1 Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982) 1 (emphasis original)Google Scholar, building on the definition of patronage of Jeremy Boissevain, ‘Patronage in Sicily’, Man n.s. 1/1 (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1966) 18–33 at 18. Similarly, in regard to reciprocity, Briones, David, ‘Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3–11’, NTS 56 (2010) 536–56 at 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Patron–client relationships entail an exchange of different types of resources… As such, each participant supplies the other from their own resources.’ Both Saller, Personal Patronage, 1–5, and Briones, ‘Mutual Brokers of Grace’, 539–41 acknowledge the difficulty of defining patronage, whether in an ancient or in a modern context.

2 Saller, Personal Patronage, e.g. 2–3, concurring with de Ste Croix, G. E. M., ‘Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage’, British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954) 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and persuasively refuting Harmand, Louis, Un aspect social et politique du monde romain: le patronat sur les collectivités publiques, des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957)Google Scholar. In a nutshell, Harmand argues that after the establishment of the Principate and its (impersonal) distribution of services to the masses, personal patronage, whether from the emperor or other elites, became superfluous. Such an oversimplified application of Weberian sociological theory to the rather small Roman imperial administrative hierarchy is unhelpful, as Saller shows.

3 Neyrey, Jerome H., ‘God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity’, JSNT 27 (2005) 465–92 at 467–8Google Scholar. Likewise Briones, ‘Mutual Brokers of Grace’, 541. Building on Neyrey, Osiek, Carolyn, ‘The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the Ways’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 39 (2009) 143–52 at 144 observesCrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘One of the client's principal duties is bestowal of honor on the patron. Being a client is demeaning, but being a client of an important patron enhances status.’ See also Osiek, ‘Diakonos and prostatis: Women's Patronage in Early Christianity’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61 (2005) 347–70Google Scholar; Konstan, David, Friendship in the Classical World (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Osiek, ‘Politics of Patronage’, 144–6. Naturally, more could be said by way of attempts to define patronage, but for the aims of this article these remarks suffice.

5 See Saller, Personal Patronage, 21.

6 Osiek, ‘Politics of Patronage’, 146, writes: ‘[W]hile patronage and benefaction among Roman elites has been well studied, little has been done to study the same social structures among non-elites… [W]hat we have in the literary remains of the early Jesus followers is some of the best evidence for the social relations of non-elites in the early Empire, granted, with certain peculiarities not shared with their other contemporaries, but probably having more in common [than differences from] them…’ Moreover, writing in regard to ‘Christians and the world of patronage’, Osiek, Carolyn and MacDonald, Margaret, A Woman's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 210 (cf. 194–219)Google Scholar, go so far as to surmise, ‘Scholars now see that the model of networks based on informal and asymmetrical relationships for the exchange of goods and resources is the social reality underlying the relationships that created the early Christian communities’.

7 My purpose here is not to dismiss the culturally specific ancient Near Eastern context that shaped the Israelite covenant. Rather, my point is that reciprocity within patronage appears in various ancient—in addition to Greco-Roman—contexts.

8 Ps 116.8a, 14a, 16–17a (NRSV, modified): ‘For you have delivered my soul from death… [14a] I will pay my vows to the Lord… [16] O Lord, I am your servant. I am your servant, the child of your serving girl. You have freed me from my chains. [17a] I will offer to you a sacrifice of thanksgiving.’ I am grateful to Carolyn Osiek for advice on this point. See further below on J. B. Lightfoot on ἀνταποδίδωμι in Ps 115.3a, LXX (= Ps 116.12a).

9 See the discussion below on 2 Clem. 1.1, 4, 7 and, in particular, on σῴζω.

10 2 Clem. 1.3, 5; 9.7; 11.6; 15.2.

11 For ἀντιμισθία, the translation ‘Gegenleistung’ is to be found in three recent scholarly commentaries: Wengst, Klaus, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Munich: Kösel, 1984) e.g. 239Google Scholar; Lindemann, Andreas, Die Clemensbriefe (Die Apostolischen Väter 1/HNT 17; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) e.g. 199Google Scholar; Pratscher, Wilhelm, Der zweite Clemensbrief (Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) e.g. 69Google Scholar; See also Lindemann, A. and Paulsen, H., Die Apostolischen Väter: Grieschisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) e.g. 155Google Scholar.

