4.2 Honor and Virtue. Honor in antiquity dealt with "excellence" of some sort, either the prowesses mentioned above or some socially-sanctioned virtue or uniqueness. The most common virtues meriting respect and honor are courage (military and athletic prowess) and justice. Because of its importance for assessing behavior in prayer, we take a closer look at what the ancients understood by "justice." Since discourse on virtue was taught by ancient rhetoricians, we take the remarks of a Roman writer close in time to the New Testament to illustrate the traditional understanding of justice. This author represents the utterly conventional, ancient discourse stretching back to Aristotle and forward into Byzantine times.

We will be using the topics of justice if we say that we ought to pity innocent persons and suppliants; if we show that it is proper to repay the well-deserving with gratitude; if we explain that we ought to punish the guilty; if we urge that faith ought zealously to be kept; if we say that the laws and customs of the state ought especially to be preserved; if we contend that alliances and friendships should scrupulously be honored; if we make it clear that the duty imposed by nature towards parents, gods, and fatherland must be religiously observed; if we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship, and relationship by marriage must inviolably be cherished (Herennium. 3.3.4, italics added).⁽⁴²⁾

This rhetorician flags as marks of justice: (1) gratitude, (2) fair judgment, (3) fidelity, (4) duty to gods, parents, and fatherland, and (5) maintenance of important social ties. Thus pray-ers are just when they offer thanks for benefaction, keep covenant fidelity with God, fulfil their duty to God by obeying His commandments, and maintain their ties of clientage with their heavenly Patron. Similarly, God will be shown in prayer to be just and worthy of praise when God judges the wicked and rewards the faithful, when God's faithfulness is acknowledged, when God's patronage is seen as reliable and everlasting. Thus the psalmist praises God: "The Lord is faithful in all his words, and gracious in all his deeds" (Ps 145:13).

4.3 Honor and Benefaction. Benefaction may be one of the most productive concepts in assessing God's honor in the social structure of prayers. The custom whereby powerful and wealthy people in the ancient world provided important public services is well known.⁽⁴³⁾ Wealthy aristocrats and monarchs were expected to provide public festivals, fund war ships, and build aqueducts and theaters and the like for their cities or kingdoms.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Josephus provides the following record of how Athens honored the Judean king, Hyrcanus for his benefaction. In it we note the balance between Hyrcanus' benefaction and Athenian public acknowledgment of his noble deed. The acknowledgment took the form of a golden crown, a statue, and heralding of the Judean king's worth at the most important public events in the city's calendar -- both its dramatic and athletic festivals. Finally, Athens's leaders make their continued praise and honor contingent upon future benefaction from the king. But in general this proclamation registers their "reward of merit," the acknowledgment of Hyrcanus as a worthy benefactor.

Inasmuch as Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, has continued to show his goodwill to our people as a whole and to every individual citizen, and to manifest the greatest zeal on their behalf. . .it has therefore now been decreed to honor this man with a golden crown as the reward of merit fixed by law, and to set up his statue in bronze in the precincts of the temple of Demos and the Graces, and to announce the award of the crown in the theater at the Dionysian festival when the new tragedies are performed, and at the Panathenaean and Eleusinian festivals and at the gymnastic games; and that the magistrates shall take care that so long as he continues to maintain his good will toward us, everything which we can devise shall be done to show honor and gratitude to this man for his zeal and generosity (Josephus, Ant. 14.149-55).

This proclamation describes the gifts of a Judean monarch to a Greek city, a relationship in which no "duty" was involved. The same would not be true of elites and populations of the same city-state or region. For them the virtue of justice would indicate a duty to benefit one's own and a corresponding duty by those benefitted to acknowledge the gift.⁽⁴⁵⁾ In this convention the worthy person might well be addressed as "Benefactor" (), "Father," "Friend," or "Savior," names which evoke a kinship relationship even as they mask its harsher aspects.

4.4 Honor from Conflict. Another way of acquiring honor and respect deserves closer attention, namely, the game of challenge and riposte. It is regularly observed in Greco-Roman as well as early Christian literature that social games are played in public in which challenges are made to another, the purpose of which is to diminish the one challenged and so garner the esteem in which the challenged person basks.⁽⁴⁶⁾ These challenges are easily recognized in the rhetorical chreiai in which a philosopher or sage is asked a question intended to stump him.⁽⁴⁷⁾ A witty riposte dismisses the challenger and confirms the reputation of the wise man.

