1 Since this essay focuses on a relationship (brokerage) which is to be found within the system of Roman patronage, it need not provide a detailed analysis of whether Roman patronage and Greek benefaction are two separate or identical entities. Although some NT scholars affirm the divide between the two (e.g., S. Joubert, ‘One Form of Social Exchange or Two? “Euergetism,” Patronage, and New Testament Studies—Roman and Greek Ideas of Patronage’, BTB 31 [2001] 17–25), most classicists are reluctant to separate patronage and benefaction (cf. Eilers, C., Roman Patrons of Greek Cities [Oxford: Oxford University, 2002] 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, N., Rural Athens under the Democracy [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004] 70–1Google Scholar; Nicols, J., ‘Pliny and the Patronage of Communities’, Hermes 108 [1980] 365–85Google Scholar at 380–2). For a critical engagement with the differing perspectives among NT scholars, see Marshall, J., Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke (WUNT 259; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 26Google Scholar nn. 6, 7; 32–52; MacGillivray, E. D., ‘Re-evaluating Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New Testament Studies’, JGRChJ 6 (2009) 37–81at 37–45Google Scholar; Osiek, C., ‘The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the Ways’, BTB 39 (2009) 143–52Google Scholar, esp. 146.

2 See n. 5 below.

3 Batten, A., ‘God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor?’, The Social World of the New Testament (ed. Neyrey, J. and Steward, E.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008) 47–61Google Scholar; Chow, J., Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992)Google Scholar; Neyrey, J. H., ‘God, Benefactor and Patron’, JSNT 27 (2005) 465–92Google Scholar; Whitlark, J., Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of Reciprocity Systems in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008)Google Scholar.

4 R. Williams, ‘Charismatic Patronage and Brokerage: Episcopal Leadership in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch’ (PhD diss., University of Ottawa, 1997); Williams, , ‘Bishops as Brokers of Heavenly Goods: Ignatius to the Ephesians’, Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East (ed. Averbeck, R. et al. ; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2003) 389–98Google Scholar.

5 Elliot, J., ‘Patronage and Clientage’, The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (ed. Rohrbaugh, R.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 144–56Google Scholarat 150. For objections raised against the current use of patronage as a model, especially among prominent social-scientific interpreters, see MacGillivray, ‘Re-evaluating Patronage’, 37–45; Downs, D. J., ‘Is God Paul's Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theology’, Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (ed. Longenecker, B. W. and Liebengood, K. D.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) 129–56Google Scholar.

6 Worth noting is an insightful claim made by Richard Saller, that the patron–broker–client relationship has been considered to be most relevant for the study of Mediterranean society during the Roman Empire (Personal Patronage under the Early Empire [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982] 4).

7 The majority focus on Johannine literature (e.g., Malina, B., The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels [London: Routledge, 1996] 143–75Google Scholar; Brown, T. G., Spirit in the Writings of John [JSNTSS 253; London: T&T Clark, 2003]Google Scholar; Piper, R., ‘Glory, Honour and Patronage in the Fourth Gospel: Understanding the Doxa Given to Disciples in John 17’, Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honour of Bruce J. Malina [ed. Pilch, J.; Leiden: Brill, 2001] 281–309Google Scholar; Neyrey, Glory, 198–205; Neyrey, , ‘Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 14–17’, BTB 36 [2006] 107–17Google Scholar; Neyrey, , ‘“I Am the Door” [John 10.7, 9]: Jesus the Broker in the Fourth Gospel’, CBQ 69 [2007] 271–91Google Scholar). But some apply the model to Luke–Acts (e.g., Moxnes, ‘Patron–Client Relations’) and Hebrews (e.g., de Silva, D., ‘Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron–Client Relationships’, JBL 115 [1996] 91–116Google Scholar; Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity to God).