12 Perhaps also ‘Abrechnung’.

13 2 Clem. 1.3, 5; 9.7; 15.2. The author is not consistent in regard to whether ‘payback’ is to be made to Christ (1.3, 5) or to God (9.7; 15.2). I return to this point below.

14 I develop this reciprocal exchange below in the section, ‘Orthopraxis as “Payback”’.

15 See e.g. ἵνα σωθῶμεν (2 Clem. 14.1c), discussed below under ‘Orthopraxis as “Payback”’.

16 Notably, the work begins without the characteristics of a Hellenistic letter. This ostensible omission does not, however, confirm a genre classification of this work as a ‘sermon’.

17 In a certain sense, there is no distinction here between the characterization of God and Christ, even if in 1.2–8 as a whole the author focuses not on ‘binitarian’ formulations but, rather, on Christ, to whom these verses refer.

18 Heb 12.23 (κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων); Jas 4.12 (εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής); Herm. Sim. 6.3.6 [63.6] (δοξάζουσι τὸν θεόν, λέγοντες ὅτι δίκαιος κριτής ἐστι). Cf. Rom 14.10–12 (τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ, 14.10b).

19 Acts 10.42b (ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν); Jas 5.9b (ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν; cf. Jas 5.7 on ‘the Lord's parousia’); 2 Tim 4.8 (ὁ κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής), where it is Christ Jesus who will ‘judge’ (κρίνειν, 4.1); Pol. Phil. 2.1 (ὃς ἔρχεται κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν). See also 1 Thess 4.6 (‘the Lord’ [κύριος] as ‘just avenger’, ἔκδικος; at 1 Thess 4.15, κύριος clearly refers to Christ at the parousia); 1 Cor 4.4–5 (on Christ's judgment at the parousia); 2 Cor 5.10 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ); Matt 25.31–46 (future judgment by ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). I am thankful to Adela Yarbro Collins and Michael Öberg for feedback and suggestions on this point.

20 But note the reference to both God and Christ in Rom 2.16: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνειὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

21 BDAG, 570 s.v. κριτής.

22 Note the opening admonition to the community as a whole: Ἀδελφοὶ, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν (1.1a).

23 Melito of Sardis Peri pascha 9.63; Acts of Justin and Companions 4.8 (ὁ ἀληθινὸς ἡμῶν πατήρ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός [Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs 50 l. 22]); Clement of Alexandria Paid. 1.6.42.2–3; Origen Matth. comm. 14.13. See further Racle, Gabriel, ‘À propos du Christ-Père dans 1'Homélie Pascale de Méliton de Sardes’, RechSR 50 (1962) 400–8Google Scholar; Grossi, V., ‘Il titolo cristologico “Padre” nell'antichità cristiana’, Augustinianum 16 (1976) 237–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Hofer, Andrew, ‘The Old Man as Christ in Justin's “Dialogue with Trypho”’, VC 57 (2003) 1–21Google Scholar. I am indebted to Anders Ekenberg for tips on this point.

24 See 2 Clem. 1.7a: ‘For he had mercy on us and compassionately saved [us] (ἠλέησεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἔσωσεν) when he saw in us much deception and destruction and that we had no hope of salvation except that [salvation] which [is] from him’. See also 2.7 (ἔσωσεν πολλούς); 3.3 (δι᾿ οὗ ἐσώθημεν); 9.2 (ἐσώθητε); 9.5a (Χριστὸς, ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς). See further Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 201, who observes that in Second Clement ‘[d]as zur Bezeichnung der Tat Christi am häufigsten gebrauchte Verb ist σῴζειν…’

25 E.g. Rom 5.9 (σωθησόμεθα, two occurrences); 10.9; 11.26; 1 Cor 1.18; 15.2; 2 Cor 2.15. But see Rom 8.24a (ἐσώθημεν), although with the immediately preceding τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι the focus remains future/eschatological.

