Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:24:45.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul's κοινωνία with the Philippians: Societas as a Missionary Funding Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2014

Julien M. Ogereau
Julien M. Ogereau*
Affiliation:
Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia. email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article endeavours to illuminate the socio-economic dimension of Paul's κοινωνία with the Philippians. It initially adduces a representative sample of philological evidence which demonstrates that κοινωνία and its cognates (κοινωνός, κοινωνέω) frequently convey the sense of partnership in some economic enterprise, and establishes a semantic equivalence between κοινωνία and societas (partnership). It is then argued that, from a Roman socio-economic and legal perspective, Paul's κοινωνία consisted of a societas unius rei (i.e. societas evangelii), whereby Paul supplied the ars and opera (skill and labour), while the Philippians contributed the pecunia (funds) to ensure the progress of his mission.

Keywords

PaulPhilippiansκοινωνίαsocietasmissionfinances
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 360 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a most recent attempt to solve this quandary, see Briones, D. E., Paul's Financial Policy (New York: T&T Clark, 2013)Google Scholar.

2 E.g. Dodd, C. H., New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967) 72Google Scholar; Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (New York: Harper, 1959) 151–2Google Scholar; Hawthorne, G. F., Philippians (Waco: Word, 1983) 18–19Google Scholar; Peterlin, D., Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Deissmann, G. A., Paul (2nd ed.; New York: Harper, 1957) 237Google Scholar.

4 E.g. Hengel, M., The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991) 15–16Google Scholar.

5 Hock, R. F., The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)Google Scholar.

6 Judge, E. A., The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960) 58Google Scholar.

7 Holmberg, B., Paul and Power (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 89Google Scholar.

8 Dungan, D. L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 4–27Google Scholar; Georgi, D., Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Hamburg/Bergstedt: Reich, 1965) 47Google Scholar. Cf. Strelan, J. G., ‘Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ’, JBL 94.2 (1975) 267–70Google Scholar; Pratscher, W., ‘Der Verzicht des Paulus auf finanziellen Unterhalt durch seine Gemeinden’, NTS 25 (1979) 284–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dickson, J. P., Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 178–94Google Scholar.

9 The expression καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς implies more than two instances of a repeated action. Cf. BDAG s.v. ἅπαξ; W. Stählin, TDNT i.381 s.v. ἅπαξ; Morris, L., ‘Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς’, NovT 1.3 (1956) 205–8Google Scholar.

10 E.g. Seesemann, H., Der Begriff ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ im Neuen Testament (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933) 73–9Google Scholar; Panikulam, G., Koinōnia in the New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979) 80–6Google Scholar; F. Hauck TDNT iii.805 s.v. κοινωνός.

11 Peterman, G. W., Paul's Gift from Philippi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 125Google Scholar (with n. 23). Cf. Marshall, P., Enmity in Corinth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 157–64Google Scholar.

12 Fleury, J., ‘Une société de fait dans l’église apostolique (Phil. 4:10 à 22)’, Mélanges Philippe Meylan, vol. ii (Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1963) 41Google Scholar, 47.

13 Fleury, ‘Société’, 53–4.

14 Sampley, J. P., Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) ix–xGoogle Scholar, 1–7.

15 Sampley, Partnership, 51.

16 Sampley, Partnership, 52–3.

17 Sampley, Partnership, x, 68, 112–13.

18 E.g. White, L. M., ‘Morality between Two Worlds’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians (ed. Balch, D. L. et al. ; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 206–15Google Scholar; Peterman, Gift, 123–7; Peterlin, Philippians, 177–81; Bormann, L., Philippi (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 181–7Google Scholar; Barnet, J., ‘Paul's Reception of the Gift from Philippi’, SVTQ 50.3 (2006) 225–7Google Scholar. For slightly more positive responses, see Capper, B. J., ‘Paul's Dispute with Philippi’, TZ 49 (1993) 193–214Google Scholar; S. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 101; Hansen, G. W., ‘Transformation of Relationships’, New Testament Greek and Exegesis (ed. Donaldson, A. M. et al. ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 181–204Google Scholar.