8 Various works that briefly allude to the practice of brokerage include: Crook, Z., Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW 130; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2004) 72–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client’, JGRChJ 2 (2001–5) 9–26 at 25; Joubert, S., Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul's Collection (WUNT 124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 28–9Google Scholar; Malina, B. and Neyrey, J. H., Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 210Google Scholar; Neyrey, ‘God, Benefactor and Patron’, 475–76; MacDonald, M., Colossians and Ephesians (SP 17; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000) 187Google Scholar.

9 Joubert, S., ‘Managing the Household: Paul as Paterfamilias of the Christian Household Group in Corinth’, Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (ed. Esler, P.; London: Routledge, 1995) 213–23Google Scholar.

10 Joubert, ‘Managing the Household’, 222.

11 Joubert, ‘Managing the Household’, 217. My italics.

12 Joubert, ‘Managing the Household’, 222. My italics.

13 This methodology seeks to avoid the prevalent tendency of model-based approaches, where one's conclusions are predetermined or confined by the constraints of the model. In this regard, David Horrell warns NT scholars of the ‘serious weaknesses and dangers’ of such an approach, particularly ‘in its tendency to impose the model upon the evidence’. To this, Horrell candidly states that ‘a merely pragmatic assertion that the model “works” cannot obviate these deeper problems’ (‘Models and Methods in Social-Scientific Interpretation: A Response to Philip Esler’, JSNT 78 [2000] 93–4; cf. also Horrell, , ‘Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future’, After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later [ed. Still, T. D. and Horrell, D. G.; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2009] 6–20)Google Scholar.

14 For significant works on Roman patrocinium, consult Eilers, Roman Patrons; de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., ‘Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage’, BJS 5 (1954) 33–48Google Scholar; Marshall, Jesus; Touloumakos, J., ‘Zum römischen Gemeindepatronat im griechischen Osten’, Hermes 116 (1988) 304–24Google Scholar; Verboven, K., The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic (Brussels: Latomus, 2002)Google Scholar; Mommsen, T., ‘Das römische Gastrecht und die römische Clientel’, Römische Forschungen (2 vols.; Berlin, 1864–79) 1.355–90Google Scholar; Nicols, ‘Pliny and the Patronage’. Helpful studies on socio-historical patronage include: Schmidt, S. W. et al. , eds., Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1977)Google Scholar; Saller, Personal Patronage; Eisenstadt, S. and Roniger, L., Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace-Hadrill, A., ed., Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar; Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., eds., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duckworth, 1977)Google Scholar.

15 Saller, Personal Patronage, 1.

16 Nicols, ‘Pliny and Patronage’, 365: ‘Few historians would disagree with the statement that patronage is one of the most important, and yet elusive bonds in Roman society… [I]t is not easy to define what patronage is’.

17 At the heart of the issue is the source for scholars' varying definitions. Classicists develop their definition of Roman patrocinium from ancient sources, while social historians propose a transcultural definition of patronage. The most notable, yet highly criticized, socio-historical definition is that of Richard Saller. He contends that a patron–client relationship is (1) reciprocal; (2) asymmetrical; and (3) long-term (Saller, Personal Patronage). This threefold definition became widespread, even commonplace, among NT scholars through the influential works of Wallace-Hadrill and S. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger (e.g., Chow, John, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth [JSNTS 75; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992] 31–33Google Scholar; Crook, Reconceptualizing Conversion, 68–9). Classicist Claude Eilers, while acknowledging the value of his analysis, challenges Saller's popular definition, insisting that it erroneously permits any relationship that meets this threefold criterion to be labelled ‘patronage’, even relationships such as suffragium and literary patronage, which were not recognized by the Roman world as patrocinium. It robs patronage of its specificity and lacks correct knowledge of the Roman world, which is necessary to develop a general definition of patronage (Roman Patrons, 1–18; cf. also Marshall, Jesus, 43–4). Still, Eilers's work, significant as it may be, has not escaped scholarly assail, which leaves the definition of patronage open for discussion (cf. Verboven, K., ‘Review of Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities’, BMCR 6.19 [2003]Google Scholarhttp://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003-06-19.html (accessed 02/01/2010)). Because multiple kinds of patronal relationships exist, I will only present certain characteristics avowed by both classicists and social historians.