This ubiquitous social game of push-and-shove also serves as background for appreciating many prayers. A petitioner might complain to God that he, the petitioner, has been faithful and loyal to God, but is now hard pressed. He does not now experience God's beneficent generosity,⁽⁴⁸⁾ and his complaint puts God on the spot, so to speak. The pray-er has transformed the challenge from his enemy into a challenge to God. One thinks immediately of Jesus' dying words, which are formally a prayer, i.e., Ps 22:1, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"⁽⁴⁹⁾ God, then, is challenged to honor his loyal benefaction to Jesus. Similarly, if the Davidic monarch, the Temple, or Jerusalem were threatened, the pray-er might remind God of God's ancient promises and thus petition the Deity to defend His own interests. God, then, is put on the spot; and the pray-er petitions God to deliver the fitting riposte to the foreign monarch and the threatening army, thus fulfilling the divine promise to Israel. God, therefore, is perceived as engaged in a challenge/riposte situation. Divine failure to respond to such challenges might be considered a loss of divine honor as well as a lack of virtue (faithfulness) on God's part.

What do we know if we know all this? First, we recognize that many prayers acknowledge God's worth as the pray-er exclaims "praise to," "glory be to. . .," "honor be to. . ." and "alleluia!." Mortals give God nothing which God lacks, rather they acknowledge the deity's claims. Second, God's honor is never ascribed; for no one in the universe can be found higher than God to bestow it (see Heb 7:7).⁽⁵⁰⁾ Third, one finds in prayers a sense that there is a "more" and "less" to God's honor. For example, the Bible states that God acts so as to win Himself glory,⁽⁵¹⁾ which suggests that pray-ers thought that God could increase in majesty in some way.⁽⁵²⁾ Similarly, pray-ers state that should the nation be destroyed or should the pious come to ruin, who then would praise God?⁽⁵³⁾ Fourth, the virtue of "justice" in its many aspects frequently appears in prayer, and praise is regularly awarded for virtue. God is acclaimed as "faithful" or "faithful and true"⁽⁵⁴⁾ and God's steadfast loyalty to the nation often serves as the reason for or basis of relationship in petitioning God. God's just judgment, especially of foreigners and sinners, redounds to God's honor, for it belongs to justice to judge justly. Fifth, God is frequently understood in prayers as the benefactor par excellence. Hence a rehearsal of God's deeds often precedes acknowledgment of God's honor in statements of praise and glory. Sixth, the psalmist occasionally challenges God by calling into question God's loyalty and faithfulness; such challenging questions beginning with "How long, O Lord. . .?"⁽⁵⁵⁾ or "Why have you. . ?"⁽⁵⁶⁾ or "Where is our God?"⁽⁵⁷⁾ Thus in terms of this human logic, God is expected to act vigorously to defend God's honor or be shamed as unfaithful or powerless.

5.0 Prayer and Exchange.

We saw earlier how Malina brought to our understanding of prayer a model of communication, consisting of sender - channel - receiver. Later he digested and adapted another model of communication from Talcott Parsons, this time paying attention to the "channel" by means of which a source presents a receiver "with goods, services, actions or a range of words."⁽⁵⁸⁾

5.1 Power, Commitment, Inducement and Influence. Talcott Parsons identifies four basic media of communication, which result from his efforts to find meaningful ways to gather and classify diverse social phenomena.⁽⁵⁹⁾ He identified four basic media: power, commitment, inducement and influence, abstract categories which distinguish the means by which senders seek to have an impact on receivers. 1. Power refers to collective effectiveness systems such as government (king, president, ruler, judge); power means the ability to make others act in certain ways. 2. Commitment refers to the belonging system -- family, extended family, and groups of friends. 3. Inducement touches on the economic system, that is, the exchange of things of value (agricultural produce, clothing, money and the like). 4. Finally influence refers to the meaning system, the reasons for something or the learning amassed in a culture. In his characteristic way, Malina explains how even Euro-American audiences can quickly grasp these four categories:

Consider the following sentence and insert the roles of the persons who asked or told you to do or not to do something that in fact you did or did not do: "I did it because he or she was: my mother, father, sister, brother, friend, relative (= commitment); a doctor, lawyer, clergy person, teacher (=influence); the police, mayor, president of the U.S. (= power); my boss at work, employer, foreman, customer, client (=inducement)."⁽⁶⁰⁾

Broadly speaking, the Deity addressed in ancient prayers possesses all four of the media of communication, but not the pray-ers. It is unthinkable that mere mortals would offer God power, especially as many prayers acclaim God as "omnipotent," "creator," and "mighty warrior." Pray-ers on the contrary pray to God to defeat their enemy, stop a drought, or deliver them from war: all petitions for God's unique power. Similarly, mortals have no influence, that is, knowledge, wisdom or secret, that they can bring to the "omniscient"⁽⁶¹⁾ Deity. They may, however, inform God of sorrow for sin (Ps 51) or like Job petition to know the cause misfortune. God alone knows all things, especially the secrets of the human heart. Concerning inducement, although people have on occasion promised God wealth or vowed offerings to temples if their prayers are heard, this attempt at plying God with inducement received mixed reactions in antiquity.⁽⁶²⁾ On the one hand, Israel's temple system offered inducement to God in its vast array of sacrifices (holocausts and thanksgiving sacrifices; grain and wine offerings).⁽⁶³⁾ We also read of many prophetic denunciations of the temple system as a form of bribery.⁽⁶⁴⁾ No, God is the source of inducement, hence pray-ers petition that God send them food in due season, rain in time of drought or wealth to deliver them from debt. It is God from whom all goods flow. Finally, commitment seems to be the premier expectation of God by pray-ers as well as their unique manner of communicating with God. Commitment may express any or all of the following sentiments: obedience, faithfulness, thanksgiving, blessing, praise, acknowledgment, honor, glory, respect, and the like. When we read of relationships expressed as "God and the people He has chosen," "as a Father carries his infant. . ." and similar expressions, we recognize that commitment is being appealed to. Similarly, when pray-ers appeal to God's covenantal faithfulness and beg God to act once more as loyal Patron, they express their own commitment and seek to activate God's commitment. Moreover, many prayers consist of blessing and thanksgiving to God for benefaction received, thanksgiving being another example of commitment; other prayers may pledge faithfulness and loyalty. Therefore, biblical pray-ers primarily use commitment as their medium of communication with God, along with sacrificial inducement, but never power and influence. God, on the other hand, is perceived as having all four of the media at His disposal and in great supply.

5.2 Reciprocity. Discussion of the media of communication leads to an inquiry about the kind of exchange in which the participants engage. Malina has digested the relevant theory of exchange which identifies three kinds: generalized, balanced or negative reciprocity.⁽⁶⁵⁾ 1. Generalized reciprocity refers to the altruistic, asymmetrical attention payed to the wants and needs of another. Characteristic of kinship, it includes hospitality, gifts, and assistance to kin. 2. Balanced reciprocity focuses on the mutual interests of both parties in a symmetrical way. This type of reciprocity characterizes the communication between neighbors, not kin; and its typical forms are trade agreements, fees payed for services and exchange or barter. 3. Finally negative reciprocity describes the attempt in an exchange to get as much as possible for oneself, while giving as little as possible in return. Examples of negative reciprocity include use of fraudulent weights in commerce, as well as devaluation of coinage and theft. Obviously one does not treat either kin or neighbors in this way, but rather strangers or enemies.

What forms of reciprocity do the pray-ers use in communicating with God and what forms do pray-ers think characterize God's dealing with them? Most frequently in prayers of petition and praise/thanksgiving, God's creatures, whose being, life and happiness are in God's hands, acknowledge the Deity as Creator, Father, Savior and Benefactor to whom they turn "to give them their food in due season." As clients in a patron-client relationship with the deity, they depend on God's election of them (generalized reciprocity) and faithful maintenance of the covenant bond. They appreciate the gratuity of God's benefaction of all four symbolic media (power, commitment, inducement and influence), but indicate that their commitment (loyalty, obedience, praise, thanks and honor) in no way balances the scales of reciprocity. Pray-ers do not engage God in terms of generalized reciprocity; on the contrary they are recipients of God's altruism.