26 See Eph 2.5 (χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι) and 2.8 (τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι).

27 These other occurrences of σῴζω in Second Clement are 4.1–2 (two occurrences: σώσει…σωθήσεται); 8.2 (μετανοήσωμεν…ἵνα σωθῶμεν); 13.1c (μετανοήσαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς σωθῶμεν); 14.1c (ἵνα σωθῶμεν); 15.1 (ἑαυτὸν σώσει κἀμέ); 17.2 (ὅπως σωθῶμεν ἅπαντες). See the discussion below of 2 Clem. 14.1c (ἵνα σωθῶμεν), where I argue that, if these disparate uses of σῴζω are interpreted within a context of a patron–client relationship, they do not pose a contradiction.

28 As Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 237 eloquently observes, ‘Der Sache nach kennt er [der Verfasser] die Reihenfolge Indikativ—Imperativ’.

29 BDAG, 653, s.v. μισθός. See also e.g. Matt 20.8; John 4.36; Rom 4.4; 1 Tim 5.18; Jas 5.4.

30 BDAG, 653, s.v. μισθός. See e.g. Matt 5.12; 10.41–42; Acts 1.18; 1 Cor 3.8, 14; 2 John 8; Rev 11.18; 22.12; 1 Clem. 34.3; Did. 4.7; 5.2; Barn. 4.12; 11.8; 19.11; 20.2; 21.3; Herm. Mand. 11.12 [43.12]; Herm. Sim. 2.5 [51.5]; 5.6.7 [59.7]; Diog. 9.2. Likewise, Second Clement reflects this meaning of μισθός as believers' future reward (3.3; 9.5; 15.1; also 20.4). Somewhat differently, 2 Clem. 19.1 (from a later redactor) refers to the ‘reward’ (μισθός) of a positive response from the audience (cf. Barn. 1.5).

31 Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 202, sees μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας (2 Clem. 1.5) as ‘somewhat artificial’ (‘etwas gekünstelt’) and writes that ‘the homilist’ (‘der Prediger’) wanted to make a connection to ἀντιμισθία in 1.3. A connection between vv. 3 and 5 is obvious, but I do not see μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας as ‘artificial’. Since ἀντιμισθίας is already pregnant with a concept of ‘wage’ (μισθός), the repetition of terms within the same semantic domain may be taken as rhetorically emphatic, not ‘artificial’. Thus, somewhat preferable is the earlier comment of H. Preisker, art. μισθός, TWNT 4.699–710 at 707 n. 28 on 2 Clem. 1.5: ‘Hier steht sogar die gekünstelte, rhetorische Zusammenstellung μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας’ [= TDNT 4.695–706 at 702 n. 28: ‘Here we find the artificial and rhetorical combination μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας’.]. More helpful on this point is Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 71 (on 1.5): ‘Die Wendung [von μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας] ist auffällig’.

32 See above on R. Saller's first ‘vital element’ in a patron–client relationship.

33 BDAG, 90, emphasis original, s.v. ἀντιμισθία. See also H. Preisker, art. μισθός, 707 [= TDNT 4.702]: ‘Das Wort [ἀντιμισθία] fehlt in der griech Lit. ebenso in Pap und Inschriften’.

34 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1885–90; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989) I/2.212 (on 2 Clem. 1.3).

35 Ps 115.3, LXX: τί ἀνταποδώσω τῷ κυρίῳ περὶ πάντων, ὧν ἀνταπέδωκέν μοι;

36 BDAG, 87 s.v. ἀνταποδίδωμι, def. 1 (emphasis original). Alternately, ἀνταποδίδωμι can mean ‘to exact retribution, repay, pay back τινί τι’ (def. 2 [emphasis original]).

37 The first occurrence of ἀνταποδίδωμι (115.3a, LXX) plausibly translates the verb שׁוּב (‘turn, return’, Ps 116.12a). More remarkably, the second occurrence translates the substantive תַּגְמוּלוֹהִי (‘his benefits’, 116.12b) with ὧν ἀνταπέδωκέν μοι (115.3b, LXX).