18 Marshall, Jesus, 44.

19 Marshall, Jesus, 44–5; Eisenstadt and Roniger, Patrons, 55; Blok, A., ‘Variations in Patronage’, Sociologische Gids 16 (1969) 366Google Scholar.

20 Eilers, Roman Patrons, 15–16; Marshall, Jesus, 45–6; E. Wolf, ‘Kinship, Friendship, and Patron–Client Relations in Complex Societies’, Friends, Followers, and Factions (ed. Schmidt et al.) 167–77 at 174.

21 Marshall, Jesus, 45.

22 Garnsey, Peter, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988) 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Engels, Donald, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1990) 87Google Scholar; cf. Nicols, ‘Pliny and Patronage’, 377, 385, who distinguishes between ‘patronage in theory and patronage in practice’.

24 Boissevain, , Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Pavilion; Oxford: Blackwell, 1974) 148Google Scholar, 153.

25 Wolf, ‘Kinship, Friendship, and Patron–Client Relations’, 174.

26 Neyrey, ‘God, Benefactor and Patron’, 476; cf. Blok, ‘Variations’, 370; Sydel Silverman, ‘Patronage and Community–Nation Relationships in Central Italy’, Friends, Followers, and Factions (ed. Schmidt et al.) 294, 297.

27 Boissevain, Friends, 147–8.

28 Boissevain, Friends, 148.

29 See Pliny Ep 6.32; 2.4, 18; 3.2, 8, 11; 10.11, 21, 23, 26, 33, 37, 51, 58, 85, 86a and b, 87, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 106; also Fronto Ad Amicos 1.5; 2.8.

30 See Saller, Personal Patronage, 75–7.

31 James Scott notes that ‘it is quite possible for a single individual to act both as a broker and a patron’ (‘Patron–Client Politics’, 127; cf. Moxnes, H., The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel [OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 44)Google Scholar.

32 Blok, ‘Variations’, 369–70.

33 Although he recognizes that he will also remain under obligation to Baebius: ‘I mention these particulars, to let you see how much he will be obliged to me, as I shall to you, if you can help him to the purchase of this little box, so agreeable to his taste…’ (Ep. 1.24; first italics mine).

34 Nicols, ‘Pliny and Patronage’, 368; cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny the Younger: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 375Google Scholar.

35 Nicols, ‘Pliny and Patronage’, 380, 384.

36 To the best of my knowledge, each instance where Pliny mediates a favour is accompanied by recognizing the source, whether by name or by the title patronus.

37 In the Roman Empire, the language of ‘friendship’ became proper etiquette. The emperor appointed senators as brokers, whom he considered ‘friends’, in order to distribute his beneficia throughout the land (Saller, Personal Patronage, 75). Similarly, clients were also called ‘friends’ so as not to denigrate them, but this courtesy ‘did not produce any levelling effect or egalitarian ideology in the hierarchical Roman society’ (p. 11). Friendship, therefore, contained the appearance and language of equality, since it originally aimed to be based on mutual affection, but, in actuality, consisted of unequal partners contributing unequal goods and services in profitable exchange (p. 11).

38 ‘With respect to the central authority’, Blok notes, ‘they [i.e., brokers] can be regarded as clients’ (‘Variations’, 370).

39 Since Jesus' role in this relationship is multifaceted and complex, operating as the source of the gift (1.2), the gift itself (1.5, 9a), and the sphere in which the gift is received (1.5), I have purposely integrated Jesus' role into God's role as patron to avoid clouding the brokerage model and the argument of this essay. The intricacy of Christ's role is too varied to be developed within the confines of this work, but I recognize its importance and hope to explore his unique role in a later work.