19 Sampley, Partnership, 106–8.

20 Cf. Broekaert, W., ‘Joining Forces’, Historia 61.2 (2012) 228Google Scholar. On the role of amicitia in societas more generally, see Verboven, K., The Economy of Friends (Brussels: Latomus, 2002) 279–82Google Scholar.

21 Sampley, Partnership, 12, 60–1.

22 Horsley, G. H. R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. iii (Macquarie University: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1983) 19Google Scholar. Horsley did accept ‘some points of overlap’ between the two, however.

23 Endenburg, P. J. T., Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken tijd (Amsterdam: Paris, 1937)Google Scholar. Cf. LSJ s.vv. κοινωνέω i.2., κοινωνία 1.b., κοινωνός 2; Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930)Google Scholar s.vv. κοινωνία, κοινωνός; F. Hauck, TDNT iii.798 s.v. κοινωνός; Campbell, J. Y., ‘ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament’, JBL 51.4 (1932) 354Google Scholar, 362; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 15–6, 20–1; Baumert, N., Koinonein und Metechein – Synonym? (Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 2003) 257–74Google Scholar.

24 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 9–23, 146–9, 163–87.

25 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 45–6, 105, 167–78, 183–7.

26 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 97–8.

27 Among NT scholars, only Hainz and Baumert seem to have been aware of his work. See Hainz, J., Koinonia (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982) 163Google Scholar n. 7, 168 n. 42; Baumert, Koinonein, 11–14.

28 None of the major studies of κοινωνία and its cognates published in the last hundred years has given serious consideration to documentary evidence. Even Baumert, who claims to have conducted eine umfassende Untersuchung (as his sub-title indicates), examined only twenty-seven papyri and ten inscriptions, most of which were already referenced in Preisigke's Wörterbuch, Seesemann's ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary, LSJ and BDAG.

29 Cf. Deissmann, G. A., Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965) 227–51Google Scholar; Horsley, G. H. R. and Lee, J. A. L., ‘A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels’, FilNT 10 (1997) 60Google Scholar; Horrocks, G., Greek (London: Wiley/Blackwell, 2010 2) 114–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 147–52.

30 For a comprehensive catalogue of all the data collected, see appendices A and B in J. M. Ogereau, ‘Paul's Κοινωνία with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership’, (PhD diss., Macquarie University, 2014) 363–507.

31 E.g. IKosSegre 149; IMagnMai 33; IG ix.1 32.

32 E.g. IIlion 1; IDelphes iv.152.

33 E.g. SEG 51.532, 40.394.

34 For a discussion of this complex law, see Asheri, D., ‘Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti’, SCO 18 (1969) 42–4Google Scholar, 108–14.

35 See also Polybius' discussion of the attribution of public contracts by Roman censors (Hist. 6.17.4), wherein he makes reference (without using a participial form) to those who associate (οἱ κοινωνοῦσι) with the manceps (or auctor) purchasing the contracts (οἱ ἀγοράζουσι).

36 Cf. the Byzantine tax-farming contract P.Lond. v.1660, in which the tax-collectors are said to partner together for half a share of all the profits and expenses: καθὰ προεῖπον ἐπὶ ἐ[ν πᾶσ]κοινωνεῖν καὶ συμμετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι μέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ (‘(it shall be) according to what was declared with regard to associating and partnering in [everything?] with you, to the extent of half a share of what falls to you’, ll. 18–19).

37 Ll. 4–6: βούλομαι ἑκουσίω[ς] καὶ αὐθαιρ[έτ]ω[ς] κοινωνῆσοι κατὰ τὸ ἥμ[ισυ] μέρος ὧν κ[α]ὶ σὺ τυγχάνις μεμισθῶσ[θαι] κτλ.