When pray-ers communicate with God or the gods, even the ancients agree that negative reciprocity is blasphemous, for mortals are shameful who attempt to despoil God by lying, deceiving, cheating or stealing from Him.⁽⁶⁶⁾ Yet their criticism of superstition acknowledges that indeed some pray-ers do just this, even though such prayers are recognized as shallow and self-serving.⁽⁶⁷⁾

Although some ancients described the petitionary relationship between Deity and pray-er as a balanced exchange (do ut des or "give so as to get"). Lucian's famous satire of ancient sacrifice describes sacrifice and prayer by some as negative reciprocity.

So nothing, it seems, that they [the gods] do is done without compensation. They sell men their blessings, and one can buy from them health, it may be, for a calf, wealth for four oxen, a royal throne for a hundred, a safe return from Troy to Pylos for nine bulls, and a fair voyage from Aulis to Troy for a king's daughter! Hecuba, you know, purchased temporary immunity for Troy from Athena for twelve oxen and a frock. One may imagine, too, that they have many things on sale for the price of a cock or a wreath or nothing more than incense (Lucian, On Sacrifices 2).

At first glance Lucian seems to mock the exchange of sacrificial petitions from mortals with benefactions provided by the gods. This is by no means a balanced exchange, but tends rather toward negative reciprocity. Mortals give as little as possible for indescribable results: health, wealth and royal rule can be had for a mere calf or four oxen or a hundred oxen. Although bad enough to imagine that one could engage in a balanced exchange of the general symbolic media with God, it is shameful to think that one could trick a deity into bestowing superior goods for a meager offering.

Yet, some pray-ers on occasion imply that their communication with God has an element of balanced reciprocity. In some cases we read of complaints against the deity, which express the pray-ers' commitment and even sacrificial inducement to God which is not now being reciprocated.⁽⁶⁸⁾ At least for the moment, such complaints testify both to the pray-er's commitment to God (faithfulness, constant prayer; sacrifice), but also to the experience of shame, mockery and humiliation. An imbalance is perceived and so God is faulted for failing to respond with divine benefaction to the pray-er's commitment to God. Moreover, although in some situations pray-ers seem to engage in a sort of balanced reciprocity when they make promises and vows to God⁽⁶⁹⁾ to be fulfilled upon receipt of God's grant of deliverance or health, the psalmist declares that nothing that could be offered would be a sufficient repayment: "What shall I render to the Lord for all of his bounty to me?" (Ps 116:12). The best that can be done is "to pay my vows to the Lord," a remark which I suggest is but acknowledging God's honorable benefaction, not balancing it with anything. In the main, pray-ers receive God's generalized reciprocity, and their public praise only acknowledges God's claims of honor. Balanced reciprocity, at best, is but an occasional and illusory suggestion. Negative reciprocity, such as Lucian described, is shameful.

According to the definition of justice noted earlier, we often read of virtuous people who fulfil their duties to God, country and family. Does God have duties and obligations to the world He created and the people God has made His own? Does justice contain an element of balanced reciprocity? Just worshipers owe God the fulfilment of their vows, even as justice dictates that benefactions received are to be acknowledged. Commitment, as we saw, is what pray-ers owe the Deity, whether this be hymns of thanksgiving and praise or sacrifices, which acknowledge God's benefaction. Yet this relationship is hardly balanced, nor were ancient pray-ers bold enough to say that they had satisfied for all time the debt of benefaction from the Creator-Parent, which is implied in balanced reciprocity. Mortals can never repay the Lord or balance the scales, but live forever with the duty to praise and thank God. Josephus describes just this sort of piety:

Twice every day, at the dawn thereof, and when the hour comes for turning to repose, let all acknowledge before God the bounties which he has bestowed on them through their deliverance from the land of Egypt: thanksgiving is a natural duty, and is rendered alike in gratitude for past mercies and to incline the giver to others yet to come (Ant. 14.212, italics added).

"Duty," the emic term describing what mortals express in prayer of thanksgiving, encodes a sense of obligation to acknowledge God's benefaction. While it may be viewed by some as reciprocity (see Athens' honoring of Hyrcanus earlier), it looks more to the protocols of honor claims which are acknowledged, than to balanced reciprocity which seeks to equalize the scales of the exchange and thus terminate a particular act of barter. To render God His due, then, is not to engage in balanced reciprocity, but to send a response of commitment in view of altruistic benefactions received.