38 See e.g. Matt 6.14–15; John 13.14; Rom 13.8; 15.1, 27; Phil 2.12, 14; 1 John 2.6; 3.15–16 (ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν, in response to Jesus having laid down his life for us); 1 John 4.11 (ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν, in response to God's love).

39 See immediately above on Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, I/2.212, emphasis added (on 2 Clem. 1.3).

40 In his brief introduction to Second Clement, Holt L. Graham (in Grant, R. M. and Graham, H. L., First and Second Clement [The Apostolic Fathers 2; New York/Toronto/London: Nelson, 1965] 110Google Scholar) ties the occurrences of ἀντιμισθία to teachings about wealth and poverty in 2 Clem. 20.1–4: ‘The idea that [believers] are pursuing profit is encouraged by five references to compensation (antimisthia…) and seven to reward (misthos)… One can view this kind of teaching as a crude form of what is encountered in the Synoptic Gospels…’ Most scholars today, but apparently not Graham, regard chs. 19–20 as a secondary addition to this work, which weakens the case for using 20.1–4 as a basis for interpreting ἀντιμισθία in chs. 1–18. Additionally, in the occurrences of ἀντιμισθία in 2 Clem. 1.3, 5; 9.7; 11.6; 15.2 there is no indication that the ‘payback’ is to offer an alternate source of riches. Elsewhere in his commentary, Graham makes no mention whatsoever of the occurrences of ἀντιμισθία.

41 Klaus Wengst, Zweiter Klemensbrief, 239 n. 3 (on 2 Clem. 1.3): ‘ἀντιμισθία ist ein für den 2. Klemensbrief typischer Begriff, der…der Motivierung der Paränese dient. Mit diesem Wort ist das Interesse des Verfassers an der Soteriologie auf den Begriff gebracht.’ The explanatory power of Wengst's comment is minimal. Additionally, one could ask of what ἀντιμισθία should be taken to be ‘typical’ (i.e. ‘typisch’) in Second Clement.

42 Klaus Wengst, Zweiter Klemensbrief, 239 n. 3. See the preceding note.

43 Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 201 (on 2 Clem. 1.3).

44 Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 69 (on 1.3) in reference to 2 Clem. 1.3, 5; 9.7; 11.6; 15.2.

45 Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 140 (on 11.7, albeit referring to 11.6).

46 See immediately above on Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 69 (on 1.3).

47 See above on ὡς πατήρ in 2 Clem. 1.4b.

48 See above on μισθός as an indication of believers' future reward.

49 2 Cor 6.11–13 (NRSV, modified): ‘We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians; our heart is wide open (πεπλάτυνται). [12] There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. [13] As recompense for the same (τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν)—I speak as to children—open wide your hearts also (πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς).’

50 See further on 2 Clem. 11.5–6 below.

51 Rom 1.27: ‘And in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with a woman, were consumed by their passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the payback that was necessary for their error (τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες)’. I am indebted to Robert M. Calhoun for suggestions on this point. See further his study, Paul's Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1 (WUNT 2/316; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011)Google Scholar and Jewett, Robert, Romans: A Commentary (ed. Epp, Eldon Jay; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 180 (on Rom 1.27)Google Scholar, who highlights the ‘“reciprocal nature” of the punishment' in connection with the participle ἀπολαμβάνοντες.

52 I.e. they are unaware of their resulting inability to understand God the Creator, as God could have been understood had they not participated in morally deviant conduct.

53 See above and BDAG, 90, s.v. ἀντιμισθία.

54 Recall Paul's paternal stance toward the Corinthians as one who ‘speaks as to children’ (ὡς τέκνοις λέγω, 2 Cor 6.13). See further the argument of Crook, Zeba A., Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW 130; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar that, for Paul, ‘conversion’ means switching patrons. Here I differ from Briones, ‘Mutual Brokers of Grace’, esp. 555–6, who attempts to show how, within a patronage relationship, ‘the brokerage model’ calls attention to the apostle Paul's ‘mutuality’ among, and not his ‘authority over’, the Corinthians.