38 Montevecchi, O., La papirologia (Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1973) 225Google Scholar.

39 Ll. 7–16: ὁμολογοῦμεν ἑτομως ἔχε[ι]ν κοινωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρημένην τεχνὴνπωρώνην [π]ρὸς ἐνιαυσιαῖον χρόνον λογιμενον … ἐ κοινῷ λήατι καὶ ἀναλώ[α]ι καὶ ω ἡμᾶς πσχεῖν κ[ο]νῶς τα ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ια ἀλώματα τῆς αὐτῆς τεχν[αὶ] ὰ τὴ[ν ἀπόδο][ιν?] τῶν φόρ[ω]ν καὶ τῶν ἀναλμάτω (‘we readily agree to partner with one another in the aforesaid fruit-dealing trade for a period of one year … in every common income and expense and thus to pay in common the (…?) expenses of the same trade and with the [payment?] of taxes and expenses (…?)’).

40 Ll. 7–11: ὁμολογοῦμεν ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης ἐπ' ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Note that the exact sense of βρυτανικός (= Βρετανικός?) remains unclear, though it probably refers to tin. See Hagedorn, D., ‘Fünf Urkundenpapyri der Kölner Sammlung’, ZPE 13 (1974) 127–9Google Scholar. Cf. LSJ s.v. βρυτανικός.

41 Ll. 4–7: ὁμολογῶ ἑκουσίᾳ καὶ αὐθαιρέτῳ γνώμῃ συντεθῖσθαί με πρὸς σὲ ἐπὶ τῷ μαι ἐπικοινωνῖν σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καμηλῶνος (‘I acknowledge that I have agreed, voluntarily and of my own free will, to partner with you in (the lease of) the shelter of the camel-stable’).

42 Taubenschlag, R., ‘Die societas negotiationis im Rechte der Papyri’, ZRG 52 (1932) 64Google Scholar. Cf. Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225.

43 Preisigke, Wörterbuch i.815 s.v. κοινωνός; LSJ s.v. κοινωνός; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. κοινωνός; BDAG s.v. κοινωνός 1.

44 Epigraphists generally agree that these κοινωνοί were publicans. See J. and L. Robert, BE (1964) 158–9, §160; Dürrbach, F. and Radet, G. A., ‘Inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne’, BCH 10 (1886) 267–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hicks, E. L., ‘Iasos’, JHS 8 (1887) 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974) 61Google Scholar.

45 See Wallace, S. L., Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (New York: Greenwood, 1969) 286–335Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., ‘The Administrators of Roman Egypt’, Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 235–43Google Scholar.

46 E.g. SB xviii.13134; SB x.10293; P.Col. vii.136, 137, 141. On the role of σιτολόγοι and similar administrators, see Oertel, F., Die Liturgie (Aalen: Scientia, 1965) 204–8Google Scholar, 214–22, 250–7.

47 E.g. Oliver, J. H., ‘The Sacred Gerusia’, HesperiaSup 6 (1941) 125–41Google Scholar, §31; SEG 4.247, 250, 255.

48 E.g. SEG 29.127.

49 E.g. P.Schøyen i.25 (46 bce); CIG 4040 (col. 6, ll. 8–11; ca. 19 ce).

50 E.g. IKafizin 119: ἀπὸ τῆς घήν[ο]νος κοινονί[ας τν λίνο]ν κα[ὶ το]ῦ σπέρματος; IKafizin 265: [ἀπὸ] τῆς घ[ήνον]ος κοινονίαςvac τν λίν[ο]ν καὶ τοῦ σπέρματ[ος]. There is a remote possibility that this κοινωνία consisted of a professional and/or cultic association. However, such groups are more commonly called κοινά, θίασοι, σύνοδοι, ἔρανοι etc., and are usually identified by their activities (rather than by the name of their patrons). See Poland, F., Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 5–172Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Collegia and Thiasoi’, Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996) 16–29Google Scholar; Dittmann-Schöne, I., Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens (Regensburg: Roderer, 2001) 15–25Google Scholar; Zimmermann, C., Handwerkervereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum (Mainz: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2002) 23–45Google Scholar.

