fits well with the image of a frank
friend and benefactor, for during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, one of the
chief attributes of true friends was that they spoke with frankness (parrhsiva) and

40 E. W. Stegemann and W. Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of the First
Century (trans. O. C. Dean Jr; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 305.
41 Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Patronage Avoidance’, 765.
42 See, for example, Theophrastus Char. 2.2–3.
43 One cannot underestimate the degree to which friendship was idealized and discussed in the
ancient world. The best survey of this topic in English is D. Konstan’s Friendship in the
Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), but see also J.-C. Fraisse, Philia: La
notion d’amitié dans la philosophie antique: Essai sur un problème perdu et retrouvé (Paris:
Librairie Philosophique, 1974), and L. Pizzolato, L’idea di amicizia nel mondo antico classico
e cristiano (Turin: Einaudi, 1993).
266 alicia batten

simply (ajplw`~) to one another. Philodemus’s treatise On Frank Criticism also

states that friends must confess their faults to one another and willingly yield to
the correction of others. Plutarch (Mor. 64B) states that the flatterer’s favours
include reproach (ejponeivdiston) in contrast to the friend’s. Moreover, in James,
God will bestow wisdom upon those who ask for it, but they must be earnest in
their faith (1.5–8). A generous friend, God gives to those who show their sincerity.
James does not claim that humans are of ‘one mind’ (miva yuchv) with God, but
he does use the word divyuco~ to characterize the ‘double-minded’ or ‘double-
souled’ person who is also ajkatavstato~ (‘unstable’) and as a result will receive
nothing from God. The phrase miva yuchv was a common description of friends
among Greek writers, and is especially prominent in Aristotle’s discussion of
friendship (Eth. Nic. 9.8.2). Divyuco~ is a curious word, which James may well have
invented.44 It refers to a division in one’s self. Could it be that James is deliberately
contrasting the ‘single soul’ tradition of friendship, in which friends share one
soul together, with someone who is so divided that it is not possible to share a
‘soul’ with another?
It is also interesting to observe how ‘testing’, another consistent feature of
friendship, fits within this letter. Sir 6.7–8 especially emphasizes the importance of
testing to determine if one is a friend.45 Near the beginning of James (1.2–3), the
author exhorts the audience to take joy in their trials (peirasmoi`~), for such trials
will produce steadfastness. Then in 1.12, James blesses the man who bears testing
(uJpomevnei peripasmovn) and who, because he has stood the test, will receive a
‘crown of life’ from God. Thirdly, Abraham, the ‘friend of God’, merits such a
name because he has withstood the test and proven his faith through works.
James also calls upon his audience to resist vices such as covetousness (zh`lo~)
which were inimical to friendship,46 and in 3.1–4, 17 he exhibits concerns for
proper speech and control of the passions, also discussed by writers on friend-
ship.47 Words such as meekness (prauvth~, Jas 1.21; 3.13) were associated with
friendship,48 while envy was its opposite.49 Finally, James urges his audience to

44 See S. E. Porter, ‘Is dipsuchos (James 1.8; 4.8) a “Christian” Word?’, Bib 71 (1991) 469–98.
45 On friendship in Ben Sira, see J. Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (Brown Judaic
Studies 316; Atlanta: Scholar’s, 2002).
46 Plutarch Mor. 54C.
47 Sir 41.25 warns against the use of abusive words before friends. Sir 20.15 also describes the
fool, who, in contrast to the friend, ‘gives little and upbraids (ojneidivs i) much’. For a dis-
cussion of the proper speech and decorum required to promote friendship at dinner parties,
see Plutarch’s Questiones convivales. A comparison of this text and the letter of James has
been made by D. J. Verseput, ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea and the Epistle of James on Communal
Behaviour’, NTS 47 (2001) 502–18.
48 See Aristotle Rhet. 1.9.5.
49 James does not use the word fqovno~ here, but the use of zh`lo~ pikrov~ and ejriqeiva together
in Jas 3.14 strongly suggests that envy, which was inimical to friendship, is thematic within
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 267

