¹ Leyerle, Blake, “John Chrysostom on Almsgiving and the Use of Money,”HTR 87: 1 (1994), 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Ibid., 40. See also In Genesim, hom. 34 (PG 53, 315) for a wonderful explanation of the poor as our “benefactors.”

³ Konstan, David, “Patrons and Friends”Classical Philology 90 (1995): 329–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Peter Brown offers a succinct analysis of this in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 45–48Google Scholar. See also Saller, Richard, “Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction” in Patronage in Ancient Society, edited by Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew (London: Routledge, 1989), 49–62Google Scholar; and Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 11–15, 24–25Google Scholar.

⁵ David Konstan, “Patrons and Friends,” 340–341.

⁶ David Konstan, “Patrons and Friends,” 340.

⁷ For example, when trying to discourage a young acquaintance from entering into the service of the “Great Houses,” Lucian states that he will begin by narrating “all that must be done and suffered by those who take salaried posts and are put on trial in the friendship of our wealthy,” adding “if the name friendship (philia) may be applied to that sort of slavery”(Lucian of Samosata, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, Loeb Classical Library, translated by A. M. Harmon. [London: W. Heinemann: New York, 1913], Vol. 3, 413; see also 416). All quotations of Lucian throughout this article are from Harmon's translation.

⁸ Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Patronage in Roman Society: from Republic to Empire,” 77.

⁹ Richard Saller, “Patronage and friendship in early Imperial Rome: drawing the distinction,” 58.

¹⁰ David Konstan, “Patrons and Friends,” 333–334.

¹¹ David Konstan, “Patrons and Friends,” 333.

¹² David Konstan, “Patrons and Friends,” 334.

¹³ Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, 61.

¹⁴ Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960), v. 3, 434Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, 106–108.

¹⁶ See for example, In Genesim, hom. 42 (PG 53, 392), where Chrysostom invites his congregation to reflect upon “our own affairs” which can teach them how the virtue of a few can save a multitude.

¹⁷ Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, 7–39.

¹⁸ Chrysostom adds in a later homily that “since to speak of secrets appears to be the strongest proof of friendship,” Christ essentially is saying to the apostles that they have “been deemed worthy even of this communion (koinônia)”(In Joannem, hom. 77 [PG 59, 415.38]).

¹⁹ In Joannem, hom. 1 (PG 59, 26.50): “Just as we would all run together if we saw one from above suddenly come down from heaven, promising to describe openly everything that was there, so too let us now do the same. It is from there that this man speaks to us. He is not of this world, as Christ himself declares, ‘you are not of the world’(Jn 15, 19), and he has speaking within him the Comforter, the Omnipresent, who knows the things of God.”

²⁰ Brown, Peter, The Cult of the Saints(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 60Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid. 61.

²² In Genesim, hom. 14 (PG 53, 114). Unless otherwise noted, the translations of Chrysostom's works found in this essay are my own, although I consulted and drew upon the translations of his works published in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church series as well as the translations of Robert C. Hill and Paul W. Harkins published by Newman Press and Catholic University of America Press.

²³ Lucian of Samosata, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, 429–431.

²⁴ Douglas, Mary, “Deciphering a Meal,”Implicit Meanings(Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 249Google Scholar.

²⁵ Lucian of Samosata, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, n. 14, 434.

²⁶ Ibid. n. 14, 436.

²⁷ Ibid. n. 17, 440.

²⁸ John D’Arms, “Control, Companionship. and Clientela: Some Social Functions of the Roman Communal Meal,”Echos du monde classique/Classical Views(1984): 344. An analysis of the structure of the Last Discourse in John's Gospel reveals that it contains all the central elements of patronage. Johnson and Dandeker, drawing upon the work of many scholars, assert that elements essential to patronage are “inequality, reciprocity and intimacy” founded upon “a durable, two-way relationship of ‘lop-sided’ or ‘vertical’ friendship.” Moreover, they add that those who have studied the classical system of Roman patronage agree in viewing it as “an asymmetrical friendship relation, involving: (1) a reciprocal exchange of goods and services, (2) a personal relationship of some duration, (3) two parties of unequal status offering different kinds of goods and services in exchanges”(Terry Johnson and Christopher Dandeker, “Patronage: relation and system,” in Patronage in Ancient Society, pages 221 and 224). This describes exactly the relationship existing between Jesus and his disciples in the Last Discourse. There is a perduring personal relationship (“remain in me as I remain in you”[15, 4]); between parties of unequal status (“I am the vine and you are the branches”[15, 5]); offering reciprocal exchanges of different kinds of goods and services (“everything you ask of the Father in my name he will give you. What I ask of you is that you love one and other.”[15, 16–17]).

²⁹ In Sanctum Ignatium martyrem, (PG 50, 587.4). Interestingly, “friendly-mindedness”(philosôphrosunên) is also the word used by Lucian to describe what the aspiring young client expects to receive from his patron (Lucian of Samosata, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, n. 11, 430).

³⁰ For evidence of the importance of clothing, see Lucian of Samosata, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, 431.

³¹ Frederick Gardiner in his translation of Chrysostom's homilies on Hebrews notes that “neither the A. V. ‘to entertain strangers,’ nor the R. V. ‘to show love to strangers,’ have hit upon the natural meaning of philoxenia, adopted throughout by St. Chrys[ostom].”(The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews in NPNF series, volume 14, 514, n. 3).

³² Chrysostom is very specific. Scripture commands us to have philoxenia because we are not simply to “entertain” strangers (xenodokia), but should receive them with love (meta tou philein tous xenous)(In epistulam ad Hebraeos, hom. 33 [PG 63, 227.55].

³³ For a treatment of the poor as xenoi, see Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, 92–93.