What do we know if we know this? First, we become aware of the four media of exchange (power, commitment, inducement and influence), which aid us in appreciating what a sender might communicate to a receiver. In general, mortal pray-ers communicate with God in terms of commitment, but also inducement-as-sacrifice; God may respond with all four forms of symbolic media. Second, if exchange appropriately describes the communication between pray-er and Deity, it seems best to describe God as exercising generalized reciprocity or altruism in bestowing divine benefaction in the form of power, commitment, inducement or influence. The pray-er's petition for or praise of divine benefaction does not seem to be a form of reciprocity of any kind. Pray-ers, we saw, approach God either as needy or grateful; but they are not exercising any power over God, nor bribing Him, nor bringing God anything God lacks. Unless by magical prayers they bind God (superstition) or think to extract resources from God through sacrifice (negative reciprocity). They engage in no reciprocity with God; pray-ers are the recipients of divine benefaction, that is, of divine favoritism or election. As recipients they are thereby indebted to God and have an obligation in justice to offer praise and thanksgiving. But this is hardly what was meant by balanced reciprocity, for there is no commensurability between gift and thanksgiving. The commitment of pray-ers is balanced by God's commitment, so to speak, but the Deity's eternal faithfulness and loyalty greatly surpass that of the pray-ers; hence there is no balance here.⁽⁷⁰⁾

6.0 Patron-Client Relationships

Classicists have long appreciated the importance of the patron-client relationship in antiquity.⁽⁷¹⁾ Frederick Danker brought to the attention of New Testament interpreters the grand tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client relations characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean.⁽⁷²⁾ Bruce Malina, however, pioneered the formal use of the anthropology of patron-client relations for interpreting early Christian literature.⁽⁷³⁾ His adapted model⁽⁷⁴⁾ of patron-client relations describes those that arise among peoples of unequal status and resources: landlord/ vassal, aristocrat/peasant, king/subject, father/son, and God/Israel. Thus patron-client relationships describe the vertical dimension of exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons. A full inventory of the standard features of patron-client relationships is found in the following note,⁽⁷⁵⁾ but we highlight those pertinent to this discussion.

First, patron-client relations all contain an element of exchange/benefit in them; otherwise, it would be difficult to know why patron and client engaged in a relationship at all. Malina noted: "Patron-client relations are based on strong inequality and difference between patrons and clients. Patrons monopolize certain positions of crucial importance to clients, especially access to means of production, major markets, and centers of society."⁽⁷⁶⁾ What, then, do patrons bestow on clients and what do clients render in return? Patrons are usually wealthy and powerful people, who have first-order goods, that is: (1) power to stop agonistic behavior threatening the life and livelihood of a client; (2) commitment to support clients by giving them a sense of kinship, albeit fictive, with the patron; (3) inducement, such as a dowry for the client's daughter, seed for his fields, or a daily ration of bread or money⁽⁷⁷⁾; and (4) influence, passing on a favorable word to the client's creditor or putting the client in touch with the right person to solve the client's problems. As Malina has shown, God is regularly understood as the patron-benefactor who bestows "grace" or favor,⁽⁷⁸⁾ that is altruistic benefaction. God's patronage, similar to that of earthly patrons, consists of first-order goods: (1) power: ability to create, to defeat Egyptian, Assyrian, and Seleucid armies, and to subdue the heavenly spirits who attack God's clients; (2) commitment: pledges of eternal loyalty and fidelity in a covenant of steadfast love with Abraham, David and their descendants; (3) inducement: bestowal of rain and sunshine for crops, increase of herds, and many children; (4) influence: knowledge of God's law and prophetic information of God's plans. Clients, as we saw above, cannot give power to this Patron, for God is omnipotent, or provide God with information, for God is omniscient. But clients can bring inducement, a material gift, such as a sacrifice, and offer commitment, public praise of and loyalty to Him.