submit to God (4.7), an exhortation that echoes Philodemus’s calls for openness
and yielding to the instruction of the friend or teacher. The addressees are to draw
near to God and God will draw near to them (4.8). Notably, this is the same chap-
ter in which James refers to ‘friendship with the world’ as being ‘enmity with God’.
James thus draws upon some common features of this topos of friendship
when he describes the ideal relationship between humanity and God. Although
some Greek writers, such as Aristotle, objected to the notion of friendship with
God,50 it seems that some Stoics accepted it, presuming a measure of equality
between the two.51 The notion of friendship with God is present in the LXX,52 and
in subsequent Jewish texts.53 Ben Sira is a notable example of an ancient Jewish
writer who depicts God as a ‘reliable friend who is worthy of trust and will always
come to the friend’s aid’.54 These observations support the claim that James is
drawing on a rich and complex tradition of friendship that was flourishing by the
early centuries of the Common Era.
The combination of James’s criticism of the rich, the scenario of Jas 2, in
addition to the use of language and concepts associated with friendship, and in
this case friendship with God, suggests that James is deliberately contrasting
patronage and the status system that it upheld with the relationship to God and
the conduct such an alliance would promote.55

God as benefactor in James

Returning to some opening observations in this paper, some think that in

lieu of relying upon a human patron, James urges his audience to think of God as

this section of the letter. See L. T. Johnson, ‘James 3:13–4:10 and the Topos PERI FQONOÁ,
NovT 25 (1983) 327–47.
50 See Aristotle Eth. Nic. 8.7.3–6.
51 See Philodemus On the Gods 1.17–18; text in H. Diels, Philodemus über die Götter: Drittes
Buch, I. Griechischer Text, in Abhandlungen der königlich preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Berlin: Verlag der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1917) 16; cited
in David Konstan, ‘Problems in the History of Christian Friendship’, Journal of Early
Christian Studies 4 (1996) 94 n. 21.
52 Exod 33.11 says that God spoke to Moses face to face, as to his friend (fivlo~). See also Wis 7.14,
27.
53 For example, Philo (Her. 21; Sobr. 56; Somn.1.193–5), and the Testament of Abraham A 15.
54 W. H. Irwin, CSB, ‘Fear of God, the Analogy of Friendship and Ben Sira’s Theodicy’, Bib 76
(1995) 558.
55 In Verseput’s (‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’, 518) study of the parallels between James’s concerns
about behaviour in the assembly and Plutarch’s concerns for proper comportment at a
dinner party, he observes that while Plutarch’s worries are rooted in his overall commitment
to friendship, James’s concerns are ultimately grounded in the desire for ‘pure worship to
Israel’s covenant God’. Could it not be that James’s worries do stem from a commitment to
friendship, but in this case, friendship with God?
268 alicia batten

their divine patron.56 However, it seems to me that the image of God that James
presents conforms more to the description of an ideal benefactor and friend to a
community of the faithful than to a patron who forms alliances with individuals,
and potentially exploits power differentials.

A. James 1.5–8, 12–15, 16–18

Jas 1.2–18 opens with an emphasis upon testing and trials, features integral
to the formation of true friendships. But it is Jas 1.5–8 where the description of God
becomes especially relevant to the current discussion. Here God is described as
giving simply (ajplw`~) and without reproach (mh; ojneidivzonto~), which bears sim-
ilarities to the friends described by Plutarch and Ben Sira. This description of God
seems ‘unprovoked’, as Kloppenborg Verbin has noticed,57 and its purpose could
be to underscore God’s beneficence. It could also be the beginning of an argu-
ment against patronage, which is then more explicitly developed in Jas 2.1–13, as
has been discussed. For Kloppenborg Verbin, God emerges as the divine patron
upon whom the audience should depend.58
The suggestion that James is preparing one for an attack upon patronage is
compelling, and I would argue that James is doing this by underscoring God’s
beneficence in contrast to the human in chapter 2.59 The description of God in
these verses conforms more to the ideal selfless and generous benefactor who
provides for the community, than to a patron who delights in the honours served
up by clients. The audience would presumably notice how different the two char-
acters are. God, unlike the rich man who causes people to dishonour the poor
among them, is a true friend and benefactor, who advocates the opposite sorts of
actions, such as caring for the poor (Jas 1.27; 2.14–17). If one asks for wisdom, God
will be a reliable provider, giving simply with no tricks up the divine sleeve, and
without reproach. God will not impart the mortifying abuse that some patrons
could and did deliver.
Jas 1.12–15 reiterates the need to endure trials, and offers a promise of salvation
for such endurance. Within these few verses James adamantly insists that God
does not test/tempt60 anyone, presumably to counter those who attempted to