55 The opposite outcome could be seen as becoming ‘instruments of the devil’ (τοῖς ὀργάνοις τοῦ διαβόλου, 2 Clem. 18.2).

56 Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 69 (on 1.3) translates ‘Gegenleistung’ for the occurrences in Second Clement; ‘Vergeltung’ for Rom 1.27; and ‘Erwiderung’ for 2 Cor 6.13. Similarly also H. Preisker, art. μισθός, 707 [= TDNT 4.702].

57 Gk: περὶ αὐτοῦ, referring to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 2 Clem. 1.1a, and clearly not to the feminine σωτηρίας in 1.1b (περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν). The parallel uses of the preposition περί show that how one thinks of Christ (1.2a) and of one's salvation (1.1b) are intertwined. Nonetheless, the translation by Michael Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 3d ed. 2007), 139 of περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν (1.1b) as ‘the one who is our salvation’ (emphasis added) is unnecessary.

58 Concurring with Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 138, I retain the reading ἁμαρτάνουσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς in 2 Clem. 1.2.

59 Second Clement comprises twenty chapters. In this article, I focus on chs. 1–18, given the common view that chs. 19–20 are the work of a later author or editor. See e.g. Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 255–6; Parvis, Paul, ‘2 Clement and the Meaning of the Christian Homily’, The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Foster, Paul; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2007) 32–41 at 34–5Google Scholar; Grünstäudl, Wolfgang, ‘Epilog, Ouvertüre oder Intermezzo? Zur ursprünglichen Funktion von 2 Clem 19,1–20,4’, forthcoming in Early Christianity 4, no. 2 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 The reader will recall the caution expressed above that I do not intend to argue that every reference to soteriology or orthopraxis in Second Clement is based strictly on a model of patronage.

61 Cf. 2 Clem. 3.2–4; 4.3 on the necessity of readiness to ‘confess’ (ὁμολογέω) Christ. On this theme in the NT, see Kelhoffer, J. A., Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament (WUNT 270; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)Google Scholar.

62 In 2 Clem. 5.5–7, it is unclear precisely what τὰ κοσμικὰ ταῦτα (‘these worldly things’, 5.6b) designates.

63 See Saller, Personal Patronage, 11–15; Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World, esp. 135–7, 143–5.

64 See below on the alternatives given in 2 Clem. 11.1 (being either ‘righteous’ or ‘wretched’) and 14.1 (being either ‘of the first church’ or of the prophet Jeremiah's ‘den of robbers’).

65 See also 2 Clem. 13.1; 16.1–17.1 and BDAG, 640 s.v. μετανοέω def. 1. I am thankful to Jonas Holmstrand for his suggestion on this point.

66 See 2 Clem. 8.4 (τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν τηρήσαντες) and 8.6 (τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνήν).

67 See BDAG, 370–1 s.v. ἐπιδίδωμι and esp. Acts 27.15 (τῷ ἀνέμῳ ἐπιδόντες ἐφερόμεθα): those attempting to steer the ship surrendered control to the wind; 1 Clem. 14.2 (ἐὰν ῥιψοκινδύνως ἐπιδῶμεν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς θελήμασιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων), an appeal not to yield to the will of people of questionable character.

68 On doctors and imperial patronage, see Saller, Personal Patronage, 63–4; R. Herzog, ‘Arzthonorar’, RAC 1 (1950) 724–5. For my exploration of possible allusions to patronage in some of Second Clement's admonitions, this use of ἀντιμισθία (9.7b), too, seems to be significant: medical services, like the services of an orator/attorney, could be exchanged within patronage relationships: one could ask a client to offer services to another ‘friend’ or client. The recipient of medical services would then incur a debt or an obligation, whether to the physician or to the physician's patron.

69 See above on the three ‘vital elements’ of patronage in Saller, Personal Patronage, 1.

70 Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 234 (on 11.6): ‘[D]ie Ankündigung der bevorstehenden Vergeltung nach den Werken hat hier natürlich nicht die Funktion einer Drohung…, sondern will Hoffnung begründen’.