40 For a discussion on whether this introductory formula should be regarded as a wish or a statement, see O'Brien, P., Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 233–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. O'Brien rightly maintains that εὐλογητός does not rule out any thought of personal gratitude and should therefore be interpreted as a wish with an implicit nuance of thanksgiving (p. 239).

41 For the sake of simplicity, I will use the name ‘Paul’ in this essay and translate the plurals in 1.4 with the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘his’, but the plural in vv. 3-7 may certainly include Timothy, at the least. Although many disagree with this interpretation and champion the notion that the Corinthians should also be incorporated into the plural ‘we’, I would argue that Paul intentionally demarcates himself and Timothy from the community. Helpful in this regard is Samuel Byrskog's fourfold category of the plural in the Pauline corpus: (1) the ‘pluralis sociativus’, in which the sender associates him- or herself with the recipients; (2) also the ‘pluralis sociativus’, in which the sender associates him- or herself with a specific group among the recipients; (3) the sender incorporates fellow-workers who may or may not be co-senders; and (4) the sender speaks solely of him- or herself (‘Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul's Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNW 87 [1996] 230–50 at 232). Based on this categorization, I would argue that the plural ‘we’ or ‘us’ in vv. 3-11 ought to be subsumed under category 3 and considered real plurals, with Paul (the sender) and Timothy (co-sender and co-author) specifically in view. This partly aligns with Byrskog's conclusion on the plural in 2 Corinthians; he asserts that ‘1,1-14 is composed throughout in the first person plural, sometimes apparently including the addressees, but sometimes, most evidently from 1,6 and onwards, not including them’ (p. 246). However, I would go further and assert that the article τούς in v. 4, the passive recipients of ‘comfort’, comprises the same group identified by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in v. 6 (i.e., the Corinthian community), which clearly delineates the sender from the recipient, so that the plural evidently excludes addressees from v. 4 onwards rather from just v. 6. For more on the first person plural in Paul and 2 Corinthians, see Dick, K., Der Schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (Halle: Niemeyer, 1900)Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Deichert, 1924) 150Google Scholar; Roller, O., Das Formular der Paulinischen Briefe; ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Antike Briefe (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933) 169–87Google Scholar; von Dobschütz, E., ‘Wir und Ich bei Paulus’, ZST 10 (1993) 251–77Google Scholar; Thrall, M., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh & T. Clark, 1994) 1.105–7Google Scholar.

42 See the previous note for a defence of the literary plural and a disclaimer for the translation of 1.4.

43 Harvey, A. E., Renewal through Suffering: A Study of 2 Corinthians (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989) 31Google Scholar; cf. 2 Cor 4.10-12.

44 In the verbless clause of v. 7c, the future verb ἔσεσθε ought to be supplied instead of ἐστε, although the ὡς…οὕτως καὶ formulation leads many commentators to insert ἐστε (e.g., Vegge, I., 2 Corinthians—A Letter about Reconciliation [WUNT 239; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008] 157)Google Scholar. They nevertheless neglect the future-oriented perspective of ἐλπίς here and in v. 10 (ῥύσεται εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν), and they also disregard the fact that the Corinthians already experience a present working (τῆς ἐνεργουμένης) of ‘comfort’ (1.6). The point being communicated in v. 7c is that if they participate in Paul's sufferings, and thus the ‘sufferings of Christ’ (1.5), they will enter eschatological ‘comfort’ (cf. Rom 8.17 for the same line of argument). They must, then, reaffirm their relationship by becoming ‘fellow-sharers’ (κοινωνοί) of his sufferings in order to share in a common, future hope.

45 My translation.

46 The ‘sufferings of Christ’ in Paul contain a physical (2 Cor 4.8-9; 6.4-5; 11.24-27) as well as emotional dimension (2 Cor 7.5; 11.28).