51 Mommsen had no doubts, though: ‘societas ea (nam alia res vocabulo quod est κοινωνία significari non potuit)’ (Mommsen, T., ‘xv. S.C. de Thisbaeis A.V.C. dlxxxiv’, Ephemeri 1 (1872) 297Google Scholar).

52 The matter is complex and cannot be dealt at length here. It is very unlikely that this κοινωνία alludes to the lease (μίσθωσις) of Thisbean public land, since it had become ager publicus in 170 bce when the city had surrendered. See Foucart, M. P., ‘Rapport sur un sénatus-consulte inédit de l'année 170 relatif à la ville de Thisbé’, ArchMiss 7 (1872) 370Google Scholar.

53 Foucart, ‘Rapport’, 331; Mommsen, ‘Thisbaeis’, 297; Nicolet, C., L'ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.), vol. i (Paris: Boccard, 1974) 348Google Scholar.

54 Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. κοινωνία (IG vii.2225 referenced as Syll 300).

55 Horsley, New Documents 3, 19. On plurilateral partnerships, see Arangio-Ruiz, V., La società in diritto romano (Naples: Jovene, 2006) 70–8Google Scholar; Broekaert, ‘Joining Forces’, 224–5.

56 E.g. P.Flor. i.41; P.Col. vii.124 and 125; P.Corn. 20.

57 E.g. P.Stras. iv.247 and 248; P.Ross.Georg. v.32.

58 E.g. PSI x.1119; P.Sakaon 71.

59 E.g. BGU xix.2822.

60 E.g. M.Chr. 237.

61 This ‘widespread form of land tenure in the Roman world’ was a contract of intricate legal nature, which presented elements pertaining to locatio conductio (‘lease’) and elements pertaining to societas. Kehoe, D. P., Investment, Profit, and Tenancy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997) 11–12Google Scholar. Cf. S. von Bolla, ‘Nachträge: iii. Teilpacht (colonia partiaria)’, PW[1] xviii.2480–4; Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953)Google Scholar s.v. coloni partiarii, 396.

62 The matter is complex but need not distract us. See Rowlandson, J., Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 173Google Scholar. Cf. Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 bc–640 ad (Milan: Cisalpino/Goliardica, 1972 2) 239–43Google Scholar.

63 Cf. Zimmermann, R., The Law of Obligations (Cape Town: Juta, 1990) 453Google Scholar, 465–6.

64 Meyer, P. M., ‘Juristischer Papyrusbericht v’, ZRG 48 (1928) 615Google Scholar. Cf. Johnson, A. C., Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (Paterson: Pageant, 1959) 384–5Google Scholar, §234.

65 E.g. P.Enteux. 53; BGU iv.1123; P.Mich. v.348. Cf. Taubenschlag, ‘Societas’, 75–7; Steinwenter, A., ‘Aus dem Gesellschaftsrechte der Papyri’, Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel xl anno del suo insegnamento, vol. i (ed. Riccobono, S.; Palermo: Castiglia, 1936) 488–9Google Scholar.

66 Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. Cf. Taubenschlag, ‘Societas’, 65–6.

67 More common are the clauses ἡ ὁμολογία/μίσθωσις κυρία (e.g. P.Fouad i.33; P.Sakaon 71; P.Lond. iii.1168).

68 Cf. Taubenschlag, ‘Societas’, 75; Steinwenter, ‘Gesellschaftsrechte’, 503 n. 69; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225.