Second, although we identified earlier four distinct symbolic media of exchange, the patron-client relationship does not seem to function in a one-for-one exchange: i.e., clients petition for inducement to pay taxes, in return for which they offer commitment. Rather, the symbolic media are exchanged as a package. With commitment from God the Patron comes power and/or inducement. In prayer, however, it becomes clear that the pray-er best brings God only commitment; for, as many biblical instances note, sacrifices and holocausts do not move the Deity, but rather faithfulness, obedience and loyalty, i.e., commitment.⁽⁷⁹⁾

Third, anthropologists describe the relation between patron and client as particularistic, in that the patron does not treat all real or potential clients the same. Some individuals or groups are "chosen" favorites, singled out from the rest, and most favored.⁽⁸⁰⁾ Thus favoritism, so offensive to modern democratic ears and their notions of egalitarianism, thrives in a patron-client world. The Bible knows of many favorites of God⁽⁸¹⁾: Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15:13-16), David (2 Sam 7:8-16), and Israel: "The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the people that are on the face of the earth. It is not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples"(Deut 7:6-7).

Fourth, patron-client relations purport to endure for a long time, either the lifetime of the patron and client or, in the case of God's covenant with Israel, forever. An important corollary of this suggests that the virtues of loyalty and faithfulness, which are parts of the virtue of justice, will then become important in prayer relationships with the Deity.⁽⁸²⁾ As Deuteronomy said above about God's covenant with Israel, the Deity "keeps covenant and steadfast love. . .to a thousand generations." Similarly, the promise to David came to be interpreted as the patron's pledge of an eternal dynasty: "Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever" (2 Sam 7:13). Mortal clients, on the other hand, may pledge the same undying loyalty, but be unable to maintain the commitment. Nevertheless mutual pledges are frequent characteristics of patron-client relations, especially in prayers. In this context we recall the Athenian benefaction proclamation to Hyrcanus, in which they made it painfully clear that the client's duty to acknowledge the patron's worth entirely depends on Hyrcanus' continued patronage to them. Ideally, then, faithfulness and loyalty are core elements of a patron-client relationship.

What do we know as a result of this? The ubiquitous and ancient pattern of benefactor and patron-client relations greatly aids our interpretation of prayer. First, in prayer God and the pray-er are hierarchically or vertically positioned. God, who is Sovereign, Father, Lord and Savior, is also the Most High and vastly removed in status from mortals; nevertheless, there is a personal relationship expressed in these patron- client relationships. Second, in terms of the commerce of this relationship, God possesses and bestows all four media of exchange; but mortals, always the recipients of patronage, have only their commitment with which to acknowledge divine benefaction, and frail commitment at that. Prayer, then, is not an exchange of heavenly patronage for clients' earthly gifts. Rather, divine patronage is honorably acknowledged (i.e., commitment) with the sense that nothing else is suitable to bring to God. Finally, favoritism emerges as a significant element in patron-client relationships. Only some individuals or some peoples enjoy the patron's attention.

7.0 Prayer and Ritual

Bruce Malina conveniently summarized for us the anthropological understanding of ritual, an essential element for appreciating the social dynamics called prayer. Gathering the insights of those who study ritual, Malina articulated a basic distinction between status-transformation ritual and ceremony.⁽⁸³⁾ By status-transformation ritual, he means the process where persons assume a new role or status, hence a transformation of their status. For example, two people who marry move from single to exclusive status; and should the female in this marriage bear a child, she assumes a new role, namely, mother. Similarly, in the transformation which is baptism, people enter a Christian church, changing status from outsider to insider and from unclean to washed clean in the blood of the Lamb. Other status-transformation rituals include: birth and death (entering and leaving the land of the living), trial and imprisonment (unfit for society); graduation (from unskilled or ignorant status to that of a skilled and trained professional), and the like. Conversely, ceremonies serve to confirm institutions as well as roles and statuses within them. For example, a school or business or municipality may at a picnic or dinner host people employed by it or who are benefactors of it. The institution experiences confirmation of loyalty and support from those who attend the fete. Ceremonies include all memorials, anniversaries and birthdays at which the roles and statuses of those honored are re-burnished and thus confirmed. The entire liturgical calendar of the Christian church consists of a series of ceremonies.

The following diagram aims at sharpening the differences between status-transformation rituals and ceremonies so to make salient the social functioning of each.