47 Numerous suggestions have been posited as to the specific nature of ‘the sufferings of Christ’. Some associate them with the Jewish ‘woes of the Messiah’ in which the community, rather than the Messiah, experiences the birth-pangs as a prelude to the messianic age (Isa 26.17; 66.8; Jer 22.23; Hos 13.13; Mic 4.9-10; cf. Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1973] 62)Google Scholar. Yet, the LXX employs the terms ὠδίν or ὠδίνω for ‘birth-pangs’, not πάθημα, and attestation in first-century sources is difficult to maintain. According to J. C. Beker, the concept of the messianic woes is ‘not documented in Jewish literature until 135 C.E.’ (Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980] 146). Conversely, some consider these sufferings as Paul's endeavor to imitate Christ (cf. 1 Thess 1.6), but even though Paul is hailed as a model to imitate (e.g., 1 Cor 4.16), the imitation motif is completely absent from 2 Corinthians. Still others affirm a realistic union with the sufferings of the historical Jesus, having been enacted through participation in the σωμᾶ χριστοῦ and operating as an extension of Christ's work (C. Proudfoot, ‘Imitation or Realistic Participation? A Study of Paul's Concept of Suffering with Christ’, Int 17 [1963] 140–60 at 147). But it is uncertain as to whether Paul shares this realistic interpretation of σωμᾶ χριστοῦ (cf. Thrall, Second Epistle, 1.109). Instead, a more convincing position recognizes a real, but not completely literal, union with Christ occurring through baptism (Rom 6.3-4), inwardly conforming believers into his character, suffering, and death (R. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology [BZNW 32; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967] 91). In addition to this inward conformity, I would also include the occurrence of an outward embodiment. As John Schütz succinctly puts it, ‘Paul does not repeat what Christ has done. He reflects what Christ has done. In him the account of that action is made manifest’ (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority [SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975] 206; emphasis original). On suffering in 2 Corinthians specifically, see Harvey, Renewal through Suffering, 1–31.

48 Just as Christ ‘became poor’ (πτωχεύω) to make others ‘rich’ (πλούσιος) (2 Cor 8.9), so, too, Paul describes himself ‘as poor [πτωχοί], yet making many rich [πλουτίζοντες]’ (2 Cor 6.10).

49 The term σωτηρία expresses the eschatological motif of the Messiah bringing an end to misery and imbuing God's people with comfort, an interpretation most prominently found in the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah (Proudfoot, ‘Imitation or Realistic Participation?’, 143; cf. Luke 2.25).

50 This demonstrates the necessity for the Corinthians to become fellow-sharers with Paul in sufferings now, so that they may experience future ‘comfort’. As states, Morna Hooker, ‘Just as Christ's death leads to life for Christians, so Paul's affliction leads to comfort and salvation for the Corinthians. Just as Christ's resurrection brings resurrection and glory (to those who are prepared to suffer with him), so Paul's experience of comfort brings comfort to the Corinthians (provided they share his sufferings)’ (From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1990] 49)Google Scholar.

51 Not in any absolute sense, as if Paul's ministry contained ‘atoning efficacy’ (contra Hanson, A., The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul [JSNTSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987] 141Google Scholar), but that his ministry serves to realign them with the grace of God in Christ.

52 Hafemann, S., 2 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 63Google Scholar.

53 According to A. E. Harvey, the vagueness of this formidable event can be attributed to Paul's interest in answering the more important question of ‘what the sufferer “felt” like—guilty or angry, hopeful or despairing’, rather than what exactly he endured' (Renewal, 11). The rationale behind this is to ‘to prove a point, to mount a defense, to disarm criticism’, which typifies the ‘well-known techniques of persuasion’ in the ancient world' (pp. 13–14; on the rhetoric employed in this passage, see also Welborn, L., ‘Paul's Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5-16’, JSNT 82 [2001] 31–60Google Scholar at 40, 47).

54 Welborn, ‘Paul's Appeal’, 47: ‘Nothing serves to make clear the commonality of affliction better than an account of the suffering of the one who has caused sorrow’. This commonality is also faintly alluded to in 1.4.