69 E.g. Preisigke, Wörterbuch i.815–6; Arangio-Ruiz, V., “Societas re contracta” e ‘“communio incidens”’, Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel xl anno del suo insegnamento, vol. iv (ed. Riccobono, S.; Palermo: Castiglia, 1936) 382–3Google Scholar; Szlechter, É., Le contrat de société en Babylonie, en Grèce, et à Rome (Paris: Sirey, 1947) 268–70Google Scholar; Andreau, J., ‘Roman Law in relation to Banking and Business’, Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies (ed. Bang, P. F. et al. ; Bari: Edipuglia, 2006) 204–5Google Scholar; Harris, E. M., Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 I.e. it could be formed between Roman and non-Roman citizens. For a basic definition, see Berger, Dictionary, s.v. ius civile/gentium, 527–9. Cf. Daube, D., ‘Societas as Consensual Contract’, CambLawJ 6.3 (1938) 385Google Scholar.

71 See del Chiaro, É., Le contrat de société en droit romain (Paris: Sirey, 1928) 289–303Google Scholar.

72 Zimmermann, Obligations, 467 (emphasis added).

73 Schubert, P., Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939) 26–7Google Scholar.

74 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 77.

75 Cf. Schubert, Thanksgivings, 76–7.

76 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 73 (emphasis added). Most Bible translations (RSV, ASV, NKJ, NIV, ESV) render the clause by ‘partnership/fellowship in the gospel’, while German versions (Münchener NT, Neue Luther Bibel, Schlachter Bibel 2000) usually have ‘Gemeinschaft am Evangelium’.

77 E.g. Hawthorne, Philippians, 16–17; Bruce, F. F., Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989) 31–3Google Scholar; Capper, ‘Dispute’, 206; Bockmuehl, M. A., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: Black, 1997 4) 60Google Scholar; Peterman, Gift, 99–103; Hansen, G. W., The Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 32–5Google Scholar, 47–8.

78 E.g. Lightfoot, J. B., St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1913) 83Google Scholar; Barth, K., Erklärung des Philipperbriefes (Munich: Kaiser, 1928) 8Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Der Philipperbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1980 3) 12Google Scholar, 45; O'Brien, P. T., The Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 61–3Google Scholar.

79 E.g. Ewald, P., Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig: Deichert, 1917 3) 49–50Google Scholar; Michaelis, D. W., Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig: Deichert, 1935) 13Google Scholar; Bonnard, P., L'épître de Saint Paul aux Philippiens (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950) 16Google Scholar.

80 Peterman, Gift, 100–101.

81 Ellicott, C. J., A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon (London: Parker, 1861) 5Google Scholar.

82 Cf. Baumert, Koinonein, 274.

83 Georgi, Geschichte, 47.

84 Zahn, T., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. i (Leipzig: Deichert, 1900) 371Google Scholar.

85 Glombitza, O., ‘Der Dank Des Apostels iv 10–20’, NovT 7.2 (1964) 138Google Scholar.

86 Cf. Marshall, Enmity, 157–64; Peterman, Gift, 63–5, 146–51; Pilhofer, P., Philippi, vol. i (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 147–52Google Scholar.

87 Contra Marshall and Peterman, the accounting technicity of the expression, or of similar phrases, is preserved in the majority of cases. See Cicero, Rosc. com. 1.2, 4, 2.5, 3.8–9, Verr. 2.2.76, De or. 47.158, Font. 2.3; Valerius Maximus 3.7.1e; Seneca, Vit. beat. 23.5, Ben. 4.32.4; Velius Longus, De ortho., p. 60 Keil, l. 13; C. Iulius Victor, Ars rhetorica 3.1 De pragmatica (l. 10).

88 For a more detailed discussion, see J. M. Ogereau, ‘The Earliest Piece of Evidence of Christian Accounting: The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως (Phil 4:15)’, Comptabilité(S) (in press).