56 For example, D. H. Edgar (Has God not Chosen the Poor?, 218–19) thinks that one of the ‘key
persuasive themes’ of the letter is the ‘depiction of God as the one, supremely good,
unchanging creator, orderer and judge, who is thus the only fitting patron for God’s chosen
people’.
57 Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Patronage Avoidance’, 768.
58 Ibid., 784.
59 Danker (Benefactor, 492) says that there is ‘little evidence of the Hellenistic benefactor
semantic field’ in James but that in chapter 1, ‘divine benefaction is thematic’.
60 Peiravzw is ambiguous and can be translated as either ‘to test’ or ‘to tempt’. See H.
Seesemann, ‘pei`ra, peiravw, peiravzw, peirasmov~, ajpeivrasto~, ejkpeiravzw’, TDNT 6 (1968)
23–36.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 269

blame their temptations on God (Jas 1.13).61 Testing is important, but it comes
from other sources, such as desire (Jas 1.14).
Jas 1.16–18 again emphasizes the need to rely upon God as a generous benefac-
tor. These verses repeat the theme of perfection, developed in Jas 1.2–4, which
some argue to be a central theme of the missive.62 These verses remind the audi-
ence that God is the source of all good things, and the constancy of God ‘the
Father of lights’ is particularly stressed (Jas 1.17). Although there is a complex text-
critical problem in Jas 1.17b, all the variant readings mean the same thing: ‘[t]he
text opposes the steadfastness of God to the changeableness of creation’.63 God is
a loyal and unchanging provider, just as friends and true benefactors were
expected to be, for no friendship could survive without this constancy.64 Again,
God is the opposite of a human patron, for God will continue to provide, and not
disappear or withdraw when calamity strikes.65

B. James 2.14–26
Jas 2.14–16 expresses the author’s wish that the audience attend to the
needs of the poor and directly follows the scenario in which partiality shown to a
wealthy man over a poor one is sharply criticized. Here the emphasis upon integ-
rity, which demands the unification of faith and works, is continued with respect
to caring for the poor.
Directly following these exhortations we find the reference to Abraham as a
‘friend of God’ (Jas 2.23), an epithet earned in this case from both Abraham’s
works of hospitality as well as his willingness to undergo a great test and nearly
sacrifice his son.66 The theme of testing is maintained but hospitality becomes an
important dimension, especially with the reference to Rahab (2.25). James exhorts
the audience to practise hospitality and, in order to encourage them, supplies a
human example of a friend of God. Therefore, it appears that to be a friend of God

61 M. Dibelius (James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James [rev. H. Greeven; trans. M. A.

Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1976]) 90–1) explains how many Jews resisted the notion
that God could test, for they were concerned to maintain the connection between sin and
human responsibility. Various texts were corrected, such as Gen 22.1, which in Jub. 17.16 is
changed to state that God did not test Abraham, but the devil, Mastema.
62 On perfection in James, see P. J. Hartin, A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the
Letter of James (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999).
63 L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB
37A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995) 197.
64 Cicero Lael. 92.
65 See Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Patronage Avoidance’, 770.
66 The identification of Abraham’s ‘works’ (e[rga) here has puzzled authors. R. B. Ward (‘The
Works of Abraham’, HTR 61 [1968] 286) has observed that the title ‘friend of God’ was con-
nected to various qualities of Abraham, including his hospitality, humility and obedience to
God’s commandments.
270 alicia batten

is to practise caring for others. Benefaction is not solely the responsibility of God,
but must be demonstrated by the community as well.
Given that early Christian communities contained people from different social
strata,67 such complex groups experienced inner conflicts and problems similar to
other associations in the ancient world. James’s audience was no exception,
although the letter suggests that the majority of the recipients were not rich, given
the hostility displayed towards the wealthy. But certainly some members had
more pressing needs than others, and these verses suggest that such people were
not receiving sufficient assistance. Jas 2.15–17 explicitly addresses the plight of the
brother or sister in shabby clothes, without enough food, who requires things
‘needed for the body’. James insists on caring for such people. Although God is a
good and bountiful provider, the author makes it clear that such beneficence
must be extended among community members as well.