71 Cf. Matt 6.14–15 on reciprocity (i.e. forgiving others) as a stipulation for receiving forgiveness. Requiring that one must forgive others in order to be forgiven could likewise be taken either as a cause for hope or as a warning.

72 BDAG, 300, emphases original, s.v. ἐκδέχομαι.

73 On this, see e.g. Saller, Personal Patronage, 128: ‘In the Republic the client's presence at the morning salutation was a symbol of respect for his patron and a means of honoring him’. See further on the morning salutatio pp. 11 n. 15, 61–2, 128–9.

74 See also Acts 17.16 (Ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἀθήναις ἐκδεχομένου αὐτοὺς τοῦ Παύλου); 1 Cor 11.33; 16.11; Heb 10.13; 11.10; Jas 5.7; Herm. Sim. 9.10.5 [87.5] (ἔκδεξαί με ὧδε ἕως ἔρχομαι); Herm. Sim. 9.11.2 [88.2] (Ἐκδέξομαι αὐτὸν ἕως ὀψέ); 2 Clem. 20.3.

75 See Jer 7.11; cf. Mark 11.17 par.

76 See above on 2 Clem. 11.1 (ἐσόμεθα δίκαιοι…ταλαίπωροι ἐσόμεθα).

77 Perhaps, for this author, to speak of a hypothetical ἐκκλησία τοῦ θανάτου (in contrast to ‘the church of life’, 14.1c) would have posed a contradiction. Alternately, the author may have wished not to associate believers of bad conduct with any form of ἐκκλησία.

78 See above on 2 Clem. 1.4, 7; 2.7; 3.3; 9.2, 5.

79 2 Clem. 8.2 (μετανοήσωμεν…ἵνα σωθῶμεν); 13.1 (μετανοήσαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς σωθῶμεν). See also 2 Clem. 4.1–2 (two occurrences: σώσει…σωθήσεται); 15.1 (ἑαυτὸν σώσει κἀμέ); 17.2 (ὅπως σωθῶμεν ἅπαντες); cf. 19.1 (ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε); 19.3 (ἵνα εἰς τέλος σωθῶμεν). The formulation in 2.5 (δεῖ τοὺς ἀπολλυμένους σώζειν [cf. 2.7]) does not speak directly to this issue. Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, 71, notes the differing uses of σῴζω in Second Clement but does not offer an explanation for them.

80 See Downs, David J., ‘Redemptive Almsgiving and Economic Stratification in 2 Clement’, JECS 19, no. 4 (2011) 493–517Google Scholar at 514 for an argument ‘that, in the face of an individualized spirituality that regarded the kingdom of God as an entirely present reality and denied a final judgment…, 2 Clem. 16.1–4 challenges readers to consider almsgiving as a sign of repentance in light of the impending appearance of Christ’.

81 Downs, ‘Redemptive Almsgiving’, 493 (emphasis original). See above on 2 Clem. 14.1c.

82 Downs, ‘Redemptive Almsgiving’, 516, is incorrect to infer in regard to 2 Clem. 1.3, ‘The rhetorical questions here emphasize the impossibility of repaying Christ for his suffering “for our sake”’. As mentioned above (e.g. on Saller, Personal Patronage, 1), even in an asymmetrical relationship, reciprocity is expected.

83 On the second-century witnesses of Galen and Tatian to Christian asceticism, see Kelhoffer, J. A., ‘Early Christian Ascetic Practices and Biblical Interpretation: The Witnesses of Galen and Tatian’, The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context (FS David E. Aune; ed. Fotopoulos, John; NovTSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 439–44Google Scholar.

84 E.g. Matt 6.14–15; 22.11–14; Rom 15.27; 1 John 3.16.

85 See further Osiek, Carolyn, ‘Roman and Christian Burial Practices and the Patronage of Women’, Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context (ed. Brink, Laurie and Green, Deborah; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 243–70Google Scholar.

86 On the role of such ‘brokers’ in Roman patronage, see the helpful discussion of Briones, ‘Mutual Brokers of Grace’, 539–43.