89 For similar uses, see P.Lond. v.1794: ὁμολογοῦμεν ἑτομως ἔχε[ι]ν κοινωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρημένην τεχνὴνπωρώνην (ll. 7–8); P.Lond. v.1660: κοινωνεῖν καὶ συμμετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸἐπιβάλλον σοι μέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ (ll. 18–19); P.Köln ii.101: ὁμολογοῦμεν ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης (ll. 7–10); P.Oxy. x.1280: ὁμολογῶ … ἐπικοινωνῖν σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καμηλῶνος (ll. 4–7).

90 Preisigke, Wörterbuch i.211–14; LSJ s.v. ἀπέχω; BDAG s.v. ἀπέχω.

91 E.g. Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915) 104Google Scholar; Peterman, Gift, 143; Fee, G. D., Paul's Letters to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 451Google Scholar; Hansen, Philippians, 322–3.

92 Proponents of a metaphorical interpretation implicitly admit this since they accept the basic lexical sense ‘to receive (what is due)’ for ἀπέχω, even though they reject a technical economic connotation. See O'Brien, Philippians, 539–40; Fee, Philippians, 450–1; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 265–6; Peterman, Gift, 142–4, 161; Hansen, Philippians, 322–3.

93 For a basic introduction of metaphor theory, see Kövecses, Z., Metaphor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) vii–xiGoogle Scholar, 3–13.

94 E.g. O.Wilck. 416; BGU ii.526; P.Yadin i.17; IG ix.1 192; T.Sulpicii 13. On the formulaic usage of the verb, see Préaux, C., ‘Aspect verbal et préverbe’, ChrEg 29 (1954) 139–41Google Scholar.

95 See ESV, ASV, NAS, NIV, RSV, NKJ. Cf. LSJ s.v. πληρόω; BDAG s.v. πληρόω.

96 E.g. P.Yale i.65; BGU xvi.2607; IGRR iii.488. Cf. Preisigke, Wörterbuch ii.321; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. πληρόω.

97 So Peterlin, Philippians, 153.

98 Cf. Fleury, ‘Société’, 55–6; Hawthorne, Philippians, 204; Capper, ‘Dispute’, 197–8.

99 E.g. Peterman, Gift; Briones, Financial Policy.

100 See also the Dacian societas danistariae (CIL iii, pp. 950–1), the many (Baetican) tituli picti of Monte Testaccio mentioning socii (e.g. CIL xv.3730, 3881), or the partnership contract between Jewish and Egyptian potters for the lease of a pottery workshop (C.Pap.Hengstl i.46).

101 Buckland, W. W., A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963 3) 506–7Google Scholar (emphasis added). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 106; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 63.

102 Zimmermann, Obligations, 451.

103 Buckland, Text-Book, 481; Zimmermann, Obligations, 454; Berger, Dictionary, s.v. consensus, 408.

104 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 61.

105 Berger, Dictionary, s.v. bona fides, 374.

106 For basic definitions, see Berger, Dictionary, s.v. culpa levis, 420; dolus, 440; fraus, 477; mala fides, 573.

107 Zimmermann, Obligations, 460–4 (citation at 460).

108 E.g. Bormann, Philippi, 187; Reumann, J., Philippians (New York: Doubleday, 2008) 147Google Scholar. Reumann's rhetorical question is particularly illustrative of NT scholars’ lack of understanding of societas: ‘Would Philippian Christians have gone to court to “legalize” their association ... ?’ Of course not. They did not need to.

109 Zimmermann, Obligations, 460 (emphasis added).

110 For helpful discussions of these various types, see Buckland, Text-Book, 507–14; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 116–49; Zimmermann, Obligations, 451–5; Berger, Dictionary, s.v. societas, 708–9.

111 Szlechter, Le contrat, 267, 272–8; Broekaert, ‘Joining Forces’, 224.

112 To employ the funds of the societas purely for his personal interest, however, would have constituted a breach of fides, which could have terminated the partnership (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.4).

113 Broekaert, ‘Joining Forces’, 229.

114 Cf. Judge, E. A., ‘Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul’, TynB 35 (1984) 5–6Google Scholar.