1. It is evident that transformation rituals are irregular, since no one plans to be ill or unclean or guilty or dead. Ceremonies such as meals, anniversaries or festivals, on the other hand, occur regularly, either daily, weekly, monthly or annually. 2. Thus transformation rituals, which focus on the change from sickness to health, sinfulness to holiness or life to death, do not fit into a calendar or schedule, since they occur unpredictably. Yet ceremonies are anticipated and planned for: the civic calendar marks the founding of the city, the birthday of the emperor and the feasts of the city's patron deities. 3. Transformation rituals all begin with the present, current situation (illness, sinfulness) and look to the future when that status will be changed. On the contrary, ceremonies look to some past event, historical or mythical, and affirm its significance in the present, as do national holidays such as July 4th or Memorial Day. 4. Transformation rituals are presided over by people deemed competent to deal with the situation; police deal with criminals, doctors treat the sick, firemen control blazes, ministers and priests counsel and forgive, and sanitation engineers dispose of our waste. On the other hand, the officials in our various national, state or local political institutions conduct ceremonies such as anniversaries and memorials (politics); priests and ministers officiate at liturgies (church), and parents prepare daily as well as birthday festivities for their children (kinship). 5. Finally, rituals of transformation do just that, ritualize either elevation or demotion in role and status. The person undergoing a transformation ritual experiences social change which is noted by a public: in marriage two people "become one flesh," a new social entity; in criminal proceedings the accused may be convicted and thus incarcerated or acquitted and set free; in illness the sick may either recover and return to family or worsen, die and be buried. Ceremonies, however, function to confirm role and status in a given institution. Anniversaries and birthdays bring to mind the king's birthday (Mark 6:21 ) or deliverance from bondage (Exod 12) or the Temple's purification (2 Macc 10:7-8; John 10:22). In the realm of sacrifice, those who participate in the consumption of the meat of the offering indicate their status as members of a clan or family or fictive-family.⁽⁸⁴⁾ Thus Antipas' powerful status is acknowledged both by the feast he prepares and by the attendance of his courtiers.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Participation with Jesus at the Passover meal on the night before he died confirms for all time the identity and status of Jesus' select disciples (Luke 22:14-34 ).

When we interface this information on prayer as either status transformation or confirmation with the earlier classification of prayer as communication, we further appreciate the character of those seven types of prayer.

Instrumental or petitionary prayer, then, implies status transformation situation. Sinners beg for mercy so as to be changed into a state of blamelessness and holiness once more (Pss 38, 51); those overwhelmed by trials or attacked by enemies ask to be elevated from the current negative status to one of peace and harmony (Pss 56, 59). Regulatory prayers look to changes in status, either the rise in the pray-er's status or the lowering of some one else's. Interactional prayer ceremonially confirms roles and statuses in the institution of the House of Israel. The pray-er who prays Ps 84 ("How lovely is your dwelling place") is a member of the House of Israel who finds contentment and fulfilment in the temple of Israel's God; and the Deity addressed in this way is confirmed as the Patron of the people. Far from asking for change, the pray-er expresses satisfaction in his current status and wishes it to continue. Self-focused prayer confirms the status of the prayer, who may even boast in his present situation. Heuristic prayer seeks a status transformation from not knowing to knowing the mind and plans of God. Imaginative prayer, such as speaking in tongues, seems to have functioned at Corinth initially as status transformation but subsequently as ceremony. Those speaking in tongues initially experienced a transformation from non-elite to elite status, but every subsequent prayer in tongues confirmed them as special elite members of the Corinthian church. The informational type of prayer would seem to reflect what was said about ceremonies; namely, it serves to confirm roles and statuses in a given institution. Hence prayers of praise, thanks, honor and glory to God do not change the status of the pray-er or the Deity so honored; on the contrary, such prayers confirm God's role and status as Creator or Patron, while at the same time confirming the status of the pray-er as client of this heavenly Patron and worshiper of this particular Deity, all within the House of Israel. For example, the rubrics for Passover specify that Israel pray the Hillel psalms, Pss 113-114 after the third cup and Pss 115-116 at the very end of the meal (Mark 14:26). Those who pray these psalms confirm their membership in the people whom God rescued from slavery in Egypt. God, moreover, is confirmed as the Deity who works mighty works for his chosen people. Finally, prayers and psalms which became attached to certain festivals serve to confirm the roles and statuses of the pray-ers and the Deity addressed; they commemorate and thus bring a past event to present consciousness, thus renewing and strengthening the relationship of the clients with their Patron.⁽⁸⁶⁾

8.0 Summary, Conclusions and Further Questions