55 Two grammatical queries arise from Paul's use of συνυπουργούντων: (a) how the participle should be interpreted, and (b) with whom exactly does Paul want them to ‘co-work’? First, συνυπουργούντων could be interpreted temporally (‘while you cooperate’; e.g., P. Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962] 22; Thrall, Second Epistle, 1.122 n. 300), conditionally (‘if you join in’; e.g., Barrett, Second Epistle, 67; Furnish, V., II Corinthians [AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1984] 115Google Scholar), or imperatively (‘you must work together’; e.g., Bultmann, R., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985] 20Google Scholar). Still, the conditional interpretation is the preferable option, primarily because it follows the conventional pattern of other prayer requests in the Pauline corpus (Phil 1.19; Phlm 22). Second, as to with whom the Corinthians were to ‘co-work’, three viable options have been proffered: Paul, God, or among themselves. Those in favor of identifying Paul as the implied partner of συνυπουργούντων appeal to συναγωνίζομαι in Rom 15.30 (Bultmann, Corinthians, 29; cf. also Harris, M., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005] 160Google Scholar). There, however, the context obviously identifies Paul as the cooperating partner, while the co-worker conveyed in 2 Cor 1.11 is not overtly evident. Also, the adverb ‘also’ (καί), preceding the appeal to cooperate in prayer, may suggest that Paul wants them to reciprocate an action he himself has done on their behalf. For this reason, Paul cannot be their co-worker. Rather, just as he worked in conjunction with God for the Corinthians (vv. 3-7), they are now to cooperate with God through prayer for their apostle, not as equals with God but as dependent beings presenting their request to ‘the God of all comfort’. As affirms, Adolf Schlatter, ‘Das σύν meint schwerlich, daß ihr Gebet mit dem des Paulus zusammen wirke; σύν wird auf Gottes Wirken bezogen sein, an dem sie du rch ihr Gebet dienenden Anteil haben’ (Paulus der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969] 468)Google Scholar. Arguably, the same idea may be present in 1 Cor 3.9: θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί. Furnish strongly disagrees. He admits that the question of whether this verse should be translated ‘co-workers with God’ or ‘co-workers who belong to God’ is ‘virtually unanswerable’ on lexical and grammatical grounds. But he nevertheless insists that, on contextual grounds, the latter is preferable (‘Fellow Workers in God's Service’ JBL 80 [1961] 364–70 at 365). Still, it is possible to affirm the former without viewing the apostles as somehow equal with God. In fact, Donald Ker claims that ‘the language of “service” (διακονία) is as likely to imply partnership as subservience’, and that Paul wishes to stress the ‘God-given authenticity’ of their apostolic work in 1 Cor 1–4 (‘Paul and Apollos—Colleagues or Rivals?’ JSNT 77 [2000] 75–97 at 87). That said, the apostles, like the Corinthians, co-work ‘with’ God while remaining ‘under’ God.

56 Opinions vary as to what the χάρισμα entails, from Paul's apostolic vocation (Osiander, J. E., Commentar über den zweiten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier [Stuttgart: Rudolf Besser, 1858] 43Google Scholar) to the bestowal of grace or equipping of the spirit (Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924] 51Google Scholar). The majority of commentators, though, accurately interpret χάρισμα as deliverance from a future peril (Plummer, A., The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915] 21Google Scholar; Leitzmann, H., An die Korinther I–II (HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949) 101Google Scholar; Bultmann, Corinthians, 34-5; Furnish, II Corinthians, 115; Barrett, Second Epistle, 67; cf. Rom 5.15-16 ‘where χάρισμα is almost a summary term for God's gracious intervention through Christ’ (Thrall, Second Epistle, 1.123).