C. Jas 3.13–4.10
This section is unified around the central theme of true wisdom residing in
humility and meekness in contrast to a life of jealousy and selfishness. An explicit
mention of friendship appears in Jas 4.4, but as briefly discussed earlier, the refer-
ences to the dangers of envy and covetousness are consistent with some of
Plutarch’s warnings about what can destroy a friendship. God’s characteristics
emerge in Jas 4.6–10, in which God ‘gives grace’ and a quotation from Prov 3.34
appears. This citation, almost verbatim from the LXX except for an exchange of
Qeov~ for Kuvrio~, functions rhetorically to establish the truth of the overall state-
ment.68 The persuasive power of citations is great ‘because of the universal val-
idity of the wisdom and its unquestionable independence of the parties’.69 It
provides proof of why one should live a good life ‘in the meekness of wisdom’ and
not according to selfish ambition, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to
the humble’. God does not approve of an envious or selfish life but of a humble
one; the ancient texts say so. God’s actions are polar opposite to those of an envi-
ous human spirit. God gives a ‘greater’ (meivzona) gift (cavrin), a notion compar-
able to Jas 1.5 in which God gives ajplw`~. Moreover, Luke Johnson has shown how
the context of Prov 3.34, which focuses on God’s wisdom, walking in peace, not
envying and caring for the poor, and the exultation of the wise, fits remarkably
well with the association of ideas in Jas 3.13–4.10.70

67 On the Pauline churches, for example, see W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The
Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CN/London: Yale, 1983).
68 Rhet. Her. 4.3.6.
69 H. Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (trans. M. T.
Bliss, A. Jansen & D. E. Orton; ed. D. E. Orton & R. D. Anderson; Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill,
1998) 203.
70 Johnson, Letter of James, 283.
 God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? 271

The thing that a benefactor would typically provide, namely cavri~ (‘grace’ or
‘favour’ or ‘benefit’), is mentioned twice in Jas 4.6. The provision of cavri~ was
regularly associated with benefactors in inscriptions,71 and Aristotle defines it as
rendering something to someone who needs it, not out of a wish for a return, but
out of care for the needy person (Rhet. 2.7.3). Admittedly, this is a common word
associated with God in early Christian literature, but here in James, given the cri-
tique of patronage and the characterization of God that has emerged thus far; it
further supports the view that James envisions God as a divine benefactor.

Conclusion

Further study needs to be done on the description of God in the letter of

James, but considering the distinctions between patronage and benefaction, it is
apparent that in this text, God is much more of a benefactor than a patron.
James’s overall critique of patronage, his promotion of friendship with God, and
his insistence upon mutual aid within the community suggest to me that the
description of God as a patron would not rest comfortably in the minds of James’s
audience. Rather, God is a generous benefactor, a friend, and an unwavering
provider, on whom these fragile Christian groups can rely and who exhorts them
to care for one another.
Although patron–client relations were deeply entrenched in the world of early
Christianity, we must not assume that when all ancient writers refer to either
humans and/or the divine as providers or protectors, they were necessarily think-
ing of patronage. Attention to the complexity of the different conceptual models
highlights how communities may have understood texts and decrees differently
given their geographic, social, and cultural locations. In other words, applying the
notion of patronage universally may obscure what were important emic distinc-
tions for ancient Mediterranean peoples.72 One community may have perceived
their provider as a patron, while an outsider may have understood the same figure
as a benefactor, or vice versa. Attempting to appreciate these different percep-
tions can paint a richer picture of how ancient writers perceived the divine and/or
the powerful, and shed additional light on how texts were both shaped by and
contributed to religious and civic community formation in antiquity. Moreover,
how an author described God could have significant rhetorical effects upon audi-
ences, rousing them either to resist or conform to specific practices in their social
worlds. Although we do not know what happened to the community or com-

71 See Conzelmann, ‘cavri~’, TDNT 9 (1974) 374–5. It is also associated with patrons, as Malina
(‘Patron and Client’, 11) has discussed.
72 I am indebted to D. E. Oakman for drawing my attention to the importance of etic and emic
categories here.
272 alicia batten

munities that received the letter of James, it seems reasonable to think that the
text’s emphasis upon God as a benefactor of the faithful would provide more
motivation to persist in mutual aid, and avoid becoming dependent upon wealthy
leaders, be they within or outside of the group.