57 Plummer, Second Epistle, 21.

58 Windisch, Korintherbrief, 49.

59 Dunn, J., Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975) 206Google Scholar.

60 E.g., Barrett, Second Epistle, 67-8; Hughes, Corinthians, 22-4; Martin, R., 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word Books, 1986) 12Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., Second Corinthians (SP 8; Collegeville, MI: Liturgical, 1999) 21Google Scholar; Thrall, Second Epistle, 1.122-7; Harris, Second Epistle, 160-3; Young, F. and Ford, D., Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 262Google Scholar.

61 Commentators fluctuate on their translations of προσώπων, so it is not necessary, for instance, to translate the word ‘persons’ in order to subscribe to option 1. This also applies to the other two options.

62 Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 108Google Scholar.

63 E.g., Héring, J., The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967) 6Google Scholar.

64 Barrett, Second Epistle, 68.

65 E.g., Plummer, Second Epistle, 22; Furnish, II Corinthians, 108, 115.

66 Moule, Idiom, 108.

67 A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 783; e.g., Rom 15.31; 16.10; 1 Cor 10.18; 2 Cor 9.13.

68 An analogous thought occurs in Phil 1.19, where Paul is dependent upon the Philippians' prayers in cooperation with the Spirit to actualize a near future and eschatological deliverance (σωτηρία); cf. M. Silva, Philippians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 69–71. Other verbal parallels may be discerned between 2 Cor 1 and Philippians (χάρις [Phil 1.7], πάθημα [Phil 3.10], θλῖψις [Phil 1.17; 4.14], κοινωνία [Phil 1.5; 3.10], παράκλησις [Phil 2.1], θάνατος [Phil 1.20; 2.8]), which, together, may demonstrate that the Philippian community, as fellow-sharers of the ‘same struggle’ as Paul (1.30), exhibited a mutually dependent relationship with their apostle rather than one of domination.

69 The relationship sought after is future-oriented rather than presently experienced.

70 See Jewett, R., ‘Paul, Shame, and Honour’, Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. Sampley, P.; London: Trinity Press International, 2003) 551-7Google Scholar.

71 To borrow the words of Horrell's, David book Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Ethics (London: T&T Clark, 2005)Google Scholar.

72 Barclay, J., ‘Manna and the Circulation of Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians 8.1-15’, The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honour of Richard B. Hays (ed. Wagner, R. et al. ; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 409–26 at 425Google Scholar.

73 While ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is found in v. 11, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is lacking in v. 3. But the picture of παράκλησις streaming through Paul to the Corinthians (1.4-6) suggests that the wish/thanksgiving (cf. n. 40) can be construed as being on their behalf.

74 This is not to say that either party renders thanks vicariously for the other, but that Paul's initial act of giving thanks is representative of what he desires the Corinthians to reciprocate as a result of witnessing the surpassing χάρις of God. There are certain instances where a broker vicariously renders thanks to the patron for the client (e.g., Pliny Ep 10.6), but the parallel passages of 2 Cor 4.15 and 9.11-15 prohibit such a view.

75 Brackets indicate that these acts, though absent from the text, are implied conceptually.

76 Welborn, ‘Paul's Appeal’, 60; cf. Barclay, J., ‘2 Corinthians’, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. Dunn, J. D. G. and Rogerson, J. W.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003) 1353–73 at 1364–5Google Scholar.

77 Though, a less hierarchical appraisal of Paul's fatherhood has been proposed by Bartchy, S., ‘Who Should be Called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus Tradition and Patria Potestas’, BTB 33 (2003) 135–47Google Scholar.

78 Worth considering is David Horrell's attempt to rebalance the scales, who perceptively defines ‘the irony of power’ as an appeal for equality ‘made from a position of presumed authority’ (Solidarity, 124). Or, Kathy Ehrensperger who allows equality and hierarchy to complement one another rather than cancel each other out, such that she moves beyond the domination structure of command–obedience to a ‘response-ability’ paradigm, a paradigm which empowers the other to act in concert with their apostle and replaces hierarchical positions with mutual empowerment (Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement [LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2007] 33, 155; cf. also Hays, R., The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996] 32–6)Google Scholar.